Loading...
2005/01/25ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA -CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in special session at 2:20 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Bob Hernandez, Lorri Galloway and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on January 7, 2005 at the City Hall outside bulletin board. MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW: City Manager Dave Morgan introduced Finance Director Bill Sweeney, who presented the mid-year review of the City's FY 2004/05 budget detailing the current state of economy, the status of the General Fund budget and identifying State budget issues that would impact Anaheim. At the end of the presentation, Mr. Morgan announced Chief John Welter would apprise Council of his staffing studies and resulting projections for the Police Department. Mr. Sweeney offered the following information related to the state of the economy: 1) the GDP grew at 4 percent annual rate for the third quarter of 2004 and projected a 3.5 percent range for the fourth quarter; 2) the unemployment rate continued a downward trend; 4) retail sales were strong with inflation under control at approximately 4 percent in the Anaheim/Los Angeles/Riverside area; 5) consumer confidence continued strong with the market reacting favorably; 6) the stock market posted positive returns in 2004 which had an indirect impact on some of Anaheim's expenses; and 7) economic activity in manufacturing grew in December for the 19~h consecutive month. Areas to watch this year, stated Mr. Sweeney, were the growing federal deficit, the State budget situation, the historical low interest rates beginning to rise which could crimp growth and have an effect on the housing market and rising fuel prices. Specific to Anaheim, the forecast was for a reasonably strong year, with a projected increase to visitors and an overall solid growth in the next three to five years. Mr. Sweeney reflected on the State budget impacts offering details into the agreements struck with Governor Schwarzenegger. The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill was eliminated by the State last year, roughly $4 billion statewide. That effect on Anaheim was to reduce the VLF fees received from the State of approximately $20 million to about $1.7 million, which was then to be replaced with an equal amount of property tax resulting in no adverse impact to the City. The "triple flip", commented Mr. Sweeney, was one of the most complicated methods to explain. The State needed a way to securitize their borrowing and bond buyers wanted sales tax; so the State took 25 percent of cities' sales tax returning property tax in an amount equal to the 25 percent, reduced the schools portions and then backfilled the schools. Mr. Sweeney ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 2 noted this was a temporary (10 year) change as the property tax local agencies were getting in lieu of the 25 percent sales tax would end when the bonds were paid off in 2015. Each January, the State would "true-up" revenues dependent upon the rate of increase in taxable sales not property tax. Mayor Pringle confirmed these funds were property tax dollars that would otherwise be going to schools and what Anaheim received was based on sales tax revenues. Mr. Sweeney commented the only impact to local government would be to cash flow as the City used to get the 25 percent sales tax every month and now it would be received twice a year, a change the City could tolerate. Conversely, Mr. Sweeney indicated the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) adversely impacted the City. Under Proposition 1A, the $3.7 million dollar reduction to the General Fund was atwo-year takeaway only and many of the later estimates provided to Council assumed this transaction would play out exactly as the State agreed, a $3.7 million reduction to the General Fund in the current year and a $3.7 million reduction in the next year. He also pointed out ERAF impacted the Redevelopment Agency as well with a hit of $2.7 million. Responding to Mayor Pringle's question relating to the VLF cut in 2003/04, Mr. Sweeney explained that in addition to losing the $3.7 million last year, Anaheim actually lost $7.22 million in VLF fees, but there was a promise by the State of California to repay local agencies those funds in August of 2006 and to pay the full amount of $5.7 million. Mr. Sweeney would explain a program to recover those funds earlier than 2006 later in the presentation. Budget assumptions adopted by the City were: 1) revenues were projected to increase modestly, 2) expenses were projected to increase principally due to higher labor costs, 3) containment of labor costs by wage time-outs negotiated with a couple of bargaining units, 4) non-recurring use of funds, 5) expenditure reductions, 6) cost recovery fees and 7) the suspension of transfers to Community Improvement funds. Total expenditures, reported Mr. Sweeney, were $197.5 million in the General Fund, including the $3.7 million State reduction for this year. He pointed out that General Fund labor was $144.8 million or roughly 73 percent of the total, the single largest expense in the fund. Projections included growth on some of the revenues up to $199.2 million with expenses down approximately one percent in labor and slightly less in other operating expenses which would net the City a surplus of almost $1 million at the end of the fiscal year. Mayor Pringle asked if transient occupancy tax (TOT) had been analyzed. Mr. Sweeney explained a detailed TOT analysis was performed every month and reflected ups and downs depending upon events occurring. Last year, he stated, the TOT was up over 12 percent in the aggregate and this year was projected to be above 5 percent, a conservative projection. Mayor Pringle requested additional information from one year to the next for hotels/motels below a certain number of beds, hotels that were non-convention based as well as those hotels near the convention center, excluding Disney properties. He pointed out that if hotel revenues were up it did not necessarily mean that convention business was up and he wanted to see how different hotel business models were being affected. Mr. Sweeney would provide that detail to Council. Mayor Pringle indicated there was an element in Proposition 1A that allowed State government to pass legislation providing for a swap of property tax for sales tax, however the only way to have that pass though the League was if both government entities agreed to that swap. The Mayor had been asked to work on such a bill to be authored by Senator Don ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 3 Perata and wanted to know how such legislation would impact Anaheim and exactly how much property tax returned to the City. Mr. Morgan indicated that information would be provided. Council Member Hernandez asked how projection figures were determined. Mr. Sweeney indicated projections were based upon the number of sales as well as new development and the estimates were approximately 3.3 percent, reviewed each year and adjusted accordingly. Mr. Sweeney, reflecting again on the ERAF shift, stated this was the third time local governments had to give up local level property taxes and that if Anaheim had not had the first and second shift of ERAF funds, the City would have $10 million more in General Funds as those two hits were permanent losses. He emphasized that the agreement with Governor Schwarzenegger meant the last and final ERAF reduction would occur next year and there should not be a fourth. Mayor Pringle believed that the VLF backfill could be returned in Year 2006 but with the State having the ability to borrow again in two different times within a ten year period under Proposition 1A, he envisioned the State borrowing those funds right back. Mr. Sweeney provided charts on the largest sources of revenue to the City, TOT as well as sales tax. Vehicle license fees were included; however, they would no longer be a large source of revenue. He again pointed out the State owed Anaheim $5.722 million in VLF and said there was an opportunity to participate in a loan program if Anaheim wanted the use of those funds earlier than August of 2006 when they were scheduled to be returned. He pointed out there were fees associated with the program but cities could borrow the money now with no recourse. When the agreement was struck with Sacramento, local government agreed to the State borrowing VLF monies but wanted to have the opportunity legally to be able to borrow against that receivable. He stated the legislature authorized cities to work through a Joint Powers Agreement to do public borrowing to pay cities back for that receivable. Bonds would be priced and sold at the end of February or the first part of March and approximately 100 cities had expressed an interest in the program. Mr. Sweeney indicated that the last time he checked with a broker, the bonds were at $300 million of the $1.1 billion receivable. He pointed out it was an opportunity to get some of the capital projects accomplished quicker but that the downside was there would be fees estimated from 92 to 95 cents on the dollar. The higher fee reflected borrowing on a tax exempt basis and the lower fee reflected a taxable basis. The Mayor asked if the fees were fixed and Mr. Sweeney responded the fees were an estimate at this point, but that Los Angeles County, which had the right to act alone, had sold their receivable in December and should be at a tax exempt status of 94.5 percent. He noted Council would have to establish a threshold or minimum on what Anaheim would return back on the dollar. Mr. Morgan stated there were two reasons why agencies would take this action: 1) they absolutely needed the money now, not later, which was not Anaheim's situation) and 2) there was some real question as to whether or not the State would be in a position to deliver on time. In that case, he commented, you could take 93 cents on the dollar knowing it was guaranteed rather than risk getting nothing. He pointed out staff was working through the recourse issues and Council could consider this program in mid-February. He did point out there was another decision Council would need to make if they choose to move forward and that was whether the City opted for tax exempt or taxable debt. For tax exempt basis, specific capital projects must be identified and Mr. Morgan indicated staff would be prepared to talk to Council on priority capital projects Council may wish to consider if the program were utilized. Mayor Pringle ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 4 suggested several meetings with