Loading...
2003/02/11 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2003 HELD FEBRUARY 11, 2003 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. The Notice of Adjournment was posted at 5:00 P.M. on February 5, 2003 on the exterior door of the Anaheim Council Chambers, announcing the adjournment to February 11, 2003 at 2:30 P.M. for the purpose of a Planning and Zoning Update Workshop and an SR91 Strategy Workshop. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken, Bob Hernandez and Richard Chavez. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, Assistant City Clerk Cynthia Daniel-Garcia, Executive Director of Planning and Community Development Joel Fick, Public Works City Engineer Gary Johnson and Traffic/Transportation Manager John Lower. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on February 7, 2003 at the City Hall outside bulletin board. Mayor Curt Pringle called the adjourned regular meeting to order at 2:50 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. WORKSHOP: 1. General Plan Update/Recommended Land Use Alternative City Manager introduced Executive Director of Planning and Community Development, Joel Fick, and said that Council would be given the recommended land use alternative. Director Fick reported that Planning Department had received formal expressions of support from interested property owners and he asked for Council endorsement for the consultant to proceed with the recommended alternative as the basis for preparing the general plan elements. The preferred alternative in the environmental impact report was to serve as the foundation for the Zoning Code update, he added. Director Fick stated that in January 2003, the general plan update team recently completed its analysis of several citywide land use alternatives. The concepts, which were shared in detail with Council, and the draft recommended alternative incorporated the most desirable aspects and elements of all of the alternatives examined and the refinements received from Council were incorporated. Staff and the consultants presented the recommended alternative to the community at a citywide workshop, he said, and it had been discussed in detail with the General Plan Advisory Committee and the item was formally scheduled on the Planning Commission agenda for their review and input. He reported that the General Plan Advisory Committee and Planning Commission were impressed with the work efforts on the recommended alternative and the Planning Commission, by motion, formally endorsed the plan. Planning Commission had recommended one additional change in their approval and that was incorporated in the exhibit, which redesignated the area near the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard from general commercial to low-medium density residential, he informed. Planning Commission noted that the recommendation was consistent with the prior action taken on a residential project that was proposed at the location and ultimately withdrawn prior to final Council consideration, he added. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 2 Dick Ramella, The Planning Center, said that he would originate from this point, all of the additional elements that needed to be created for the general plan. He noted that there were detailed recommendations of the plan and parcel specific maps available on a neighborhood-by- neighborhood basis. He said that Anaheim was a built-out city and where there were opportunities to build on something, the plan did that. He mentioned the hospital on South Anaheim Boulevard and the new community college on North Euclid and said that those types of projects would stimulate growth and development. The plan addressed citywide issues as well as localized issues, he said, which was a unique feature of the plan. The land uses and traffic modeling had been based on the assumption that rapid bus transit would be the primary mode of future mass transit in the near future and provided a parcel-specific land use plan, he noted. One of the messages received from the outreach program to the community was to have the single-family neighborhoods protected and he said that the Planning Center was attempting to do that. He said the plan curtailed the development of apartments on small lots in established single-family neighborhoods and implemented the housing element, which had • been done and was not certified, and that the Planning Center had to come back and take all of the housing locations and incorporate them into the general plan. The plan revitalized neighborhood edges and aging commercial corridors and was a part of protecting the single- family neighborhood, he informed, and it focused on key entryways, such as Euclid Street from the 91 Freeway south into the city. Another entryway he said he believed was important to look at, was the treatment of Lincoln Avenue from the Santa Ana River into the Colony area, which needed more analysis. He said he had encouraged the concept of mixed land uses in selected areas, which would take advantage of freeway visibility and access to a greater degree than the existing general plan did, it upgraded the older industrial areas and it maximized the economic potential of the stadium area, which was one of the major proposals of the general plan and would require study and analysis to move forward with the recommendation. He said that the plan promoted downtown as the cultural, artistic and historic civic center of the city and expanded on the park, open space and trail opportunities and it took advantage of the Santa Ana River as significant open space and visual amenity. The positive plan did not need to be extremely dense or populous to be the best plan and tested out in its fiscal responsibility, he said. The plan provided an opportunity for city departments and agencies to integrate their activities; it represented an opportunity to be a management tool and created common goals and a way to work to achieve the goals, he added. Director Fick asked Council to take the direction to have the consultant begin preparation of the general plan elements, the Zoning Code and environmental impact report. He said that Planning anticipated sharing documents as they were being developed and the Planning Center would have some of the documents available in the summer and fall and there would be full public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council. Council Member McCracken said that there had been communication from a property owner on State College Boulevard about the definition of mixed use and she asked if the questions raised by the owner had been answered. Director Fick said that Planning Department agreed with the point raised by that owner in the letter, which was that the city could not have mixed use on every parcel. Planning was viewing multiple uses rather than mixed use, he said, which meant that it was not a vertical mix of uses and that maybe there were multiple uses on one site and Planning would be addressing the issue in the Zoning Code portion of the project. Council Member Tait said that the cultural part of the plan was in the downtown area and commercial being in the stadium area and he asked what the plan was to encourage that type of development around the stadium. Director Fick informed that because of the location of the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 3 stadium with the 57, 5 and 22 Freeways in near proximity and the tremendous arterial access in and out of the area, it was positioned to provide greater opportunities than presently existed. By providing the mixed use and multiple use opportunities there, it would fulfill the predictions of the market studies that showed that the area was opportune. Council Member Tait asked about density for residential or commercial, noting the plan allowed more than was currently present. Director Fick stated that residential was not permitted in the plan at all and this afforded a great opportunity that did not presently exist. Council Member Tait asked if the plan removed height restrictions in the area and Director Fick said that details would be addressed in the Zoning Code and it was the intention of staff to have the provisions be as flexible as possible, given the infrastructure constraints that existed in the area. Council Member Tait suggested removing any height restrictions that the city had with the prior • overlay and Director Fick responded that there were some height restrictions around the stadium property that were placed in terms of some of the view and height corridors and Planning Department intended to have the height restrictions as flexible as possible. Mayor Pringle asked what the next step was in the general plan process and Director Fick said that Planning would move ahead with the consultant to start preparation of the elements for the general plan and would be keeping Council updated. 