Loading...
2014/07/22ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL REGULAR AND REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING OF JULY 22, 2014 The regular meeting of July 22, 2014 was called to order at 3:00 P.M. and adjourned to 4:00 P.M. for lack of a quorum. The regular adjourned meeting of July 22, 2014 was called to order by Mayor Tait at 4:05 P.M. in the chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard. The meeting notice, agenda and related materials were duly posted on July 18, 2014. PRESENT: Mayor Tom Tait and Council Members: Jordan Brandman, Gail Eastman, Lucille Kring and Kris Murray. STAFF PRESENT: Interim City Manager Paul Emery, City Attorney Michael Houston and City Clerk Linda Andal. WORKSHOP: UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROGRAM 5 -YEAR PLAN Utilities General Manager Dukku Lee reported that nationally, only 18 percent of power lines were undergrounded, mostly due to the cost of excavation and equipment versus overhead lines. He pointed out while undergrounding did not guarantee reliability; it was less susceptible to weather, tree limbs, metallic balloons and vehicle- caused outages. He reminded Council that an Anaheim utilities crew had been sent to assist during Superstorm Sandy, a disaster that saw about eight million people without electrical service for weeks, and that east coast utilities were under scrutiny for long outages due to major storms and were evaluating undergrounding as a possible solution. For Anaheim, he remarked, the program had been in effect for 20 years involving three to five projects annually, a major commitment for a utility this size while investor - owned utilities which served about 2/3 of the state, had programs in place in which individual municipalities could participate, however the numbers of projects did not compare to Anaheim's. HOW EFFECTIVE WAS UNDERGROUNDING: Mr. Lee reported that in 1990 when the program began, staff collected reliability data and outages and charted the annual outage minutes experienced on a per meter basis. From the early 90's, he stated there were significant events that caused extensive outages however, over the years, the department improved those reliability numbers. Even though certain events like wind, heat storms or earthquakes could affect those numbers, in 2007, there was a major wind storm with little impact in Anaheim, a result of the undergrounding program in effect combined with regular tree trimming, automation and aging infrastructure, investments that had been made routinely along with the undergrounding efforts. He indicated there had been a slight uptick in recent outages based on uncontrollable events such as vehicles hitting poles and balloons, tree limbs getting inside the power lines, as well as the department backing off on some of the reliability programs during the recession; but with the economy coming back, the department was reinvesting back into the system to reverse that trend. Mr. Lee stated that Anaheim Public Utilities performed 29 percent better because of its undergrounding program and even though it was four to five times more expensive than overhead equivalent systems, Anaheim had been thoughtful in how the program was implemented - a portion at a time over the years to achieve the successful results now being enjoyed. He added, residents and businesses received improved reliability for their investment in undergrounding, along with the aesthetic value. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 2 of 28 UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM: The program was established in 1990 with the goal of undergrounding major thoroughfares, and funded by a four percent electric surcharge on electric bills, about $2.50 per month for a typical residential home. Even with that surcharge, Anaheim's rates were about 17 percent less than other Orange County cities. The benefits were reliability, beautification of major roadways, and significantly improved street visibility. The approval process began with an underground subcommittee consisting of several Public Utility Board Members and Planning Commissioners, with the recommended five -year plan presented to the full Utility Board annually followed by submittal to the City Council. He noted that five -year plan was included on Council's agenda this evening. Project selection criteria was a balance of engineering and reliability and included the following: project coordination with Public Works Department to ensure work was done along with a street widening or other street project, having funding in place, ensuring the projects reflected geographic diversity throughout the city, and aesthetics. After a major undergrounding, he remarked, surveys were also conducted to make sure the department was aware of any impacts, with most comments received reflecting traffic congestion and access. Specifically to address those issues for major intersections, he pointed out the construction work occurred during weekends or evenings to minimize traffic during the day. Graffiti was also a concern and he stated staff had been using artificial ivy on utility boxes. Mr. Lee reported the Home Underground program had been in effect for five years for residents desiring to underground wires crossing their properties, a cost effective strategy during a home remodel or installation of a swimming pool. For residents not living on a major roadway wishing to take advantage of this program, they could see a rebate of their contribution over a period of time. Currently about 100 residents had taken advantage of this program and rebates of $25,000 had been given back to these customers. FIVE YEAR UNDERGROUND PLAN: This five year plan covered 14 projects, either those completed, under construction, in the design stages and under consideration for the future. COMPLETED: Brookhurst from Orange to Katella a $7.8 million project, 2.3 circuit miles, in concert with a street widening project, including SCE telecommunication carriers as well as the city's electric and fiber. A before and after photo showed the improvement to the aesthetics of this area. Douglass Road $.8 million, .3 circuit miles, also required coordination with Public Works Project as Douglass used to be a four lane street, but was being widened and lowered, and to keep utility poles out of the traffic lanes, the wires were undergrounded. IN PROGRESS: • Lincoln /Dale, $13.1 million, 3.4 circuit miles, construction scheduled for July 2013 — July 2015 • West/Westmont $6.6 million, 1.5 circuit miles, a project that would tie underground circuits on Loara and West for switching capability in case of outages to improve service reliability in that area. Mr. Lee added this was also a project that required coordination because of two schools being impacted and West Street being fairly narrow. To avoid traffic congestion with kids coming to and from school, construction occurred during last summer and this summer and any breaks in the school schedule to avoid disruption. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 3 of 28 Miraloma, $14.1 million, 6.7 circuit miles, a coordinated project with the first phase a small segment between the 57 and 91 freeways to remove power poles for the dedication of the Miraloma Family Resource Center. Phase 1 was under construction and targeted for completion this October and Phase 2 would begin later. Mr. Lee indicated this project would improve reliability as this was how the Canyon Power Plant fed the electric system. In addition, the department was introducing LED lights for their efficiency and long lasting use in a pilot program to give staff a chance to test customer acceptance in addition to the performance of the new lights. He explained the cost of the LED fixture had come down in price from $700 to $200, more in line with the $150 high pressure sodium light that had previously been used. Euclid was in design, $4.8 million, 1.3 circuit miles, with the design work 90 percent completed and staff working on a couple of easements with construction to begin next year. Lincoln /Rio Vista was also in design, with a small segment at the north end of the project crossing the 91 freeway added because some cable wires were hanging low on the freeway requiring stopping freeway traffic in order to maintain those wires. The scope was also expanded to include a portion of Lincoln which would then see Lincoln undergrounded from one end of the city to the other. NEW PROJECT PROPOSED: • Santa Ana Street, Vine to State College, Mr. Lee reported this project was proposed because there was a heavy concentration of power and communication lines on these poles and their removal would improve the roadway and service reliability. PLANNED PROJECTS: • Cerritos /Nutwood, a project that had been in the planning stages for some time. • La Palma /Sunkist, taking off where the Miraloma project ended and would complete Sunkist (Sunkist south of Lincoln had been completed a couple of years ago.) • Ball Road from Brookhurst to Euclid, would take away the concentration of wires from this area and improve service. • Olive/Vermont between State College and Anaheim Boulevard • La Palma /East from State College past Sycamore Junior High to East Street was added last year to clean up this stretch of roadway. • Added last year was Santa Ana Canyon Road and Royal Oak. Mr. Lee noted there were capacity issues on Santa Ana Canyon and instead of rebuilding the overhead lines, staff was proposing to underground and to include Royal Oak because of the maintenance issues on this steep embankment. Each member of the city council expressed their approval of the work being done and the very positive impacts this program had on the community. ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 4 of 28 Cecil Jordan Corcoran offered personal comments unrelated to the items on the closed session. At 4:35 P.M., Mayor Tait adjourned to closed session for consideration of the following items: CLOSED SESSION: 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Subdivision 54956.8 of the California Government Code) Property: 2000 East Gene Autry Way, Anaheim, CA (Angels Stadium of Anaheim) Agency Negotiator: Tom Morton Negotiating Parties: Angels Baseball, LP, Pacific Coast Investors, LLC, City of Anaheim Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment Regarding Lease City Council session was reconvened at 5:05 P.M. INVOCATION: Pastor Joel Van Soelen, Anaheim Christian Reformed Church FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tern Kris Murray PRESENTATIONS: Recognizing Street Maintenance Team members Joe Valdez and Carlos Ontiveros for their brave and heroic actions helping an injured community Dan DeBassio, Public Works Operations Manager, announced that on April 30 during Santa Ana wind - related calls Joe Valdez and Carlos Ontiveros assisted a driver pinned behind the steering wheel of a vehicle that had crashed into a tree, retrieving fire extinguishers to put out the engine fire until the Fire Department was able to respond to the scene. On behalf of the Anaheim community, Mayor Tait thanked the men for their quick- thinking and courageous response. ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date): Proclaiming May 26 - September 1, 2014, as Water Safety Awareness Campaign Fire Marshall Jeff Lutz accepted this proclamation highlighting the water safety awareness campaign from Memorial Day to Labor Day, reminding all that drowning was the number one cause of accidental deaths in children under the age of five. At 5:18 P.M., Mayor Tait called to order the Housing Authority and Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority (in joint session with the Anaheim City Council). ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDAS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (all agenda items, except public hearings): Prior to opening the floor for public comments, Mayor Tait invited OCTA representatives to the podium to provide updates to the Council. Tresa Oliveri, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), updated the community on the Orangethorpe Corridor Grade Separation project to reconstruct Orangethorpe as a bridge City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 5 of 28 allowing vehicles to pass over the BNSF rail tracks to separate rail and roadway traffic. She explained that because of the angle that Orangethorpe crossed over the tracks, the bridge that was needed to carry vehicles over the tracks was a substantial structure and due to the complexity of utility relocations, the construction schedule was impacted and OCTA staff in consultation with the cities of Anaheim and Placentia studied this impact to select an option to offer the best chance to regain the delay and mitigate potentially high cost increases. OCTA Program Manager Ross Liu, reported four options were developed: Option 1) no mitigations of the delay; i.e. proceed with construction as shown on current plans by maintaining the Orangethorpe bypass road with one lane in each direction (east/west) and close /reconstruct Orangethorpe /Chapman Avenue for a period of one year to raise up the intersection. He commented Orangethorpe was a grade separation that traveled over the railroad tracks by about 30 feet, which meant the local streets tying into Orangethorpe would also have to be raised and the intersection would be closed for a year in order to build it up. In addition as part of that original plan, the Orangethorpe Avenue bridge would be built in two stages and with no mitigation, there would be 300 days delay and associated costs of up to $1 million. Option 2 was to close Orangethorpe Avenue and maintain the Orangethorpe /Chapman detour, closing it from east of Chapman Avenue to west of Miller Street until the spring of 2016 and allowing the contractor to build the Orangethorpe Avenue bridge in one stage through that closure. He added unlike Option 1, in which Chapman and Orangethorpe would be closed for about a year, this option would maintain that intersection through various substages and there would always be a Chapman / Orangethorpe detour. The overall result would be a minimized delay of about 200 days and associated costs up to $600,000. Option 3 was full closure of everything, including Orangethorpe and the Orangethorpe /Chapman intersection until the spring of 2016, allowing the contractor to mobilize forces and complete the project without accommodating any of the through movements for the traveling public. Mr. Lieu indicated this option would significantly reduce the delay, and would realize a cost saving because of the combining of various stages and at the need for fewer temporary measures, a savings of about $250,000. Option 4, the Orangethorpe Avenue closure with early Chapman Avenue opening, would close Orangethorpe Avenue from east of Chapman Avenue to west of Miller Street until the spring of 2016 and allow the contractor to build the main Orangethorpe Bridge in one stage. The contractor would also expedite the Chapman / Orangethorpe intersection for about 9 -12 months and the closure for that intersection would not occur until January 2015. Mr. Liu explained through staff's partnering efforts with both cities, Option 4 was collectively identified as the best option to complete the project with the least amount of scheduled delays and disruption to the traveling public. OCTA recognized that the closure would divert traffic onto nearby streets and conducted a traffic analysis which identified the need for signal retiming and restriping at several key intersections to facilitate the detours. Ms. Oliveri presented Council with a brochure that would be hand delivered to all addresses as far north as Yorba Linda Boulevard, south to the 91, over to Kraemer on the West and Van Buren to the east adding that a one page flyer would be used in connection with various social media. She noted that outreach had been held with the communities adjacent to the closure over the course of a couple of years and contacts had been developed. While a specific date on when that road closure would occur was not identified yet, the neighborhood understood the City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 6 of 28 nature of the closure and why it was necessary. In addition bus transit operations were on board with the plan and staff would be meeting in advance of the closure with emergency responders to explain how the detour worked and to make any adjustments necessary on their behalf. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Prior to receipt of public comments, a brief decorum statement was provided by City Clerk, Linda Andal. Cecil Jordan Corcoran, Outreach Homeless Ministries, offered prayers for peace for Israel, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Kurt Vanderwest returned to thank Council and staff for their assistance with a problem associated with a related commercial property lease. Bruce Budovec remarked his neighborhood of 108 homes had been impacted by spillover parking from an adjoining apartment complex to the west for the last two years. In an effort to find a solution, the community met with Public Works and approved parking permits; he urged Council's approval of Agenda Item No. 16. Daniel DeMeyere, resident, discussed the Brookhurst Street Widening project, citing construction delays, issues with the contractor, trash at the site and the need for code enforcement during Islamic Society meetings. Ken Smith, resident, remarked the fruit that had fallen from palm trees from North Street to La Palma Park and from Anaheim Boulevard to Lemon Street was a problem for people walking in the areas, occurring because tree maintenance had stopped. Regarding Zion and North Street, he added the auto repair shop parked vehicles for more than two to three days on both streets impacting visibility for cars at that intersection and causing accidents. He recommended a four - way stop sign to alleviate the problem, with Mayor Tait requesting staff look into that suggestion. James Robert Reade read an online posting from his manuelangeldiaz.com website Maria Mazzenga Avellaneda, remarked Pathways of Hope was purchasing property they had been leasing from the Anaheim Interfaith Shelter and running a Halcyon program and looked forward to a continuing partnership with Anaheim. Her agency had been working with the homeless collaborative as well as the Anaheim Police Resource Group, offering motel vouchers for families and individuals, food certificates as well as rental assistance and rapid rehousing. Ms. Avellaneda addressed the successful outcome of their programs, remarking Pathways to Hope had been rebuilding the lives of the hungry and homeless for 40 years. The facility would be rehabbed in the fall with a grant from the Children of Families Commission and from the state with funding to operate for several years and she invited council and the community to visit. Les Gonzales remarked that the GOALS program was involved in a summer community service program for its cadets and thanked the city for assisting with their recent parks cleanup program. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, offered his personal and political opinion on a number of issues. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 7 of 28 Paul Flanagan spoke in support of Item No. 16, parking permits for Tedmar Avenue, thanking his neighbors for leading the effort to find a solution to spillover parking for his neighborhood. Charles Lance, Yellow Cab of Greater Orange County, spoke in support of the Anaheim Convention Center expansion /financing. He remarked without expansion Anaheim would lose several major conventions that represented lost revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Related to Angels Baseball, Mr. Lance remarked they had brought pride and attention to Anaheim with All Star Games and World Series wins and was necessary to make Anaheim a world class city. He added the construction of ARTIC and the ARC trolley would have little value if the Angels were gone and if the Convention Center was not expanded. Jeff Schultz, a former Honda Center employee questioned why two medical dispensary shops were still operating in Anaheim when there was a moratorium in effect. Mayor Pro Tern Murray responded there were legal reasons why all dispensary operations were not closed at this point, however, the numbers had been reduced from 120 to 10 and the city was continuing to address the remaining businesses. Jerry O'Keefe stated there were forgotten alleys in Anaheim with debris and graffiti prevalent. He suggested an Adopt -an -Alley program similar to those used on freeways be considered as a method to maintain the alleys. Larry Rosenberg, Anaheim Ballet, remarked a free performance was available at Pearson Park this Friday, inviting the community to come out and see 35 -40 young international ballet students perform. Genevieve Huizar discussed her son's memorial, asking that it be allowed to remain on Anna Drive, and that the city respond to her request in writing. Jerry Alder, GardenWalk manager, spoke in support of the Convention Center expansion. Having worked in the hospitality industry in many states, he recognized the competitive environment of tourism and the fragility of this type of economy if it did not get due care and support. Ross McCune, Chamber of Commerce, thanked Mayor Pro Tern Murray for supporting Proposition 13 remarking it should be retained for both residents and businesses in California Cynthia Ward stated CATER would stand in support of a letter sent earlier by Cory Briggs and would join in opposition to general fund obligations related to the Convention Center expansion. She strongly opposed the financing mechanism and expressed her distress with a Council that would vote to approve it. She wanted her voice to be heard and the right to vote on bonds that she believed was an obligation of the city's general fund. Tony Bruno, resident, commented the hospitality community was one of vitality because of the leadership which had made tough decisions over the years resulting in a strong economy. He urged Council to vote in support of the Convention Center expansion. Gloria Ma'ae explained she had sat on several boards and was an involved member of the community, offering her full support on the Convention Center expansion for the jobs it would create, the economy it would grow and to lift Anaheim up to a higher level. Related to districting, she believed that every Anaheim citizen should be allowed to vote on Council City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 8 of 28 Members collectively and that creating separate districts would create a further divide in the community. Rose, in support of the Convention Center expansion, requesting those in favor to stand up and be counted. As leaders of this community, she asked for council's help in retaining Angels Baseball and to keep the Convention Center sustainable. Jose Moreno remarked while Anaheim might be a world class city, not all of its residents lived in world class conditions and the revenues brought into Anaheim were not always distributed or shared equally among the neighborhoods. He stated in the city school district, 89 percent of the students were living in working or abject poverty, emphasizing if the Convention Center expansion moved forward, it should be done in a manner to bring community benefits to be shared by all neighborhoods and agreements that offered living wages rather than more poverty jobs. Related to Proposition 13, he pointed out the dire effects it had on local school funding as localized resources and funding went to Sacramento rather than the local sphere. He recommended that concern included in the proposed resolution in support of Prop 13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Pro Tern Murray addressed the prior speaker's comments by announcing that there was a map of the city in the lobby which showed where capital improvement funding had been earmarked for the next two years and where it had been spent over the last ten years. She emphasized it was predominantly going to Anaheim's most distressed neighborhoods, principally in the downtown and western area. In addition, there was also a report on the city website that showed the allocation of services to neighborhoods equally distributed to residents across the city and that the misinformation given by the prior speaker was wrong. She remarked Anaheim had the luxury of investing in its neighborhoods because the Resort District, the Convention Center and the Stadium provided jobs and an economic return to the city and because of it, this Council just adopted the most significant neighborhood investment budget in decades, and that information as well was available for anyone to corroborate. Council Member Kring indicated an earlier public speaker said the Charter gave the public the right to vote on the bond issuance because the financing for the Convention Center financing was general obligation bonds. She stated that was not true, revenue bonds were being issued which were bonds with a specific revenue identified for payment of that bond obligation. She indicated that general obligation bonds were used for public improvement projects such as putting sewer systems into place and required a vote of the public because general fund monies would be used. Council Member Kring also pointed out Mayor Tait voted for $500 million in lease revenue bonds to beautify the resort in the 90's as well as the for last expansion of the convention center which opened in January of 2000 emphasizing that the city had never defaulted on any payment. Mayor Tait disagreed with statements made, remarking this was a $15 to $17 million debt for 30 years and that spending $200 million in the Resort District dwarfed any spending that had been authorized for neighborhoods. CITY MANAGER'S UPDATE: None At 6:31 P.M., the council session was adjourned for the Housing Authority agenda and reconvened at 6:32 P.M. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 9 of 28 CONSENT CALENDAR: Mayor Tait announced that on advice from the City Attorney regarding a potential conflict of interest related to Orange County Transportation Agency, he would abstain from voting on Item No. 8. Council Member Kring moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to adopt the consent calendar as presented in accordance with reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each city council member and as listed on the consent calendar, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried. B105 2. Receive and file minutes of the Community Services Board meeting of May 15, 2014 and Library Board meeting of June 9, 2014. D117 3. Approve the Investment Portfolio Report for June 2014. D182 4. Approve the proposed Five -Year Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Years 2014/15 to 2018/19. 5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Interior Demolition, Inc., in the amount of $903,590.56, for the right -of -way clearing and demolition for the Brookhurst AGR -8303 Street Improvement Project from 1 -5 to the SR -91 and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Creative Home dba Chi AGRO8304 Construction, in the amount of $552,587 for the Rehabilitation of Burruel Water Storage Facility Project and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 7. Approve the Agreement for Purchase and Sale and Escrow Instructions with Tony AGR -8305 Garnica and Blanche Garnica, in the purchase price amount of $100,000, for property located at 650 South Western Avenue for the sidewalk improvements along Western Avenue (R/W ACQ 2014 - 00484). 8. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Master Funding Agreement No. C -1 -2754 with the Orange AGR - 6879.2 County Transportation Authority which will revise the agreement's amendment numbering convention and make minor revisions to the sections dealing with the City's delegation of authority and the audits and inspections for the M2 Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program. Mayor Tait recorded an abstention. Motion to approve by Council Member Kring, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 4: (Mayor Pro Tem Murray and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman and Murray). NOES — 0. ABSTENTION — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried. 9. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with Smart City Networks Limited AGR- 1716.A.1 Partnership authorizing the Convention Center's Executive Director, or his designee, the ability to extend the current agreement, under the existing terms, on a month -to -month basis until such time as mutual agreement on the terms and provisions of a successor agreement may be reached and the City Council has given its approval thereof. D155 10. Approve and authorize the Director of Community Development, to execute and administer the assignment of existing loans and any related documents, held by City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 10 of 28 Anaheim Interfaith Shelter to Pathways of Hope to allow Pathways of Hope to move forward with the purchase and rehabilitation of the property located at 626 Pauline in Anaheim. 11. Approve and authorize the Director of Community Development to execute and D155 administer a Relocation Plan, in substantial form, and all related documents implementing the Lincoln Avenue Apartments project located at 1256 -1290 East Lincoln Avenue and 113 -117 South Fahrion Place, in order to issue the proper notices and provide the necessary relocation assistance (related to Housing Authority Item No. 01). AGR -8306 12. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -128 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, appointing Robert Shannon as the City Hearing Officer pursuant to Section 1. 12.110 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and approving an agreement for Hearing Officer services with Robert Shannon. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF AGR - 4032.x.1 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police, or his designee, to submit a grant application on behalf of the City of Anaheim to the California Office of Emergency Services, for the 2014 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program, and if awarded, authorizing the acceptance of such grant on behalf of the City and amending the budget for fiscal year 2014 -15 accordingly. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Santa Ana for the 2014 Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant Program. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF P124 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein (City Deed No. 11706). 15. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -131 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 28 (Bel Air) and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3). 16. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM expanding Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 25 and designating Tedmar Avenue from Loara Street to Arden Street and Adria Place from Tedmar Avenue to south end of Adria Place as "Permit Parking Only" street within Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 25 and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Regulation No. 15061(b)(3). 17. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -133 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating north side of Vermont Avenue from Cottonwood Circle to Citron Street as "Permit Parking Only" street within Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 19. 18. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -134 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating Carl Street from Riles Circle to south end of Carl Street, Omega Avenue from Sunkist Street to east end of Omega Avenue, Riles Circle City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 11 of 28 from Carl Street to Lark Ellen Lane, Lark Ellen Lane from Carl Street to Riles Circle, and Shirley Street from Sunkist Street to Carl Street as "Permit Parking Only" street within Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 27. 19. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -135 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF D175 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM designating east side of Vintage Lane from Cypress Street to south end of Vintage Lane as "Permit Parking Only" street within Permit - Eligible Parking District No. 26. 20. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -136 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 8100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM requesting temporary closures to Caltrans 1 -5 offramps for Disneyland Half Marathon (August 31, 2014; southbound 1 -5 at Harbor Boulevard, southbound 1 -5 at Disney Way, northbound 1 -5 at Katella Avenue). 21. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF C430 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the "Anaheim Master Plan of Storm Drainage for North and West Santa Ana River Tributary Areas May 2014." D114 22. Approve minutes of the Council meetings of June 10, 2014 and June 17, 2014 END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: 23. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -138 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF R100 THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, in support of Proposition 13 (People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation). Greg Garcia, Deputy City Manager, announced this item was a resolution in support of Proposition 13 as requested by Mayor Pro Tern Murray at the previous City Council meeting. He indicated Prop 13 had been approved in 1978 to decrease tax rates on homes while also capping rate increases for the future and this resolution recognized the positive impact this legislation had on California and affirmed Council's support for the initiative. Mayor Tait remarked Prop 13 had kept property taxes down in California, especially for those with fixed incomes and moved to approve the resolution. Discussion: Mayor Pro Tern Murray remarked this was an important statement for the city to make because California had a high property tax rate as well as a high regulatory burden for residents and businesses and it was important that the fundamentals of Prop 13 remained in place and that the city made a statement of support. Mayor Tait moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -138 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, in support of Proposition 13 (People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation), seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 12 of 28 24. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of proposed amendments to Section 1221 (Utility Rates) of the City Charter to the qualified electors E127 of the City at the General Municipal Election previously called and consolidated on November 4, 2014 (Measure No. _ —Anaheim Local Services Measure), authorizing and setting priorities for the filing of written arguments to be submitted to the electors of the City; providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the charter amendment measure. Dukku Lee, Public Utilities General Manager, presented an overview of Anaheim's utility rates in comparison to other investor -owned utilities that served about 2/3 of California including all Orange County cities, excluding Anaheim. As a not for profit entity, he noted Anaheim's rates were based on the costs to serve, with the Anaheim Public Utilities Board (APUC) made up of Anaheim citizens providing the necessary oversight on the development of rates and Council having final approval. Investor -owned utilities had shareholders and were authorized a rate of return on their investments by the State's Public Utilities Commission (PUC). He pointed out as a city department, Anaheim did not pay local taxes or franchise fees, that investor -owned utilities did and in lieu of such considerations, four percent of revenues were transferred to the general fund. He emphasized that even with the transfer, Anaheim's rates for both electricity and water were low in comparison to other Orange County cities and that Anaheim did not apply a utility user's tax on top of the General Fund (GF) transfer. Mr. Lee reported that Section 1221 of the City Charter authorized Council to set utility rates specifically to cover operations, debt service, financial reserves, capital improvements and the GF transfer. Historically that transfer was first approved by the voters in 1976 at eight (8) percent, reduced to six (6) percent in 1977 and then four (4) percent the 3r year. In 1990, the transfer was approved by voters once again and the phased in language was removed and remained today at four percent. In comparison to other southern California cities that operated municipal utilities, Mr. Lee