The URL can be used to link to this page

2001/06/19 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 19, 2001 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, and Council Members Shirley McCracken, Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring and Tom Tait. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder, Police Chief Roger Baker, Fire Chief Jeff Bowman, Budget Manager Jeff Stone, Finance Director William Sweeney, Executive Director of Convention, Sports and Entertainment, Greg Smith. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on June 15, 2001, at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards. Mayor Daly called the Anaheim City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting to order at 2:09 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL YEAR 2001/02 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Jim Ruth, City Manager, suggested modifications to the budget; increasing the City Council budget by $30,000 to properly fund the current Council and increasing the Metro Cities Dispatch JPA budget by $164,633 to fully fund the recent labor adjustments for Fire Dispatchers. He added that the modifications would increase the proposed General Fund by $30,000 and the budget by $194,633. POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET PRESENTATION. At 2:10 P.M., Police Chief Roger Baker, through a powerpoint presentation, presented the Police Departmental budget, which is available in the City Clerk's Office. Council Member Kring asked Chief Baker the status of the temporary Police Station on Harbor Boulevard and Chief Baker said that City Manager Ruth was working with the Visitor and Convention Bureau to gain their assistance in maintaining the facility. He said the walk-up traffic was 850 people and he explained that a small amount of traffic was for crime related issues and most of it was for Resort related information. Mayor Daly asked if the 850 visits were considered calls for service and Chief Baker said they were not considered calls for service unless the Police Department provided a service in the process. He explained that if a person had reported a loss or theft that had to be handled by an Officer, it would be a call for service. Mayor Daly asked if the Police Department would continue to use the modular building or find another location and City Manager Ruth explained that the location was very good and the City rented the land for $1a year. He said it was the intention of the Police Department to continue leasing the building for $12,000 a year and the Department would lease for another year and -----,.. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 2 see what the usage was before making a permanent decision. Chief Baker added that the City did not have a south Resort station and the station on the Disney property was limited to Disney use. Council Member McCracken asked if additional training had been provided to the personnel who were responsible for prisoner transportation. Chief Baker said that under Penal Code 830.55 additional training was required. He said that the training took several months and this was the beginning of saving field Officer time. Council Member Feldhaus asked how much revenue was generated per year to the asset forfeiture fund and Chief Baker said that the figure fluctuated because it was difficult to glean assets from the drug trade. He said that the City had a little over one million dollars in the pipeline and that the City was looking at $250,000 to $500,000 per year that they could count on. Mayor Daly asked about the status of the neighborhood watch signs, noting he was concerned that the signage had not been cared for. Chief Baker said the Police Department would look into the signs. Council Member Kring asked if there were any plans to expand the Community Policing Program and Chief Baker responded the program continued to mature and develop. He said that the stations were set up to have people come through the PACE program and he explained that the Police Department had programs to train people on better management of their investment property and businesses against theft and embezzlement. Mayor Daly said last years adopted budget was $70.6 million and he asked the Chief if he knew what the final or projected spending number would be. Finance Director, William Sweeney, said it would be close to the adopted budget. Mayor Daly asked if the total adopted budget for last year was $944,000,000 plus, and using the new format numbers, what did he think the actual number would be and the Finance Director said that Police expenses would be about $70.5 million. Council Member Tait asked if man-hours had been saved by purchasing the Mobile Data Computers and Chief Baker answered that the City had, and when combined with the new CAD RMS system, it would greatly expand police capability. He reminded everyone that almost $4.5 million came to the Police Department through grants, so it was really no cost to the City. Finance Director Sweeney informed the Council that the total estimate of all funds and all departments was $915,562,568.00 against an adopted budget of $944,000,000.85. FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET PRESENTATION. At 2:48 P.M., Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman, presented the Fire Departmental budget, powerpoint presentation available in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Daly asked Chief Bowman if the new initiatives were included in the proposed budget and he said that they were. He said that most of them did not involve any funding because they were internal efforts to use existing budgeted funds. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 3 Mayor Daly asked if there was identified cost for any of these and he mentioned that there was the stakeholders academy, the public awareness program and the survey program. Fire Chief Bowman said that each of the programs had minimal cost, the stakeholders academy was just a matter of rededicating staff time. Mayor Daly asked if there would there be an opportunity for savings if the stakeholders academy did not occur and Chief Bowman said no, it was just a matter of different tasks and priorities. Mayor Daly asked what the estimate of hours and cost was and Chief Bowman committed to give the Council an estimate in writing. Mayor Daly asked if the number of new programs and initiatives included the stakeholders academy, public awareness program, customer satisfaction survey, leadership classes for future officer candidates, conflict resolution development, team building and the adopt a school program. Chief Bowman answered that he would re-distribute his strategic plan to Council. Council Member Tait commended Chief Bowman on the Disney reimbursement and he asked if this was planned to happen every year. The Chief answered that it was in the plan. He said that having people in the Park had freed up the unit on the east and west side of Disneyland to handle incidents in their areas. Council Member Tait asked if he expected to see a more improved response time around the Park. Chief Bowman said that it definitely would and the response time to incidents inside the Park had drastically improved because they no longer had the drive time. Council Member Tait asked what the general response time was for paramedics and Chief Bowman answered that the general goal for all advanced life support units in the City was to arrive within four minutes. Council Member McCracken asked if the Chief was doing outreach on the Public Awareness Program concerning the fire season. Chief Bowman said that as mentioned in the budget, the Wild Land Defense and Mapping were two programs that had been created to identify any revenues that the Department was able to bring in. He said that an individual had scoured the Anaheim Hills area for several years and had identified concerns for the residents and for the Department. He had also trained at homeowners meetings and schools. The Chief explained that he also attended the Master Home Association meeting every year and reminded them about brush and tree abatement. He added that the Fire Department worked very closely with Coast Landscape and instructed them on which areas needed to be maintained. Council Member Kring asked about the CERT Program and how people would become aware of its availability. Chief Bowman stated that there were over 500 people that were CERT participating with about 40 to 50 new ones going through the program each year. He said that the CERT people were the Department's best advertising for the program. He said he also advertised in his column in the Anaheim Bulletin and it was also on the web page. Mayor Daly asked if he meant the City web page and Chief Bowman said he was referring to the Department's web page. Mayor Daly asked how many Departments had separate web pages and Finance Director Sweeney responded that the City had one web site with a number of separate pages. Mayor Daiy asked if he could go to the Fire Department web page without going through the City web page and Fire Chief Bowman said that most of his people went through the City page and would scroll down to the various departments. Mayor Daly asked if '-"'~-"-'--~'-- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 4 the maintenance/expense for the Fire Department's web page was included in the contract and Finance Director Sweeney said yes. At 3:20 P.M., Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to adjourn the Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 12, 2001, held June 19, 2001. Motion carried unanimously. At 3:21 P.M., Mayor Daly moved, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to convene the regular meeting of June 19, 2001. Motion carried unanimously. VISITOR AND CONVENTION BUREAU BUDGET PRESENTATION. At 3:22 P.M., Charles Ahlers presented the Visitor and Convention Bureau budget, copy available in the City Clerk's Office. Council Member Kring asked if people were concerned about California's energy crisis and Mr. Ahlers responded that he had sent letters and posted it on the web site to sell the City area, but people still had some questions. Council Member Kring said she heard the Disneyland Hotel was not putting a surcharge on their bill and she asked if there was something staff could do with the Marriott and Hilton Hotels so that there was no surcharge on the bill. Mr. Ahlers said he would speak with the Hotels. Council Member Tait asked what the cost was per meeting attendee and Mr. Ahlers explained it was the Bureau budget divided into the delegate count. He said they were spending $6.20 to track each meeting delegate compared to San Francisco spending $20, Los Angeles $53 and San Diego about $15. He said other cities were spending more money with fewer results. Council Member Tait asked if the cost was for the overnight visitor in a City hotel and Mr. Ahlers said that it was and he explained that the visitor was both the tourist and the convention delegate. Mayor Daly asked the number of total members and Mr. Ahlers responded that they were a little over 820, with over 40% being Anaheim businesses, which equaled 60% of the revenue for the membership dues. Council Member McCracken asked if the City was a part of a tour package and Mr. Ahlers said that the City was in a lot of tour packages and that the Visitors and Convention Bureau was trying to increase that number. Council Member Tail asked if the cost per meeting attendee was the total Visitors and Convention Bureau budget divided by the number of delegate count and he asked what the other was. Mr. Ahlers said that the other was all the overnight stays divided by the budget. Council Member Feldhaus asked if California provided money for promoting tourism and Mr. Ahlers responded that the State was spending about $12 million promoting tourism. because of her contacts. CONVENTION SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT BUDGET. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 5 At 3:35 P.M., Convention Sports and Entertainment Executive Director Greg Smith presented his departmental budget through a powerpoint presentation available in the City Clerk's Office. Council Member Feldhaus asked about the Convention Center Arena. Director Smith explained that included in the Convention Center budget was a capital maintenance program of $2.3 million for the initial phase needed for the Arena. He said that he did not know what the total restoration cost of the Arena would be but estimated it around $7.5 million, which included carpeting, reupholstering the seats, re-doing the ceiling, sound system and things of that nature. He said this would be split into three phases, which could be accomplished either consecutively, concurrently or have gaps in between. His goal, he said, was to be completed in three years. City Manager Ruth requested that the Director explain Phase 1. Director Smith explained that Phase 1 was characterized as the immediate needs of the Arena. He said that this included: architectural assessment costs to replace the Arena concourse and lobby carpeting, re- upholster 5,100 seats, replace the HV AC equipment in the Arena because there was presently no heat or air conditioning, the Arena roof needed repair, asbestos abatement and the challenge would be to replace the drop ceiling. Council Member Feldhaus said he believed that the ceiling should be the priority and Director Smith said it was a priority because of the safety concern. Council Member Feldhaus asked when the debt would be repaid. Director Smith said that the funds for the first phase would be repaid through the fund balance so that there was no borrowing involved. He said that the fund balance was intended to be used for ongoing maintenance of the Convention Center. He explained that they had identified various sources of revenue for the balance of the project and he explained that would include support from utilities in saving energy. He said that the HVAC equipment might be funded through some energy conservation measures. He added that the fall back position was to utilize the fund balance. Council Member Feldhaus asked if Director Smith would be paying back into the fund when he started hosting meetings for three to four thousand people and Director Smith answered that the fund balance would do better because as they start hosting more corporate events, the net revenues that were generated from the events fell to the bottom line which in effect increased the fund balance. He further explained that through the maximization of corporate events, which was a huge opportunity for the City, and with the Arena and the 40,000 square foot ballroom, corporate meeting planners were looking at the City more and more. He said if the City continued to book more of those events, the net revenues would fall to the bottom line and help fund through the fund balance. Mayor Daly asked him what the future of the Convention Center Arena would be and what the earliest date the land may be needed for an exhibit hall. He said the last master planning recommendation was that the Arena would eventually be demolished. Director Smith answered that several years ago when they were finishing with Hall D, the thought was that the next place to expand the Convention Center would be north and build exhibit halls over the Arena space. He said a couple of things had happened since then and the thinking had changed. He said he still believed that a facility of that type and size was needed to accommodate community events. He noted that with the recent expansion of the Convention Center a new market of corporate money was seen and after more evaluation, the need for a 6,000 seat, theatrical style meeting room was valuable. He explained the most recent master ,_~.~._...,. ~.,.__ __..~._...~"_..