2. SR91 Strategy—ARTIC City Manager Morgan introduced Public Works City Engineer, Gary Johnson, who presented the workshop. City Engineer Johnson said he believed that SR 91 Freeway was the most congested corridor in southern California and with continued job growth in Orange County and population growth in the Inland Empire, it was expected to significantly increase SR 91 travel demands. Forecasts and studies indicated that solutions to the 91 Freeway congestion needed to benefit the region, he said, and they needed to benefit Anaheim. He said that Bill Hodge, Hodge and Associates, and John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, would also be participating in the workshop. Traffic and Transportation Manager, John Lower, said that State Route 91 segments were built between 1958 and 1971 through the city, which was in step with national policy to build freeways for mobility. No major improvements were made since 1971 until the 1995 edition of the privatized toll lanes, he reported. Orange County population between 1970 and today increased to 2.9 million and there was a greater increase in the number of jobs during that time, he said, and Orange County could not meet employment needs without facilitating the movement of workers from the Inland Empire to jobs in Orange County. The level of service was F3 on a scale of A to F and there was three plus hours of congestion throughout the day, he explained, and could get worse on weekends with non-commute traffic. The average trip length on the 91 Freeway, crossing the county line, he reported, required one hour and fourteen minutes and the most popular time for the commute was 6:00 A.M. and average length for those trips was 44 miles. People responding to the survey, he said, used local streets to bypass freeway congestion, which impacted the city on La Palma Avenue and Santa Ana Canyon Road and frustrated residents. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 4 Bill Hodge, Hodge and Associates, stated that there were concerns for the economic vitality of the city and Orange County depended on the ability to easily attract the work force that existed out in the Inland Empire. A recently completed Inland Empire/Orange County economic study that was accomplished by the Orange County Transportation Authority and the County of Riverside examined the interdependent relationship of the two counties, he said. The study found that over the next ten to twenty years, Orange County would become increasingly reliant on workers residing outside the county, he reported, and since an older workforce would be retiring, a younger workforce would be drawn from the Inland Empire and they would become important to the jobs that were anticipated to be increased in Orange County. In 2010, Orange County would have 20 percent more jobs than workers, he said, while Riverside County would have 23 percent more workers than jobs. He said it was concluded that having a balanced transportation system in place to facilitate trips between the Inland Empire and Orange County would be crucial to the economic vitality of both counties. As the hours of congestion on State Route 91 Freeway grew, the issue of bypass traffic on city streets would continue to have concerns related to traffic safety emergency response times and their quality. The spillover • traffic on the city's local streets occurred as people tried to avoid the congestion on the 91 Freeway, he noted, and the bottleneck had the potential to impact response times for emergency vehicles. In the area of air quality, he stated that when vehicles were in a stop and go type configuration as opposed to a free flow, they were emitting more pollution. The pace of residential development in Riverside was considerable and there were 2,080 new homes being built in Corona, he reported, and many of those would use the 91 Freeway to come into Orange County or to Los Angeles to work and the new homes had the potential to generate commuter traffic to fill up one freeway lane. Mr. Hodge spoke about the State Route 91 goals to improve the SR 91 Freeway to benefit the city and said it was paramount and to look at ways to develop alternative transportation opportunities that would improve travel along that corridor. He said it was clear that city leadership would be key in participating in developing effective transportation lanes between Riverside and Orange counties. He said that there were projects proposed to add capacity to the 91 Freeway and since the pace of growth was so great, the need for the lanes would fill up quickly and there needed to be a broader vision on how to create other opportunities for people to travel between the two counties. He noted the recent Orange County Transportation Authority purchase of the 91 Freeway express lanes was taking a huge step forward in making improvements to the 91 Freeway. As a result of the purchase, he said, the non-competition agreement no longer existed and a dialogue had begun on the potential improvements. Another opportunity was the Riverside County integrated project that had been underway for a couple of years and up to this point, he said, had focused on internal corridors. Riverside County had approached Orange County two years ago to talk about a potential alternative corridor to the State Route 91, he informed, and the county was addressing other issues and was not engaged in discussion. He said there was a major investment study that would be getting underway shortly and it would be looking at ways to improve the overall commute between the Inland Empire and Orange County. With the decision that El Toro would not be an airport in Orange County, there was a need to examine what opportunities were there for airport capacity to meet the needs of Orange County residents, he said. There were potential projects on the State Route 91 Freeway that would assist with some of the transitions involving a toll road and potentially add some capacity onto the general purpose lanes of the State Route 91. There was a regionally significant transportation investment study to look at a variety of potential projects that would assist in facilitation of movement between the two counties. Freight movement happened through the canyon, he noted, and it could be done in such a way that it eliminated the problem of trucks trying to bypass on local streets and the opportunity to use passenger rail as a way of providing for people to go through the canyon without being on the 91-Freeway. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 5 Orange County Transportation Authority and Metrolink recently initiated training from Riverside County through Fullerton into Los Angeles, providing additional capacity for people to travel by rail as an additional alternative, he informed. There was discussion of having a starter segment of the California/Nevada Super Speed train between Anaheim and Ontario, he explained, and would provide another alternative for people to travel between the Inland Empire and Orange County. Manager Lower referred to a list of potential near term projects and the current priorities of the Orange County Transportation Authority, as well as additional projects out to the 15 Freeway in Riverside County, which totaled $500 million in projects. Project A was a currently funded project at $8 million and was expected that construction would occur in 2004 and would provide one additional westbound mixed-flow lane of less than one mile between the county line and across the Coal Canyon bridge, he explained. Project B, he said, was estimated at $46 million and had a request for proposal out by the Orange County Transportation Authority for a first step, project study report, to identify the more detailed engineering that was necessary to • proceed with the project which was to add one eastbound and westbound auxiliary lane from the 241 to 71 Freeways. Project C2 was the last of priorities and was estimated at $250 million for one more mixed-flow lane in each direction between the 241 Freeway and Imperial Highway and would give consideration of what to do at the 91/55 Freeway interchange and at the 91 Freeway and Lakeview interchange, he informed. He noted that there were alternatives for the Fairmont interchange that would be important in the general plan and a circulation element would be prepared and different alternatives would be tested on whether Fairmont was an overcrossing, an interchange to and from the north or simply deleted. Projects B and C2 were part of three Orange County Transportation Authority requests for federal funding through the Federal Transportation Reauthorization bill. If funding was obtained, he said, the opening of the projects was expected by the year 2010. Project Cl included Riverside County and added a mixed-flow lane between the county line and out to Interstate 15, he noted. A project study report would be awarded this fiscal year by Riverside County Transportation Authority and it was important because the improvements were what made the toll-to-toll direct connectors, which were the 241/91 Freeways, work and construction of the Cl project was eight years out unless Riverside County bonded to move things forward for construction, he said. ® Mayor Pringle said that Riverside County had the sales tax dollars and he asked if they would bond against the sales tax dollars. Mr. Hodge stated that Riverside County had the opportunity in the new measure and they had expressed interest in moving the project up. He said he did not believe the Riverside County Transportation Commission had made that decision yet. Manager Lower said that the projects were $500 million and the projects on the drawing board now did not solve the existing congestion problem and that they would only make conditions better than they would be. He reported that with no additional improvements, the existing average one-hour and fourteen minute trip time across the county line increased to nearly six hours, one way, by the year 2030. Even with the proposed additional lanes, he said, which was part of the OCTA balance plan, the