remarked Anaheim's transfer was modest and included no utility user's tax. The transfer amounts also varied from city to city with Anaheim at the lowest and Glendale the highest at 25 percent along with a utility user's tax of seven (7) percent. Proposed Amendments to Section 1221 Mr. Lee stated there were four proposed amendments. The first was to clarify the transfer was based on operating revenue and that the change would make accounting practices consistent with charter language as operating revenues excluded items such as restricted income, bond proceeds or reimbursements. There was no change to the four percent language and it would not increase utility rates. The second amendment dealt with financial reserves and the current language identified debt service. Although it did not restrict the use of reserves for emergencies, the change would ensure that the types of contingencies were not prescriptive. For example, he stated, if fuel prices were to spike or there was a loss of major resources, staff would look to use reserves to cover any immediate financial requirements to continue providing electricity and water. The third amendment dealt with rate options, to allow for several rate options for customers not calculated strictly based on cost but with other considerations or requirements. For example, he mentioned, the city offered a ten (10) percent senior and disabled discount for those who were income qualified, a modest reduction that helped some of the most vulnerable in our community. In addition, Anaheim also followed state law and offered net - metering rates for those with solar panels. The fourth proposed amendment dealt with customer assistance programs such as conservation rebates for electricity and water. During this drought, he explained, the City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 13 of 28 department was applying for grants that increased incentive levels and the amendment would clarify that these types of programs were available to schools, non - profits and businesses as well as residents. City Attorney Michael Houston added that as part of Prop 218 settlement entitled Wilson v. City of Anaheim which was resolved earlier this year, city voters were asked to consider a 2014 ballot measure or stop making water - related general fund transfers until such a measure was put to a ballot or approved by the voters. Prop 218 required that such tax measures on city services be voted upon during general elections when voters were also voting for members of the governing body of a board that may be increasing or enacting or otherwise taking action on a tax. A recent settlement agreement in unrelated litigation, the Moreno litigation which challenged the city's at large electoral system, required the city to meet and confer with the plaintiffs in that matter prior to taking action to place any additional measures on the November ballot. Mr. Houston indicated staff accomplished the meet and confer obligation under the Moreno settlement agreement, and the attorneys for the plaintiffs expressed no further desire to meet and confer, therefore he believed that obligation was fully satisfied and there was no reason to prohibit Council's ability to place this measure on the November ballot. Debbie Moreno, Finance Director, reiterated there was no increase in the utility rates from this proposed action, it simply maintained the general fund transfer at the current four percent level. The General Fund provided core services such as police, fire, recreation programs and libraries and if this item was approved by voters, city services could further be enhanced by about $2.5 million each year. She stated a plan would be presented at the mid -year budget review to look at funding options, such as Council's request to prioritize funding for 10 additional police officers each year to address the Fire Department's update of their Strategic Plan to provide quality fire services and for other various neighborhood priorities. Mr. Lee ended the presentation remarked it was staff's recommendation to submit Charter Section 1221 proposed amendments to the voters for the November 4 th election. Council Member Kring remarked in essence these amendments addressed current practices with Mr. Lee responding it was clarification language to ensure accounting practices were consistent with charter language and then to submit the proposed amendments back to the voters to reaffirm what they had voted upon in 1976 and again in 1990. She asked who would write the ballot argument, with Mr. Houston responding this resolution authorized any member of the Council to write ballot arguments or certain organizations or individual citizens, however, city staff was not permitted to write ballot arguments in favor of this measure. Mayor Tait inquired if the recently approved budget included the four percent transfer with Ms. Moreno replying that it was shown as funds coming in but also going out to a holding fund while staff awaited the results of the election and was not included as revenues needed for appropriations for general city services. Mayor Tait remarked this was essentially a tax and therefore required a vote of the public and if not approved, the monies would stay in Public Utilities and could benefit the ratepayers. He added there might be good reasons to approve this, but with businesses struggling he would not support putting it on the ballot at this time. Mayor Pro Tern Murray explained because of the severe drought situation and not knowing future rates or other service needs, she would move to postpone this item, seconded by Council Member Eastman. The City Clerk pointed out August 8 th was the deadline to submit a measure to the voters for the November ballot and although the Council may call a special meeting prior City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 14 of 28 to the 8 ", the next regularly scheduled Council meeting was August 12 ", after the deadline. Ms. Murray remarked this was an item of such significance that she believed there should be more than one public hearing before putting it on the ballot. Discussion: Council Member Brandman disagreed, remarking this was a transfer of utility revenues, not a tax, reflective of monies that had been transferred for decades and would codify a practice that had been going on for generations. He stated settlement had been reached and the intention was to put this on the ballot this year and get this money back into the general fund. Council Member Kring concurred with Mr. Brandman, stating this was not a tax, that many other cities had been sued and if not placed on the November ballot, the earliest time those funds could be put back into the general fund was November of 2016, millions of dollars that could be applied towards core services. Ms. Moreno, in response to a query by Mayor Pro Tern Murray, stated that by June 30, 2014, there would be about $4.8 million on hold, increasing to $5.6 million by the November 2014 election. Council Member Eastman asked if these amendments had been vetted by the Public Utilities Board with Mr. Lee remarking the PUB was supportive of this recommendation with no dissenting vote. MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM: Motion by Mayor Pro Tern Murray, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 2: (Mayor Tait and Mayor Pro Tern Murray). NOES — 3: (Council Members Brandman, Eastman and Kring). Motion to table failed. Council Member Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -139 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ordering the submission of proposed amendments to Section 1221 (Utility Rates) of the City Charter to the qualified electors of the City at the General Municipal Election previously called and consolidated on November 4, 2014 (Measure No. _ —Anaheim Local Services Measure), authorizing and setting priorities for the filing of written arguments to be submitted to the electors of the City; providing for the filing of rebuttal arguments; and directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the charter amendment measure, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 3: (Council Members Brandman, Eastman and Kring). NOES — 2: (Mayor Tait and Mayor Pro Tem Murray). Motion Carried. 25. Consider appointments to City Boards and Commissions to fill an unscheduled vacancy on the Community Center Authority, term ending June 30, 2016 and Sister City B105 Commission, term ending June 30, 2015. Community Center Authority: Appointment: Paul Walters (term ending June 30, 2016) (unscheduled vacancy of Maurice Turner) Council Member Kring nominated Paul Waters to the Community Center Authority appointment, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray. Council Member Eastman nominated Oscar Reyes. Vote for Mr. Walters: AYES — 4; ABSTENTION — 1; Council Member Eastman indicated she would approve Mr. Walters and changed her vote; Mr. Walters was unanimously appointed to the Community Center Authority. Sister City Commission: Appointment: (term ending June 30, 2015) (unscheduled vacancy of Russell Lahodny) City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 15 of 28 Council Member Brandman requested this appointment be continued to a meeting in September to allow time for a report on the goals and objectives of this commission, seconded by Council Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried. At 7:04 P.M., the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority were convened in joint session with the City Council. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: (Housing & Public Improvements Authority /City Council) 27. This is a joint public hearing to consider resolutions regarding the proposed financing of costs of certain improvements to the Anaheim Convention Center, located at 800 West B137.1 Katella Avenue and refinancing of certain capital improvements by the issuance and sale of bonds of the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority, and the determination of significant public benefits from taking that action, in accordance with the criteria specified in Section 6586 of the California Government Code. RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, approving, authorizing and directing the execution of certain documents (as described and identified in this resolution) relating to the issuance of bonds by the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority (issuance of the authority not to exceed $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount), and other matters relating thereto; making findings of significant public benefits; determining such actions are exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15060(c)(3), 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5); and determining that the previously - certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2008 -00340 (as described in this resolution) serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed actions Mr. Emery introduced the item remarking after considerable discussion in previous meetings regarding the Anaheim Convention Center expansion, the financing of that expansion was again before council with a staff recommendation to move forward. He added staff would not be bringing this effort forward if they did not believe it made sense and that the real risk was to do nothing. Debbie Moreno, Finance Director, introduced Eugene Carron with Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliff, bond counsel, Mike Berwanger of PFM, financial advisor and Tom Morton, Convention, Sports & Entertainment Director. She reiterated this item was a financing plan to complete the approved expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center for the following reasons: 1) to ensure its continued success as a meeting and convention destination, 2) to attract high yield meeting intensive business, 3) to hold concurrent conventions and maximize the economic impact of peaks and valleys in hotel room occupancies and 4) to replace Car Park 1 parking structure. She indicated this expansion has been discussed in the industry since 2008, and it became obvious, as the economy worsened during this last recession that the city was not going to be able to do this on its own. She stated staff had worked with the Visitors & Convention Bureau (VCB) and the hoteliers in the resort and Platinum Triangle to form the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District (ATID) in September 2010. These hoteliers agreed to self- assess two percent of the revenues they received from room sales to pay for improved marketing and promotions of the Anaheim destination and to contribute to future transportation projects. In City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 16 of 28 return, she explained, the city would prioritize expanding the Convention Center because it would no longer need to pay the VCB from the general fund. In 2010 the amount that was freed up through the ATID was about $6 million which was used to pay for the Grand Plaza expansion and could now be used for the next phase of the convention center expansion. She added that funding for the VCB had been calculated on a percentage of the transient occupancy tax (TOT) generated so that annual amount fluctuated. Today, she noted, it reflected about $8 million which left $2 million to provide services to the community. She indicated the goals were standard with any financing in today's market; i.e. taking advantage of historically low interest rates, creating the lowest cost options to finance the project, maintaining level lease payments and maintaining Anaheim's credit ratings. One important goal, she remarked, was to accomplish this without increasing the annual lease payments the general fund made. Four questions were considered as a checklist to proceed with this plan: was there a return on Resort investment, did the expansion create a net benefit, could the city afford it and did it benefit the entire community. Referencing the first question of whether there was a return on Resort investments, Ms. Moreno remarked the Resort generated 50 percent of the general fund taxes coming from transient occupancy taxes (TOT), sales and use taxes, property taxes, and business license taxes. The portion of those revenues coming directly from the Resort was broken down as follows: 90 percent of TOT, 20 percent of sales taxes, 15 percent of property taxes and 10 percent of businesses licenses, collectively bringing into the general fund about $130 million. She stated the largest expenses for the Resort were lease payments for the 1997 Resort expansion and several other small capital improvement projects. And, since the city no longer paid for marketing and promotions, after these expenses were paid, about $67 million remained to provide for general fund services such as police, fire, parks, and libraries, a significant return on investment in the Resort. To answer the question was there a net benefit from the proposed expansion, Ms. Moreno stated Crossroads Consulting was hired to perform a marketing and economic analysis of the expansion specifically because they were experts in the field, had never been involved in the project with no opinion of the overall plan, and their detailed research and conservative estimates indicated Anaheim would gain significant new revenues totaling $380 million. These new revenues would be made up predominantly of TOT and would also include additional sales and use taxes. Additionally, the Convention Center would retain existing shows and conventions in an amount of $164 million that Anaheim would not otherwise retain. She remarked this amount was mainly due to TOT but also included a large portion of operating revenues the convention center received for rentals that would now be available to pay their day to day operations. The total new and retained revenues would be $545 million. Ms. Moreno reported on the expenditure side, lease payments for the Convention Center expansion and the replacement of Car Park 1 totaled almost $418 million, leaving an economic benefit of $127 million which meant the expansion was estimated to return $127 million more than it cost to construct over a 30 year period. She added taking that figure a step further and adding the estimated $450 million marketing and promotion costs that the city would have previously paid to the VCB through year 2046, Anaheim would see a total benefit from this expansion of $577 million. Mayor Tait asked if Ms. Moreno was referring to the ATID figure and she replied in the affirmative, that the figure reflected the amount hoteliers were assessing themselves which could be potentially lost if the ATID was dismantled as a result of not expanding. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 17 of 28 To answer the question can we afford this, Ms. Moreno stated there was currently about $85 million in existing GF lease obligations other than the 1997 resort improvements and they would begin to mature and be paid off in 2019. By refinancing about $53 million of that debt, those previous capital improvement obligations would be paid off sooner than originally scheduled saving about $17 million in interest and when the new lease payments for the proposed expansion was added in with the previous capital improvements, it was expected that the annual lease payment would be at or lower than $17 million per year, roughly equal to the existing debt payment. She explained that would mean any new incremental revenues received could be immediately used to provide general fund services, because the total debt obligation would be no more than it was today, and would therefore be considered affordable. As to whether the expansion benefitted the entire community, Ms. Moreno commented that the best way to answer that was to look at the overall impact to the General Fund. If the fund was better off, then it followed that the community would be better off because the General Fund was where all core services were provided. Ms. Moreno detailed what would happen if the Convention Center expansion did not occur and the city did not pay off the previous capital improvement debts. A graph using the mid -point of 15 years of a 30 year debt obligation showed the annual difference in revenue stream from the Resort with and without the expansion; the overall Resort taxes would be less with no expansion because there would be no new revenues and some of the existing revenue stream was lost, $186.5 million versus $203.9 million with the expansion. Ms. Moreno indicated under the "do nothing" scenario, the 1997 Resort lease payments would be less which meant the lease would not be paid down as fast and other general fund lease payments would be less, but the city still had to pay about $2.9 million each year to replace Car Park 1. Without the expansion there was also the potential of having to fund the marketing and promotions now being paid by ATID estimated at the 2010 level at $6 million. At the end of 15 years, she stated it was estimated that the net Resort tax revenues would be almost $116 million with the expansion and $109 million if no expansion. Furthermore, over a 30 year horizon, the "do nothing" scenario would drop below zero because there would still be existing lease payments of $11.5 million, the payment for marketing, promotions, and the parking structure, and the results of lost revenues. The expansion scenario showed that at year 30, there would be more than $20 million available to the general fund, and $10 million available much earlier. She further stated over the course of 15 years, it was conservatively estimated that the general fund would be better off by $115 million and $320 million over a 30 year period, therefore the expansion would be a benefit to the entire community. Ms. Moreno also pointed out there was risk to the general fund if revenues did not come in as anticipated, but if the analysis was only half right, the city would still expect to be better off in any given year and $161 million over 30 years. She emphasized a delay in the expansion would likely only increase construction and borrowing costs that would reduce the amount of benefit for the community and not expanding would likely result in a reduction of convention center revenue that the general fund would have to make up and those general fund revenues would begin to decline in the near future. Those four questions used as a guideline to proceed had been answered and Ms. Moreno believed that based on the information provided and the city's partnership with the hotel industry that freed up this funding, there was much to be gained for the city by this expansion and it was her recommendation that the City Council and the Housing and Public Improvements Authority approve the financing plan for the Convention Center Expansion. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 18 of 28 Mayor Tait questioned how the Resort benefit figures were acquired with Ms. Moreno responding there were two sources, the return on Resort benefits was based on estimates put together in the Finance Department. Staff was able to track large tax revenues geographically and estimated which portion came from the Resort, and used known lease payments that supported the Resort plus other reasonable indicators for services levels in the Resort, such as calls for service for police and fire. Mayor Tait remarked that not all revenues from the Resort District came from convention business and that most were a result of tourism as opposed to conventions. Ms. Moreno concurred adding there would be a larger portion staff had specifically identified as leisure and travel but those two pieces went together. Mayor Tait asked how many room nights resulted from Convention Center attendees, because if those room nights were increased due to the expansion, the assumption was those taxes could come back to the city's general fund. Ms. Moreno stated the Crossroads Study indicated for the three year average from FY 2010 to FY 2012, the room nights generated from the Convention Center was 773,000. Mayor Tait believed that number was closer to 400,000. He then inquired what the increased number of room nights would be as a result of the expansion with Ms. Moreno responding it was estimated to be between 998,000 - 1,056,000, around a 35 -45 percent increase. Mayor Pro Tern Murray inquired if there was a positive impact projected for the general fund as a result of this financing plan with Ms. Moreno responding there would be an increased revenue stream for the city. She then asked how many bonds had been approved over the years and if the city had ever defaulted with Ms. Moreno replying that over the last 20 years the city had about 40 issues of lease revenue bonds and had never defaulted nor had any impact to the general fund as a result of not meeting expectations with revenues. Ms. Murray emphasized the $450 million that was freed up because ATID was in place and would be generated over the life of this financing plan more than covered the lease payments the city was anticipating over that same period and essentially privately funded the expansion. Ms. Moreno responded that was the anticipated plan. Mayor Pro Tern Murray queried the City Attorney as to whether there was any legal or ethical reason that this action would be prohibited with Mr. Houston responding that were no ethical or legal prohibitions to the action before the Council and this statement also reflected the opinions of bond counsel and outside counsel who were present this evening. Mayor Tait opened the hearing for comments from the public. Anthony Barron stated he worked in the trade show installers union and had enjoyed the benefits of past convention expansions. He added there was overwhelming community support for this project, backed by the unions, as well as successful results from past expansions, asking the council's approval on this item. Keith Harkey remarked on a personal level his father helped construct the original convention facility in 1966 and as a building trades member, he wanted the Anaheim /OC economy to be as successful as possible. With attractions that inspired people to visit, the infrastructure needed to get here, and the knowledge that this industry brought in over $9.6 billion in 2013, he supported the expansion and the need to be competitive with San Diego, Los Angeles and Boston, venues that were increasing their size as well. Ernesto Medrano, Local 952, stated he and his members viewed this expansion as an investment, not an expense and without it trade shows and the accompanying jobs would be lost, jobs that were important