~._H_~_ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 6 plan showed the next phase creeping up towards the arena but not taking it down, so Hall A would be expanded significantly. He further explained that the phase after that would be Car Park One; to rebuild it underground and build an exhibit hall and meeting rooms above it. The next phase, he said, would go to the Arena property, tear it down and re-use the space. He said historically on average, each expansion had been every seven years. He said it would be at least fifteen years before the work was started on the Arena. He also said the next big step would be expanding Hall A, then Car Park One and then the Arena. Council Member Kring asked why the Arena would be torn down if a building was needed of that size and Director Smith answered that in fifteen years, something of similar type use would be built In addition to whatever else could be captured on that property. He said there would always be a need for a general assembly hall that would seat six thousand comfortably in a theatrical style area. Mayor Daly asked if the recent interest in the use of a general assembly hall was in conjunction with other rooms in the Convention Center and Mr. Smith said that they had discovered that the ballroom was the largest one in Orange County. He explained that when a corporation came here, coordinated daytime meetings and used the ballroom for meal functions and nighttime entertainment, it gave the City a strategic advantage. Mayor Daly mentioned that you could rent the small Arena for a lot less then the Pond or Staples Center. Council Member Tait stated that he had a problem with tearing down the Arena. He said it provided revenue and architectural/historical significance for the County and he disagreed with the plan before and still did. Director Smith said that the community had an attachment to that building and that the decision would not be made until it was necessary, but the City needed to explore all of the options for the space around the building. Mayor Daly said that the City Manager and Director Smith should start to think about what the City needed for land because it would impact other decisions. Mayor Daly said that it would be better if the City moved forward soon on acquiring more property on the west side of the building or in any direction, anticipating hotel growth. Mr. Smith said it was important to be aware of the other properties that were adjacent to the area in the event that they became available. Council Member McCracken stated that in fifteen years, the Arena would be fifty years old and information would be needed about the building such as structural stability. She asked how the City could bring the building into the twenty first century and make it technologically efficient and that the Council would have to look at all of those things in making the decision to keep it or not. Mr. Smith said that he would consider a workshop session with Council when the study was completed to decide what to do. '-..,poI""""_'" _..___,_.,,_u.__..~., ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 7 Council Member Tait stated his objection to used car sales at the Stadium. He felt that it hurt other city car dealers and that he felt the City should not be in the business of selling cars. Director Smith said that if the City did not have the used car sales some one else would contact him to find out how to put on used car sales. He said the City gave Anaheim car dealers the opportunity to participate in the show. He explained that the shows do extremely well, often selling over 500 vehicles a weekend, which generated over $50,000 in sales tax to the City. Council Member Tait said that maybe it should be limited to just Anaheim car dealers and Director Smith noted that if the City were not doing these shows, the Angels would be, explaining that they had the right to have a show and the City had been dealing with them. He added that they had agreed to stay out of the business even though they had a contractual right to do so. Mayor Daly asked if the $2 million in the budget for the Arena was for the land and Director Smith said it was mostly for the land and the balance being for audit and property tax. Mayor Daly called for public comments regarding the budget. Robert Lowe, 2508 E. Romneya, made two comments regarding utility undergrounding. He said that in the area that he lived, undergrounding was still not anywhere in the site. On page 98 of the schedule, he said, there was a four-block area going up Sunkist to La Palma, where it stopped and then started again at Blue Gum. Mayor Daly asked if that was North of La Palma on Sunkist, where Sunkist became Miraloma and Mr. Lowe responded that it was. Mayor Daly asked if the project would stop at the 91 Freeway or if it was up and over the freeway and Mr. Lowe said it went under the freeway. There were 89 foot poles there and then it went down and under and then back up on the other side. Mayor Daly asked if it was the stretch between the Freeway and La Palma and Mr. Lowe agreed that it was. Mayor Daly apologized and said that he had thought that the City had identified that in the current underground plan. Mayor Daly thought it was to occur as part of the other work on Sunkist and he directed the City Manager to report back to Council with the timing and cost of the four-block area. Mr. Lowe's continued with another item, that the City had allocated in the basic lifeline, charges on the bill of eight-kilowatt hours per day. He said residents were billed for 57 days, which would give them 456 kilowatt hours. Mr. Lowe said not many people could operate a home on 8 kilowatt hours per day. He said that the City had that same number for 26 years. Mr. Lowe said that the last billing that he received was for 57days and prior to that, he had disconnected a freezer, took out a second computer and was out of town seven days. He said that only 62 kilowatt hours were cut out. Mr. Lowe said he still used 1,004 kilowatt hours in the house. He believed that the allowable 8 kilowatt hours needed to be looked at. Hearing no further public comments Mayor Daly said he wanted to clarify some fund balances. He said there was a $29 million difference between the budget that was approved last year and he asked what the actual was projected to be. Finance Director Sweeney explained that out of the $29.2 million, the largest single component was the Public Utilities Department $19 million which related to the capital program. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 8 Mayor Daly asked if the capital expenditures were re-programmed and Director Sweeney said all capital expenditures were re-programmed. Mayor Daly asked of the $29 million how much was capital verses operational and the Finance Director responded that Public Utilities and Public Works were capital. He said the line share of Community Services was also capital. He felt that 90% of that number was capital. Mayor Daly said that the projected fund balance on June 30, 2001, was to be $239 million. He also said the proposed budget projected a fund balance of $335 million, which made a $96 million difference from the projected fund balance that was approved last year and the fund balance that was brought to Council this year and he asked where the $96 million went. Finance Director Sweeney explained that when he did a projection on fund balance, he projected certain expenditures in respect to capital. He said many of the capital expenditures were not accomplished for a variety of reasons and that they would be re-programmed. He explained that some of the fund balance, particularly in respect to the enterprise operations, would be off and that they would be different year to year. Director Sweeney said the second thing that happened year over year was that the City had a fairly substantial borrowing in the Community Development Department, in excess of $30 million. He said this was not anticipated one year ago. He also said the general fund balance was simply higher because the City was simply doing better. Finance Director Sweeney said he could get back to Council with a reconciliation of projection verses projection and he guaranteed the working capital amounts before the Council was subject to re-appropriation. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None. At 4:43 P.M., Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6: Agency designated representative: David Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters Association 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Kord Group v. the Fieldstone Company, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-32-58 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Tocher, et. al. V. Huntington Beach, et aI., United States District Case No. SACV-96-366 AHS (EEx). 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) --'-_."'-'~.,-~-_.. .,-----_.._~, ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 9 Name of case: South Coast Cab Co., et al. V. City of Anaheim, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-03-59 5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Vista Media Group, Inc. v. City of Anaheim, et aI., Orange County Superior Court Cases No. 81-40-50 and OOCC08157. 6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) Of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Number of potential cases: one. Facts and circumstances: proposed construction of a soundwall approximately 3,930 meters in length along the southern border of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, extending from Imperial Highway (SR-90) to Yorba Linda Boulevard/Weir Canyon Road. 7. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL _ ANTICIPATED LITIGATION -Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: one potential case AFTER RECESS: PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, and Council Members Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Shirley McCracken, and Tom Tait. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder, Community Services Director Chris Jarvi, Budget Manager Jeff Stone, Finance Director William Sweeney, Deputy City Engineer Russell Maguire, Deputy Director of Community Brad Hobson, Planning Director Joel Fick, Zoning Division Manager Greg Hastings, Police Sergeant Randall West. Mayor Tom Daly called the regular adjourned Council meeting of June 19, 2001 to order at 5:45 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Lucille Kring 119 PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS: Recognizing EI Rancho Middle School Science Olympiad Team on winning the California State Championship. Recognizing the Bill Nelson, Parking Cashier, as the Anaheim Convention Center Employee of the Year. Special recognitions to be presented at a later date were: a declaration recognizing the Kalos Kagathos Foundation's British-USA Junior Water Polo Cultural Exchange; a proclamation ~_ _.--,-.-m_ ~_~ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 10 recognizing June 22 - 23, 2001 as Relay for Life in Anaheim and a proclamation recognizing September 23, 2001, as Race for the Cure Day. At 6:10 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 6:17 P.M. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The following citizens expressed concerns regarding the Anaheim Police Department relating to the Golden Skies Mobile Home Park: James Robert Reade, 100 W. Midway Drive, Space 124; Omar Ariana, 100 W. Midway Drive, Space 152; Sienna Garcia; Liz Garcia, Alma Ramirez, 100 W. Midway Drive; and Jorge Ramiro, 100 W. Midway Drive. Patricia Clay, 7890 E. Female Court, and Linda Seymour, 725 Londerry Lane, thanked the Mayor and Council for the support of the Canyon Hills Community Council Fourth of July Celebration. Jerry Zamarodian spoke in favor of the Anaheim Police Department. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A47: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member as listed on the Consent Calendar. Unanimously approved as recommended. 117 106 A1. Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report of May 2001 from the City Treasurer's Office and the Advisory Commission Budget Recommendation of May 16, 2001. 118 A2. Reject certain claims filed against the City and reject certain application for leave to present a late claim. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hondo Company, Inc., in the amount of $155,762 for improvements to Hansen Park play area and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. 150 A3. 150 A4. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Samir & Sons Construction, in the amount of $99,990 for improvements to Maxwell Park play area and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. 167 A5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, L.A. Signal, Inc., in the amount of $355,891.50 for traffic signal coordination on Ball Road from Gilbert Street to Euclid Street and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. 167 167 175 169 169 123 123 158 113 160 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 11 A6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, L.A. Signal, Inc., in the amount of $164,600 for traffic signal coordination on Euclid Street from Broadway to Katella Avenue and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. A7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, CT&F, Inc. in the amount of $373,806 for traffic signal coordination on Ball Road from Gilbert Street to Knott Avenue and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. A8. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $1,716,291.60 for interchange improvements at State College Boulevard and the SR-91 freeway. Approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's and amend the Fiscal Year 2000/01 Public Works Department Capital Improvement Budget to incorporate $800,000 from the citywide Transportation Fees for the project to cover construction, inspection and contingency costs. A9. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount of $264,264 for the Orangewood Avenue Street Improvements from Ninth Street to Euclid Street and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retention's. A10. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R.J. Noble Company, in the amount of $216,135.80 for the East Street Improvement at Vermont Avenue to Ball Road and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. A 11. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement for design services for the 1-5 Freeway Corridor TEA-21 Landscape Improvements with Lynn Capouya, Inc., Landscape Architects, in an amount not to exceed $485,000 and amend the Fiscal Year 2000/01 Public Works Department Capital Improvement Budget to incorporate $325,000 from the City Improvements Reserves for the project to cover design services, environmental services, staff, and contingency costs. A 12. Approve the Agreement between the City and the Canyon Hills Community Councii for the Thirteenth Annual July Fourth Festival at Peralta Canyon Park on July 4, 2001. A 13. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Acquisition Agreement for the purchase of real property at 912-990 Euclid Street for the Ball Road and Euclid Street Intersection Project (RJW5400-13 and 14) and authorize the acquisition payment of $88,900 to Highland Pinetree, A California Partnership. A14. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-140 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City certain real properties or interests therein. A 15. Accept the low bid of Western Power Industrial Electric, Inc., in an amount of $113,953.20 (tax inclusive) for supplying and installing a generator in accordance with Bid #6186. 160 123 153 153 153 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 12 A16. Waive Council Policy No. 306, and ratify the issuance of an Emergency Purchase Order to Superior Gunite, in the amount of $33,147.70 for the repair of a cantilever beam located at the bridge connecting the parking structure to City Hail. A17. Waive Council Policy No. 306, approve an agreement between the City and Edison ESI to conduct rubber gloving training for Public Utilities Department employees, in an amount not to exceed $160,000 from June 20, 2001 through June 19, 2003, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise up to two one year renewal options in amounts not to exceed $38, 500 for year three and $42,350 for year four of the agreement. A18. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-141 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2001-122 which established rates of compensation for job classifications designated as Executive Management. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-142 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution nos. 2000R-123, 2000R-124, 2000R-125 and 2000R-126 which established rates of compensation for job classifications designated as Administrative, Middle management, Professional and Supervisory. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-143 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 200R-130 which established compensation policies for Executive, Administrative, Middle Management, Professional, Supervisory, Fire and Police Safety Management job classifications. A19. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-144 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 97R-101 which established rates of compensation for un-represented part-time job classifications. A20. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-145 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-146 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 00R-123 which established rates of compensation for classifications designated as Administrative Management. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-147 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 00R-124 which established rates of compensation for classifications designated as Middle Management. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-148 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resoiution No. 00R-125 which established rates of compensation for classifications designated as Professional. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-149 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 00R-126 which established rates of compensation for classification designated as Supervisory. ...---......,...-- 153 179 185 114 123 126 114 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-150 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the general unit represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association. A21. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-151 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City and the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General Unit. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-152 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the city and the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, Clerical Unit. A22. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-153 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM rescinding Resolution No. 65R-458 and transferring responsibility for enforcement of the Mobile Home Park Act to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. A23. Determine; on the basis of the evidence submitted by The Irvine Company, that the property owner of the 3,179 - acre Mountain Park project complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 91-01 for the 2000 - 2001 review period. A24. Approve the responses to the Grand Jury entitled "Sewer Spills, Beach Closures - Trouble in Paradise?" pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 (a) and (b). A25. Approve Amendment NO.4 to Agreement No. C - 8 -0184 with the Orange County Transportation Authority, in an amount not to exceed $32,831.50, to provide transportation services to senior citizens participating in the Project TLC lunch programs from July 1, 2001 through July 30, 2002. A26. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-154 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM initiating proceeding for the Annual Levy of Assessment in, and accepting an Assessment Engineer's Report for, Anaheim Resort Maintenance District. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-155 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to provide for an Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments in the Anaheim Resort Maintenance District, and setting a time and place for public hearing thereon. A27. Approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on June 5, 2001. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR A28. 5:00 P.M. Public Hearinas: At 6:35 P.M., Mayor Daly opened the public hearing on the 2001/2002 budget and budget appropriation limits (Items A - D) and changes in fees scheduled (E - Q). Hearing no public testimony, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. ~-_._...,;'~.,-- .._--_.__........ .._,~--_. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 14 Mayor Daly asked about the distinction between grouping items A through D and E through Q. City Attorney Jack White explained that items A through D were the constitutional required adoption of the appropriations limits. He said that items E through Q were the actual fee resolutions and that was why they were divided into two components. Council Member Feldhaus asked to discuss the park in lieu fees that he believed were increased 23.4% per acre over the last year of construction. He said he felt that the library fees were appropriate, since he believed that funding was needed for the libraries in each of those categories. He said he was sure that the City Clerk's Office needed to increase fees for making copies. He believed that it was not justification to increase fees just because the construction index said the City could. He asked for justification on Item J, parking fees, noting that he had received complaints from people when they had to park at the Stadium and he did not feel that it had to be raised $1.00 every year. Mayor Daly said that Council needed to adopt a budget by July 1, 2001 and that this was the last scheduled meeting by that date and if changes were made to the recommended budget, the City Manager would need to explain the impact on the balanced budget that he had presented to Council. He also indicated that if there were issues that could not be resolved this evening, then the Council had the option of addressing the questions and trying to resolve them after July 1, 2001. He explained that they would then have to take steps to revise the budget, which was revised during the course of the normal fiscal year. The revision was usually done at the recommendation of the City Manager as revenues or expenditures were affected by grants and other unplanned occurrences, he said. Mayor Daly added there was nothing to prevent the Council from adjusting the budget after it was adopted, but it needed to be adopted before July 1, 2001. He said that any changes prior to adoption would have to be accompanied by some sort of reconciliation on the ledger. Council Member Tait said that he shared Council Member Feldhaus' concern on the fees. He asked City Attorney White if the Charter required that Council vote on the fee portion or on the budget. City Attorney White said that the Section 1204 of the Charter said that the Council must adopt the annual budget for the coming fiscal year not later than June 30'h He said it did not speak specifically to adopting the accompanying fees that were established or increased on the revenue side of that budget. He agreed with the Mayor's previous comment that if the fees were not approved tonight but the budget was adopted, Council would need to have a reconciliation, which could occur after July 1, 2001. He also said there would need to be an amendment to the budget because the Charter clearly provided that the budget could be amended at any meeting of the Council upon three votes. City Attorney White said that the answer to Council Member Tail's question was not a prerequisite to adopt all of the recommended fees prior to adopting the budget, or to adopt the fees prior to July 1, 2001. Mayor Daly asked if the Council could adopt the proposed budget now but not adopt the fee resolutions, Items E through Q. City Attorney White responded that Council could do that but there would be a shortfall on one side of the budget that would have to be reconciled by an amendment to the budget or by adopting the fee schedules at a later date. City Manager Ruth said that Council could agree on the ones that they could agree on and approve those, and then set aside those items that they were concerned about. He said staff could return in early July with a report and recommendation. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 15 Council Member Kring concurred with some of the same concerns. She felt that the park in lieu fees was excessive and that the developer was going to have to pass on the fee to the person who would buy the house. She also expressed concerned about the parking fees at the Convention Center and about the charge of $10.00 for a letter generated by the Police Department. Mayor Daly asked if Council could have a presentation by staff at some point on the rationale for the 23% increase for the park fees. He said his concern was that new housing paid its fair share toward the cost of the new parks and open space and if the City did not have some sort of fee on new housing, then the existing residents of the City were in the position of funding parks for future residents. Council Member Tait said that he would like to continue the entire fee schedule until the next Council meeting to have time to examine some of the increases. He suggested that Council approve all of the fees limited to a CPI increase and those that were more or new fees could come back on a continuance. Council Member Tait moved, seconded by Council Member Kring, that the Council continue the fee items that were in excess of a CPI or any new fee and approve anything else that was within the CPI increase to the meeting of July 10, 2001. More discussion ensued before a vote was taken. Council Member McCracken asked if State law required that fee increases had to reflect the cost to the City for providing the services. City Attorney White answered that she was correct. Council Member McCracken asked if the City would be violating State law if they did not reflect the cost for providing service and City Attorney White said that the law said a City could not recover more than the cost of service. He believed that the Council had full discretion to the extent that the amount established would exceed the cost of providing the service. He said it would be regarded as a tax and therefore it would be subject to challenge because it was not approved by a vote of the people. Council Member McCracken asked if any of the fees offered were either below the cost of what it was to provide them or at the cost for the City to provide them, that was what the staff had to provide Council, fee by fee. She said Council had to be able to prove that and if they could not, they would be in violation of State law and could be challenged. City Attorney White answered that she was correct. Council Member Feldhaus asked if the City was freezing those fees as they were today, would it not be in violation of State law and Council Member McCracken believed that he was right and that some of the fees were below what it cost the City to provide. She also said the City subsidized these with other funds from other sources and Council knew that the property tax did not pay for all the things the City provided for the community and it was subsidized with other sources. She said that each one of the fees, including the ones that people objected to, the staff had to prove to Council that it was the cost for providing that service. She also said that staff could not charge anything over what the cost was and it was true that the City could charge less and in many cases did charge less for those things. -.- ...,.... >" ---->-.-..... .._"" ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 16 Council Member Feldhaus discussed Item F and said that one of the justifications was the increase in fees due to the increased staffing costs, which was labor related. Council Member Feldhaus said that an increase in certain fixed costs or an increase in fees due to changes in pricing policies was justifications for increasing fees. He also said that the park in lieu fees, which were based on last years' CPI, was the way it was based. Jim Ruth said that it was in the ordinance and had been in the ordinance for quite a number of years, which the Council adopted to try to make sure that developers covered their expenses in terms of providing parks and recreation services in the area that they were developing. In response to Council Member Feldhaus, City Attorney White answered that, with regard to the park in lieu fee, this was one fee that differed a little bit from all of the other fees that were being discussed. Under State law, he said, in lieu of getting land from a developer for public parks, the City may, by ordinance, impose a fee to recover and to create a fund to buy and make improvements for parkland. He said the City had done this and State law said that if Council did adopt such an ordinance, they would have to establish a formula by which the fee was to be calculated. He said the City's ordinance did that and what staff had done was use the formula which was in the Ordinance, Section 17.08.260, to determine what the fee would be for the coming year because the ordinance did not give staff the discretion to determine otherwise. He said the Council would have the right to impose a lesser fee by amending the ordinance, but right now the way the ordinance was written, there was no discretion on staff's part to bring to Council a lower fee than the one that was in the resolution. He said if Council decided to adopt a lesser fee than the one that was in the current resolution, it would be necessary to actually amend the ordinance. He said It would be the ordinance that established the fee, which was adopted in 1976 and had been amended twice since then, the most recent amendment in 1991. He said that would be a slightly different process from all the other fees that Council was talking about but it could be done because the Council had the discretion to do that. City Attorney White said that if Council wanted to do that, staff would simply say that the Council shall set the fee annually in an amount not greater than. He said that currently the ordinance said that Council shall set the fee annually in the amount of the formula and if Council said not greater than this formula, it would then annually have the discretion to go to a lesser number. Council Member Feldhaus said that it seemed that financially the City was in good shape. He wanted the developers to be encouraged that they could get a little consideration and the tourists should not have to pay a penalty for parking at the Convention Center. He said the City should keep the fees flat for a year and next year, until the price of labor, maintenance and repair went up. Council Member Tait moved to approve the fee Items A through Q that were either not changed or within CPI and to continue all new fees or any fees beyond that. Council Member Kring asked if it was Council Member Tail's intention to allow the approval of the park in lieu fees and Councii Member Tait said that he could take that out if they liked and discuss it next week. He then said he would change his motion to just refer to the Consumer Price Index rather than the Construction Price Index. City Attorney White said staff was having trouble determining which of the fees would fall within the motion. It would be preferential, if Council did not want to go through the fees one at a time, ~_._._.---r--~u - ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 17 to carry them all over until the next meeting. He said staff could bring Council any information they might need. He said that Items A through D could be adopted and would be appropriational, but the fees, E through Q, if Council was not prepared to go through them individually, could be to put over in total. Mayor Daly offered the following resolutions for adoption: 137 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-156 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the annual appropriations limit of $555,509,264 for the Fiscal Year 2001/2002. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring and Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-157 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-1 (Sycamore Canyon) annual appropriations limit of $203,418,162 for the Fiscal Year 2001/2002. 137 Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring and Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-158 RESOLUITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-2 (The Highlands) annual appropriations limit of $203,418,162 for the Fiscal Year 2001/2002. 137 Roll call vote: Ayes - 4, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Kring and Feldhaus. Noes - O. Abstained - 1, Council Member Tait. Motion carried. D. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-159 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-3 (The Summit) annual appropriations limit of $203,418,162 for the Fiscal Year 2001/2002. 137 Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring and Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. E. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing and modifying fees for services and documents provided by the Anaheim City Clerk's Office. F. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged for Community Services Department Programs and Services commencing on September 1, 2001. G. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing the amount of the park in-lieu fee and rescinding Resolution No. 2000R-116. H. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting the recommendation of the Library ~~_._'_.-----.-... .._". ..-------. .._-.. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 18 Board of the Anaheim Public Library to establish, increase and/or decrease certain fines and fees. I. RESOLUTION NO. ---------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adjusting the amount of the fee for the public library facilities plan for the East Santa Ana Canyon area. J. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates to be charged for licensing and for certain labor, equipment and services at City parking lot events at Edison International Field of Anaheim commencing July 1, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing a schedule of rates to be charged for rental of space and for certain labor, equipment and services at the Anaheim Convention Center. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees for parking at the Anaheim Convention Center to be effective July 1, 2001. K. RESOLUTION NO. ---------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM revising fees for the Underground Storage Tank Program and establishing the effective date of fees. RESOLUTION NO. ---------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees and penalties in connection with the regulation and enforcement of the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program. L. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for building and construction. RESOLUTION NO. --------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for planning, zoning and land use petitions, permits, approvals, appeals, and inspections. M. RESOLUTION NO. ----------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing a fee to provide Police clearance letter for other than employment purposes. N. RESOLUTION NO. ------------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electricity and water as adopted by Resolution Nos. 71-478 and 72-600 and most recently amended by Resolution Nos. 99R-142 and 2001R-85. O. RESOLUTION NO. ---------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for the Public Works Department of the City. P. RESOLUTION NO. ----------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting a new schedule of sanitation charges. _"~_'__""_""""d' __ _--..- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 19 Q. RESOLUTION NO. ---------- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the policies established by the Anaheim Library Board for the use of library community meeting rooms and the fees and charges required pursuant thereto, amending Resolution No. 66R-286 and rescinding certain other Resolutions. Council Member Tait moved, seconded by Council Member Kring, to continue Items E through Q until the July 10, 2001 meeting. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4: Mayor Daly and Council Members Tait, Feldhaus and Kring. Noes- 1: Council Member McCracken. Motion carried. Mayor Daly announced that the last budget related item was the adoption of the proposed 2001/02 budget for the next twelve months. He explained that he had three changes he wished to add to the budget. The first one, he said, was to increase the parkway trees budget from the current $20, 000 to $100,000 to help deal with the backlog of request for parkway trees, so the net increase would be $80,000. The second change, he said, would be an increase of $11 ,000 for more hours for community swimming at the Pearson Park Pool, as identified in the memo from Community Services. The third item, he said, would be to increase funding for City Council Assistants. He explained it was currently $15,000 per year per Council Member and he suggested that amount be raised to $20,000 per year for those Council Members who would like to utilize the program. He said the total increase to the Council Assistants would be $25,000, $5,000 per Council Member. He said the sum total of the cost of his proposals would be $136,000. City Manager Jim Ruth reminded the Council of two modifications to the budget that had been proposed earlier, one was $30,000 for the current Council salaries and the second was the Metro Cities Dispatch JPA budget to be increased by $164,634. Council Member Tait said that if the Mayor wanted his suggestions in the form of a motion, he would second them. Council Member McCracken said she would prefer the adjustments be voted on separately because she could not vote for an increase for Council Assistants. She said she voted against it because she believed it was not according to the City Charter as it was currently being implemented. Council Member Kring said with regard to the Council Assistants, she did not think it was appropriate that the Council Assistants make more then the Council Members for whom they worked so she would not be in favor of raising it to $20,000 but $18,000 would be more than adequate. Council Member Feldhaus asked where the $80,000.00 was coming from and Mayor Daly suggested that they ask the City Manager to suggest the appropriate funding source in the budget. He said it came from the General Fund Reserves. City Manager Ruth said that the General Fund would be his suggestion. Mayor Daly said that the General Fund reserves were at $18 million and there were many other reserved funds in the budget totaling far greater than that. He said he received a memo from ~""-_.,.,..,-"'...,....._._., .-----..---........ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 20 the Finance Director laying out his thoughts on the appropriate General Fund reserves. He said some cities budget it at 7% or 8% or around 10% and he wished to point out that the $18 million in reserve was the largest the City had ever had. Mayor Daly said the budget showed revenue from the Glacier Project and the stadium parking lot at $500,000 per year for the next few years, including the coming fiscal year. He asked the City Manager if the budget would have to be adjusted down if the project did not happen. City Manager Ruth responded that it would and that it would be brought back to Council with that adjustment. The Mayor asked when staff would be bringing those budget adjustments back under the current schedule and City Manager Ruth responded that was a fairly significant adjustment so staff would bring it as it occurred. He said once the decision was made, which he believed that July 19, 2001 was the deadline on the extension, in the event that they were unable to get their financing, staff would be coming back to Council quickly with a recommended amendment to the budget. Mayor Daly asked if the current agreement expired July 19, 2001 and would staff be coming to Council with a recommendation regarding an extension or non-extension or was that still being evaluated. City Manager Ruth stated that it was still being evaluated and it would be around that time. Council Member Feldhaus asked for a justification for increasing Council Assistant salaries and Mayor Daly said in the amount of hours, and in his case, he had a greater need than $15,000 over the course of twelve months. Council Member Tait asked the Mayor if he was suggesting not raising the rate of pay, just the allowance of how many hours the Assistants could work and Mayor Daly answered that he was correct. Council Member McCracken commented that there could be the concern about them being considered full time employees and then they have to be paid benefits because they had bridged the gap of part time employees and Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney if that would create any problems and it was important to note that the positions currently did not have any benefits. City Attorney White stated that increasing the dollar amounts would not be automatically increasing the hours beyond that which would be allowed for part time employees. He said that they would have to take a look at how many hours would be involved and work with the Human Resources Department in getting that information. If the dollar amount was increased, he said, Council would not be violating any laws or automatically converting them to employees with benefits. He said they would need to look at that and bring that information back to the Council. City Manager Ruth stated that the current policy was 1,000 hours per year so if the Assistants exceeded 1,000 hours per year then the City would be in violation and would have to pay benefits. City Attorney White said that the program was set up so that it did not limit Council Members to a particular number of employees. He said the Council could have two people working 800 hours each as opposed to one person working 1,600 hours. He also said that increasing the dollar amount did not mean that the person would be working more than 1,000 hours. M~'_ .,..~_ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 21 Mayor Daly said that he was not suggesting that the part time positions that did not currently receive benefits should change, he was suggesting an increase in the annual allotment and some Council Members may wish to utilize two part time persons rather then one. He said it depended on what makes sense for that individual Council Member. In his case, it had been helpful just to have assistance in responding to all the various phone calls and requests from different parts of the community. Mayor Daly said there was a total of $75,000 proposed to purchase portable skateboard ramps and there was a desire to know a little bit more about those facilities. He said he had not seen anything on it, even though he thought it was a worthy suggestion. He noted that he was not sure what the next step would be and he asked if there be more information on the skateboard park. Community Services Director Chris Jarvi said that Council Member Feldhaus wanted to see one of the parks and staff had provided Council with a list of those locations for other skate parks. Mayor Daly said that was an example of an expenditure which they could approve as far as the proposed budget and then revisit it at a later date if they decided that they wanted to proceed differently. He said it was a good idea to have some type of a budget item status later on in July or August so that Council could have a chance to be updated. Jim Ruth, City Manager said staff would do that and provide projected beginning and completion dates for various projects. Council Member Kring said she would also like to investigate the Mother Colony House but having just received the memo this date, she said she had not had a chance to review it. She said that while Council was talking about the fees she would also like to put the Mother Colony House on the next agenda for discussion purposes. Mayor Daly said asked staff to comment on the contract with SCT and any expenditures for information services. Finance Director, William Sweeney, responded that the City was in the third year of a five-year contract with STC. He said that the largest project that would be coming up was the implementation of the new Enterprise Resource Program System, which would be presented to Council at a workshop in July. He said it did not relate directly to the STC contract but that was probably the biggest information system the City would implement over the next two to three years. Mayor Daly asked what the estimated cost of the system was and Finance Director Sweeney responded that it could be $10 to $11 million dollars over a multi year period. Mayor Daly asked if the dollars for that potential purchase was included in the budget proposal and Director Sweeney said that there was a proposed lease amount of approximately $1 million. He said all funds were included in last years budget and it had not been spent because it had taken this long to work out the parameters of the program and the recommendations to Council. He said the idea was that the City would lease, not purchase, the program. He also said the annual cost would be at least $1 million dollars, it would depend on the lease terms, which could be a little higher or lower. This was the largest single project, he said, and there was a number of other information systems projects that were underway that the Council had previously 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 22 approved. He explained these were a consultant for the Police, which was included in the proposed budget and the Council had also approved the Library automation system and the tree system, so there were a number of the automated systems that would be coming on line in the next year or two, assuming that the Council approved the Enterprise Resource Program. Finance Director Sweeney explained that the Enterprise Resource Program was a system for accounting, work management, payroll, and was an integrated system wide program and that this would bring the City into the next phase in the development of information systems. Mayor Daly asked if the $10 to $11 million was over a period of years and Director Sweeney said that the actual implementation was over a two-year period, but it had a useful life of over ten years. He said that was why it would be leased over that period of time and staff would do it in eighteen months, only after Council approved it. Mayor Daly requested that Council vote on the items that he suggested before they vote on the overall budget. ADJUSTMENT NO.1: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, to increase the budget amount by $11,000 for more hours of community swimming. Motion carried unanimously. ADJUSTMENT NO.2: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, to increase parkway trees budget by $80,000 for a total of $100,000 to deal with the backlog. Motion carried unanimously. ADJUSTMENT NO.3: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait, to increase the Council Assistant salaries to $20,000 per year per Council Member. Ayes - 2: Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait. Noes - 3: Council Members McCracken, Kring and Feldhaus. Motion defeated. ADJUSTMENT NO.4: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, to increase the Council Assistant salaries to $18,000 per year per Council Member. Motion carried unanimously. ADJUSTMENT NO.5: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, to increase Council budget to $30,000. Ayes - 4: Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken, Kring and Feldhaus. Noes - 1: Council Member Tait. Motion carried. ADJUSTMENT NO.6: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, to increase the JPA Metro Fire Dispatch Budget by $164,634. Motion carried unanimously. ADJUSTMENT NO.7: Motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Tait, to move the Council Secretary position to the City Manager's budget and that the funding also be moved. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Daly noted that Council would need to revisit the projected $5 million for the Learning Center that was in this year's budget. City Manager Ruth said staff intended to come back to Council for a workshop on the issue sometime in late July. . .~_.-.--_...----.-.-'-_..-- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 23 Mayor Daly moved approval of the proposed budget for 2001/2002, seconded by Council Member McCracken, including all the changes already approved by the Council. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Kring requested that the Mother Colony House be placed on the agenda of July 10, 2001, along with the budget fees. Mayor Daly said that he looked forward to the fee discussions at the next Council meeting on July 10, 2001 and he asked the City Manager to schedule a budget update for sometime in August so the Council could revisit some of the issues. 120 A29 A public hearing certifying the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Corridor Soundwall Project. Mayor Daly said the project had been in the planning stages for quite some time and was the result of a federal grant approved by the United States Congress a few years ago. Mayor Daly asked staff to summarize the action they were recommending. Russ Maguire, Deputy City Engineer, explained that originally the Santa Fe Railroad, now the BNSF Railroad, had two main east/west routes to Los Angeles, the Pasadena and the Fullerton route. About ten years ago the Santa Fe sold its Pasadena subdivision to the LA. County MTA, they planned to move its freight traffic from that route down to the Fullerton route. He explained that prior to that move the train traffic on the Fullerton route in 1992 was 26 trains per day. He said that in and around that time the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, which is referred to as Metro Link, was proceeding with the construction and planning of a second track on the Fullerton route. He went on to say that the SCRRA authorized an environmental notice of exemption in September of 1991 to allow for the construction and operation of a commuter rail in the BSNF corridor. He said that project was commenced and the BSNF railroad constructed and completed that track in May of 1993. He noted that after the completion of that track, the moving of freight traffic and the increase of commuter rail, everyone began to hear from residents regarding the impact of the increased traffic. In response to that, in 1996, two studies were undertaken, the first study was done by the OCTA and was called the Orangethorpe Corridor Grade Cropping Study. He said this was to analyze the impact the increased train traffic would have on the crossings of the rail to all the arterial_highways and to look at the feasibility of what to do from grade separation to lowering the track and other things in order to address the delay in transportation that the increased traffic was having. He also said that in this study in 1996, they had indicated that the train traffic on this route had increased 46 trains per day. He said that current studies indicated that the train traffic on this route had increased to about 68 trains per day and most studies projected that traffic would increase to about 128 trains per day by 2010. He explained that the second study in 1996 was undertaken by the City of Anaheim and was to address the noise and vibration impacts of the increased traffic. He said the recommendation on that study to mitigate increased noise was to construct a sound absorbing sound wall along the south wall of the railroad. He said the sound wall was to be approximately 20 to 21 feet above the rail elevation. He informed that the 1996 study had been the basis of all subsequent studies and all actions taken and staff wanted to make note that the current project generally recommended a wall of lesser height than the 1996 study. He said since the 1996 studies, the residents living along the corridor have sought to implement the recommendations of those studies and through their then Congressman Kim, they were successful in obtaining a federal grant for the sound wall. That was listed as one of the high priority projects and was approved as part of the T21 Highway Funding Program, which was -.. -r- ~ ----- -...., ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 24 approved in July 1998 and named CalTrans the lead agency for the project. He noted that it was a combined project at that time which listed both the Imperial Grade Separation and the sound wall project. He said that after this, CalTrans declined to be the lead agency for the project on the basis that it was not within any State right of way, OCT A requested other agencies and entities to lead the project and they also declined. When approached by OCTA, Anaheim assumed the role of lead agency for the project on the basis that OCT A would provide the local match for the federal funding. After that OCT A commenced processing all of the documentation through the California Transportation Commission necessary to effect the transfer. They received approval for the transfer in October of 1999 and separated the sound wall project from the separation project and listed Anaheim as the lead agency for the sound wall. With that approval, the next month Council acted on some contracts and authorized the City to proceed and in November 1999, Anaheim proceeded to implement the project. He introduced key staff members, starting with Judy Vandermost, of Vandermost Consulting, who was the Community Relations Liaison for the project. Then he introduced Juan Diaz, Tetrotech, Project Manager for the main design consultant and Kathleen Brady, from Vontier Consultants, who was the environmental consultant. He said in addition to the other members there was Eric Webkey, City staff, the project manager and Ray Nugent, Cyntex, who was the noise consultant. A PowerPoint presentation was made regarding the project, which is available in the City Clerk's Office. Julie Vandermost spoke on highlighting the community tools they used to keep the public involved. First, she said, was their toll free hotline, so residents could get up to the minute information and ask any questions. She also said they had a website that was linked to the City's home page and that included up to date information on the project. She said that they also had a quarterly newsletter provided to residents living near the railroad, which had over a thousand households on the mailing list. She said that they also prepared a mock up sound wall presentation, which was organized in the parking lot of Edison Field. She explained that on March 14, 2000 they had a mock up demonstration which showed which materials would be utilized for the sound wall and they invited residents to come out to look at it. She also said they conducted a Community Open House on June 29, 2000 to provide residents with an opportunity to learn more about the specifics of the wall as well as about the EIR that was being prepared for the project. She explained that at that open house they also had the engineering, planning and noise consultants on hand to do one on one's with the residents. They had aerials, cross sections and even a small-scale model of the wall materials for people to review. Notices to the workshop were mailed and also hand-delivered to residents and also to Yorba Linda residents who backed up to Esperanza St. and they had over 60 people attend the workshop. She said in addition, once a month the project team met to discuss planning, design and community relation issues to insure proper communications and trouble shooting, and the City of Yorba Linda continued to be invited to those meetings. She explained that in order to address issues brought up by the community during the planning and design process, they conducted some additional technical studies. She explained that these were conducted at additional expense and did impact the schedule, however they felt they needed to conduct them to be responsive to Anaheim and Yorba Linda. These studies included the vibration report, the derailment protection report, and the home sound installation study, the railroad planter study, the retaining wall study and the Esperanza Parkway study. She then introduced Juan Diaz. . --'..,"", _.~_..-".. ,,_._~--,--,._"..... ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 25 Juan Diaz said that as a team they had conducted numerous activities starting with gathering data and analysis starting with the noise analysis. He said these studies helped them produce the bid documents. He said at this point they were at a 90% PS&E completion level and pending the Council's approval this date, they can proceed with submitting the latest plans to the BNS&F Railroad as well as FHW A and Cal Trans for funding approval. He said once they have that approval they will then complete the design and move forward with issuing the plans and the bid document. He also said they have a very aggressive schedule as a result of the fact that working along the railroad corridor they were constrained to a nine month period based on the fact that the railroad did not allow construction within the railroad corridor in the fourth quarter. He explained that as a result of this, the start date for construction was January of 2002 with a completion date of October of 2002. He said the sound wall would start at Imperial Highway on the west end and end at Yorba Linda Blvd. It was along the rail corridor between La Palma and Esperanza Road. He explained that the wall was 3 to 26 feet high measured from the top rail with an average of 16 feet and the length of the wall was about 12, 900 feet, which was equivalent to 2.44 miles. The wall height varied with the topography, and there was a minor retaining wall that was being proposed adjacent to the apartment building/garage structure at Imperial Highway which would support the sound wall and be about 4 to 5 feet high. He explained that in addition to that there was a major retaining wall that was being proposed as an alternative bid item in an area west of Fairmont where there was an existing depressed area right along the property line of the railroad corridor. He said that currently the studies conducted had actually lowered the height of the wall based on the vibration and noise study developed in 1996. He said that the wall had been designed to insure that no discernable noise reflection would result to Yorba Linda residents. He also said that in addition to that it was also designed to achieve a 65 CNEL decibel level outside of the properties along the south side of the rail corridor. He noted that in addition to that, it was designed to meet the 45 CNRL decibel levels inside the dwelling units along the residences outside. He added that residents were currently experiencing about 68 trains per day and night. He explained that the sound volumes varied between 65 to 70.4 decibels based on CNEL near the trailer homes. He stated that was equivalent to a very noisy row of housing on a major avenue. It was also equivalent to living about 8 miles from a major airport like LAX. He said the wall itself was a post-impaneled system with I-Beams spaced at about 16 feet, 2 foot high panels with 16 foot lengths. The panel was composed of 5 inch thick fiberglass core sandwiched between a 14 gauge galvanized steel panel that was perforated on one side which faced the railroad and on the other side was a plain surface. He said it was designed to absorb noise on the railroad side and to reduce noise on the residence side in Anaheim. The objective of the wall was to avoid any reflected train noise to Yorba Linda residents as well as to reduce sound along the south side of the rail corridor. Kathleen Brady said Bontera Consulting prepared an environmental impact report for the project and circulated it to the public and responsible agencies for review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. She said the EIR was formally initiated with the distribution of a notice of preparation in April of 2000 and the notice of preparation identified the project as having potential significant impacts associated with aesthetics, noise, hydrology and water quality. She also said that in response to the NOP, twelve letters were received including letters from the California Department of Fish and Game, Cal Trans, Native American Heritage Society, the City of Placentia, the County of Orange and the City of Yorba Linda. She explained in the NOP process, potential impacts were also identified as biotic and cultural resources. She further explained that the EIR was circulated for a forty-five day public review period from February 12th to March 29th, 2001 and the EIR identified potentially significant effects on the environment prior to implementation of mitigation measures. She said that after implementation ..,... .--'-^---.-.-.-- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 26 of the recommended mitigation measures, only aesthetic impacts remained as potential, unavoidable adverse impacts. She said nine comment letters were received on the EIR and it should be noted that one of the comment letters included a petition in support of the project which was signed by 59 local residents. She said the comments covered a range of issues including aesthetics, height of the wall, noise, future projections of train traffic in the study area and the potential for paleontological resources. The Responses To Comments document, which included clarifications and revisions to the draft document was distributed May 31, 2001. She said, as was previously indicated, the only unavoidable impact was associated with aesthetics and visual impact. She stated that this was a very subjective issue and there were many factors to be considered when determining that aesthetic impacts were going to be significant, including the distance of the viewer from the project, frequency of the view, surrounding conditions, activity and how much was the visual change. She said the EIR found that the construction of the sound wall would create a substantial visual change in the surrounding areas. This was predominately due to the height of the wall and because of this change it would be considered a significant impact. She said that the City of Yorba Linda, in response to the EIR, requested that the height of the wall be lowered or that the screening with landscape be provided to minimize the impact. The EIR did evaluate these recommendations but did not find them feasible at this time, she reported. Ms. Brady said if the height of the wall were lowered, it would not meet the project objectives of lowering the sound level to within the City of Anaheim standards. The screening of the wall was found not to be feasible because there was no funding for it. CEQA required that before mitigation measures could be considered to be acceptable and reasonable and can be accemplished in a successful manner and a reasonable period of time, taking into account the legal, social and technological factors. Given that there was no funding for these measures for the screening, the EIR determined that there would still potentially be a significant impact, that was not to say that there would be funding in the future that could address these and reduce the level of impact, she reported. There was a mitigation measure that required the City of Anaheim to continue working with the City of Yorba Linda to identify and secure funding for visual screening. Ms. Brady said they were asking that the following CEQA findings be made: That the EIR prepared for the BNSF Sound wall was adequately complete pursuant to CEQA guidelines and City of Anaheim guidelines. That the Anaheim City Council has reviewed and evaluated the findings of the EIR prepared for the project. That based on the EIR there was an unavoidable aesthetic impact associated with the project and therefor that the Council would be adopting the recommended findings and overriding consideration that had been prepared pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, Sections 15091 and 15093 respectively. The City Council adopt the mitigation-monitoring program that had been prepared in association with the EIR. Russ Maguire closed telling Council that it had been a long and challenging road and that they felt that the EIR. with its mitigation, reasonably and fully addressed the environmental issues for the project. He said many people felt the project itself was a mitigation measure in and of itself. As previously noted, he said the visual aesthetics remained and issue on the project. He explained that they had chosen a design that incorporated features such as columns, panels, caps and colors to try to address aesthetics, including a lighter color with a non-reflective type of coating. He noted staff had added mitigation Measure 2-2, which committed the City of Anaheim to work cooperatively with the City of Yorba Linda and the County of Orange in an effort to identify and secure funding for improvements along Esperanza Road to provide visual screenings for the railroad corridor. He said the City had and would continue to pursue that funding. He finalized by saying the City had been asked by its residents for this in order to bring back livability in their homes, yards and neighborhoods. -.