trip would still increase from one hour and fourteen minutes to more than four hours, he informed. Mr. Hodges stated that the first major event was the AB 1010 adhoc committee meeting, which had recently taken place. The eleven members of the committee included Inland Empire and Orange County representatives drawn from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors in Riverside and County Transportation Commission Board of Directors, he explained, and the committee would oversee the toll lane operations and provide recommendations to OCTA on policy issues in operating the toll lanes. He said that the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 6 Riverside County Transportation Commission was scheduled to discuss a proposal to examine potential re-striping of the Riverside Freeway to look at a capacity that could be provided more short term than some of the other projects described. The AB 1010 Committee was used for discussion on how to balance tolls and maximize traffic flow on the toll lanes while improvement projects were under way. There had been a discussion about bringing back a policy that was in place when the toll lanes were first opened, to allow three plus carpools to go free and he said that the adhoc committee felt that should be delayed. He spoke about the potential alternative corridors and said that the Ortega Highway connected Lake Elsinore to San Juan Capistrano and the staff at the Riverside County Transportation Commission had said that they felt that this was the most expensive alternative and was vigorously opposed by the City of San Juan Capistrano and other south Orange County interests. Another option was to have two tunnels; one tunnel to handle water and one for truck traffic, he informed. The tunnel idea would connect Cajalco Road, south of Corona, with State Routes 133 and 241, which was the intersection of the Laguna Freeway and the foothill toll road. He said that there had been some discussion about the potential of moving the connection with the 1-15 farther south from Cajalco to bring it closer to Lake Elsinore since there was considerable residential growth in Temecula and Murrietta areas and people in that area were pushing to have a connection to Orange County that was farther south. The Corona bypass was an option that would skirt around Corona from the south end of town near Cajalco and would connect with State Routes 91 and 71, north into San Bernardino County, he said, and Riverside County BIA supported this alternative and the Riverside County Transportation Commission was still looking at it. An alternative suggested by the Irvine Company would follow the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right of way, adjacent to the 91 Freeway, and would connect State Route 241 with Interstate 15, he noted. Traffic that was using State Route 91 to get to the Irvine Spectrum and points south of there would be able to get on the bypass and not use the State Route 91 corridor and then go south on the foothill toll road to get to job areas in Irvine and areas south of there, he said. The Irvine Company had expressed concerns about the tunnel option as a potential environmental and cost concern, he noted, and Riverside was willing to look at all the corridors and engage Orange County in discussion. Riverside was hopeful of an alternative corridor that would connect Riverside County with Orange County, he added, and a possible connection to March Field might present an aviation option since Cajalco Road turned into the Ramona Expressway and was a straight • shot into Moreno Valley. Mayor Pringle said that the Corona options exacerbated the 91 Freeway and not much discussion had been made about how to move people along the 91 Freeway corridor and if three or four new expressway lanes were added to bring people into the Orange County line, they needed to go somewhere and not all of them would take the 241 toll road south. He asked to have a survey done on where those coming in from Riverside County were actually going and he said he believed that not everyone coming in was going to south County and the bulk of the commuters were staying in north Orange County or moving forward to Los Angeles County. The discussion of a very far south entry point in Orange County or the tunnels helped take advantage of new growth in Riverside County and did not address the issue of sitting in traffic on the 91 Freeway, which was going to have more capacity. He asked what the options were on the 91 Freeway in terms of adding more lanes or additional options along the corridor. Manager Lower said that a survey from OCTA showed 25 percent of the Riverside County traffic going to south Orange County, from Irvine south.. He offered to bring Council information that broke down the various cities and percentages of trips going to and from those cities. Council Member McCracken stated that the Council of Governments had done another survey that showed that the commuters from Riverside County were staying in central Orange County to work. She noted that moving people by express buses was being looked at and possibly ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 7 second lanes above the center of the 91 Freeway and once the bonds were paid off, the lanes became a part of the whole CalTrans system. She said she agreed Mayor Pringle about being able to move people from Riverside County if there was job growth continuing in central and north Orange County. Council Member Hernandez asked if there were any suggestions of any combination or single uses of the alternatives and Manager Lower stated that it would come out of the major investment study that OCTA intended to kick off in the fall. Alternatives and ridership forecasts would be looked at and he noted that 25 percent of the existing trips going to south Orange County was approximately 70,000 vehicles, he informed. Council Member Hernandez asked if a segregation of commercial vehicles would be implemented and if there was a formula used to determine the efficacy of any particular mode, taking into account the number of people who would use a particular alternative as opposed to dollars spent to acquire and factor in the dollars spent to build and any possible future expansion. Manager Lower stated that segregation would be looked at as part of the major investment study and that there was a projected formula. Council Member Hernandez asked if there were toll roads in the projections and Manager Lower said he had totals of the numbers of population increase and jobs increase and regional modeling would be done by OCTA to develop the forecast traffic for all of the alternatives and would kick off in the fall. Council Member Hernandez said that toll roads were a viable alternative. Mayor Pringle noted if the tunnel and Corona bypass were built, they would be tolls. Mr. Hodges said if the Burlington Northern right of way was to be built, it could potentially be a toll road and a range of financing options would be considered on each of the alternatives. Council Member Tait asked if the 91 Freeway improvements that were planned would use the entire right of way and if there was additional right of way beyond that for more lanes. Manager Lower said that Public Works Department had hoped that there would be additional right of way and that would be discussed as part of ARTIC and it would be determined, through the respective project study reports, how much right of way remained after the intended improvements. Council Member Tait asked if more could be done and if two lanes could be added. Manager Lower said that would be part of the major investment study and separate from that effort, there had been a Four Corners Policy Committee meeting, which included representatives of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties and the conclusion of the study was to address the issue of doubling the width of the 91 Freeway not within the existing right of way, which may be one of the alternatives that would be developed through the major investment study. Council Member Tait said he believed it should be developed for maximum right of way rather than for other modes of transportation. Mayor Pringle asked if all through the 91 Freeway, there would be additional right of way beyond the one lane that was being projected in each direction and Manager Lower said he believed that was the case and that the project study reports would need to confirm it. The ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 8 request for proposals by OCTA would soon be out to start the project study report process, he noted, which would determine the right of way available. Mayor Pringle asked to ensure that the Orange County Transportation Authority study or give the city options of the maximum width that would be available for roads within the 55 to 241 Freeways. Manager Lower said it would happen by active participation in the major investment study led by OCTA, starting in the fall. Mayor Pringle asked if OCTA were out with a request for proposal and it limited what the study would be, how could the city influence that. Manager Lower responded that they were two separate processes and what was out now was project specific, project study reports for adding one lane in each direction to the 91 Freeway. In the fall, he noted, the major investment study started and that was where new alternatives would be introduced such as doubling the width of the 91 Freeway. • Mayor Pringle asked if the