Loading...
2005/11/08ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2005 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session on October 25, 2005 at 3:05 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. PRESENT: Mayor Curt Pringle, Council Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez and Harry Sidhu STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Dave 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 November 4, 2005 at the City Hall exterior bulletin board. WORKSHOP: 91 FREEWAY MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY Art Leahy, Executive Director of Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provided Council with background on the Major Investment Study (MIS). He recapped the 18-month study was to define short and long term transportation needs and examine a wide range of options for improving traffic flow between Orange and Riverside counties and that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), OCTA, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), had joined in partnership to assess multi-modal alternatives to reach that goal. He explained OCTA's main reason in purchasing the toll road on SR 91 was to nullify the non-compete protection which had banned any improvements on the road. He also remarked that his organization had met on a regular basis with RCTC, both elected officials and staff, to talk about issues of common interest, freight movement, and the 91. That dialogue, he acknowledged, culminated in ajointly-funded major investment study. The past year, he noted, the study had been looking at options with the point being to narrow them down to a set of actions that could become projects that would be built in the short term with possibly a longer range set of options identified for the future. Tony Rahimian, project manager for the Major Investment Study, indicated that approximately 40 percent of the trips made across the County were actually destined for Irvine or areas south of Irvine. When the project was started 17 months ago, two existing corridors were identified which were the SR 91 and the Ortega Highway (SR 74). Three conceptual corridors were identified as well; Corridor A was mostly within the Santa Ana Canyon parallel to the existing SR 91 freeway; Corridor B connected to Cajalco Road at I-15 in the City of Corona at the 133/241 intersection of the toll roads in Orange County. Corridor C had the same terminus in Orange County and connected 241/133 to the City of Lake Elsinore either at Lake Street or Nichols Road. Based on these five corridors, he stated, the study assembled 12 Build Alternatives along with a No Build Alternative and presented those to the public in March/April of this year. Through the input received as well as comments from the Policy Committee, the stakeholders and the technical team, the 12 alternatives were reduced to three Build Alternatives. He indicated the study team had been directed by the Policy Committee in July of this year to begin detailed evaluation of the three ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 2 alternatives in terms of looking at the impacts on the environment as well as cost estimates and engineering challenges. On July 15, 2005, the Policy Committee further directed the team to look at maximizing capacity within SR 91, maximizing transit in all corridors to the extent possible, and to further evaluate Corridors A, B and D. Staff was also directed to eliminate Corridor C as it was longer than Corridor B, had more environmental impacts, was costlier than Corridor B and the demand was far less than the demand on Corridor B. Mr. Rahimian also remarked the Policy Committee had directed the technical team to eliminate further consideration of a surface-only option along Corridor B because of its significant environmental impacts. In the No Build alternatives, the maglev system, the superspeed train connecting the City of Anaheim to Ontario airport to Las Vegas, was identified and staff was meeting with the maglev group to ensure the MIS projects did not preclude implementation of the maglev project. Included in the No Build Alternative was the addition of one lane in each direction between the county line and I-15, the addition of an auxiliary lane between SR 241 and 71 in the eastbound direction and the extension of the SR 241 or the toll facility called Foothill South from its existing terminus in Orange County at Oso Parkway to the I-5. He reported that three improvements were consistent in all the strategical alternatives: 1) adding one or two lanes on SR 91, 2) the managed lane concept, essentially changing direction of the flow during peak hours, 3) toll as well as carpool or HOV facilities as well as maximizing the transit system within all the strategic alternatives. He pointed to some of the highlights of the transit features: express bus service, increased Metrolink service by reducing headways and increasing capacity at the Surface Club Drive transit center in Corona, and the maglev superspeed train. Mr. Rahimian offered specifics on the strategic alternatives. Strategic Alternative 1 would construct a six-lane facility adjacent to the BNSF right-of-way or somewhere within Santa Ana Canyon parallel to the 91 and/or possibly within the SR 91 right-of way. Adding one lane in each direction on Ortega Highway to add capacity to SR 74 between the future extension of 241 and Lake Elsinore offered two options; Option 1A proposed reducing or eliminating the toll on 241, 261 and 133 and reimbursing TCA for the loss of toll revenue. This option would reduce the number of cars continuing on the 91 westbound passing 241, traveling through the City of Anaheim and eventually heading south on 55 to get to a final destination in Irvine or further south. As an alternate to this option, with no freeing up the tolls on 241, option 1 B would widen SR 55 by one lane in each direction between the 91 and I-5. The impacts of strategical alternative 1 B in terms of right of way and community impacts were significant stated Mr. Rahimian. He noted that preliminary assessment indicated the loss of between 200 to 250 single family