-.......---.,....--.. ----_.._._.._-~-_. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 27 Council Member Feldhaus asked if Mr. Diaz had said that after the review period of the EIR, the City would get in touch with BNSF Railroad for their approval. Mr. Maguire answered that the City had been in communication with them on an ongoing basis. He said one of the steps that the City had to show them, along with Federal Highway and Cal Trans, was certification of the environmental document. He said BNSF has been involved all along the way and they were completely supportive and cooperative. He explained what Mr. Diaz was indicating was that the City would give BSNF the final submittal for final plan approval and what they call the Construction and Maintenance agreement, which was the next step. Council Member Feldhaus asked for an explanation about the average and the top CNL that was reached when the monitoring was done and about the difference between CNL and decibel. Ray Nugent said that the Anaheim standard was 65 in residential backyards. Council Member Feldhaus asked if it exceeded that, up to 81. Ray Nugent answered that it exceeded that up to 70.4 in the measurement period, adding that this iocation was at the trailer park adjacent to the rail line. Council Member Feldhaus asked what time at night they did the measurement. Ray Nugent answered it was a 24 hour measurement, so it was a 24 hour average with test readings for nighttime and daytime. He said the 70 dB is an average level and it went up as the train went by. Mr. Maguire added that the City was also making projections so that the sound wall would operate acceptably at the projected 128 trains per day, which would handle current and future traffic along the corridor. Mayor Pro Tem McCracken opened the public hearing. Susan Ahn, Placentia, Assistant Planner for the Placentia-Yorba Linda School District, voiced support for the sound wall. She said the only request was that the construction behind their school be limited to the summer months so it would not disrupt classes. Brian Valenti, Anaheim, spoke in favor of the project and provided pictures of the existing wall. Jim Ladyman, Anaheim, spoke in favor of the project. Linda Bridges, Anaheim, spoke in favor of the project, adding that sometimes there are three trains within ten minutes or two at a time. Cathy Wright, Anaheim, provided a tape of a train going by at 1 :00 am. She spoke in favor of the project. A resident of Anaheim asked the result of the vibration level study. Donald Civic and Sharon King, Anaheim, spoke in favor of the project. '-'-~.~....~.,--- ---~_.-._---~-..... ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 28 Terrence Gallagher, representative of the Yorba Linda City Attorney's office, urged the Council not to adopt the EIR in its current state. He said the City of Yorba Linda was not opposed to reducing sound coming from the railroad and no one wanted to diminish the interests that the project sought to accomplish, but in its current state, he stated, it failed in numerous respects to comply with the environmental quality act. He said he would focus on the issues relating to the EIR's lack of recognizing the City of Yorba Linda as the responsible party under the Environmental Quality Act. He stated that virtually the entire project was within the jurisdiction of the City of Yorba Linda and was therefore subject to the City's zoning and planning laws. He also stated that the EIR, in response to comments, indicated that the project was exempt from Yorba Linda's planning and building laws as a result of Government Code Section 53091. He argued that it had continued to be the City of Yorba Linda's position that the Government Code provision did not apply because it was not a situation in which it was in the City of Anaheim's territory as the Code provision applied. He noted that this was not a situation where there was overlapping jurisdiction, for example, that the City would be exempt from the County's planning laws. He added the only property interest the City had for the project was a license from the railway and stated that this was not sufficient under the law to qualify for the mutual immunities from the zoning and planning laws of the City of Yorba Linda. He felt there was also a great deal of the project that did not comply with the current existing building standards. He explained that the fact that there was discretionary approval within the power of the City of Yorba Linda, they should be identified as a responsible party under CEQA for the project which the EIR currently did not do. This, he said, triggers a number of responsibilities on behalf of Yorba Linda as well as rights regarding the EIR, its contents, and the project overall. He urged the EIR to be amended and modified to reflect that the City was a responsible party under the Public Resources Code and the CEQA guidelines. He said the City of Yorba Linda believed that the responses to the comments previously provided under the applicable law were insufficient and conclusive in nature and would create a problem for the project under CEQA. He further stated that the statement of overriding consideration was inappropriate in circumstance because there was evidence to support the other mitigation measures. He requested that the EIR not be adopted in its current state and that the two cities attempt to move forward mutually to alleviate said problem and do it in a project that would not come at the expense of the citizens of Yorba Linda. Bruce Cook, Senior Planner for the City of Yorba Linda stated that the City of Yorba Linda supported the efforts of the City of Anaheim to introduce a sound attenuation program to minimize the negative impacts of the operation of the railway corridor. He stated that it was a meritorious endeavor that shouid be pursued in a manner of accordance with state law. He recognized Anaheim as a community of cities and stated that all actions should proceed in the spirit of cooperation and with the result of the consequences of any action. He said it should not result in any undue or unreasonable burden upon any of Anaheim's neighbors. He said unfortunately, the final EIR prepared for the project failed to satisfy either standard. He informed Council that the City of Yorba Linda submitted a letter dated March 26, 2001, in response to the Notice of Completion issued for the draft EIR which detailed their comments pertaining to the draft EIR. He said the letter also identified numerous failings in the draft EIR. He said one failing was that it did not adequately mitigate or identify significant adverse impacts when feasible and effected mitigation measures were available. He stated that this last issue, in the opinion of Yorba Linda, was the most egregious failing of the document. He reiterated his experience as an Urban Planner and Environmental Practitioner had taught him that this was the worse sin that could be committed in striving for CEQA compliance. He said the drafted EIR for this project, by Anaheim's own assertion, identified aesthetics as significant and adverse ._..~_..'"...~.."_._..- -'~~~_.'--"~""""'-"" ,"--.- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 29 impact. He explained that State Law established it was the duty of a public agency to avoid or minimize environmental damage. He said the only justification for not doing so was that no feasible mitigation measure or project alternative existed. He said as clearly demonstrated in the evidential record, Yorba Linda had offered a combination of reasonable and practical solutions that would unequivocally lessen the identified significant visual impact of the Esparanza rail corridor as a result of project implementation. He stated that the assertion in the response to comments document prepared for the final EIR were not supported by any evidence in the recerd, were contrary to state law and the objectives of CEQA were therefore not credible nor defensible. He said that the final EIR, as proposed, could not satisfy Anaheim's requirement to make the findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA guidelines. He told Council that said such findings were mandatory to have a valid and legal EIR. He said the final EIR attempts to side step the issue of non-mitigation of significant impacts by the inclusion of a statement of overriding considerations. He said this statement of overriding considerations was appropriate when a significant impact could not be lessened or avoided but with the burdens of the negative impacts incurred. This statement must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, he said, the final proposed EIR failed to satisfy the standard. Mr. Cook stated that Yorba Linda had demonstrated that feasible mitigation existed. Mr. Cook also said that reasonable and feasible mitigation standards do exist that would substantially lesson or avoid any significant impact. He said any statement of overriding consideration made a part of the final EIR would be contrary to state law and the objectives to CEQA and would therefore not be credible or defensible. He said it would jeopardize the validity and the integrity of the final EIR. He again stated that Yorba Linda supported the concept of Anaheim introducing the sound attenuation program for its citizens along the BNSF corridor and that Yorba Linda also insists that the project be implemented in an adequate and responsible manner. Yorba Linda also insists it be effective in reducing noise for Anaheim properties to an acceptable standard but also at the same time sensitive to any impacts of the sound attenuation measures to Anaheim's neighbors. He stated that at this time the project failed to satisfy this ladder standard. He stated that Yorba Linda had made it clear that they would diligently oppose any sound attenuation program for which effective mitigation was not included for Yorba Linda citizens. He said if Anaheim insisted upon following the course established with the parameters with this proposed EIR and to move forward on achieving a substantial improved sound environment for Anaheim citizens, then it would be in peril. He said that Yorba Linda once again urges Anaheim to see to the request of Yorba Linda pertaining to the project for the inclusion of adequate mitigation as is required by state law. He said there is still a window of opportunity for reconciliation and progress in this project and he encouraged the two cities to change course and embark on a new path of cooperation where the needs of all could be satisfied to the benefit of everyone. He stated that the City of Yorba Linda had submitted a letter with today's date to the Anaheim City Clerk that memorialized his comments and the City of Yorba Linda requested that the letter be included as part of the written record pertaining to this subject. Jim Smith, Director of Public Works, City of Yorba Linda, said that they were trying to figure out what the wall would look like, that they had searched the EIR to try and figure out what the wall would look like. The City of Yorba Linda, he said, hired an artist to put a rendering together hired a consultant to look at the height of the wall and they do not agree with it. He also stated that their noise consultant commented about the height of the wall. He stated that a March memorandum documented some thousand noise impact studies, which has been submitted to the Council. He said some other concerns that the City of Yorba Linda had were, if a developer wanted to develop in either community, they would probably condition a project to have environmental mitigation to address impacts such as this, the long term impact of the wall and ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 30 the soot. He hoped that the material of the blocks would stand the test of time. He stated that as the panel material absorbed 93% of the sound, the other 7% would be going into the City of Yorba Linda and over time, as the pores plugged up, the sound wall would likely reduce and therefore the impact in Yorba Linda would be greater. He also urged Council to reconsider, as they would like to see the appropriate environmental mitigation be a part of the EIR project. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing and asked for additional comments from Staff or the Consultants. Mr. Maguire spoke to some of the questions brought up. He said, regarding the school, the timing was such that they should be able to work with them and schedule the construction to coincide with their summer. He said that the vibration study was actually made and the gentleman may contact him at any time to obtain a copy. He said that he would have to defer to the City Attorney's office regarding the various legal issues on CEQA, codes, general plans and other items. He made a note regarding the Memorandum of March from Yorba Linda. He said they did have a meeting with the City of Yorba Linda, Anaheim did authorize an additional sound measurement and studies to ensure the issues were addressed. The information was provided back to Yorba Linda. He stated the final copy was in May and is part of the public record. He said the maintenance of the wall was the City of Anaheim's responsibility, which was the requirement of the railroad. He explained that the reason the wall height was determined was because it provided greater height for greater absorption than what currently happens as it was reflected off of current masonry walls or structures along the corridor that would be completely shielded. He said the study showed that there would be no discernable increase in sound reflected back to Yorba Linda which was the 1996 study and which was the basis of the project from the very beginning. Jack White, City Attorney, spoke in response to the comments made by the representative from the Yorba Linda City Attorney's Office. He stated that Anaheim's records, since the inception of discussions with the City of Yorba Linda, had respectfully disagreed with Yorba Linda's position that the project was subject to the planning and zoning laws of the City of Yorba Linda. He believed that Anaheim, as the owner of the wall and licensee of the right-of-way on which the wall would be both constructed and maintained, had an adequate interest in the project to exempt it from the planning and zoning laws of Yorba Linda under the provisions of the state law that currently existed. Anaheim also believed that Yorba Linda was not a responsible party under the definition of that term in the California Environmental Quality Act. He said the City of Yorba Linda had no action that it was legally required to take with regards to carrying out the project. Mr. White also noted the mitigation measures that have been requested by the City of Yorba Linda, as pointed out in the Environmental Impact Report and the responses to comments, were not economically feasible at this time. He said that staff would continue to work toward the requested mitigation. He made it clear that the measure with regard to berm, landscaping and the wall that Yorba Linda requested to be built was not part of the project as its proposed certification tonight. He stated that there was evidence in the record and the final environmental report document as well as the testimony given tonight by the residents. He also said that such evidence with regards to the over riding considerations that allowed the Council to approve the project, and finding the benefits to be gained from proceeding with regards to the mitigation of the noise and health concerns for the residents, override the aesthetic impact which can not feasibly be mitigated at the current time. Therefore, he finalized, staff recommended Council proceed with certifying the final Environmental Impact Report as presented. ~--, ---or-'~ -..