opportunity had passed for the city to influence OCTA to have more than one lane in each direction. Manager Lower responded that the time had passed for some of the issues since the request for proposals were out in priority A, which was completed. There would be an opportunity in the major investment study to influence that, he said, because one lane on the 91 Freeway would not be enough. Mayor Pringle asked about C2 and Manager Lower stated there would be an opportunity to influence. Council Member Tait was concerned that about moving forward with building one extra lane when two could have been built and it would make sense to maximize the right of way with additional lanes and he was concerned about rail lines being placed there. Mr. Hodges said that between CalTrans, Orange County Transportation Authority and Riverside County Transportation Commission the limiting factor was matching the Riverside program to what could be done in Orange County and the limitation of$550 million to add one lane in each direction. • Council Member McCracken said that Riverside had made no improvements east of the county line because of funding they would have had to give to CPTC. Now that the non-compete clause was gone, their sales tax initiative, Measure A, they had some monies and the 91 Freeway improvements were part of the sales tax incentive, she stated. She informed that if two additional lanes were added west of the county line and Riverside added only one additional lane, there would still be bottleneck at the county line and there needed to be long term planning. Council Member Tait said it was a problem to have people exiting off of the freeway onto Santa Ana Road and Imperial Highway, which otherwise was acting as another lane on the freeway. Mayor Pringle asked if the city wanted to have the road torn up for the next seven years and he noted that it would be like that with one or two lanes and everyone in the corridor would be impacted by construction. Once the construction was complete on the one lane and then the city had an opportunity to add another lane, it would be another five to seven year construction project. He said why double all of the construction impact that residents would have to live with. Council Member Chavez said that the potential for expanding the corridor should be maximized even if would bottleneck in Corona. He spoke about the public safety side of traffic and said that 20 percent of the automobiles were going onto public streets. He said that there had been ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 9 times when fire trucks had to respond from downtown and it had taken them almost one hour because of the traffic. He said he believed it was imperative that the expansion of the corridor be maximized. Mayor Pringle noted the Orange County side of the corridor was $300 million, not counting the Riverside County side of the corridor. He said he believed that the City needed to use every tool to encourage OCTA to include the B and C2 options, building it out to a maximum width or adding two new lanes in each direction, which could be phased. Council Member Tait said that with the hundreds of thousands of people everyday and three hours one way, $500 million was cheap compared to the cost to society. The easiest, quickest way to move people was to have additional lanes on the freeway, he added. City Manager Morgan clarified that if going to a second lane eliminated certain rail opportunities that would be at the discretion of Council. Director Johnson stated that there were a number of studies in progress on different programs and one was the California-Nevada project starter segment between Ontario and Anaheim and whether or not the 91 Freeway right of way was the best alignment alternative for the project or if there were others. There had been multiple studies, he noted, and it needed to be brought together. Mr. Hodges said since there would not be an airport at El Toro, there was the question of meeting the aviation needs of Orange County residents as well as the tourism industry in the city. The tunnel under the Cleveland National Forest could connect with March Field, he noted and the California-Nevada Super Speed train would enhance the availability of Ontario, which was an international airport. The Ontario Airport connection represented strong leverage for federal transportation dollars, he informed, and it would be an opportunity to move forward on some type of high speed rail connection between Anaheim and Ontario, which could be part of the solution with interest in addition freeway capacity. Part of the vision was to have regional transportation centers to tie together all of the different transportation systems, such as bus • rapid transit, Amtrak, Metrolink, California High Speed Rail and the California-Nevada Super Speed train. Manager Lower stated that Public Works Department wanted to tie together different transportation systems because everyone in the industry concluded that one mode of transportation was not going to solve the problem. Council Member Tait said he believed that if all of those alternatives were done, the problem would not be solved as adding four lanes to the freeway would. Manager Lower stated that Public Works Department would be working with OCTA during the major investment study. Mayor Pringle asked how many people drove on one of the mixed flow lanes of the 91 Freeway per day and Manager Lower said approximately 22,000 per day per lane. He moved forward with the forecast of 100,000 people per day on a full system, super speed train. The airport connection was critical for Anaheim and Orange County residents who travel by air as well as 20 percent of visitors to the resort that arrived by air, he said. ARTIC was proposed in the north stadium parking lot, the existing Amtrak/Metrolink station was one of three regional hubs, which had been laid out with the intent of providing regional mobility, he explained. The Ontario International Airport was another hub and that connection was by the starter segment of the California-Nevada Super Speed train, potentially along the 91 Freeway and Interstate 15, ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 10 although the alternatives and alignments for that were under study. The third hub in southern California was the existing Los Angeles Union train station and the connection between Anaheim and that station was intended to be the existing Amtrak line for which there would be a ballot measure in the year 2004 for a statewide California High Speed Rail. He said that the ARTIC station was envisioned as an airport without runways, which provided a convenient connection between ARTIC and the airport. Regional mobility was the key to the effort since the city could not build its way out of congestion and it had to take in different alternatives. He stated that Public Works Department was requesting $245 million as part of the Federal Transportation Reauthorization bill, which would facilitate the California High Speed Rail, expanded Amtrak and Metrolink service, the Super Speed train to Ontario and then to distribute those trips. It was forecast at 80 million annual riders or 320,000 daily trips on the high speed modes, coming into the center and being distributed out by bus rapid transit or by corridor feeder service to connect the trips to major events, employment and residential centers, he explained. Manager Lower said that ARTIC goals were to connect regional transportation solutions that • drove the Orange County economy, to access business and tourism entertainment centers; to promote transportation plans that were sustainable and land use plans that provided quality of life for the residents. One of the new transportation modes that could potentially come into ARTIC was the Super Speed train, with the starter segment between Edison Field and Ontario Airport and provided both an airport connection as well as an alternative for the commuters on the 91 Freeway, he reported, and out of the 320,000 daily riders, 100,000 were forecast to be on the Super Speed train segment. A request for Federal Transportation Reauthorization was intended to be made for the Super Speed train for$1 billion, he noted, which would build a starter segment in Nevada from state line into Las Vegas and get the project construction ready for the year 2010 for the starter segment in California from Edison Field to Ontario Airport. Another potential component of ARTIC was the California High Speed Rail, which was good for the city with or without a ballot measure passing because the $245 million that the city was asking for, included the cost to construct five grade separations. Bus rapid transit would distribute the trips to employment and event centers throughout the county, as opposed to the bus that would stop every block, he informed, and would be point-to-point service. The initial demonstration was planned for Harbor Boulevard and would grow countywide and would include Katella Avenue, State College Boulevard, La Palma Avenue and Beach Boulevard, he reported. City Engineer Johnson stated that this was a complex issue and that careful planning was necessary and represented a critical area in the future of the city and Orange County. He recommended support of the near term improvements, which were the one and two lane options; federal funding request through the T21 reauthorization for three projects, which were the Super Speed train, ARTIC and 91 Freeway improvements