homes, 25 to 50 multi-family residential units, 2 to 5 offices and commercial businesses. Strategic Alternative No. 2 did not propose any improvements along Corridor A, the 91 improvements were the same; however, this alternative proposed asix-lane facility along Corridor B which could be either nearly full tunnel or a combination of tunnel/surface facility. The technical team had determined it was not feasible to place a tunnel through an active seismic fault and the recommendation was to construct the tunnel beyond the Elsinore fault to eliminate potential earthquake related problems. This alternative, he commented, proposed three separate tunnels with two lanes in each tunnel and the center tunnel to be considered a reversible tunnel, all of which would provide capacity for eight lanes. Strategic Alternative No. 3 was a combination of Alternative No. 1 and No. 2 by providing a smaller scale elevated structure through Corridor A, a four-lane facility and two tunnels with four lanes along Corridor B. This tunnel would be tolled as the demand from non-toll to tolled reduced trips ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 3 significantly. He indicated that 130,000 average daily trips (ADT's) were reflected on the tunnel for No. 2 and once the toll was applied, that number dropped to a little more than 70,000 ADT's. Mr. Rahimian stated preliminary costs for improvements to SR 91 were approximately $680 million which included the capital cost plus a 25 percent contingency due to unknowns. to addition, a 25 percent project development cost was added to the capital costs. Comparing the strategic alternative costs, the total ranged from $8.9 billion to a little over $12 billion. He pointed out the costs included the toll revenue that TCA would lose because of the various improvements and what was needed to make TCA whole in terms of revenue. He pointed out that under Alternative No. 3, both the surface tunnel and the tunnel concept had a negative $670 million as that corridor was envisioned as a toll facility. Mayor Pringle clarified that on Strategic Alternative No. 2 and 3, where the surface tunnel or tunnel was identified, only corridor D was considered a tunnel facility as the surface tunnel was not only more expensive but had additional environmental impacts. Mr. Rahimian indicated the team attempted to capture the summary of the benefit cost ratios for each of the strategic alternatives, calculating the time savings per vehicle under each of the alternatives (which ran from 36 to 39 minutes based on year 2030 numbers) and the total number of hours saved daily (assuming $10 per hour for time-savings and 40 cents per mile for distance- savings) and converted these numbers to the 25 year life of the project to come up with a total savings over the life of the project in billions which ranged from $21.3 to $25 billion. Benefits and risks associated with the alternatives were identified as well. For Corridor A, the benefits were cost effective with minimal natural environmental impacts and enhanced goods movement. The risks identified air quality problems within the canyon, noise impacts and a limiting of future capacity improvements beyond 2030 by constructing the elevated facility within the Canyon. Benefits identified for Corridor B indicated it would provide an additional link between two counties, improved regional mobility, had minimal human environmental impacts, and provided partnering opportunities with Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The risks included the greater cost and unknowns associated with tunnel construction and the longer permitting and construction time necessary. Mr. Rahimian emphasized that all strategic alternatives achieved the agreed upon mobility objective set out by Policy Committee at the beginning of the project. He acknowledged the SR 74 realignment and widening proved to be costly with high environmental impacts and little benefits. The SR 55 widening impacted the communities through Anaheim, Tustin, and Santa Ana significantly. The next step in the process, he explained, would be a Policy Committee meeting scheduled for November 18th with the technical team coming forward with recommendations for locally preferred strategies and after that, the full OCTA board and RCTC commission would consider their final recommendation in December of this year. Mayor Pringle asked that a breakdown in terms of usage for each of the corridors be included in the November 18th presentation so that usage could be evaluated against the cost breakdown. Mayor Pringle asked for the volume on the 91 Freeway today; Mr. Rahimian responded the demand was 268,000 but that the capacity was 220,000 trips per day. He also asked what additional capacity would be added with the addition of two lanes to the 91; Mr. Rahimian replied approximately 50,000 capacity would be added, Mayor Pringle also asked what was the assumption in the baseline for the maglev service and the response indicated it was assumed 13,000 average daily trips would be taken off the 91. He further stated with the addition of six ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 4 lanes, between 120,000 to 140,000 capacity would be added to the 91, however, when the lanes were reversible, capacity would increase to eight lanes, rather than six. Mayor Pringle had understood there had been some discussion that in Corridor A, those lanes could potentially be reversible; Mr. Rahimian indicated if they were, staff would recommend reducing the width of the structure under Alternative 1 to five lanes as there would be no reason to build a four lane facility if the reversible concept were utilized. Mayor Pringle emphasized he did not agree with that strategy and suggestion be held on that issue. His premise was if there was the potential to build to capacity, why build one lane less, especially when the cost was the same. Council Member Sidhu requested additional clarification on partnering with the Metropolitan Water District. Mr. Rahimian indicated MWD had expressed an interest in building their water line facility to bring additional water supply to southern Orange County within a