one or two council members be held to brief each council member on this matter prior to consideration in February. Mr. Sweeney provided charts detailing expenses. He pointed out that police and fire were over 2/3 of the net discretionary revenue but that there would be a General Fund surplus at the end of the fiscal year of almost $1 million compared to a shortfall in 2004. For year 2006 to 2010, budget assumptions reflected a strong economy, no additional state impacts, and continuation of the current year budget balancing strategies, and continuing to work with bargaining units on extensions of wage time-outs. He pointed out Police Chief John Welter would be discussing the addition of new officers, commenting that Council had added five officers in the current budget and the base budget assumed there would be another 5 positions with the possibility of adding as many as 15 officers due to potential annexations. He also noted targets had been developed for all departments and staff was comfortable rising to that challenge. Mr. Morgan introduced Chief John Welter, to report on staffing levels at the Police Department, as well as scheduling, deployment and allocation of resources, equipment and new technology. John Welter, Police Chief, provided background on police operations since he had been appointed 10 months ago. He praised the professional staff, both sworn and civilian and indicated the policing structure and community policing teams established earlier were ready for the next level of advancement to build on the neighborhood improvement programs which had such positive impact on Jeffrey Lynne, Park Lane, Avon Dakota and other neighborhoods. He pointed out Anaheim was now seeing slight increases in violent crime and early statistics showed homicide, rape, sexual assault, robbery and other assaults were on the increase attributed to gang related activity. Directed by the City Manager to take a comprehensive look at the department and come up with a new strategic plan, Chief Welter developed the 2004 Strategic Plan in conjunction with his command staff. He believed the Anaheim Police Department must invest in the long-term strategy of prevention to get into problem-oriented policing which they had not been able to do because of staffing and other issues. The Chief was also a strong advocate for engaging the business and residential community in policing and believed in expanding the volunteer workforce. In addition to those efforts, Chief Welter also understood computer and other technologies must be utilized to help officers support on-going crime prevention efforts within the community and with the implementation of the new CAD system, the department was now moving forward in that area. With Anaheim growing and attracting more people, Chief Welter stated there would be more demands for police service. In addition, the attacks of 9/11 had added new security challenges to the lean police force; however the Chief pointed out Anaheim was now prepared for those challenges, equipped and trained to handle problems. The Chief's goal was to become more proactive in that area and focus strategies to prevent terrorism before it occurred. Reflecting on the current status, the Chief indicated there were 375 sworn and 189 civilian employees. The department's strategic plan developed three main goals for the next three to five years; 1) to become leaders in problem-oriented practices, 2) to become a leader in homeland security and 3) for Anaheim to remain a safe place to work, live and play. These ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 5 goals would require constant examination of staffing and resources and the Chief identified the following expectations he felt were needed to meet those goals: 1) the process of actively engaging others in the community in a true problem-solving approach must begin, 2) detectives would improve crime analyzing patterns with the help of the new CAD system and become experts in their respected fields as it related to crime prevention strategies, 3) professional crime analysts would be needed to analyze crimes, figuring out where it was and what drives it, 4) patrol officers would be expected to be meet with community members to lead crime prevention and problem solving discussions at the community level, 5) and the community would be encouraged to start working with the department on the victim and location sites, the crime triangle. He pointed that at the current level of sworn officer staffing, police officers had little time to develop problem-oriented skills or to do anything about crime prevention and the City was frequently paying overtime just to staff the minimum beats of sending 21 officers out on two shifts and a number of officers on some cover shifts. He indicated demands on patrol time had increased over the past few years with the department issuing 64,000 crime reports or case numbers last year, a 14,000 increase since the year 2000. In 2001, officers were dispatched to 280,000 incidents and in 2004, 310,000 incidents. The current level of investigators also needed expansion; as the Family Crimes Detail and Sexual Assault Detail handled increasingly high case loads. Additionally, the Chief wanted to establish a family justice center approach to crime and take positive steps in that direction next year as he felt this would streamline delivery of services and help coordinate with other agencies in the community that would support the department's efforts. The Chief pointed to changes that had occurred in Anaheim. With over 61,000 residents added in the last 10 years, the Resort District completely redeveloped, a second theme park and Arrowhead Pond opened and over 5000 housing units added from 1994-2004, the Police Department had remained at about the same level of staffing. Future plans for Anaheim included adding 2,500 housing units in Anaheim East with another 4,500 units in Anaheim West plus more housing in the Platinum Triangle. Additionally the City had been annexing property, adding one square mile in July and was now considering annexing the Garza strip. This growth was expected to increase in at least 6,000 calls for service. The Chief addressed one of his top concerns, response time to priority one calls. Priority one calls reflected incidents where shots were fired, burglary in progress, or someone was breaking into a home. The goal for response time was 6 minutes and currently that response time was 9 minutes for the first unit and 18 minutes for the second unit. He pointed out that officers could not be expected to respond to dangerous and frequently life threatening situations without adequate cover and to improve response time and provide officer safety, more officers must be added. He referred to steps the department had been taking to get more officers into the field, assigning some duties to light duty or injured officers and to civilian personnel as well as having detectives work patrol one day per month. The new technology was expected to go a long way toward helping officers be more effective and efficient and could keep the department from having to add as many officers depending on how that technology worked. With the current efforts, Chief Welter emphasized the need to add sworn police officers to the patrol ranks in order to police in a more proactive manner and that he would set afive-year target of insuring that the average police officer had 40 percent time to work proactively on crime problems. With current deployment levels, he commented, patrol officers were only able to spend a few minutes at a time working on problems in various locations as they responded from one call to another. With more police ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 6 officers on the streets, sergeants would be able to hold officers accountable to specific crime prevention strategies and would be part of the problem-solving training the Chief would be giving to all organization staff. In order to begin this change, Chief Welter explained he would need 15 additional officers in the department this year and 15 officers next year. This would allow the Chief to provide some training and measure the effectiveness as the department moved gradually into the new model of policing. Additional officers would increase the opportunity for vital information to be passed between a patrol officer and a community member and reduce and impact terrorism. The Chief pointed out additional officers would ensure Anaheim remained a safe place to live, work and play remarking that the violent crime case cancellation rate had been declining which meant the department was unable to solve as many violent crimes as in the past. Additional officers would also provide an opportunity to assign additional detectives to some of those more strained units like Sexual Assault and Family Violence and would also enable the start up a family justice center. There were several crime challenges, he commented, identified in the strategic plan such as the need to support an information technology bureau because the department was going to be inundated with computers and needed more people to manage computer technology. As the threat to homeland security did not seem to be decreasing, more staff would be needed to oversee grant procedures, equipment and supplies, procurement, distribution and monitoring. The Chief estimated that the 30 officers would help the department for the next two to four years, but also reflected that if the department could increase by 50 officers in a four or five year period, reevaluation would determine if more were needed. Council Member Sidhu asked how much overtime reflected increased traffic. Chief Welter responded that the City did not pay a lot of overtime for traffic control enforcement but had been paying overtime almost every shift in order to staff the minimum required officers to respond to calls for service, estimating two or three full shifts of overtime every other day. Council Member Sidhu questioned the effectiveness of officers working overtime after a 12.5 hour shift. Chief Welter indicated placing new officers on patrol could reduce some of the overtime and he recognized the stress factor for officers working overtime after a shift of 12.5 hours. Council Member Sidhu asked what the percentage of crime was that had increased in the last two years and Chief Welter replied homicide was up from 7 cases in 2003 to 11 in 2004 and sexual assaults and robberies were in the 20 percentile range with higher case numbers (between 100-200). In discussing the response time, Council Member Sidhu asked about the survey performed two years ago asking homeowners about their neighborhoods. Mr. Morgan