and to support the sponsor of the 91 Freeway improvements, which was OCTA. He recommended participating in a major study released this fall, led by OCTA, which was where the city could have input on all of the options and indicate their preferences. Future improvement recommendations included supporting the implementation of the Super Speed train connection between Anaheim and Ontario and construct additional 91 Freeway improvements, whether it began as one or two lanes and to continue on with that program, he said, as the right of way permitted. Mayor Pringle expressed that he supported the California-Nevada Super Speed train and he encouraged moving forward with that and asked to look at the economics of how to connect Anaheim to Ontario. He said he would not support the train system if it took lanes off of the 91 Freeway and if it used right of way that could be used for roads to serve the corridor. Adding ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 11 four lanes to the freeway, two each way, would be a great benefit to the city, he expressed. He asked to look to the future, identify a project on the 91 Freeway and utilize every legislative tool and to present priorities. He said he hoped that the city would encourage OCTA to expand the project and assist in obtaining funding. City Manager Morgan said that the 91 Freeway was the number one priority and that the City needed to pursue it in a way that would not negatively impact any of the other alternatives that were looked at and would not negatively impact the ability to add lanes to the 91 Freeway. He spoke about the formation of the public right of way liaison committee since the issues were very important and staff would like to move in a positive direction. Council Member Chavez said he supported the ARTIC project and it gave people work in Anaheim and the Inland Empire would provide a means of affordable housing. Director Johnson said that within the existing right of way, there was room for both without sacrificing a lane the way it was configured. He pointed out that the alignment studies considered more than just the 91 Freeway and there were other alignments being proposed and he did not know what the alignment was at this time. Council Member McCracken said that until the express lanes were owned by OCTA, anything from the 605 to the 15 Freeways was part of the non-compete clause. She noted that OCTA , CalTrans and RCTC had tried to do in a few months things that needed additional vision and long term planning because until the non-compete clause was removed, all of those projects would have cost twice as much. She said she believed that they needed to look at the issues, such as right of way, and do long range planning because in some parts of the 91 Freeway, there was some land and in other places, it came together between two walls of mountains. The rail was proposed to be elevated and not knowing how much right of way it would take, she said she did not believe it would take two lanes and those were the types of things that needed to be on the table before moving ahead on the funding. City Manager Morgan stated that staff would return to Council in one week with communication • regarding the direction from Council to pursue two-lanes, each way, on the 91 Freeway. Council Member Tait said that the 91 Freeway was for freeway right of way and none of it should be used for rail since it would mean less lanes on the 91 Freeway. Mayor Pringle said if the city was working on a way to move things around to free up a right of way for a rail, then the city would be taking lanes away from roads, unless it was elevated along the rail right of way or down the 57 Freeway. City Manager Morgan said it sounded as if Council did not want rail to have any negative impact on lanes or potential lanes in the 91 Freeway. Mayor Pringle said that even though he was leaning towards accepting the concept of ARTIC and not wanting to slow up the process, Council should still be cautious about proceeding. At 4:25 P.M., Mayor Pringle adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of February 4, 2003 and convened the regular meeting of February 11, 2003. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS — CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None. Mayor Pringle moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:26 P.M. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: David Hill Employee organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Tatarian v. City of Anaheim, United States District Court Case No. SA CV-99-00605 AHS (MLGx). 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION ® (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: Luisa Saqib v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01 CC 14668. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: City of Yorba Linda v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01 CC 09320. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pringle called the regular Council meeting of February 11, 2003 to order at 5:15 P.M. and welcomed those in attendance. INVOCATION: Pastor Stephen Smith, First Presbyterian Church • FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Hernandez PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS: Recognizing the Anaheim Convention Center and recognizing City employees serving in the United States Armed Forces. Recognitions to be presented at a later date were a declaration recognizing Bruno Serato as the Cypress College Foundation Citizen of the Year for Anaheim and a proclamation recognizing February 2003 as Black History Month. Report on Closed Session Actions: City Attorney, Jack White, announced that Council unanimously approved the revised and final Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the City of Yorba Linda, resulting in the dismissal of litigation regarding the construction of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad soundwall in the City of Yorba Linda that separated the train tracks from residents within the City of Anaheim. The matter was now moved to Yorba Linda City Council for action, he noted, and the project was expected to commence expeditiously. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 13 At 5:30 P.M., Mayor Pringle recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority meetings. Mayor Pringle reconvened the City Council meeting at 5:35 P.M. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Kathy Wright spoke about the Closed Session item reported on by the City Attorney regarding the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and she thanked the Public Works division. Mayor Pringle noted the legitimate concerns of Ms. Wright and that she had fought to find federal dollars to have a soundwall placed on one side of the track. He reported that city staff 111/ had not waited to proceed with the process and had assurance that the City Yorba Linda would be working on completion of this. He noted that staff had been moving forward to prepare a request for proposal and to get it out into the field as soon as it was legally finalized. The challenge would be to get within the right of way of the railroad tracks, he said, and would move forward with construction at the quickest possible pace. Joanna Peters said she was concerned about gang activity from the Alano Club. She said that they had dances that brought gangs into the area and as of January 31, 2003, there was a stabbing in the area. Mayor Pringle said that staff and Council would look into it. City Manager Morgan stated that the Chief of Police would make contact and ensure a proper follow up. Pauline Donnelly said on January 31, 2003 at the Alano Club, they were listening to gang IIImusic. She asked that something be done to protect minors in the area. Cynthia Ward spoke about Item A16 regarding term limits for Council appointed Boards and Commissions. She asked Council to consider the ramifications of automatic term limits for the Commissioners. She said she believed that municipal government rested on the shoulders of the volunteers who donated their time and talents to make the city everything that it was today. She said she was concerned about placing a cap on the continuity of the civic-minded volunteers. She said she supported the need for term limits when it came to elected officials and she was opposed to a blanket policy that automatically termed out the volunteers. She asked that each position be considered on a case-by-case basis as they came up for re- appointment. Alma Ramirez spoke about small claims, civil and criminal operations at the North Justice Courthouse. MOTION: Council Member McCracken moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Motion carried unanimously. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR Al —A15: On motion by Council Member McCracken, seconded by Council Member Chavez, the following items were ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 14 approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 2003R-19 for adoption. Roll call vote: Ayes— 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, McCracken, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes—0. Motion carried. 118 Al. Reject certain claims filed against the City. 128 A2. Receive and file the Monthly Financial Analysis Report presented by the Finance Director for five months ended November 30, 2002. 160 A3. Accept the low bid of Future Computing Solutions, Inc., in the amount of $153,280 (excluding tax), for Hewlett Packard equipment in accordance with Bid #6350. 