to those who were less affluent. On a personal note, as a young man he helped pull in 600 pound crates to set up exhibits, a job that was well paid and helped City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 19 of 28 pay for college and rent. He pointed out that not all were poverty wage jobs as had been categorized earlier and urged city leaders to have the vision to invest in the future. Douglas Robbins, representing Painters and the Trades, supported the expansion for the desperately needed construction jobs it would create and because it would secure Anaheim as a top destination for future tradeshows and keep up with the growing needs of NAMM and Whole Foods which were quickly outgrowing existing facilities. He asked council to look at this as an investment in Anaheim's future and to give their approval. Ron Miller, LA/OC Building Trades, urged council to move ahead and finance the expansion, adding that he represented 140,000 skilled construction workers in 50 local unions within 14 trades. In Los Angeles, he remarked, hotels were under construction, a new expansion was in the design phase and it was a space race among cities to compete for top trade shows. He urged council to make the difficult decision, move forward and see it prosper. Steve Saybrook, resident, spoke in support of the expansion, stating it would bring in more business, retain top tradeshows and attract bigger and better shows for the future, thus increasing future revenues for Anaheim. Andrew Edwards, speaking on behalf of Ranch Restaurant & Saloon and Extron Electronics, asked for Council's support for the expansion. He explained in 2000, he was on a board of an association booking conventions and they came to Anaheim that year, however, his group did not return because the space was not large enough for their trade show and were now going to Las Vegas and Orlando. He added trade shows must commit years in advance and decisions made today were long lasting and he urged Council to move forward with this investment. Glen Nolty, United Association Plumbers, Steamfitters, Welders and Apprentices, remarked he represented hundreds of pipe trade workers that lived in Anaheim and thousands who resided in Orange and surrounding counties. He reported San Diego approved a $520 million expansion to their convention in 2012, increasing their floor space by 33 percent and was scheduled to open in 2015. He believed the leadership of this City Council would affect the community for decades to come and along with high speed rail and ARTIC, the expansion was the last piece to a successful future. Robert Donahue, Disneyland Resort/ VCB Board of Directors, remarked Anaheim was fortunate to have one of the premier tourist destinations but in order to keep larger and more profitable conventions and attract new conventions, Anaheim must continue to invest to remain competitive. He believed the risk of not expanding was far too great and that the loss of current and future business would have a detrimental impact on the entire Resort area. He emphasized the hoteliers in the Resort, Garden Grove, and the Platinum Triangle formed ATID because they understood the benefit of promoting and enhancing the area as a whole. He encouraged Council to support this expansion. Roy Afusia, union member, spoke in support of the expansion, remarking the people had put their trust in the city council to make the right decisions. Richard Licerio remarked he was a third generation union member living in the city of Anaheim asking that Council to vote yes on the expansion. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 20 of 28 Shaun Robinson, Anaheim HiltonNCB, remarked when an earlier effort to finance the expansion of the Convention Center did not go forward due to the real estate downturn, both Anaheim and Garden Grove hotel owners and operators assessed themselves an additional two percent TOT, almost $6 million in 2010, to ensure Anaheim would have the funds to expand. He stated this revenue had grown and projections for the future were strong as long as the city followed through with the expansion and that the three month delay of the expansion already put at risk the two biggest conventions, NAMM and Natural Products, and potentially the American Heart Association. He emphasized if the city were to lose just these three shows, it would cost tens of millions of dollars in economic tax activity, millions in tax revenues and thousands of jobs, urging a unanimous vote in support of the expansion. Ross McCune, Chamber of Commerce, reported the Chamber of Commerce supported moving forward to finance the Convention Center expansion because it would create good paying construction jobs and enable the city to keep critical fast - growing tradeshows while also giving the flexibility of stacking smaller and mid -sized shows with larger events to meet the changing needs of the convention market. He added since 1997, successive City Councils acted to ensure Anaheim was a top tier convention and tourism destination, asking this City Council to reaffirm their investment and commitment to Anaheim by a vote to approve. John Kalinsky, Anaheim Marriott, remarked he had only been in Anaheim for 17 months and prior to that had worked in Chicago, New York City, Washington DC and many other tourist destinations. He added what was taking place in this Council meeting was happening all over major cities in the country, discussions about expansions and moving forward. He stated Anaheim was not necessarily a Tier 1 convention city today, but the expansion would put the city back 10 -15 years ago when Tier 1 status was enjoyed. He urged the Council to be unanimous in moving this project forward. Cynthia Ward remarked CATER was not against the Convention Center expansion, it was against the financing mechanism being used. She was opposed to the lease revenue bonds, stating they were in reality general obligation bonds, because all the revenues went into the general fund and bond payments made from that fund. She felt the bond funding program had not been adequately explained to the public and stated just because the city had the ability to make payments today did not mean it would have the same ability to fund a payment in the future. A question, she stated, that needed to be asked was not whether the city ever defaulted on a bond payment; it was whether revenues had not met expectations because either way the payments for that debt came from the general fund. She reiterated these were general obligation funds and the public should vote on them or the city find a source of revenue that did not touch the general fund. She objected to staff's statement regarding potentially lost revenues from NAMM and Natural Products if they did not return to the Convention Center, stating those calculations had not been done by staff and the estimates offered were not reliable in her opinion. She added that there was a way to retain those conventions since the stadium lease provided for 10 events that could be used to backfill overflow from the Convention Center, asking the city to look into that option. Jay Burress, VCB, offered the following figures on the NAMM and Natural Products tradeshows. For NAMM, the economic impact was about $38.2 million and out of that the TOT reflected $3.8 million. Natural Products had a $25.2 million economic impact with $2.5 million coming from TOT. American Heart Association reflected a $28 million impact with $2.6 million coming from TOT. He explained these were special shows and that the average trade show for the past three years yielded an economic impact of $9 million of which $1 million came from TOT and City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 21 of 28 that every month delay in financing caused problems in selling convention space. He ended his statement asking Council to keep building the destination that city leaders had the foresight to create. Mayor Tait inquired how those economic figures had been calculated with Mr. Burress replying it was a result of an event calculator endorsed by Destination Marketing Association International. He then inquired how many room nights NAMM would produce with the reply given that on a peak night there could be 8,000 rooms for three nights or 24,000 rooms. Fred, an hotelier in Anaheim, offered his personal story of his start in the Anaheim hospitality industry 17 years ago to his current position as manager for several hotels in the Resort area. He pointed out that the Convention Center's business had a positive impact on all hotels even it convention attendees did not stay there because the rates went up and the city received increased revenues from those higher rates. In his hotel, a 30 -seat restaurant earned the same during the NAMM convention than it did for the entire month of February and his servers earned tip wages that carried them for two months. He remarked there was a bigger, positive impact that was difficult to calculate if those types of large tradeshows were lost. In addition, there were a dozen new hotels in the pipeline in Anaheim and several more in Garden Grove depending on that expansion, and GardenWalk was also repositioning itself to take on new or retain existing business; he recommended a unanimous vote to approve by the Council. Steve Plummer, Championship Golf Services, remarked Dad Miller and Anaheim Hills Golf Course employed 70 people and although his business was predominantly as a recreational service and discretionary recreation for local citizens, the growth of the Convention Center and the tourists and visitors was vital because that was the ancillary spending that made him profitable. He was proud to be operating the two golf courses for the city and urged Council to approve the expansion. An unidentified male remarked a world class vision required commitment, courage and the confidence that Anaheim was a world class destination. With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing. Council Member Kring requested staff respond to an earlier speaker who stated the $14.5 million payment would be coming out of the general fund for the expansion. Ms. Moreno responded the general fund would provide the lease payments for the expansion; it had historically been handled in that manner and today the general fund paid capital improvements besides the 1997 Resort improvements of roughly $16.9 million. Staff expected after the first several years of the refinancing of those previous capital improvements and the resort bonds, the payment would be under $15 million in lease payments out of the general fund. The theory was that the expansion was supported by the transient occupancy taxes of about $24 million a year in incremental revenue received from the Convention Center and when the debt cost was offset, there would be a net benefit each year. Mayor Pro Tern Murray remarked before the expansion the impact to the general fund for lease payments was $16.9 million and after the expansion because of how existing debt would be refinanced and rolling it in with a reduced interest rate, the cost to the city would be $14.9 million in lease payments; Ms. Moreno concurred remarking it was anticipated based on the current estimates that in 2021, the payment would drop to $15 million in lease payments each year. Ms. Murray remarked there was no way for those who reviewed this data to not see this as a win /win situation for the city and that businesses had already self- assessed themselves for years to generate income for the expansion, an amount that totaled $417.7 million over 30 City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 22 of 28 years. She added the ATID brought in $450 million during the same time frame and it more than covered the cost for the expansion plus there would be an additional revenue increase of $127.3 million. The total city benefit would be $577.3 million from this expansion. Ms. Murray requested the City Attorney address whether the financial agreement before Council was similar in structure to those used by cities across the state to fund necessary public improvements with Mr. Houston responding in the affirmative, that the city was taking an action enabled by a statue that authorized through a Joint Powers Agreement to issue bonds as a separate and exclusive joint powers authority independent