transportation tunnel to share some of the costs. He indicated that staff had been in preliminary discussions with MWD and would continue to keep them in mind as the Investment Study progressed. Mayor Pringle requested Art Leahy have the capacity breakdown at the November 18th meeting as this would help in determining how to get the biggest bang for funding dollars. By maximizing the initial investment, some ideas could be left on the drawing board available for discussion while all parties worked together to figure out how to fund future transportation projects. He pointed out the fact if there was an extension to Measure M which sunset on 2011, and extending it 30 years forward, the extension would generate only $11.8 billion dollars. Of that, stated the Mayor, a third was allocated to local cities for streets and road projects with 25 percent allocated to transits, senior citizens and other similar programs, which left approximately $5 billion for potential roadwork of freeways and highways in the entire County for the next 30 years, not enough based on the preliminary estimates to cover the costs of all needed projects and improvements. Mayor Pringle also pointed out there was a possibility that Southern California Edison or Anaheim Public Utility could partner in utilizing the future tunnel as a utility provider. Council Member Chavez asked for details related to the elevated platform. Mr. Rahimian stated it would begin at the 241, connect to the I-15 with a single connection at the 71, with no more intermediate connections along the City of Corona and would be construed as an express facility to connect I-15 to 71 down to the 241. At one point, he remarked, the team was contemplating connecting that corridor to the SR 91 westward but that had been taken off the table. Mayor Pringle added that originally there was a discussion to build this elevated structure along the BNSF railroad tracks or anywhere within the canyon but at this time, there did not look like there was an opportunity on top of BNSF or around the BNSF because the issue was how to get to BNSF across 300 homes in Yorba Linda to connect to the 241. The Mayor indicated that he had aggressively pushed not wanting a western connection onto the 91 because all it would do would be to bring all that traffic and dump it into the 91 and then vehicles would travel through Anaheim Hills and down the 55 or the 57. The Mayor stated that part of his encouragement was to have that traffic go onto the 241 but to accomplish that, the issue of buying down the tolls may be necessary in order to maximize the amount of people using the 241. At this point, the Mayor stated, discussion would be to have four lanes elevated above the 91 at least through Orange County, and the study team was now reviewing the opportunity to do that through Riverside County all the way to the 15 so it would not be straddling or on top of BNSF. Mr. Rahimian concurred stating between the 241 and the 71, the current alignment did not show the structure within the existing right-of-way but it was extremely close and the study was staying away from the residential community in Yorba Linda to the extent possible. He pointed out the directions received on October 28th was to further study ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 5 putting these structures within the 91 corridor itself: He indicated there were certain challenges in doing that but it had not been ruled out. Council Member Sidhu asked if the maglev structure would be located close to the 91. Mr. Rahimian remarked this was a separate project by a separate entity and the environmental documents had not yet been completed and in addition, several alignments were being considered, Mayor Pringle commented he sat on that commission as well and they had met with the City of Corona to determine if there was value to have a stop in Corona and if that occurred, it forced the discussion to consider the 91 alignment for the maglev system. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: None Mayor Pringle moved to closed session for the following items: CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Angels Baseball, LP, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 050001902. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -EXISTING LITIGATION (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Name of case: Welch v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 030009927. 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters Association, Local 2899. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency designated representative: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association. 5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Agency negotiator: Dave Morgan Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim and National Football League Under negotiation: price and terms. At 5:25 P.M., Council reconvened. Invocation: Reverend Gary Spykerman, Grace Bible Church Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Chavez. Presentations: Declaration recognizing Stephen Hillenburg, Director, Writer, Producer, animation Artist and Creator of "SpongeBob SquarePants" ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Hillenburg thanked Council for the recognitit~n, remarking that as an Anaheim student, he was inspired by several Anaheim teachers to purst,e his Career. Proclaiming November 13-19, 2005 as American Education Week Ms. Barbara Gonzalez, Anaheim City School District Board Member, accepted the proclamation, thanking Council for appreciating the value of education. Acceptance of Other Recognitions (to be presented at later date): Recognizing 2005 winners of Latino Youth Leadership Institute Scholars ADDITIONSlDELETIONS TO AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS (ALL MATTERS EXCEPT PUBLIC HEARINGS): James Robert Reade addressed complaints related to the Anaheim Police Department. Steven Wesley Blake asked for support as a write-in candidate for the 48th congressional district. Alma Ramirez addressed various unrelated complaints. William Fitzgerald, Anaheim HOME, commented on hiring preferences for U.S. veterans. CONSENT CALENDAR: Council Member Chavez removed Item No's. 12, 13,14,15,16 & 22 for separate discussion. Mayor Pringle indicated he would abstain on Item No's. 24 & 25 due to a potential conflict of interest. Council Member Hernandez moved approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar Items 1 - 28, seconded by Council Member Galloway 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. 