indicated the survey was performed as part of the CDBG process and homeowners had identified safety and crime prevention as their top priorities. Council Member Sidhu asked how Chief Welter arrived at the request for 15 officers. Chief Welter stated that 70 officers could retire by the end of 2007, 20 in this year and between 30-40 in the next two years. He stated it was difficult to find qualified, competent people for the job and it would not be possible to process 100 officers if the department had been given approval to hire 100 as the recruitment, backgrounding, and training processes were lengthy. The reason he selected 15 officers was that he felt that was a manageable number and would give some relief to patrol. With 15 additional officers this year and 15 more next year, Chief Welter stated he would reevaluate the department's response time, and hoped to get further into probable-oriented policing tactics where the department truly started working on problem-solving versus just reacting to calls. In this manner, some of those problems could be eliminated and the numbers of service calls would decrease. Council Member Sidhu asked how many people could be processed through the police academy and Chief Welter ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 7 indicated the Sheriff's Department ran about 3 or 4 academies a year, which translated to between 10-20 applicants. Currently Chiefi Welter stated there were about 11 Anaheim applicants in the academy and that he had hired 20 officers in the last year. Council Member Sidhu concurred in Chief Welter's request for additional officers and would support the recommendation. Mayor Pringle indicated that last June, five additional officers were approved and inquired how long it took to fill the spots. Chief Welter stated those five spots were still not filled as the process to recruit, perform background checks, become academy trained took six to eight months and field training after the academy took another two to four months, a year and a half process. He remarked that it was a very complex and creative process to keep officers on the street taking into account future retirements, injuries and terminations and length of time to process new hires, whether they were new recruits or lateral applicants. Council Member Galloway indicated overtime was viewed as a benefit to some officers and inquired if the Chief were able to hire 15 officers in one year, would that eliminate the need for overtime. Chief Welter responded that officers currently had quite a bit of opportunity to work overtime with all the events scheduled and the need for officers in the Disney resort area. He indicated officers would work their days off shift in overtime in that case and that he did not feel many would be eager to work overtime after a regular 12.5 hour shift. The new officers would reduce the need to use overtime to fill minimum shifts. Mayor Pringle felt that response time was a critical issue as well as the ability to solve crimes rather than focusing on overtime. He pointed out that in a City such as Anaheim, there would always be overtime due to the many events and activities occurring in the City. Council Member Chavez concurred that overtime was necessary for Anaheim and that his issue with overtime focused on the workload on personnel with demanding, stressful jobs. Council Member Chavez was supportive of increasing staffing levels for both the Police Department and Fire Departments given the increase in crimes, terrorism, housing demands and increased service sector jobs. He added that the number of housing units in the Platinum Triangle would be 9,000-10,000 units which would necessitate a fire station in that area as well as additional demands on the police department. He was fully supportive of the request and encouraged hiring bilingual staff as a priority. Council Member Hernandez inquired if other technology would facilitate report writing and speed up processes. Chief Welter indicated the new CAD system would be operating by the end of the year and new laptop vehicle computers would be added offering more and better resources for victims and the officers and speed up the processes. Related to discussion on the CAD system, Mr. Morgan stated Council had recently approved the expenditure of $5 million for the CAD system, with Chief Welter remarking the purchase was partially funded by asset seizure funds. Mayor Pringle pointed out that asset seizure funds, homeland security grants and other dollars not allowed for personnel uses were being utilized to supplement general fund monies with the CAD system purchase but the major need for the department was for manpower. In response to Council Member Hernandez, Chief Welter stated he preferred a 50-50 mixture of academy graduates and lateral hires and looked to hiring residents such as cadets and explorers who understood the culture and the community. Mayor Pringle stated that the City provided service in areas where zero tax dollars were received and he believed annexation was a good thing for Anaheim but cautioned that the ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 8 annexation process was not a done deal and to be prudent in the projection of any revenue from those annexations. Bill Sweeney ending the presentation stating there would be a balanced budget in 2010 assuming goals were met as established and that assumptions made were correct. On the operating basis, there would be approximately $1 million surplus for the current year, then very small operating surpluses climbing up to almost $2 million in 2009/10 because a portion of the City's debt burned off in that year (the Harbor Boulevard Police Station expansion). Mr. Sweeney stated the VLF loan program would be coming before Council with separate information meetings scheduled with a few council members at a time prior to the action on an agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT: None At 4:00 P.M, Mayor Pringle recessed to closed session for the following items: CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of Case: City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, LP, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 050001902. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association. At 5:25 P.M., Mayor Pringle reconvened the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Pastor Dick Sumner, Knott Avenue Christian Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Hernandez ACCEPTANCE OF OTHER RECOGNITIONS (To be presented at a later date): Recognizing Stan and Theresa Pawlowski for their service to the community. Proclaiming February 4, 2005, as Go Red for Women Day ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: Correction to numbering of Item 17 on the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS: James Robert Reade commented on Police Department concerns. Celine, resident of Hermosa Village, thanked the City for parking assistance and addressed the recent parking rules promulgated by the new property management. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 9 Ed Perez thanked Finance Director Bill Sweeney and members of the Budget Advisory Commission for their effective leadership and Council for the opportunity to serve on the Advisory Commission. Mr. Perez also thanked Council for his recent appointment to the Planning Commission indicating he looked forward to working with Council, Planning Commissioners and staff. Michael Baker, Executive Director of Boys and Girls Club of Anaheim, announced the March 5th Gala at Disneyland's Grand California to benefit Motel Outreach program. Fernando Negretta, Anaheim firefighter, addressed comments made against Council Member Chavez at a previous meeting. Walter Fitzgerald, Anaheim Home, offered comments unrelated to the agenda. Larry Rosenberg, co-director of Anaheim Ballet, announced recent events performed by the Anaheim Ballet. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Hernandez removed Item 11 and Mayor Pringle removed Item 7 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Council Member Sidhu moved approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-10, seconded by Council Member Chavez to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and to approve the following in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez, and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. 1. Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held December 2, 2004 B105 and Investment Portfolio Report for December 2004. 2. Authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to American Eurocopter D180 LLC, in the amount of $2,183,376 (plus tax), for one helicopter for the Police Department and increase expenditure appropriations in the Public Works Department's Fleet Reserve Fund by $2,353,000. 3. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Tamang Electric, in the amount 3391 of $52,420, to modify the electrical system at the Lenain Water Treatment Plant and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 4. Approve the agreement with David Evans & Associates, Inc., in an amount not to 3392 exceed $200,000, for plan checking services. 5. Accept the Murray-Hayden Grant Funds, in the amount of $2.46 million, to D150 supplement the West Anaheim Youth Center Gymnasium and appropriate the funds. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 10 6. Approve and authorize the Community Services Director to execute the agreement 3393 with Spanning Tree Technologies, in the amount of $43,341.40, for the purchase of network equipment for the Haskett Branch Library and if necessary, increase the contract amount by up to ten percent to obtain the most current technology or equipment. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-05 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P124 CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim real properties or interests therein (City Deed No. 10808). 9. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P124 CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim real properties or interests therein (City Deed Nos. 10797 through 10802 and 10804 through 10807). 10. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-07 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE P110 CITY OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways, and easements (Abandonment No. ABA2004-00100). Public hearing scheduled for March 1, 2005. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Approve a Joint Use Agreement with the Orange Unified School District regarding 3394 scheduling, use, and maintenance of the athletic fields at Anaheim Hills Elementary School. Mayor Pringle pulled this item from the consent calendar to bring it to the attention of the public. Terry Lowe, Community Services Director, stated this was the culmination of an historic project as Anaheim Hills Elementary School had gone without an athletic field for a considerable length of time. He reported afour-way partnership between the school district, the City, a private developer and local non-profit sports organizations was created which met one of the Mayor's taskforce recommendations for youth sports in Anaheim Hills by expanding little league opportunities. A school playground during the day, the athletic field was also designed to serve the greater needs of the City with the Little League organization participating in the maintenance and operation of the facility, the City having on-going maintenance responsibilities and the developer providing a turnkey facility for the school. Mr Lowe indicated this was one of several joint use agreements with Orange Unified School District. Mayor Pringle moved to approve Item 7, Council Member Sidhu seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez, and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. 11. Approve Council Meeting minutes of January 11, 2005. Council Member Hernandez indicated at the last meeting during Council comments, he had made a statement that he wanted to hire 10 or more police officers and that it was his intention to have it agendized for discussion on January 25th. Discussion was held and it was determined that a specific request had not been made. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve the minutes of January 11, 2005, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Roll ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 11 Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. Council Member Hernandez remarked that he would be requesting a discussion be agendized for the next meeting on how the City should proceed, after hearing Chief Welter's presentation on hiring additional personnel, and what number of officers should be hired based on several scenarios to be provided by Chief Welter, including scenarios with and without the annexation of the Garza strip. 12. Consider appointing a member to the Cultural and Heritage Commission to complete 8105 the unexpired term of Mary Ruth Pinson, term to expire June 30, 2008. APPOINTMENT: With no objection from Council, Mayor continued Item 12 to the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 13. A public hearing to consider altering the types of public facilities authorized by the T104 City of Anaheim Community Facilities District Nos. 1989-1 (Sycamore Canyon), 1989-2 (The Highlands), and 1989-3 (The Summit) to permit a gymnasium on the police station site, with the gymnasium facility to be developed with non-district funds on the police station community center site. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-1 (Sycamore Canyon) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-2 (The Highlands) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-3 (The Summit) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California. City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder reported the City had received one letter of protest from the Highlands area, Community Facilities District No. 1989-2. City Attorney, Jack White indicated this was a process required by law preparatory to scheduling elections in the three community facilities districts and that the purpose was to see whether there was a majority protest by the registered voters of property in the three districts. If not, Mr. White noted, Council had the option to schedule an election by mail to ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 12 add gymnasium facilities to the list of uses that were permitted on the property that was currently the site of the Police Station and related ancillary uses. As pointed out by Mr. White, no tax dollars, Mello Roos or otherwise would be used to fund the construction or operation of the gymnasium. Mayor Pringle stated the public hearing was being conducted to authorize a ballot to be sent to three Mello Roos districts in Anaheim Hills as the community center in Anaheim Hills was owned or within the purview of the three districts and when the original intent of that community center was established, it was established for community service purposes only. Later on, the same voters, he commented, were asked if the use could be expanded to have a police substation operate within the facility as well and that even though the residents in that area did not pay for the substation, to use that property that was originally bought with Mello Roos dollars, the City had to ask if that police substation use would be allowed. Now, the Mayor pointed out, the City would like to have a gymnasium built on that same site using City funds and grants with no costs passed on to the Mello Roos residents but was required to get authorization from the residents by sending a ballot to voters within the districts as was done with the police substation use. Mr. White indicated the three resolutions reflected the language to be used on the ballot. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. Dennis Gapey, speaking as a basketball coach for one of the purposed uses for the gymnasium, was supportive of the use. Mayor Pringle emphasized the need for approval by two-thirds of those voting residents and the need to communicate to the residents that the gymnasium would be built and operated with City funds only. With no other testimony offered, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing. Council Member Hernandez moved to approve the following resolutions: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-1 (Sycamore Canyon) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California; RESOLUTION NO. 2005-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-2 (The Highlands) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California; and RESOLUTION NO. 2005-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM calling a special election of the qualified electors residing within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 1989-3 (The Summit) to consider altering the public facilities authorized by the district pursuant to Section 53338 of the Government Code of the State of California. Council Member Sidhu seconded the motion. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez, and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried. 14. A public hearing to consider the abandonment of a five foot public utility easement P110 and a fire protection vault easement located at 1751 South State College Boulevard and 1801 Katella Avenue (Stadium Lofts Project) (ABA2004-00098). ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 13 At the meeting of December 14, 2004, Item No. 57, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 2004-247 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways, and service easements. (Abandonment No. ABA2004-00098). REQUESTED BY: CREA/Nexus Anaheim Corners, LLC, c/o Windstar Communities, 9381 Judicial Dr., #100, San Diego, CA 92121. MOTION: S/C CEQA FINDING: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11, A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ABANDONMENT NO. 2004-00098. MOTION: S/C Approve the quitclaim of the City's right, title and interest in the abandoned area. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, indicated the easements were not necessary for current or future utility use and would be abandoned to allow for development of the Stadium Lofts project. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing and with no testimony offered, closed the hearing. Council Member Sidhu moved to approve the CEQA finding of Categorically Exempt, Class 5, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2005-11 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING ABANDONMENT NO. 2004-00098, and to approve the quitclaim of the City's right, title and interest in the abandoned area, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5: Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu, Noes - 0. Motion Carried. 15. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 327 E200 WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04431 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00001 AMENDMENT TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY: OWNER: Waddell Foods, 801 North Beach Boulevard, La Habra, CA, 90631. AGENT: John & Lisa Waddell, 207 Redrock Street, Anaheim, CA 92807. LOCATION: Property is approximately 29 acres, having a frontage of 1,413 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, located 983 feet west of the centerline of Festival Drive. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04431 -Request to construct a wedding chapel and banquet facility with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) maximum building height, (b) required street dedication and improvement and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00001 - To remove thirty (30) specimen Oak trees. Amendment to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study (MIS2004-00088) - Amendment to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 327 approved (PC2004-137) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares voted no). ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 14 Waiver of Code Requirement approved in part, approving waiver (a) maximum structural height, and (c) minimum number of parking spaces, and denied waiver (b) pertaining to the required street dedication and improvement of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04431 granted (PC2004-138). Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002--00001 approved. Recommended Council approval of Amendment to Exhibit No.7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study (MIS2004-00088) (PC2004-139). (Planning Commission decision appealed by Agent, Lisa Waddell). MOTION: CEQA FINDING: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 327 MOTION: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00001. RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04431. RESOLUTION NO. AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY. Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, reported the use permit was to construct a wedding chapel and banquet facility in Anaheim Hills. She pointed out the application included a request to permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, to allow roof-mounted equipment, the removal of 30 oak trees and an amendment to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study to allow an additional access point on Santa Ana Canyon Road. The permit request, she stated, also included waivers of maximum building height, required street dedication and improvements and minimum number of parking spaces. Ms. Vander Dussen remarked that on November 15, 2004, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit but denied the request of waiver pertaining to street dedication and improvements and the applicant then appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the waiver to Council. Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the property was currently vacant and was within the Transition Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, surrounded by vacant property although there were single family residential land uses to the southeast and the southwest and commercial land uses to the east and northwest across Santa Ana Canyon Road. She noted the proposed site plan for the wedding chapel and banquet facility would have access by a gated driveway on Santa Ana Canyon Road. The proposed vehicular entrance required an amendment to the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study; approved by Council in 1966 with the intent to restrict access points on the highway. Ms. Vander Dussen pointed out the exhibit had been revised several times over the past few years to accommodate different projects on the road. A traffic study within the environmental impact report analyzed the unique operational characteristics of the proposed use and reviewed the traffic peaks coinciding with proposed use event times indicating the driveway location was appropriate. The Commission, stated Ms. Vander Dussen, recommended Council approval of the revision to the Access Point Study. Ms. Vander Dussen explained the facility would be open for events seven days a week with the majority of events taking place on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and the maximum number of patrons using the facility at any one time would be 450. Friday events would ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 15 begin at 7:00 p.m. and end at midnight and on Saturdays and Sundays, up to four events could occur on site per day, with two during the daytime between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and two in the evening occurring simultaneously between 6:00 p.m. and midnight. She explained the daytime and evening events would be staggered to allow patrons to exit the facility without difficulty. The applicant objected to the Planning Commission's denial of the waiver pertaining to street dedication and improvements required on Santa Ana Canyon Road stated Ms. Vander Dussen. Those improvements recommended by staff included: construction of Santa Ana Canyon Road to a planned primary arterial which was a 106-foot cross section including a 1 E foot wide landscaped raised median along the existing and divided section of Santa Ana Canyon Road to prevent left turns into the project site and U-turns to and from the project site, construction of an eastbound right-turn only lane into the project site, construction and signalization of an opening in the Santa Ana Canyon Road median at the new Deer Canyon Road, and construction of a left-turn pocket to allow for protected left turns and U-turns to serve the wedding chapel and future development west of the project site. She pointed out staff wanted to prohibit direct access from the opposite side of Santa Ana Canyon road into the project site but still allow patrons coming from that direction to proceed down to the signalized intersection and then make a U-turn to access the wedding chapel. Staff was not supportive waiving of any of these public right-of-way improvements based on the projected trip generation at the proposed project and the impact of those trips on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Ms. Vander Dussen stated if the improvements were not installed, staff believed the mobility and public safety on this road would be compromised by left turns in and out of the proposed project. The total cost of the improvements was estimated to be $1.85 million but Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the applicant could petition Council to approve a reimbursement agreement or a benefit district to recover the cost beyond their fair share as subsequent properties in the area developed. The fair share cost of the wedding chapel was estimated to be about 26 percent of the total cost or $481,000. Ms. Vander Dussen stated if Council were to approve the appeal and delete the requirement to install these improvements, they could be installed in conjunction with development of other properties to the southwest or the City could decide to install these improvements to benefit these properties but that traffic problems were anticipated if the banquet facility operated without these improvements. Staff recommended Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the project and denial of the street improvement waiver because it was believed that an unsafe traffic condition would occur if the recommended public improvements were not installed prior to occupancy of the proposed wedding chapel and therefore, the required findings to approve the conditional use permit could not be made. Staff also believed the traffic impacts without the improvements would be environmentally significant and therefore mitigation measures were necessary to insure public safety and the mobility of traffic along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mayor Pringle recognized the main issue was the applicant looking at full cost of improvements on Santa Ana Canyon Road at a significant cost and whether there were other options for delaying or sharing the cost of those improvements addressed as mitigation measures in the environmental impact report (EIR). City Attorney Jack White noted if Council chose not to consider imposing the street improvements as part of the mitigation measures under CEQA, it would be legally necessary to recirculate the EIR relating to what impacts would be created without those street improvements. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 16 Mayor Pringle asked what other projects were in the development phase and how the cost of improvements could be shared if the project were not developed. Ms. Vander Dussen replied that was the reason staff requested the applicant to install the improvements since they were necessary for the facility but that the applicant could be reimbursed as other projects came on line and benefited by the improvements. John Lower, Traffic Engineer, emphasized the need for the improvements should the project be approved and indicated that the percentage of obligation for the street improvements was based on the forecast of daily trips to be generated so the dollar cost would not be known until a precise development was approved. Council Member Sidhu questioned the speed of vehicles going through the proposed development. Mr. Lower stated the posted speed limit was 45 mph and the design speed would be typically 10 MPH over the posted speed limit or 55 mph and that once the traffic light was in place, the majority of the vehicles would pass through the intersection with a green light. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing Lisa Waddell, applicant, felt the conditions of approval placed on the project were not an appropriate level of mitigation, were excessive and an undue burden. She stated Mr. Lower had indicated the first property being developed would be responsible for the improvements but she pointed out the park had been developed first with restrooms and a parking lot. In addition, she noted, the $1.8 million for road widening and traffic signalization did not take in account the exportation of another 275,000 cubic yards of dirt on the front of the property that amounted to $1,650,000 and did not factor in the right turn lane that was to be built as well. She pointed out there were no assurances that other projects would make it to development and that there had been many traffic studies performed with the City's traffic consultant the only one requesting these mitigation measures. She indicated that three other consultants had recommended lesser mitigation measures. She recommended signage be posted to stop U-turns and that a police officer be posted during wedding and banquet events to eliminate problems. Mrs. Waddell also commented that developers had been paying fees into a Santa Ana Canyon fund and asked about the status of those funds. Additionally, she did not feel an intersection with a signal light that did not service an entrance to her proposed project was not reasonable. With no other testimony given, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing. After some discussion took place and before making a decision on this item, Mayor Pringle requested the following information be provided to Council for their review: the City's traffic studies and any other traffic studies relating to the project, any further information staff could provide on the timing of other proposed projects for that area, and information regarding prepayment of mitigation fees relating to Santa Ana Canyon Road. With Council's concurrence, the item was continued to February 8, 2004. Council Member Galloway asked whether the 16 foot wide median could be reduced and if that information could be provided as well for the meeting on the Stn ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 17 16. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: C250 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00109 VARIANCE NO. 200404626 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16545 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Red Curb Investments, P.O. Box 995, Torrance, CA 90508. AGENT: Thomas Hartley, 29462 Thackery Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. LOCATION: Property is approximately 53 acres, having a frontage of 190 feet at the terminus of Avenida de Santiago, located 260 feet west of the centerline of Pointe Premier. Reclassification No. 2003-00109 -Request reclassification of the property from the T (SC) (Transition; Scenic Corridor Overlay), formerly the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RH-2(SC) (Single- Family Hillside Residential; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and OS (SC) (Open Space; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zones. Variance No. 2004-04626 -Request waiver of required private street standards to construct a private residential street without sidewalks or parkways. Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 -Request to establish a 28-lot, 21-unit detached single-family subdivision. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 2003-00109 granted (PC2004-113) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Romero and Velasquez absent). Variance No. 2004-04626 granted (PC2004-114). Tentative Tract Map No. 16545 approved. Mitigated Negative Declaration approved. (Planning Commission's decision appealed by Kathleen Johnson, Hidden Canyon Estates Homeowner's Association; and Richard Hanson, Esq., Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP). (Continued from the Council meetings of November 16, 2004, Item 64 and December 14, 2004, Item No. 64 and January 11, 2005, Item No. 40). MOTION: CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION N0.2003-00109. RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE NO. 2004-04626. MOTION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16545. Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, indicated the reclassification had been approved by the Planning Commission on October 4, 2004 to allow 21 single family semi-custom homes on 53 acres of undeveloped land. The homes would range between 4,600 to 6,000 square feet on lots varying from 22,000 to 74,000 square feet. To accomplish this project, Ms. Vander Dussen reported the applicant requested three actions: 1) reclassification of the property from the Transition Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone to the Single Family Hillside Residential Scenic Corridor Overlay for the residential lots and the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone for the open space portions of the tract with the remaining 38 acres staying in the Transition Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, 2) a variance to waive the required installation of sidewalks on a private street and approval of a tentative tract map to establish a 28-lot, 21 unit subdivision. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 18 She pointed out the following: the project would be developed with a density of 0.4 dwelling units per gross acre (21 units), while the General Plan Land Use Element allowed a density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre or up to 79 units on the entire site, the property was entirely vacant and the extension of Avenida De Santiago had not yet been installed, access to the tract would consist of a new private street at the existing terminus of Avenida De Santiago, less than 1/3 of the 53-acre site would be developed with residential lots, and the site was surrounded by single family residences to the north and east with the property to the southeast currently being developed as a gated single family community. Additionally, Ms. Vander Dussen stated, the Planning Commission's actions to approve this project was appealed by two separate groups: the Hidden Canyon Homeowner's Association and the Board of Directors of the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GRAD). These groups had responsibilities to the existing residential tracts to the north and east of the subject property and their appeals were based on geological issues related to groundwater and slope stability, fire access, increased traffic and environmental impacts on the native plants and wildlife. With respect to the issues raised in the appeal, Ms. Vander Dussen stated, the Public Works Department worked with the applicant and his consultant for over 18 months on the geotechnical studies for the project site with several mitigation measures addressing grading design, the control of groundwater and the implementation of soil measures proposed to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant result. The Fire Department had reviewed the plans and determined there was adequate access to the property for firefighting needs. In addition, the applicant agreed to install fire sprinklers within each residence as an additional fire prevention measure. Ms. Vander Dussen reported staff reviewed the traffic impact analysis and determined the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic in relation to existing traffic load and the capacity of the existing street system that would provide access to the subdivision. After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant discussed the project with the appellants on several occasions as well as engineers in the Public Works Department. As a result, Ms. Vander Dussen stated staff would like to add three additional conditions of approval to the tentative tract map. The conditions pertained to the groundwater monitoring system and sufficient monitoring wells, the ground water liner system and a half million dollar bond to be posted by the developer to ensure continued mitigation of groundwater impacts should it be determined by the City Engineer that the subsurface liner system failed to prevent additional groundwater from infiltrating Santiago landslide area. All of the conditions were acceptable to the applicant and were provided to Council. Staff had collectively reviewed the proposal and analyzed the potential impacts raised by the appellant; confident that the mitigation measures and conditions of approval imposed would reduce any environmental impacts to a level of less than significant and recommended Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the request. Mayor Pringle remarked that Natalie Meeks of the Public Works Department had worked with the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District and asked what the status was regarding their concerns. At the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Meeks stated a condition was recommended that required an impermeable layer to be placed underneath the development that would prevent water from these homes from infiltrating the groundwater into the Santiago landslide. Subsequently, after additional meetings with both GRAD and sessions with the developer and the City's own geotechnical consultant, that condition was expanded as there was a concern the City had not placed enough specifics on monitoring to determine whether the impermeable layer functioned as planned and then what to do, if the system did not work as planned and designed. She further stated these additional conditions required ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 19 monitoring wells to be put in during the initial phase of construction and then those wells to be monitored for the length of the project and there would be a bond of $500,000 that would be held and if, in the first ten years, an increase in groundwater levels occurred due to the project, the bond would be used to provide additional dewatering wells or other mitigation for the water that was added to water table. The Mayor pointed out that presently 79 units could be built on this site, although only 21 units were being proposed and asked if restrictions were placed on any future development for the remaining portion of the site. Staff replied the applicant would have to request further subdivision approvals from the City and would have to go through a public hearing process if they wanted to add additional development at a later date. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. The applicant, Tom Hartley, indicated the lengthy two year process had focused from the first day on water mitigation and a water collection system to underlie all of the pads and irrigation areas had been proposed. He explained if water should happen to migrate down to that level, it would be tilted in such a fashion that it would run to collection pipes and would exit through the storm drain system out of the project so none of the irrigation water that would be provided to the site would show up anywhere except out of the storm drain system. In addition, Mr. Hartley stated, there would be roads, driveways, rooftops, patios and other hard surfaces once development occurred, so that when rain hit those areas, it would be collected and put into the storm drain system as well and it was his contention the impact of the proposed development would be less than currently existed today. He further pointed out that the criteria he had agreed to which the City mandated made the remedial graded site more stable than any site in Anaheim Hills and that the geological issue was with the slide zone down the road which would receive less water than today when the system was installed. Mr. Hartley also stated the water collection system would also be inspectable and would have multiple layers of redundancy. He was planning on inspection ports in this system which collected water and piped it out pointing out the inspection ports could be viewed to make sure they were open and clear. He would also be installing two or three inspection wells on the perimeter of the property that could be reviewed on a periodic basis to verify that no water was coming from the site. If water was present, Mr. Hartley remarked, it could be converted to pumping wells to alleviate the water that might be found. Council Member Chavez inquired as to how far below grade would the membrane be located. Mr. Hartley replied it was still under design but estimated 10 feet, below the storm drain lines, the water supply lines, yards and any irrigation on individual lots. Mr. Hartley indicated there were different liners and systems that could be used all of which had been used extensively but would be unique to the application under residential development. In reply to Council Member Chavez's question as to the draining direction, Mr. Hartley indicated the grading and sloping would be toward the Weir Canyon side of the property to be collected and run to the back of the property where the collection pipes would be located. The draining could be visually seen as it oozed its way out of the backside of the hill and there would not be any mystery as to whether it was operating or not. Mr. Hartley indicated that throughout this process, he had accepted all the mitigation measures with most of the water collection system proposed by him. Council member Sidhu inquired as to what was planned for the rest of the land. Mr. Hartley indicated he planned to donate the property and was seeking a vehicle in which to do that. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 20 Council Member Sidhu asked if there would be any objection to putting restrictions on developing the remainder of the site and Mr. Hartley replied there would be as the property would have no value in that case. Mark McCarty, engineering geologist retained by GHAD to evaluate and maintain the status quo in their dewatering system and the stability of the Santiago landslide, indicated the current groundwater level within the landslide area was very high due to the recent rainfall and that dealing with those groundwater levels was not an easy task and took much effort. He believed the conditions of approval would go a long way to maintain the existing state of stability of the Santiago landslide but cautioned that it would be imperative those measures be implemented in this development. Mayor Pringle asked what measures were being taken by GHAD today. Mr. McCarty indicated there were currently 36 or 38 vertical dewatering wells that pump around the clock, typically pumping in the range of 50,000 gallons per day for a total of 19 million gallons of water extracted from the subsurface. The Mayor confirmed that Mr. McLarty's concerns were that water might run off the liner and there could be greater impacts on the slide area, but pointed out the mitigation measures proposed were much greater than any of the mitigation measures on Avenida de Santiago. Council Member Hernandez asked if Mr. McCarty argued the impermeable barrier would not work. Mr. McCarty replied in the negative but explained that the details had to be worked out which was important as to how well the system would function. Council Member Hernandez mentioned the landslide that had occurred 10 years ago had been slow moving and that most of the homes were repaired after the slide. Ms. Meeks indicated that most of the homes had been repaired after the slide, one had been completely demolished and others needed more repairs than some. Ms. Meeks indicated the recent slide in La Conchita had no mitigation measures that she was aware of or a geological abatement district. Council Member Hernandez pointed out that this development had all that, the barrier, the pumps, French pipes, and culverts diverting water and asked if Mr. McCarty felt more measures were needed. Mr. McCarty replied that the framework had been recommended but the details had not yet been worked out and he wanted to ensure the system was built and functioned so there would be no future impact to the slide area. Ms. Meeks indicated this was the environmental stage and that Mr. McCarty was concerned with the final design of the grading plan, the ultimate layer that went underneath and the sub drain. She pointed out the final design had not been completed nor reviewed by the City and only the conditions on the environmental level were being established at this time. The City would then ensure the detailed plans actually implement the conditions as drafted and make sure it protected the landslide from additional water. Mayor Pringle pointed out that was the same process and concern every applicant had with the City. Jeff Turner, board member of GHAD, and resident of the slide neighborhood, stated he felt the developer's response to the appeal was to say the problem was not on his property but was GHAD's problem. Mr. Turner wanted some measure in place in case the liner did not work to take care of any problem that might potentially occur. Lou Delmonica, homeowner in the slide zone, expressed concern on dewatering and traffic on Avenida de Santiago. He indicated that his home continued to crack and that the street in front of his home cracked in November before the recent rains reminiscent of what had occurred during the slide in 1993. Mr. Delmonica also expressed safety concerns on Avenida de Santiago as residents were permitted to park on both sides of the street and any ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 21 additional traffic would present problems especially where blind curves occurred. He recommended parking on one side of the street be eliminated for that reason. Kelley Adams, president of Window Hills Homeowners Association, and located directly below the proposed development, was opposed to the project due to slope stability for the entire area and asked why monitoring would only occur for the duration of the project. Kathy Johnson, president of Hidden Canyons Homeowners Association stated the appeal was filed based on geological concerns with the groundwater migration and the traffic and safety issue with additional homes. She pointed out that fire access could be impacted by the traffic gridlock with residents trying to evacuate and emergency vehicles trying to get into the area. Jeff Jones, resident of slide area, expressed opposition to the project, pointing to the unique topography and the geological concerns with the slide area. Neil Tyler, resident, was opposed to the project citing slope stability and traffic safety issues Dawn Murphy, treasurer of Hidden Canyon Homeowners Association, opposed the project, complaining at the City's willingness to approve development in a slide area for purposes of generating more revenue. With no other public testimony given, Mayor Pringle closed the public hearing. Mayor Pringle indicated there had been a number of contacts with residents of the area and staff had worked with various community members to try and address concerns with many of those concerns being relayed to the Mayor and that nothing had been taken for granted. Mayor Pringle indicated he had clearly heard the concerns expressed today and further asked Ms. Meeks how the lining and water collection would operate. Ms. Meeks indicated the monitoring wells would be placed around the perimeter of the property and within the property to monitor subsurface water levels in the geological layers most influencing the landslide area. She pointed out there was enough information on the landslide that staff knew where water was coming from and the geologic layer from which it traveled. She explained any water would be collected by pipes in the ground and taken to an area that would not impact the Santiago landslide and that the water would be removed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, there would be monitoring wells to test those areas and see where that water movement was so that if water somehow did get through the liner, it would be removed. Mayor Pringle asked staff whether residents could petition the City to limit parking on one side of the street. John Lower indicated the current street standard provided for parking on one side of the street, although if the community had accepted parking on both sides and there were no accidents indicating the existing situation worked, it was permitted. Staff would be willing to work with the homeowners association if they wished to restrict parking on one side of Avenida de Santiago. Mayor Pringle inquired if all the monitoring wells and pumping wells were in place for the life of the project. Mr. Meeks indicated the monitoring wells were in place for the life of the project but that the $500,000 bond was in place for ten years. She remarked there was no request for pumping wells, but if the monitoring wells showed groundwater levels rising due to the development, the bond funds would guarantee the installation of dewatering wells. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 22 The Mayor pointed out that things could break down after 10 years and that the responsibility to put in dewatering wells should not go away in 10 years and asked for a condition to be drafted for that purpose. Mr. White indicated a condition could be imposed to provide for the dewatering system to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and recorded against the property so it's clear that responsibility lies with an entity in perpetuity. The developer stated if the pumps were located on the property it would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Mayor Pringle asked that be made a condition and part of the CC&R's and that an opportunity for independent verification and monitoring by the city engineer was included. Council Member Hernandez asked the developer how much pumping equipment $500,000 would buy and Mr. Hartley replied it was a conciliatory amount of money to emphasize the fact the problem was recognized and neighbors would have some level of comfort. Mr. Hartley indicated access to the funds had yet to be determined but he would assume it would have to be shown that water was coming from his development and those funds could be accessed to help with the problem. Ms. Meeks indicated the condition required a security bond or letter of credit and the developer would be responsible for implementing the dewatering wells based on the City's judgment. The City would also have the ability to monitor the wells and GHAD could monitor as well for their understanding of the groundwater table throughout the area. Council Member Chavez asked how many dewatering pumps were in that area and Ms. Meeks replied there were 34. Council Member Chavez asked what kinds of mitigation were in place in the landslide area. Ms. Meeks stated mitigation of that development was part of the landslide settlement and there were two monitoring wells put in with one eligible to be turned into a dewatering well. She commented the City put that facility in before turning the water system over to GHAD. Council Member Chavez asked if there had been any slide movement in the last two years with Ms. Meeks replying that based on information received, the slide was not moving. Part of the issue, she explained, is that the slide had moved substantially in 1993 and the top of the landslide would continue to settle and fill in gaps created at that time but GHAD had monitoring devices drilled deep down through the landslide itself which were monitored regularly and had not identified movement of the landslide. Council Member Chavez asked, when the slide moved in 1993, was there ground that had moved in the proposed development area. Ms. Meeks indicated there had been some slope movement in the area along Burlwood but the Santiago landslide was actually located in another area, so there was separate movement in this area. She indicated drains were clogged and subsequently cleared which created better flow of water in those slopes and the movement stopped. She also indicated there had been shallower landslides in Pegasus which had been fixed after many, many years and a new report showed it as stabilized. Council Member Sidhu asked about the life of the impermeable liner. Ms. Meeks indicated the liner had not yet been designed but typical landfill liners which prevented liquids from contaminating groundwater tables were expected to last the life of the project or forever. Council Member Sidhu asked why the bond condition terminated at 10 years and what would happen should the liner rupture in the 11'h year. Ms. Meeks indicated the Mayor had addressed that concern with a condition making an entity responsible for the life of the project and the life of the homeowners association. She indicated the reason 10 years was established was that once the project was