--.- -. ..-... ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 31 Mayor Pro Tem McCracken asked Mr. Maguire, in regards to the picture he showed with the man standing next to the wall, if there was some distance between the wall or was there a curb Mr. Maguire answered that the proposed wall was on the south property line of the railroad. He said north of that was both tracks and some additional right of way. He said for the most part on Esperanza, there was a curb and a narrow asphalt sidewalk. He explained that for the County portion, closer to Imperial, had no curb or asphalt sidewalk, just the roadway. Therefore, Mr. McGuire said, if someone were on Esperanza, they would be looking across the entire railroad corridor and both tracks before they saw the wall. Mayor Daly stated that he believed the consultants and staff had done a great job answering questions and preparing the documents. He said the EIR had gone through extensive analysis and involvement. He expressed his hope that there would be no additional legal roadblocks and hoped that everyone could work together to make the project a reality. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-160 for adoption, certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and all other findings as recommended by City staff and consultants. Council Member Tait said that he appreciated the public's input, adding that the impacts were severe and it would be a shame if it were delayed any longer. He urged Yorba Linda to take the residents into consideration and asked for their cooperation. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-160 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM certifying the Environmental Impact Report, adopting Findings Overriding Considerations, and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Procedures for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corridor Soundwall Project and authorizing commencement of the project. Mayor Daly called for a roll call vote approving the Environmental Impact Report. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Kring, Tait, Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. A30 137 A public hearing regarding the issuance by the Anaheim Housing Authority of multifamily housing revenue bonds for a 132-unit project known as "Solara Court Apartments" located at 3335 West Lincoln Avenue. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and he after hearing no testimony, he closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001R-161 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-161 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds for a Multifamily Housing Project and certain other actions in connection therewith (Solara Court Apartments). Roll call vote: Ayes - 5, Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Kring, Feldhaus. Noes - O. Motion carried. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 32 137 A31. A public hearing regarding the issuance by the Anaheim Housing Authority of multifamily housing revenue bonds for a 65 unit project known as "Westchester Apartments" located at 125 Westchester Orive (Westchester Apartments). Mayor Daly opened up the public hearing. Oavid Knittle asked if this was part of Section 8 funding and who would own the property. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Brad Hobson, Deputy Director for Community Development, informed that the project was an existing apartment complex that was constructed in 1982 with HUO funds. He explained that the complex had been under contract with Section 8 funds since that time and that it was an at risk project. He mentioned that by authorizing the bonds, they would continue the affordability for an additional 55 years. He stated that the current Section 8 tenants would remain at the project and that additional Section 8 tenants, as they become eligible, would be able to live at the project. He explained that the owners of the project, BOP Westchester LLC, would own and operate the project. Council Member McCracken asked if the project was a bonding issue in the sense that the City would be loaning money to this development for the rehabilitation of the entire complex. Mr. Hobson answered that if they were successful in securing the bond proceeds of the entire project, not less than $7,500 a unit, paint, landscaping, plumbing and appliances, then there would be rehabilitation. Mayor Daly confirmed with Mr. Hobson that the $7,500 was not the City's share and that there is no net cost to the citizens of Anaheim. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-162 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-162 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of multifamily housing revenue bonds for a Multifamily Senior Housing Project and certain other actions in connection therewith (Westchester Apartments). Roll call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken. Feldhaus, Tait, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. Items B1 throuah B7 From Plannina Commission Meetina of June 4. 2001: (No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS June 26, 2001: 179 B1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04338 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 32: OWNER: Mayo Family Trust, Alvin Mayo Trustee 2450 White Road, Irvine, CA 92614 AGENT: Armet, David, Newlove Architects, Attn: Victor Newlove, _....~~-,.--.---..."_~.. __-__~~~~._ _.....__._....~'._._...OH._-..-......_ 179 155 179 179 ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 33 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404 LOCATION: 1074 North Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 1.42 acres located 350 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To construct two drive-through, fast food restaurants. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04338 Approved (PC2001-67) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no). B2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00394 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00051 REQUEST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1025 -1109 East Lincoln Avenue. This rectangularly-shaped 0.66-acre property is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and East Street. General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00394: An amendment to the Land Use Element of the Anaheim General Plan to redesignate this property from the Medium Density Residentia' land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00051: To reclassify this property from RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone and CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the CO (Commercial, Office and Professional) Zone to construct a three-unit office building. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended approval of Exhibit A to City Council for General Plan Amendment 2001- 00394 (PC2001-68) (7 yes votes). Reclassification No. 2001-00051 granted (PC2001-69). Approved Negative Declaration. To be set for public hearing due to the general plan amendment. B3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04364 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: John C. Dalton, Trustee of the John Cranmer Dalton IV and Louise Dean Dalton Restated Trust, 1999 929 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Dayna Aguirre 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 870, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 929 East South Street. Property is approximately 3.6 acres, with a frontage of 200 feet on the north side of South Street, a maximum depth of 790 feet and is located 390 feet west of the centerline of East Street. To permit a telecommunication monopole antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04364 granted, in part, for five years to expire on June 4, 2006 (PC2001-70) (7 yes votes). Approved Negative Declaration. B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04362 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 3: OWNER: Faig Alraher, 121 North Jerrilee Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 121 North Jerrilee Lane. Property is approximately 0.17 -~'~_.".,~._~.....____"_,_.~"._... _"..___._ . no" "__..'~"'_~'H'~_'~_'___" 179 179 155 .-.. ...,... ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 34 acres, located at the northwest corner of Jerrilee Lane and Gerda Drive. To permit a second story granny unit above a detached garage in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of required rear yard setback. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04362 granted subject to conditions of approval (PC2001-73) (7 yes votes). Denied waiver of Code requirement pertaining to required rear yard setback. B5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04361 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 32: OWNER: Louis Wiener, 3 Thunderbird, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Philip Martin, 25422 Trabuco Road, #105B2, Lake Forest, CA 92630 LOCATION: 8205 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 3.34 acres, with a frontage of 120 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, a maximum depth of 600 feet, and is located 1050 feet west of the centerline of Weir Canyon Road. To construct a three-unit commercial retail center with roof-mounted equipment. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04361 granted, in part, subject to conditions of approval (PC2001-71) (7 yes votes). B6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1801 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1: OWNER: Ignacio and Arlene Arroyo 1423 South First Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91006 LOCATION: 632 North East Street. Property is approximately 0.27 acres located at the northeast corner of Eastwood Drive and East Street. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to an "elderly" care facility in order to permit the care of adults within an existing board and care facility. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 1801 for two years to expire on June 4,2003 (PC2001-72) (7 yes votes). REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: B7. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2001-00002: County of Orange Probation Department, Attn: Linda Barry, Real Property Agent, 909 North Main Street, Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511. Request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan to relocate an existing facility and enter into a 15-year lease for the operation of a Probation Department Field Service Office. Property is at 2660 West Woodland Drive. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: General Plan Conformity No. 2001-00002 withdrawn (7 yes votes). Item 88 From Zonina Administrator Meetina of June 14. 2001: (No action necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS June 25, 2001: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 35 B8. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2001-00014 179 AND CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 4: OWNER: The Walt Disney Company, 1313 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: John T. Graves, AlA, Walt Disney Imagineering 888 South Disneyland Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: The north side of Katella Avenue between Disneyland Drive and Harbor Boulevard (a part of The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, 292-acre Theme Park District, Disney's California Adventure Theme Park back-of-house area) The Walt Disney company has submitted a request for approval of a Special Circumstances Waiver to permit the issuance of twenty Special Event Permits in addition to the four permitted by Code, for a total of twenty-four Special Event Permits during the 2001 Calendar year. Four Special Event Permits have already been issued for the property this year to permit parade floats associated with Disney's Electrical parade to be stored within three temporary tents located in the back-of-house area of Disney's California Adventure Theme Park from June 6, 2001 through July 12, 2001. The proposed twenty additional Special Event Permits would allow the continued use of the tents from July 13, 2001 through December 31, 2001. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Approved Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2001-00014 (ZA Decision 2001-00014). 6:00 PUBLIC HEARINGS: C1. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00392 179 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00048 170 VARIANCE NO. 2001-04433 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16036 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: OWNER: Southridge Development, 22421 Gilberto, Suite A, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92856 AGENT: Robert D. Mickelson, PO Box 932, Orange, CA 92856 LOCATION: Property is 2.9 acres located at the northeast corner of Imperial Highway and Via Escola (no address). General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00392: Requests approval of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate subject property from the General Open Space land use designation to the Hillside Low Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2001-00048: To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,OOO (SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-7200 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Variance No. 2001-04433: Waiver of (a) minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway (APPROVED), (b) maximum wall height (deleted), (c) minimum lot area (deleted), (d) minimum lot width (APPROVED) and (e) orientation of residential structures -----r-"- ----...-..-. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 36 (APPROVED), to establish a 11-10t, RS-7200(SC) Zone single-family subdivision for 11 detached residences. Tentative Tract Map No. 16036: To establish a 11-lot, RS-7200(SC) Zone subdivision for 11 single-family detached residences. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended adoption of Exhibit A for GPA No. 2001-00392 (PC2001-61) (7 yes votes). Reclassification No. 2001-00048 approved (PC2001-62). Variance No. 2001-04433 granted in part, approving waivers (a), (d) and (e) and denying waivers (b) and (c) (PC 2001-63). Tentative Tract Map No. 16036 approved. NOTE: TTM No. 16036 has a 10-day appeal period which expires May 17, 2001. Recommended review by Council. To be set for a public hearing due to the general plan amendment. Approved Negative Declaration. (Informational item at the meeting of May 15, 2001, Item B15). Greg Hastings presented the staff report noting that this was before Council because Council was required to take final action on all General Plan Amendments. He explained that the property was now a graded, vacant pad. He said new public streets would serve the proposed tract. He also said the lots would be a minimum of 7,200 square feet. He explained that the three waivers being requested were justified due to the odd shape of the property and that the waivers would still allow buildable lots with large yards and recreation areas. Mr. Hastings stated that if Council approved the request, the applicant would be submitting the final house plans for the Planning Commission's consideration at a later date. Mayor Daly asked how many waivers remained and Mr. Hastings answered three of the five waivers remained and opened the public hearing. Bob Nicholson, P.O. Box 932, Orange, representing Southridge Development, stated that the Planning Commission approved it unanimously and they had not received any opposition. He further stated that they agreed with the findings and the staff recommendations. Mayor Daly asked if the design of the eleven houses was in keeping with the total neighborhood, 2-story, 7,000 square foot lots. Mr. Nicholson responded with colored renderings and explained that they would be proposing five different models with different elevations and the home on the corner lot would be a single story. Council Member Feldhaus asked the price range, which was estimated to start around $525,000 or $550,000. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA Finding, Negative Declaration, motion carried unanimously. Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 2001 R-163, 2001 R-164 and 2001R-165 for adoption and moved to approve the Tentative Tract Map 16036. '-"'~"""-'~""""" - ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 37 Roll call: Ayes - 5: Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. 179 C2. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04347 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: White Star Business Park, 1020 North Batavia, #B, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Richard Johnson, 2821 East White Star Avenue, #D, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2821 East White Star Avenue. Property is 2.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Street and White Star Avenue. To permit a cooperative art museum, gallery and meeting hall with waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP No. 2001-04347 denied (PC2001-64) (7 yes votes). Waiver of code requirement denied. Approved Negative Declaration. Informational item at the meeting of May 15, 2001, Item B16. (Review of the Planning Commission decision requested by Council Members Tait and Kring). Greg Hastings, Planning Department, explained that the property currently occupied a 1,220 square foot suite within an industrial complex, which faced Blue Gum Street directly opposite of the Anaheim Disposal Regional Trash Transfer Facility. He stated that the operator established the use without the benefit of a building permit and a conditional use permit. Staff explained that the applicant indicated in a letter that the facility was utilized for many purposes and entrance fees were charged for certain events. He clarified that staff felt the requested use was not compatible with the industrial nature of the area and did not support or serve the industrial uses in the area. He added that one of the policies contained in the Anaheim General Plan was that uses other than industrial or industrial serving uses would be discouraged in areas designated or zoned for industrial uses. He further commented that this use was not consistent with the northeast area redevelopment plan and specific plan. Mr. Hastings the Police Department, who was present, recommended denial based on their conversation with the Newport Beach Police Department and the numerous code enforcement complaints that were reported when the use existed in Newport Beach. Mr. Hastings said that although the Planning Commission thought they could support certain aspects for use in concept, they denied the request at this particular location on the basis that the use was not permitted by the conditional use permit in this zone under staff and Planning Commission's interpretation and that it would not be compatible use within this industrial area. Council Member Kring asked about the Newport Beach violations previously mentioned. Sergeant West of the Police Department responded that after talking to the vice detail at the Newport Beach Police Department, they informed him that there were complaints about loud music, noise and other things which after further conversation with them, were not substantiated. Sergeant West said to his knowledge, no criminal complaints were filed against the business owner and subsequently; they did move from the site in Newport Beach and no longer had a location there. Council Member Tait asked if the recommendation of the Police Department's denial was based upon the conversation with the Newport Beach Department and Sergeant West answered yes. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 38 Council Member Tait asked, aside from the conversation with the Newport Beach Police Department, would the Anaheim Police Department be neutral. Sergeant West answered that they recommended denial based on their conversation with the Newport Beach Police Department and the problems the Newport Beach Police Department noted. Mayor Daly asked if any letters or communications from neighboring property owners or tenants were available. Mr. Hastings said that the Planning Department had none that he was aware of. Council Member McCracken asked if there were any concerns of the Police Department or staff regarding alcohol. She noted that the Planning Commission minutes referred to a speak-easy type of attitude of bring your own bottle. Sergeant West said that they were definitely concerned with the alcohol issue since the use of the location sounded like the applicants would be operating under an unregulated type of atmosphere. He said to his knowledge, he did not believe that they would be applying for an Alcoholic Beverage Control license. Council Member McCracken asked if they would be applying for special events. Council Member Tait asked if the proposal was for a limited period of time or indefinite. Mr. Hastings responded that since the Planning Commission did not approve the permit, a time limit was not placed on it. Mayor Daly asked if staff had the conditions they believed to be appropriate or any other conditions they would like to suggest should the Council approve the permit. Greg responded that he believed that they had a complete set of conditions, however, the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting expressed concern regarding several of the conditions. Mayor Daly asked if a time frame was suggested in his conditions. Staff responded that they did suggest to the Planning Commission that if they were to approve the permit, said permit should expire in one year. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing. Richard Johnson, Agent, responded to the alcohol issue stating that they checked I.D's at the door and that he tried to discourage alcohol as much as possible. He said that when they have events serving alcohol, no one under the age of 21 was allowed in. He further stated that if the Council had a problem with alcohol, he would be happy to inform his clients/customers that Anaheim did not allow alcohol. He informed Council that he had a petition signed by 100 percent of his neighbors in the Business Park. _,._._...._c~ ____.__.._.' ____.______~, _'r_' .._~.,__..,..."_._____~_ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 39 Mr. Johnson addressed the police issues and stated that he received a letter from the City of Newport Beach, which stated that they were not a nuisance. Mr. Johnson also stated that he went to the Newport Beach Police Department and was able to obtain a report with regards to each time the police came to their building and that the report stated that the Newport Beach Police visited the location twice and that a report was not taken either time because they were not incidences requiring a report nor was anyone in violation of anything. Mr. Johnson further stated that they had an entertainment permit. He informed Council that they were next to the airport and therefore disturbing the peace was difficult. He requested that his permit be approved for two years, which was when his lease would end. He said that he would be more than happy to move to one of their recommended buildings renovated for art. He stated that the reason they picked the building at issue was for its price and area. Council Member Kring asked Me. Johnson why they left Newport Beach. Mr. Johnson answered that their building was turned into a renovated lot for the airport, that they had no choice. Council Member Kring asked Mr. Johnson if they would have many nights with a band. Mr. Johnson answered that they would have nights that would be loud but the buildings' concrete construction would drown out the noise. He said no one had a problem with it, they opened after the surrounding buildings are already closed. Council Member Kring confirmed that their art was performance art and she asked if they would indulge in nudity. Mr. Johnson answered no, that they were visual artists and rented spaces to artists. Council Member Kring asked Mr. Johnson if he would be willing not to have alcohol unless they applied for a special alcohol license. Mr. Johnson answered yes. He further stated that the people involved are all of age and drank responsibly. Council Member McCracken said she understood Mr. Johnson was appealing to youth yet she just understood that he was appealing to aduits over 21 years old because he stated that he checked 1.0. at the door. Mr. Johnson explained that he only checked I.D's at the door for alcohol events. He again stated that if Council did not want alcohol served at the event then he would not serve alcohol, period. Council Member Feldhaus asked who the O.C. Hemp Council was. Mr. Johnson stated that they were activists for industrial uses, such as hemp blankets and hemp cement and was actually very strict and had a licensed security guard Council Member McCracken asked about car shows since he requested a waiver on parking. .~,----,.- '---"'-""-- .-.- ~_.._--,....-...,.,,"< ,- ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 40 Mr. Johnson answered that they were not allowed to park in the back, they would just park cars in their parking spots and point out the classic cars. Council Member Tait asked how many surrounding neighbors signed his petition. Mr. Johnson answered that everyone in his building, the building behind him and everyone adjacent and across. He stated that the other adjacent uses were a restaurant that had been there for approximately 8 years and a wholesale art dealership. Mayor Daly opened he public hearing. Tim Callan, Rancho Santa Margarita, spoke in favor of White Star. Bill Britt, Long Beach, Director of the Association of Patient Advocates, of White Star. Mayor Daly asked if alcohol were banned or not allowed and the applicants wanted to apply for a permit for special events, would there be a limitation on a number of permits they could have in a twelve month period. Mr. Hastings answered that such permits would be obtained from the Alcoholic Beverage Control, but he added, as a function of their Conditional Use Permit, it could be regulated to a specific number should Council wish to do so. Mayor Daly asked if the permit were silent what the ABC would do. Mr. Hastings responded that if the permit were silent, then the ABC would review the request on an individual basis with a number limitation. Mayor Daly asked how the ABC would proceed if the City approved the permit with a limitation on alcohol or not allowing alcohol. Greg commented on the conditions as recommended, explaining that one of the suggested conditions that went to Planning Commission was that alcohol not be available. He said in the event that a specific condition prohibited such, as was offered by the applicant at the meeting, it would not be permitted on the premises at all. Marla James, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of White Star. Sharon Anejarn, Santa Ana, spoke in favor of White Star. Evelyn Capaluto, Orange, spoke in favor of White Star. Michele Kim, Irvine spoke in favor of White Star. Carlo Irigoyen, La Habra, spoke in favor of White Star. David James, Huntington Beach, spoke in favor of White Star. Stan Urqugart, Buena Park, spoke in favor of White Star. , -'--~'--"'T".'"''-'-''' ____'L'"_~...._....__~._.,.x."'"_.._._.__~_._~______._.~ ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 41 Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly moved for approval of the CEQA Finding, Negative Declaration. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2001 R-166 for adoption, in support of the Conditional Use Permit with a two-year time frame, also with no alcohol as was suggested by the Planning staff and agreed to by Mr. Johnson. Council Member McCracken said she would approve but had reservations. Council Member Tait asked about the petitioner having to obtain an entertainment permit for any live art performance and asked if the owner would have to go the City for a permit for each individual live art performance. Greg Hastings responded that he believed that that the owner of the business could probably apply for an entertainment permit to allow for multiple entertainment events. Jack White, City Attorney stated that there could be one overall permit granted outlining the events that would be covered. Council Member Kring stated that she would like to allow them to request a special liquor license on an as-needed basis. Mayor Daly said he agreed and asked staff if they were comfortable with implementing that. Council Member Kring clarified that it was up to five times. Council Member Tait further clarified that the recommended conditions did not permit outdoor activities, that all activities were to be held in the building for a variety of reasons. Mayor Daly called for a roll call vote to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a period of two years with the limitation on alcohol for up to five times a year for special events. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-166 A RESOLLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC IL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04347 with conditions. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Daly, Council Members McCracken, Tait, Feldhaus, Kring. Noes - O. Motion carried. Report on Closed Session Actions: City Attorney White reported that the Council approved an amendment to an agreement with Sanli Pastori and Hill in the amount of $65,000 relating to trial expertise in the case of Vista Media Group, Inc, v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 514050. The vote was all ayes. Council Communications: ---....... .~----~.._."' ".+'.".>0->-- ~.."__ ...." ,.. . ........-"_.,__.,.._.,_._~___,~_"v.~..,~_"_.._'..__. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 19, 2001 PAGE 42 Council Member Tait reminded everyone about the Fourth of July events and thanked the hundreds of volunteers who worked at all the events. Council Member McCracken said she was concerned over comments in the paper recently on how little Anaheim gave to the support of the senior citizens. She asked staff to compile an answer to the accusations. Council Member Kring wished everyone a happy and safe Fourth of July and reminded everyone about the parade in Anaheim Hills starting at 3:00 p.m. Council Member Feldhaus reminded everyone that on July 30,2001, at 7:00 p.m., a patriotic concert would be held at the Church of Latter Day Saints on 441 South Fairmount, Anaheim Hills with an ice cream social to follow. Mayor Daly asked the City Manager to prepare a report which would analyze the trends and changes in the industrial areas as it impacted the City's economic base. He explained that he was talking about the non-industrial, non-business uses that were now operating in the industrial areas. Jim Ruth, City Manager, thanked the Council for their support and the adoption of the budget and with their leadership they were going to be able to accomplish a great deal in the year ahead. Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the meeting at 10:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted: ;2f!t~'l;fL (zflb~ft1---- Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE City Clerk