1. Reject certain claims filed against the City. C118 2. Receive and file the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of July 27, B105 2005, August 24, 2005 and September 28, 2005. 3. Cancel the regular meeting of November 22, 2005 and schedule a replacement meeting for D114 3:00 P.M., November 15, 2005. 4. Appoint Kristine A. Ridge as interim City Treasurer, effective December 31, 2005, and D117 delegate to the City Manager responsibility for performance evaluation during the interim appointment period. 5. Reject the sole bid submitted by Garcia Juarez Construction, in the amount of $2,668,000, D175 for the Lincoln Avenue Relief and Crossing Sewer Improvements Project. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 7 6. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of 3753 $1,757,450, for the 12KV Distribution for the Park Substation project and approve and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 7. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Miller Environmental, Inc., in the 3754 amount of $1,415,800, for the Right of Way Clearing for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Highway and HOV Interchange Project and authorize the Finance Director to execute the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. 8. Approve the Engineering Services Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $208,107, with 3755 CH2MHill for the Combined Central Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers Study. 9. Approve the following items necessary for the funding, acquisition, and operation of 3755 equipment for the Anaheim Resort Transit System: 1) Cooperative Funding Agreement 2763 with Orange County Transportation Authority, in the amount of $2,011,404; 2) Amendment to an Operating Agreement with the Anaheim Transportation Network; and 3}authorize the City's Purchasing Agent to purchase nine liquefied propane gas buses from Creative Bus Sales, Inc., utilizing the State of California Contract No. 1-03-23-16, in a total amount not to exceed $1,441,147, including taxes. 10. Approve the Amendment to Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property located at 1168 3573 South State College Boulevard for the State College Boulevard and Ball Road Intersection Improvement Project (R/W ACQ2003-00145). 11. Approve the First Amendment to Agreement with Washington Group International, Inc. for 2762 contract administration services for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corridor Soundwall Project. 17. Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the Pole Lease 3762 Agreement with Level (3) Communications for a term of 25 years. 18. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement with the 3763 Orange County Conservation Corps to be used to fund temporary jobs to repair public facilities damaged during the winter 2005 storms. 19. Approve an agreement with the Orange County Health Services Agency, in an estimated 1458 amount of $853,263, for animal control services for the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 and approve an increase to expenditure appropriations by $107,763. 20. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-215 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY D116 OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain City records more than two years old (Audit Division}. 21. RESOLUTION N0. 2005-216 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY P124 OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or interests therein. (City Deed Nos. 10876, 10880 and 10881 }. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 8 23. ORDINANCE N0. 6000 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM C280 amending Table 4-A of Section 18.04.030 of Chapter 18.04, Table 6-A of Section 18.06.030 of Chapter 18.06 and adding Section 18.40.090 to Chapter 18.40 and amending Section 18.42.060 of Chapter 18.42 and of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning. 24. ORDINANCE N0. 6001 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM C280 amending Chapter 18.20 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning and Development Standards (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00036) (Introduced at the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #34). ORDINANCE N0. 6002 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00134) (Introduced at the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #34). Mayor Pringle abstained. 25. ORDINANCE NO 6003 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM C280 amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning {Reclassification No. 2005-0164) (Introduced at the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #35}. ORDINANCE NO 6004 (ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM amending portions of Chapter 18.20 and amending Section 18.92.060 of Chapter 18.92 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning and Development Standards (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00042) (Introduced at the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #35). ORDINANCE NO 6005 {ADOPTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (i) approving Development Agreement No. 2005-00008 by and between the City of Anaheim and Lennar Platinum Triangle LLC and Sellers, (ii) making certain findings related thereto, and (iii) authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City {Introduced at the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #35). Mayor Pringle abstained. 26. ORDINANCE N0. 6006 (INTRODUCTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF C280 ANAHEIM amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 2004-00114). 27. ORDINANCE N0. 