of the authority or powers or limitations of members of that authority. Council Member Brandman remarked Council had voted on financing the expansion on March 11 and staff had presented data at that time with projections over the life of the bonds that the expansion would be paid for by revenues from the ATID, asking if that statement was correct. Ms. Moreno responded that based on their estimates, that statement was correct. He added that it was his understanding they were conservative estimates as well, asking staff to respond. Ms. Moreno explained in detail the process Crossroads Consulting used to come up with those estimates, adding that she wondered if she might regret not making it very clear what a winner this project would be. Council Member Brandman asked if the financial data and assumptions presented to Council for the adoption of the FY 2014/15 budget and the resolution restoring Anaheim's police officers by 40 in four years contained the same information as that presented today. Ms. Moreno responded the only information that changed was the lease payment obligation but the financial assumptions, the revenue and loss assumptions related to the Convention Center and taxes remained the same. With that affirmation, he indicated he was as comfortable supporting the financing plan as he was on March 11th. Council Member Kring added that with 1,200 new hotel rooms coming on board, those TOT numbers would increase along with sales tax and property taxes. She recognized how significantly revenues increased as a result of large conventions, not only for the city but for businesses and their employees and did not want to see those shows lost as other destinations like San Diego expanded to compete with Anaheim's tax dollars. She added if the city had proceeded in March, there would be a new fire station under construction and $20 million available from the refinance to be used for core services, a sad outcome resulting from the lawsuit which delayed financing. She was supportive of the expansion and was ready to vote in favor. Council Member Eastman inquired if the ATID funds were kept separate from other revenues with Ms. Moreno responding it was kept in a special revenue account set aside because they were restricted, and that 75 percent was to pay for marketing and promotions and 25 percent for transportation. Ms. Eastman stated Ms. Moreno made the statement that the entire bond payment was coming out of the general fund, asking how that was tracked. Ms. Moreno responded that because the ATID was formed and 75 percent of those revenues were used for marketing and promotions for the convention center, the city no longer needed to pay for the VCB operating costs which in 2010 were $6 million. Staff estimated if that same agreement to provide marketing and promotions were extended over a 30 year term ending in 2046, the city would see a savings of about $450,000. She further explained the ATID gave the city an opportunity to give up an operating cost with no residual value and reinvest in the convention center, an asset with residual value. Mayor Tait questioned the figures provided by Mr. Burress relating to NAMM and Natural Products, asking staff if those numbers seemed correct because $3.8 million in TOT was more City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 23 of 28 than he would have expected. As an example, he stated, 24,000 total room nights over three nights (8,000 x 3) of NAMM attendees multiplied by $200 /room and then applying a 15 percent TOT reflected $720,000. Ms. Moreno indicated she concurred with Mr. Burress' information. Mayor Tait added that according to the Crossroads report, for the expansion to be successful there would need to be 30 to 40 percent more room nights than today, asking how a shortfall would be covered if the revenues did not come in as projected. Ms. Moreno responded that the obligation would be less than the city paid for its existing debt obligation with no additional annual risk with incremental revenue that was projected to come in that could immediately be put back into neighborhood services. Mayor Tait remarked when he voted for bonds to renovate the Resort District, the Convention Center was a basic facility and the amount of the bonds for the Convention Center was about $180,000 guaranteed by Disney. Ms. Moreno remarked it did not exactly work in that manner, and was included as part of the staff report identified as Attachment A. The lease payments were limited to measurements against revenues and was measured against three percent of the 15 percent TOT, 100 percent of the incremental TOT received from Disney properties, 100 percent of the incremental sales revenue from Disney properties and 100 percent from Disney property taxes, so the lease payments would fluctuate but that was all the City was obligated to pay. She added that Disney did guarantee certain series of the bonds. Mayor Tait stated that some of those bond payments would term out around 2020 and the city was talking about extending those payments an additional 30 years thereby increasing debt by $300 million. As to whether or not the city should approve this plan, he did not believe the revenues would come in as projected. He mentioned discussing this with Dr. Heywood Sanders, a Harvard Ph.D. who studied convention centers who believed there would be no increase from this expansion. Mayor Tait emphasized if those revenues fell short, the general fund would bear the cost of paying that debt. For those reasons he voted against the refinancing plan in March and he would vote against it today. In addition, he believed the bonds were general obligation bonds and required a vote of the public instead of circumventing the process by using another entity to authorize bond issuance. Mr. Houston responded that the use of a joint powers authority to issue bonds even in lieu of the city doing so was authorized by the Joint Exercise of Powers Act and by Supreme Court case law going back 20 years that was based on Supreme Court case law back to the 1950's relating to lease revenue transactions. He added as the city's obligation was to make rental payments (which is what the obligations were in this case), those did not trigger voter approval requirements of the Charter or of the California Constitution. Mayor Tait indicated he opposed the Convention Center expansion as being too expensive and a risk to the general fund, but appreciated the public voicing their well- spoken comments. He would follow Charter regulations and his fiduciary responsibility to the people of Anaheim and moved to take this matter to the vote of the people for placement on the November ballot. Council Member Brandman remarked that once the financing plan was voted on, the Mayor had the ability to schedule a special meeting to consider his request for a ballot measure. He asked the Mayor to reconsider and vote on a plan that used the same financial data that was seen in the FY 2014/15 budget adoption. Mayor Tait stated he strongly disagreed with staff's financial assessment of the expansion financing remarking that the one year budget adoption was a separate matter and the debt obligations from this expansion would not start until FY 2017. Mayor Pro Tern Murray commented this could be debated all night but that she trusted the premise on which the budget was balanced and the decades of history the city was relying on for its 7 expansion. She chose to continue the vision of economic development and vitality and increased revenues to the city and moved to adopt the finance plan. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 24 of 28 Mayor Tait remarked he had made an earlier motion to place the bonds before the vote of the people. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Mayor Tait then moved to direct staff to return to Council to place the bonds on the November 2014 ballot. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Council Member Kring stated these 30 year bonds could be refinanced in the future as well as to take advantage of lower interest rates, that refinancing occurred on a regular basis to effect a savings in interest. She reiterated her comments on the need for expansion, remarking NAMM and Natural Products brought in 175,000 people alone, and with a two year build schedule, the city could not risk waiting to expand. Council Member Eastman stated that many Anaheim residents came here to express their support, and it was not just business representatives voicing their opinions. Regarding the issue of putting this to the vote of the people, she felt Council was elected to make these kinds of decisions, to sit here and listen to all speakers and make a determination. She thanked the public for sharing their opinions adding that she shared the vision that began years ago and was ready to vote in favor. Mayor Tait closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Acting as the City Council, Mayor Pro Tern Murray moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -140 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, approving, authorizing and directing the execution of certain documents (as described and identified in this resolution) relating to the issuance of bonds by the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority (issuance of the authority not to exceed $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount), and other matters relating thereto; making findings of significant public benefits; determining such actions are exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15060(c)(3), 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5); and determining that the previously - certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 2008 -00340 (as described in this resolution) serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed actions, seconded by Council Member Kring. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 4: (Mayor Pro Tern Murray and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman and Kring.) NOES — 1: Mayor Tait. Motion Carried. At 9:23 P.M., Mayor Tait adjourned the Anaheim Housing and Public Improvements Authority PUBLIC HEARINGS: 28. This a public hearing to consider a resolution increasing the Public Works impact fees for the City. D128 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -141 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the fee schedule for the Public Works Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2014 -116 and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8). Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported this item was considered as part of the budget/public hearings, but due to a clerical error, the wrong fee schedule was attached and the City Attorney's office recommended a second public and to readopt the fee schedule. She explain this resolution related to the impact fees for development that supported infrastructure City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 25 of 28 and was required per Measure M to ensure there were regular fee increases based on cost of living and cost of construction index, therefore a 4.5 percent increase was recommended, consistent with Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for this area. Mayor Tait opened the public hearing and receiving no comments, closed the hearing. Council Member Kring moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2014-141 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the fee schedule for the Public Works Department of the City of Anaheim and rescinding Resolution No. 2014 -116 and determine the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8), seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Murray. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried. 29. This is public hearing to consider a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative C350 Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and determine their adequacy to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Ball Road and Sunkist Street Intersection Improvement Project. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Director, reported this was an important project for staff to discuss the various alternatives considered for this project and authorized by approving the environmental documentation for the Ball Road and Sunkist Intersection Improvement Project. She explained the project was located at the intersection of Ball and Sunkist and was one of three major access points to Anaheim from the 57 freeway and one of the major east /west corridors in the city with an average daily traffic of over 51,000 vehicles; Sunkist Street served traffic volumes of 15,000 cars per day with a peak of 1,277 per hour during the morning rush. She noted the current intersection level of service was D in the AM and the PM and projections indicated by 2035 without this improvement, the level of service would be E in the AM and F in the PM, a very congested intersection. She added traffic backed up in the morning rush hour about 2000 feet and required a wait through multiple traffic signal cycles to get through the intersection, sometimes as long as 20 minutes and was impacted one to two hours a day in the morning as well as the evening. Ms. Meeks stated that in 2011 staff had a number of community meetings and much feedback on minimizing impacts to residents and businesses in the area. They had expressed three major concerns; the first was the proposal to eliminate some of the on- street parking which resulted in eliminating some of the widening on Ball in front of the apartments to minimize any loss of on- street parking. Another concern was property acquisition which resulted in minimized lane widths and sidewalks, elimination of parkways and one of the medians and narrowing the project to the extent possible to still get in the travel lanes required to meet the needs of the traffic. There were also concerns about the construction impacts with staff proposing certain requirements in the contract to phase construction to limit working hours, to insure there was always property access and if there were multiple driveways, to build one driveway at a time. Staff also required minimizing access impacts to the project and to reduce working days and lastly to provide liquidated damages to incentivize the contractor to be in and out of there as quickly as possible. She explained that design was then brought to the community on June 24 and was reflective of the design before Council this evening, containing the following elements: City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 26 of 28 • Widen Ball Road by eight feet, Sunkist by 10 feet south of Ball Road and 11 feet north of Ball Road; • Add one thru -lane on Ball Road westbound and maintain the dedicated right turn and have dual left turn lanes on Sunkist Street southbound onto Ball; • Minimize the right -of -way acquisition to two feet on the southside of Ball Road and 4.5 feet on the northside of Ball Road; • Remove the median island on Ball Road to minimize the right -of -way acquisition and no right of way acquisition on Sunkist at this time. The proposed schedule was to move forward with mitigated negative declaration, begin property acquisition this fiscal year with construction proposed for 2015. Mayor Tait opened the hearing for comments. Cynthia Schaldenbrand, attorney representing the Waters family who owned three parcels on the northeast corner of Sunkist and Ball, remarked that the shopping center was anchored by a liquor store and donut shop on the end closest to Sunkist and by a German restaurant on the end closest to the freeway. She explained the Waters family and 200 neighbors had signed a petition opposing this project on the basis they were not aware of any of the traffic problems described. The Waters family owned this site when the city expanded Ball Road in the 90's and lost sections of the north curb line inland and an agreement there would be a parkway there. A third parcel owned by the family was located at the southbound 57 freeway off -ramp onto Ball Road, undeveloped although the family intended it for a business development. She believed the city's proposal would take away parking forcing the family to pave over an adjoining parcel for parking which she viewed as legally unsupportable. The city's position was because of an impact on traffic at that intersection, Ball Road would be widened for a space less than a block and Sunkist would be widened to put in a second left turn lane for traffic heading southbound on Sunkist and turning left onto Ball Road. The problem, she stated, was traffic was trying to reach the southbound freeway that would have to cut across traffic at that point to get to the freeway and cause accidents. She knew this to be valid because the city did that the last time they reconfigured the roadway, found it to be hazardous and took that lane away so there was only one left turn lane onto eastbound Ball from southbound Sunkist at this time. She emphasized the shopping center would lose a total of ten parking spaces and would no longer be in compliance with the city's parking standards and would force one -way traffic through the parking lot instead of the 2 -way traffic that currently existed. She added the impact on businesses would be profound by a six month construction period simply to achieve 4.5 feet of additional space for Ball Road. She ended her statement remarking if the city did not plan on taking away apartment parking, there was no point in this project. Susan Waters, trustee of Waters Family Trust, remarked her family owned this property since 1975, built the businesses which were severely impacted when Ball Road was expanded in 1992. She talked to the businesses located at the shopping center at Katella /State College who were impacted by recent street improvements and found that business dropped 60 percent as a result of construction and there was no way her businesses could survive that kind of drop in revenues. She suggested other alternatives, synchronizing signals, increasing the amount of time for left turns during peak hours, making it a no U -turn lane so the dedicated right hand lane traveling down Ball to Sunkist would keep traffic flowing. She offered articles to substantiate those alternatives. She ended her statement saying if the people who lived, worked and shopped there did not feel there was a problem, the project should not go forward. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 27 of 28 With no other comments offered, Mayor Tait closed the hearing. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan and determining their adequacy to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Ball Road and Sunkist Street Intersection Improvement Project. Council Member Eastman asked if the possibility of working with those signals been tried and failed with Ms. Meeks responding that OCTA had a county wide signal synchronization program and all of Anaheim's major corridors were being upgraded. She remarked the traffic congestion was an ongoing problem and staff had those signals timed as best they could to move traffic through. The issue was there was too much traffic for the number of lanes available, and it was the red light at the intersection that created the bottleneck on the roads. She remarked in many intersections there were additional lanes that dropped off after the intersection which was the best way to get the most capacity on a roadway with the least amount of right -of -way. Council Member Kring wondered if the signal could remain longer to get more vehicles through with Ms. Meeks remarking staff had lengthened the left turn and traffic backed up 2,000 feet and if the green arrow was left on longer, Ball Road would back up even further. Ms. Kring encouraged more signing, remarking it was valuable to those trying to access the center. Mayor Pro Tern Murray had requested the Public Works Director meet with Ms. Waters and some of her tenants in 2011 to walk through a number of their concerns, asking Ms. Meeks to speak to some of the concerns raised tonight. Ms. Meeks responded that several different options were considered through the environmental process and a presentation made to the community in June about the various options. Ms. Schaldenbrand had sent a letter referencing some inaccuracies on the number of parking spaces that she mentioned as well today, however staff replied to that letter on July 17 in an effort to correct some of those inaccuracies and define the proposal. Ms. Meeks stated the design did not take ten parking spaces away from the shopping center and it did not require one -way parking. It did impact six parking spaces, four of which were already in the public right -of -way according to city documents and staff had indicated to the property owner that if she believed that was not accurate, staff would research the deeds and figure out exactly where the right of way and property line was located. Ms. Meeks emphasized the sidewalk on Ball Road was narrowed to the minimum extent possible to comply with ADA, had reduced lane widths and tried not to interrupt much parking. She added there was a temporary construction easement proposed for framing out the new sidewalk and to make those connections with driveways and staff would work with Ms. Waters to minimize disruption. Also, if the work had to be done in phases or at night, staff would figure out how to do it with the least impact to the property. Mayor Pro Tern Murray responded that signage was critical to street improvement projects and recognized that the city had to make these improvements and part of the reason for expanding Anaheim's transportation network was to have more transit options and give travelers alternatives. She wanted to ensure careful thought was given to mitigate any impacts. Ms. Schaldenbrand responded that she had received the letter and reviewed it and that the letter clarified that the design alternative to be used was the one that took 4.5 feet. She stated the problem was they would need one parking place to move each light standard of which there were three plus a space for the movement of the sign for the center, so she believed that was a total of ten parking places that would be lost once construction occurred, and to the residents and business owners this project made no sense. City Council Minutes of July 22, 2014 Page 28 of 28 Mayor Tait inquired if the parking spaces would be lost when construction was completed. Rudy Emami, Acting City Engineer, stated those light poles move within triangular planters between spaces so the parking spaces would remain as they were even if the poles were moved. He added if the title reports were inaccurate and there were others areas the owner believed was still part of her property, staff would work with them even through the acquisition process. Mayor Tait remarked he believed this project was necessary for the public good but wanted to ensure everything possible was done to help the businesses and minimize the impacts of construction and to have no more than one entrance closed at a time. He asked if the vacant parcel was being used for parking and that was a reflection of why there were no lost spaces with Ms. Meeks replying it was not. She added when the property acquisition occurred, there would be an appraisal that would assess any impacts to the property and the value of those, so if they did lose some parking spaces there would be a value associated with them and the owner would not be required to replace those spaces on a different piece of property they may or may not own. Council Member Eastman inquired if the timing on this project was critical to funding, to see if there was some way to meet in the middle over the concerns raised; Ms. Meeks stated there was no problem with a short delay. Council Member Eastman then moved to continue the hearing to August 12 seconded by Mayor Tait. City Clerk advised that the public comment portion of the hearing was closed and the continuance of the hearing would not re -open comments unless Council so desired. With confirmation by Council, the motion included the public comment portion of the hearing would remain closed. Roll Call Vote: AYES — 5: (Mayor Tait and Council Members: Brandman, Eastman, Kring and Murray.) NOES — 0. Motion Carried. RE PO_ RT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Kring presented pictures highlighting the 4 th of July parade and spoke of her attendance at the Orange County Fair for "Anaheim Day ". ADJOURNMENT With no other business to conduct, Mayor Tait adjourned the July 22, 2014 meeting at 10:02 P.M.