160 A4. Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders, in an amount not to exceed $24,000 (plus tax), for the purchase of four vehicles for the Electric Utility Department. ID175 A5. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Geofon, Inc., in the amount of $77,988.27, for the underground fuel tank removal at Fire Station No. 2 and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 175 A6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Three D Service Company, Inc., in the amount of $129,919.75, for the demolition, removal and fencing improvements at four Anaheim locations and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 175 A7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Robert G. Castongia, Inc., in the amount of$353,350, for replacement of Pressure Regulating Station Nos. 53 and 57 and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. • 123 A8. Approve the Encroachment Agreement with Walt Disney World Company allowing certain private improvements, owned by them, to encroach within the public right-of-way. A9. RESOLUTION NO. 2003R-19 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 158 CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting a certain deed conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real property or interests therein (City Deed No. 10584). 106 A10. Approve the fiscal year 2003/04 Budget Hearing Schedule for review and adoption of the proposed budget and set public hearings regarding said matter for May 20, June 3 and June 10, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. 123 A11. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an agreement with URS Corporation, in an amount not to exceed $88,290, to provide consulting engineering services in connection with the replacement of two pressure regulating stations. 123 Al2. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute and implement an agreement, and its related documents, with ASW Engineering Management Consultants, in an amount not to exceed $360,000, for a period of one year with option of two one-year renewals to assist the Public Utilities Department with the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 15 implementation and administration of the Small Business Energy Management Assistance/Refrigeration and HVAC Services Program. 160 A13. Waive Council Policy No. 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to PRC Public Sector, Inc., in the amount of$31,931.67 (tax and freight inclusive), for the purchase of mobile data computers and authorize the issuance of a purchase order, in an amount not to exceed $80,000 (plus tax), for the purchase of two Chevy Tahoes. 160 A14. Authorize the increase of appropriations and expenditures in the Police Department's fiscal year 2002/03 budget, in the amount of $55,940, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order for the purchase of a Chevrolet Tahoe and related accessories for the Police Department's Traffic Bureau upon receipt of competitive bids without returning to Council for award approval. 114 A15. Approve minutes of the Council adjourned meeting held January 14, 2003. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 105 A16. Discussion regarding Board and Commission term limits (requested by Council Member Tait at the Council meeting held February 4, 2003). Council Member Tait asked to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance similar to the 1992 ordinance for two term limits. Council Member McCracken said she believed that it was inappropriate to prepare an ordinance since the Council had the authority and the board and commission members served at the pleasure of the Council. If any three members of Council wished to remove or limit any one of the 100 commissioners, it could be done, she said. She said if an ordinance was prepared, it could not be waived by the Council for a particular situation or commission. Out of the 100 commissioners that the city had, 15 to 20 members had more than two terms and she said she believed that when their terms were over, they could be voted out and commissioners had been removed in the past or asked to resign. She noted those on the boards and commissions that had served more than two terms and it was not an overwhelming amount and they were volunteers. There was a turnover on some of the commissions and she noted it was not an easy job to serve because of the time commitment, which they needed to know about before they applied. She said she could not support placing an ordinance in front of the community, which would tie down future Councils who could not appoint someone for another term. Council Member Chavez asked about the ordinance regarding terms for Council and if it meant that after sitting out, someone could run again for an additional term. City Attorney White stated that the limitation was that a Council Member would need to be off for a minimum of two years and then re-run for two consecutive terms. Council Member Chavez said he was not considering removing anyone and was interested in allowing new thoughts and ideas and new people opportunities that did not exist when a position was locked up. Setting the same standards for boards and commissions as for Council seemed like a reasonable thing to do, he noted. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 16 Council Member Hernandez asked when a commission member would be removed from the board if the measure was implemented. City Attorney White stated that Council was free to place whatever provisions they wanted into the ordinance and it would typically be written in a way to allow all of the existing members to complete their terms of service and not be eligible for reappointment and that was with the provision that the Charter that superseded any ordinance written, gave Council the prerogative to remove any board or commission member at any time. Council Member Hernandez asked if someone had just begun a four-year term, it would be four years until they were termed out. City Attorney White said that was correct unless Council directed otherwise an approved an ordinance that had a different provision. Council could always remove someone for cause or no cause since all board and commission members served at the pleasure of the Council, he finalized. Council Member Hernandez said that by implementing the ordinance, the Council would still have the board and commission member for four years. He said he believed that Council was capitulating their responsibilities to scrutinize each board and commission and this would allow a term limit law to do the work that Council should be doing. He stated he was opposed to the ordinance. Mayor Pringle said he believed in citizen participation government and that there were thousands of people that could do the board and commission jobs. If the doors were open, he said, there would be more people asking to participate in the commissions. He said he supported term limits, not to punish the people who served, but to ensure that there was not a core group that dominated through the incumbency. He said he believed that there should be the same citizen government that was reflected in the decision-making bodies of the city. He noted if there was someone that showed exemplary service, the term limit law proposed by Council Member Tait would allow Council to wait two years and start over with that person for eight more years. He stated that he did not want to be in the position to fire members of the commissions and that if rules were established, people would know what the rules were and would be very willing to serve the city. He felt it was the job of Council to find people who did not represent one but every group in the city to make sure that every commission was fully • representative of every voice in the city. He asked Council Member Tait if he would like to add three items to the motion. The first item was that every board and commission in the city have a definitive set of terms; the second was to serve on one directly appointed board or commission at a time and the third item was to add that those people who were beyond serving more than two consecutive terms, the terms would be vacated within a set period of time, be it 60 or 90- days upon the enactment of the ordinance. Council would then fill the vacancies with any number of the 330,000 residents of the city, he added. Council Member McCracken stated that some of the people serving on two of the commissions were because of the structure of the commission. Mayor Pringle said that an individual on the Parks and Recreation Commission as a designee of the Planning Commission would not apply and there needed to be an explicit exception. City Attorney informed that could be drafted into the ordinance. Council Member McCracken said she did not support the ordinance. She said she believed that those in support were doing a disservice to the community, the Council and the city since there was a certain amount of knowledge that had been acquired from having served on a commission that someone did not have in the first one to two years of service on the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 17 commission. She said she believed that this was worse than phasing them out when their term expired. Mayor Pringle said that the action was not an attack on people who volunteered their time and it was an encouragement of providing opportunity to other residents. Council Member Tait moved, seconded by Council Member Chavez, to have the City Attorney prepare an ordinance similar to the 1992 ordinance for two term limits, incorporating the following: 1) That every board and commission have a definitive set of terms. 