developed and people began living there, the effectiveness of the liner would be apparent by this time as to whether the development ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 23 caused the groundwater to rise. She stated if the homeowners association needed to make improvements later, they would do it through assessments or homeowners fees. Mr. Hartley indicated he would probably deposit the $500,000 in an investment account; therefore the bond would be no cost to him as the developer. Council Member Galloway, asked if Ms. Meeks had spoken to the resident who mentioned his home was moving and of the recent crack in the street in front of his home. Ms. Meeks replied that she had spoken to Mr. Delmonica in December and had reported his concerns to GHAD and that Mr. McCarty had not identified any movement in the landslide. She had pointed out there was still settlement going on because of the large areas that had been opened up on the top of the landslide area. Mayor Pringle recognized the work that had been going on for a project that was not in the most desirable location. He felt staff had addressed issues relating to water and how it impacted this property as well as neighboring properties and referenced the on-going requirement in the CC&R's to provide for dewatering wells in perpetuity should it be required and was comfortable with those issues. Council Member Chavez stated he had responded to one of the first 911 calls regarding the 1993 landslide and understood the community's concerns and feelings. He also was not comfortable with the mitigation measures relating to the slide and was further concerned about the traffic situation should an emergency evacuation of the area be necessary. Council Member Herandez indicated he was comfortable with the project but it was clear the neighbors were not and moved to continue the item for additional compromise to take place, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Council Member Sidhu respected property rights but felt there were safety concerns not addressed. Staff recommended continuation to the March 1S' meeting. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried Mayor Pringle identified additional information to be provided for the March 15t meeting; geological information on what was proposed as well as what was happening in the area, written information on the proposed monitoring wells, what the water removal component was and what watering wells would look like, information on the liner, types and uses available, options for discussion and the later engineering component of the project. 17. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: C280 AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 92-2 AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE FINALIZING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2004-00135: AGENT: RHL Design Group, Inc., Maria McGrew, 2401 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 100 East Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 0.78 acre, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Katella Avenue and Haster Street. Specific Plan Amendment No. 6 To The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (SPN2004-00027) -Request to modify the Zoning and Development Standards to permit the relocation of an existing service station facility with frontage on Harbor Boulevard to a location not fronting on Harbor Boulevard and accessory convenience markets with or without the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption as an accessory use to service stations. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 24 Reclassification No. 2004-00135 -Request reclassification of the subject property from the SP92-2 (MHP) (The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan -Mobile Home Park) overlay to the SP92-2 (The Anaheim Resort) Specific Plan, or less intense zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended City Council approval of Amendment No. 6 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (PC2004-134). Reclassification No. 2004-00135 granted (PC2004-133). (Continued from the Council meeting of January 11, 2005, Item No. 41). ORDINANCE NO. 5954 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL amending Chapter 18.116 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Amendment No. 6 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2). ORDINANCE NO. 5955 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00135). Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director indicated the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan was adopted in 1994 with the intent of encouraging facilities that catered to tourists and convention related events and for those facilities to be developed in attractive settings for retail businesses directly related to entertaining, lodging and supply and services to tourists and visitors. She reported the requested specific plan amendment reclassification had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission as part of a land use application that included determination of a conditional use permit for a service station, approval to allow the sale of beer and wine, and approval of a conversion impact report associated with the removal of a mobile home park overlay for an abandoned portion of a mobile home park. The proposed specific plan amendment reclassification was requested to relocate a service station within the resort. Ms. Vander Dussen stated the Code modification would allow the closure and relocation of an existing Chevron service station at the southwest corner of Harbor and Katella to a site located at the southeast corner of Haster and Katella and the removal of the mobile home park overlay would facilitate the removal of four vacant coaches from an unused portion of an existing mobile home park. Upon completion of the relocation to the new site, the existing service station, Ms. Vander Dussen noted, would be demolished and the underground facilities removed and the parcel would be available for assembling onto a larger site for hotel or restaurant development. Because the request would create an opportunity to further the goals of the Anaheim Resort and provide for the most appropriate use of the land within the core Resort area, as well as providing tourist serving retail uses, staff recommended Council introduce the specific plan amendment and reclassification ordinances. Mayor Pringle opened the public hearing. A Chevron representative provided a brief presentation on the relocation process, explained in detail the new service station and upscale market and indicated there were no objections to the conditions imposed. With no other public input, Mayor Pringle closed the hearing. Council Member Sidhu moved to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 5954 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL amending Chapter 18.116 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Amendment No. 6 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2) and to introduce ORDINANCE NO. 5955 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL amending the zoning ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 25 map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00135, seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION: None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS: Council Member Hernandez announced the passing of three retirees, Daniel D'Orso with the Community Development Department, and Kenneth Shupet, and Harold Thurber, former firefighters. Additionally, Council Member Hernandez requested a discussion on how the City should proceed with the hiring of new police officers pursuant to Police Chief Welter's staffing presentation be scheduled for the next agenda utilizing several scenarios, including one with and without the annexation of the Garza strip. Mayor Pringle requested the discussion be held at a later date when budget workshops were scheduled or alternatively to reach a point prior to the workshops where Council could tell the Chief that in next year's budget we know there would be a minimum number of officers approved and staff could get a jump start on the lengthy recruitment and training processes. Discussion was held as to the merits of taking action now to increase service levels in the Police Department or for consideration during normal budget workshop sessions. Council Member Hernandez emphasized the need to start exploring the possibility of moving ahead on this matter. Mayor Pringle stressed the need for understanding the full budget proposal and to take action in conjunction with information provided at that time, recognizing that each member of the Council was aware of the need for hiring additional officers and supportive of the effort. Council Member Chavez indicated that after the evening's presentation, Council understood the need for more police personnel but that it would be appropriate to consider when addressing the new budget. Council Member Sidhu was comfortable in waiting for the budget process to address the need for police officers in the next two years. In response to Mayor Pringle's question, Chief Welter indicated his report had been submitted to the City Manager for this meeting and was complete. The City Manager noted he had copies of Chief Welter's report for Council but that it was Chief Welter's current and best thinking on staffing levels but warranted ongoing evaluation. He also indicated the City had been working on the assumption of adding 5-15 officers in the coming year. He indicated Council would be reviewing this matter in 2-3 months and recommended Council see it in that context but would also anticipate hitting the ground running with the hiring of additional officers. Mayor Pringle moved to table the request to discuss hiring police officers until the first meeting in April, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Council Member Hernandez felt the motion was out of order. Discussion was held. Roll call vote: Ayes- 4; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway and Sidhu. Noes - 1; Council Member Hernandez. Motion Carried. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 25, 2005 Page 26 Council Member Galloway recognized Monica Vega, and 11 year old student who had been helping a 91 year old woman for the past two years, thanking her for making a difference in this elderly woman's life. Mayor Pringle thanked Council members for attending the state of the City address on this date. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pringle adjourned the meeting at 8:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Sheryll Schroeder, MMC City Clerk