2) That every board and commission member be allowed to serve on only one board or commission at a time. 3) That board and commission members currently serving beyond two consecutive 1111 terms should end 90-days following the enactment of the ordinance. Roll call vote: Ayes — 3; Council Members Tait and Chavez and Mayor Pringle. Noes — 2, Council Members McCracken and Hernandez. Motion carried. 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Cl. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 179 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 1: OWNER: Efren Gutierrez, 1750 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Micaela Munez, 1816 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 1750 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.6-acre having a frontage of 140 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue located 640 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (El Conejo Feliz Restaurant). Request to permit a public dance hall with a cover charge as an accessory use to a previously approved restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces for the restaurant expansion only (5 yes votes, Commissioners Boydstun and Koos absent). Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04590 granted, in part, approving the restaurant expansion and denying the public dance hall (PC2002-170). (Planning Commission's decision appealed by Applicant Elizabeth Helguero) (Continued from the Council meetings of January 28, 2003, Item Cl and February 4, 2003, Item C2). Executive Director of Planning and Community Development, Joel Fick, presented a staff report stating that this was a continued item to allow the applicant, at his request, to meet with representatives of the two adjacent apartment complexes to attempt to address and resolve issues that were raised at the Council meeting. All parties met and the attorney representing the applicant submitted a fax to staff on February 10, 2003 outlining an agreement between the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 18 three parties, he noted, and the letter indicated acceptance of the two conditions relative to providing security measures as required by the Police Department, conditions of which staff presented at the last meeting. Regarding the blocked access that was discussed, he informed that the applicant had agreed to a condition that would require striping of a fire lane to allow for clear vehicular access to the apartment complex to the south. There was an agreement between the owners, he explained, that the property would be sound proofed in the building interior and the block wall located at the south property line would be increased to a minimum of eight feet in height and poles installed and curb stops in front of the wall to prevent vehicular damage to the wall. The parties agreed to a six month review of the conditional use permit to determine compliance with the conditions of approval and to implement that, he said staff suggested a condition requiring that the Planning Commission review the condition compliance six months from now as a report and recommendation item. The applicant indicated that they had reached agreement with their neighbors on the hours of operation for the restaurant, he informed, operating from 8:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 8:30 A.M. to 1:30 A.M. during the remainder of the week. He noted that in the agreement with the • applicant, by not charging at the door and providing full meal service, the use would be considered to be a restaurant with dinner-dance as opposed to a dance hall. Since the applicant indicated that the agreement had been reached on various points, staff concurred with the suggested conditions and recommended that Council approve the conditional use permit and that the new conditions be added to the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission in their resolution and staff provided a copy of the suggested, precise wording of all of the conditions, he informed. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. Vincent Sarmiento, attorney for the applicant, outlined the positive work that had been done between all of the parties. As a result of the meeting between the parties, there were five additional conditions that were drafted and reviewed, he said, and in addition, there were four additional conditions suggested by the Police Department that were incorporated by the parties. He said that the applicant was pleased with the outcome of the discussions with the neighbors and there was a condition brought to his attention to increase the wall height to ten feet on the • south property line. He said that they had asked Planning Department if the code would allow the ten-foot wall, which was presently six feet, and staff said it could only exceed eight feet if there was a variance granted to ten feet. He said that Mr. Picar, owner of the apartment complex to the south, had a problem with that condition and it was not what was agreed to at the group meetings and he directed him to Planning Department to see if a variance would be possible. He explained that if the wall sat on Mr. Picar's side of the property line, he would have to be the applicant that would go forward with that request. Mayor Pringle asked what present code allowed for the wall height and Director Fick stated that it could be eight feet in height and the applicant would need to be the property owner in order to seek a variance on it. Mr. Sarmiento noted that the only other condition in question was regarding hours of operation, which would be until 11:00 P.M. Tuesday and Wednesday. He said he had received a copy of the language on the new additional conditions and agreed, in concept. Stephanie Doyle said she was the manager of Wind Rose Apartments and neighbors to El Conejo Feliz. She said that she understood the needs of El Conejo to run a profitable establishment and she was appreciative of their stated willingness to harmoniously coexist with the residential communities surrounding their building. She noted that she had heard the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 19 applicant state at the last meeting that she had to ask her band to escort her to her car at the end of the night because of concerns for safety and in conversations at two very intense meetings where many issues were covered, she said she felt better about how the applicant could see where the tenants were coming from. She added that the tenants wanted to be sure that the business establishment did not lead to unacceptable conditions that would need to be tolerated by the people who lived there. The petition of signatures from the residents presented at the meeting of January 28, 2003, showed the concern of the population of Wind Rose and she spoke on behalf of many of the residents. Agreements were reached in the meetings with Mr. Picar and Dolores from Villa Gardens and the owners of El Conejo and their attorney, she said. Mr. Sarmiento was correct in that certain items had been added to the modified conditional use permit that that been presented. She said she believed that the six-month limit on the conditional use permit was a reasonable period of time for the owners to meet the conditions and for the neighbors to find out if the situation was tolerable and not be negatively impacted by activities of the restaurant. Alma Ramirez said that Mr. Sarmiento was a good mediator and that if any city attorney was included, she requested Larry Newberry. Dolores Thomas said that after the last meeting, it was decided that the parties would meet and come to an agreement and she was more than willing to give El Conejo a chance to prove that they could operate professionally in a residential area. She said that she had asked for a few more conditions to be added and El Conejo Feliz had agreed to the extra conditions. She strongly requested the ten-foot wall and asked if it would be a common or private wall so they would know who would need to apply for the variance. She said eight feet was not secure enough for the residents and she asked for the ten-foot wall for security and noise purposes and that the conditional use permit sunset in six months. Mayor Pringle said that conditions had been presented to Council by Mr. Sarmiento and he asked Ms. Thomas if those were the conditions that she was referring to. She responded that they were. Mayor Pringle asked if the additional conditions referenced were from February 10, 2003 and Director Fick said that they were and Planning Department had structured them in the condition language that the City Attorney would use and they had been reviewed by the applicant. With regard to the condition on hours of operation, Mayor Pringle noted that he had seen Thursday through Monday, 8:30 A.M. to 1:30 A.M. and Tuesday and Wednesday, 8:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing. Mayor Pringle said he was moving towards supporting the establishment of the conditional use permit without additional conditions and he noted that the parties had worked together to bring forward additional conditions. He was concerned about having businesses reappear every six months and that was something that the applicant had agreed to and it would show, in good faith, as they operate with higher level of conditions, that they would demonstrate in the next six months it was a clean and straight forward operation. Many of the concerns prior to the owner even buying the property were being addressed and the owner was aware of them and doing her best to operate the business, he noted. The idea of installing a ten-foot wall was beyond city code and he said he would support that they live with an eight-foot wall in the next six months and come back and share with Council if they could live without the ten-foot wall. If the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 20 eight-foot wall did not suffice and they needed the ten-foot wall, he said he did not know if the property owner of the apartments would be willing to give up a portion of his property to share the ownership right in the wall and therefore the owner of the property must request the variance. Council Member McCracken asked if the condition for the wall would increase the block wall to eight or ten feet, upon a request for a variance. Director Fick stated that Planning Department had recommended eight-feet since that was the maximum amount that Council required. When the item was reviewed in six-months, it was an item that could be revisited, he noted, and it would require the property owner to request an administrative adjustment. Council Member Chavez said that having the business come back every six-months was too much and that what the parties agreed to was very reasonable on all parts. Mr. Sarmiento stated that he had a chance to review the new language that was imposed and • created out of the suggestions made by the parties. He said that there was one clause he questioned and that was in Condition No. 31, which had not been included in the memo that had been forwarded to Council. Since the applicant was no longer asking for a dance hall designation, he explained, which allowed a cover charge to be imposed, there was specific language that said there would be no admission fee cover charge or minimum purchase required for patrons of the restaurant. He said he was concerned about the phrase "or minimum purchase" and as a restaurant owner, the applicant did not want someone to loiter all day and he requested striking the "or minimum purchase" phrase and keep the no cover charge or no admission fee included in the language, which he said he believed would resolve the problem. Mayor Pringle asked if the request made by Mr. Sarmiento was acceptable to staff and Director Fick said it was. Council Member McCracken moved, seconded by Council Member Tait, to approve the CEQA Finding of Categorically Exempt, Class 1. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 2003R-20 for adoption, including conditions as discussed. RESOLUTION NO.: 2003R-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04590, IN PART. Roll call vote: Ayes — 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, McCracken, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes — 0. Motion carried. 179 C2. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04540 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT—CLASS 3: OWNER: Samuel Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Yenie Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 505 North Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.13-acre with a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Rose Street located 81 feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street. Waiver of maximum fence height to retain and permit an existing 5-foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 21 ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 2002-04540 denied (PC2002-173) (4 yes votes, Commissioners Boydstun, Koos and Vanderbilt voted no). (Planning Commission's decision appealed by Agent, Yenie Rodriguez). Director Fick presented a staff report and stated that the matter was an issue initiated by a complaint received by Code Enforcement from a resident. The request was to retain a 5.5 foot- high, rod-iron fence with masonry pilasters, which was constructed in the front yard area of the single-family residence, he noted. The current homeowner had indicated that the fence was built to replace a deteriorated similar fence constructed by the previous property owner and neither the previous fence nor existing fence was constructed with building permits, he informed. Since 1999, he said the Zoning Code had limited fences within front yard areas to three feet high and were enacted following input by citizens requesting the Planning Commission and Council change the height regulations so that front yards in neighborhoods were not overly enclosed or fortressed. Prior to 1999, the Code allowed fences up to six-feet • high in front yards, provided that the fence was at least 80 percent open and prior to that time and dating back a number of decades, there were various amounts of heights and codes in the three to four-foot range, he noted. In August 2002, at the request of Council and in an effort to inform all property owners and residents in the Colony Historic District, staff prepared and distributed a publication mailed to all residents describing the fencing requirement in the city, he explained, and staff had also authored an article on the subject in the Anaheim Magazine and was distributed citywide. There were 26 properties on both sides of Rose Street between Sycamore and Wilhelmina, there were sixteen properties with nonconforming front yard fences that were approximately four to six-feet in height, he informed, and this did not include the property of the applicant. In August 2002, Council approved a variance to retain a five-foot high, rod iron and masonry fence at the north end of the block at one of the corners and the block was located in the Anaheim Colony Historic District, adopted by the Council in 1997, and the home of the applicant was not a qualified historic structure and not listed in the preservation plan for the district. The majority of homes on the block were developed in the 1950's and there were three homes at the south end of the block and near the applicant's property that were listed in the preservation plan, he said. The Planning Commission, on a split vote of four to • three, denied the request of the applicant on the basis that there were historic homes nearby and all of the other fences on the block, with the exception of the one mentioned earlier, were constructed at a time when fences were permitted by code. Planning Commission members that voted against the resolution for denial had felt that the property owner should enjoy the same privileges that were enjoyed by other property owners on the street, he added. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. Yenie Rodriquez said they had appealed the item because they felt it was not fair that they bring down the height of the fence since they did not go over what the fence had been and was now a few inches lower than what it was. Mayor Pringle asked about the present code on front yard fences and Director Fick stated that within a 25-foot front yard setback, it was a maximum of three feet in height. Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing. Council Member Hernandez asked what the cost of a permit for the fence was and Director Fick responded that it was based upon evaluation of the fence and there would typically be a charge for only the pilasters and footings since they would be inspected and that would be minimal. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 PAGE 22 Council Member Hernandez asked that if they would be penalized if the fence was allowed. Director Fick said that the Uniform Building Code provision was 50 percent of the original permit. Mayor Pringle asked the applicant if there was a fence in the front yard when the house was purchased and she said that there was and it was falling apart and they wanted to put the fence back up and fix it. Council Member McCracken moved, seconded by council Member Tait, to approve the CEQA Finding of Categorically Exempt, Class 3. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 2003R-21 for adoption. RESOLUTION NO.: 2003R-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE IIICITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2002-04540. Roll call vote: Ayes — 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, McCracken, Hernandez and Chavez. Noes — 0. Motion carried. Council Communications: Council Member McCracken spoke about Mark Dennis Melbourne and said he was the voice of traffic on KFI. Mr. Melbourne passed away two years ago and he was recognized with the naming of the 55 and 91 Freeway interchange as Mark Dennis Melbourne memorial freeway interchange. Signs were placed alongside the 91 and 55 Freeway interchange and she noted that money for the signs had been raised by the friends of Mr. Melbourne. Council Member Hernandez said that Mark Dennis Melbourne was a friend of the Canyon and city and had been the master of ceremonies for the July 4 festival held in Anaheim hills for several years and he reminded everyone of his contributions to the community. III Adjournment: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Council Member Chavez moved, seconded by Council Member Hernandez, to adjourned the meeting at 6:47 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitt d: 4/6/0.,„ei r Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE City Clerk