6007 (INTRODUCTION) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM amending various Chapters of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to clarification, processes and definitions regarding telecommunication facilities (Zoning Code Amendment No. 2005-00040}. 28. Approve minutes of the Council meeting of October 25, 2005. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 9 Mayor Pringle declared a potential conflict of int~i'est on items 12 through 16 and the dais. 12. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Maria 3757 Carmen Deanda, in the amount of $15,000, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 2, for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Freeway Highway project. 13. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with MJ Kappy 3758 Stull, in the amount of $12,700, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 21, for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Freeway Highway project. 14. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Violet and 3759 Paul Slopansky, in the amount of $16,750, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 29, for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Freeway Highway project. 15. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Dorothy 3760 Smith, in the amount of $29,400, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 147, for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Freeway Highway Project. 16. Approve the Agreement for Acquisition of Mobile Home and Improvements with Olga 3761 Tabarez, in the amount of $19,250, for one mobile home located at 1844 South Haster Avenue, Space No. 148, for the Gene Autry Way (West) I-5 Freeway Highway project. Council Member Chavez indicated he had removed Item No's. 12 through 16 from the consent calendar as he had one question and concern related to all. He pointed out the City was proceeding on a regular basis with the voluntary sale of mobile homes for the Gene Autry/I-5 project but expressed concern should any future mobile home owners refuse the City's acquisition offer. Natalie Meeks, Public Works, stated the Department would then return to Council asking for a resolution of necessity to acquire the property and settle through the court system on any financial payment to the mobile home owners. Council Member Chavez expressed the thought that there may not be enough Council votes should eminent domain be necessary. Jack White, City Attorney, stated no actions taken by Council during the voluntary acquisition of mobile homes would be construed as a commitment by Council that it would use the power of eminent domain. He explained it would take afour-fifths vote of Council to proceed with eminent domain and concurred there was no apparent method to proceed other than the current process of voluntary sales. He further remarked Council would always have the prerogative of saying no to eminent domain in this or any instance. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez moved approval of items 12 through 16, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call Vote; Ayes -4 ;Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Abstention - 1: Mayor Pringle. Motion Carried. Mayor Pringle returned to the Council Chambers. 22. ORDINANCE NO. (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF M142 ANAHEIM adding Chapter 4.22 to Title 4, adding Section 18.38.260 to Chapter 18.38 and amending Sections 18.08.030 and 18.92.220 of Chapters 18.08 and 18.92 respectively, of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to smoking lounges. Shari Vander Dussen, Planning Director, indicated a clarification memorandum had been written, which Council received, relating to live entertainment but no changes to the proposed ordinance since it had been introduced at the last Council meeting had been made. Mayor Pringle remarked ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 10 Council had received comments from smoking lounge owners and asked that Ms. Vander Dussen respond to the comments. Ms. Vander Dussen reported staff had one meeting with the owner of an existing smoking lounge after the owner had expressed concern that the ordinance would put him out of business. The owner indicated the only change he would have to make for his present business was that he would not be allowed to keep coals outdoors because the Zoning Code required business activities to be conducted within the building with the exception of approved outdoor seating. The owner would have to make modifications to the interior of the facilities to accommodate heating of the coals indoors, however, she remarked, that was a position that could be enforced by the Fire Department today, so the adoption of this ordinance would not change the fire provisions. Other than that, the owner said he was in compliance with all of the other operational characteristics. The owner was also aware that several of the other operators had allowed their businesses to create disturbances in the neighborhoods and had regretted the negative image created overall for hookah cafes. Council Member Chavez indicated one issue raised had to do with no live entertainment permitted in smoking lounges, including but not limited to singers, DJ's, dancers, or comedians. He asked if a hookah establishment decided to have a birthday party and had a comedian or some music, was that prohibited. To respond to Council Member Chavez's question, Ms. Vander Dussen replied to the extent lounges had live entertainment of any type; it would be a violation of their permit as the ordinance was presently written. She remarked the reason staff banned live entertainment was because a number of the complaints received about the existing smoking lounges were directly related to the provision of live entertainment; either it was very loud and created a disturbance or the type of crowd the entertainment attracted, created a disturbance in the parking lot or in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. She indicated Council could allow live entertainment in smoking lounges subject to a conditional use permit that would require a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission to give the City an opportunity to impose appropriate conditions and make sure the entertainment was suitable given the size of the facility and its location. Council Member Chavez suggested the ordinance be amended to reflect that live entertainment could be sought under a conditional use permit as with other establishments. Mr. White added it would take adding language to the ordinance to make that happen, and if Council was agreeable to that, the ordinance would come back for another first reading, then to be adopted at a subsequent Council meeting. Mayor Pringle concurred with Council Member Chavez's suggestion remarking that the intent of the ordinance was to have a permit in place where owners of the smoking lounges were held responsible if their patrons got out of hand and disturbed their neighbors. Mayor Pringle suggested an additional amendment, that should the smoking lounges not comply with the requirements of the permit, the business be asked to leave. He also felt the permit should not require annual renewal, stating the process was not meant to be punitive and the permit should remain as long as the lounges lived by the set of standards within the permit. Ms. Vander Dussen wished to clarify that there were many businesses in Anaheim that did not require a conditional use permit for live entertainment. For instance, she stated, a restaurant that was not serving alcohol could get a regulatory permit issued by staff to have live entertainment for Sunday brunch. If the restaurant was selling alcoholic beverages or had a cover charge or operated for the purposes of dancing, the live entertainment would be subject to review as part of the conditional permit activities. Mayor Pringle indicated he did not want additional restrictions placed on this type of business operation and pointed out the permit did not define noise disturbance as solely limited to amplified music but was also defined in other ways. Ms. Vander Dussen indicated the permit applicant would be required to submit a plan that addressed potential noise impacts especially if the business was located near residential uses. Mayor Pringle remarked the complaints he had heard was not as much from the music but resulted from patrons ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 11 talking late at night, car horns and that type of activity. He moved to remove the prohibition on live entertainment, relying on the noise mitigation plan to insure noise did not impact neighbors, particularly those near residential units and to remove the one year application requirement, seconded by Council Member Chavez. Council Member Hernandez concurred with Mayor Pringle's remark that the City was not trying to drive hookah cafes out of business but was following State law and establishing regulations to minimize the nuisance factors that Council Members had heard from complaining citizens and from Police Department staff. Council Member Hernandez asked what the consequences were if a business was declared a public nuisance. Mr. White responded it could be addressed either civilly or criminally with the most likely avenue being the repeal of a permit. If a business did not have a permit, action could be taken similar to any zoning violation by filing a civil action for abatement of a public nuisance. Council Member Galloway asked staff if the provision relating to live entertainment was removed, what exactly would a smoking lounge owner need to do to have live entertainment. Ms. Vander Dussen indicated it would be handled at the staff level by administrative approval. She noted it could be more complicated for smoking lounges as the business also had to comply with provisions of the labor code to have smoking indoors; they would have to demonstrate that the introduction of additional employees or contractors would not interfere with the compliance with the labor code for purposes of operating a smoking establishments. Mayor Pringle confirmed that a smoking lounge establishment could not have over five total employees or the labor code would be violated. Mayor Pringle restated his motion and moved to modify the ordinance by removing the provision relating to live entertainment and removing the one year application requirement and to present the revised ordinance to Council for first reading at next meeting; seconded by Council Member Chavez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. 5:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 29. This is a continued public hearing to consider the acquisition and condemnation of a portion P121 of certain real property located at 2501 East Lincoln Avenue for the Lincoln Avenue/Sunkist Street Intersection Project (continued from the Council meeting of October 25, 2005, Item #33). Mayor Pringle indicated City staff had provided a written staff report for proposed acquisition and the written report and the oral staff presentation would be deemed part of the record for the public hearing. Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, stated the resolution on the agenda was for the acquisition of right of way necessary for the construction of the Lincoln Avenue Sunkist Street Intersection Improvement Project which would provide an additional westbound thru lane at the intersection and median modifications on Lincoln Avenue. She remarked the proposed project would improve traffic capacity through the intersection and had been environmentally cleared through a negative declaration approved by Council on May 11, 2004, which would also be made a part of the record on these proceedings. She explained temporary construction easements were included in the acquisition to accommodate the relocation of signage and utilities and to join existing improvements as required and that the project was scheduled for construction in January 2006 to conform with grant funding on the project. ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 12 She also indicated acquisition offers had been made to the owner, as well as a copy of the letter and notice of hearing included in staff report. Ms. Meeks added the City's acquisition consultant had been in direct contact in negotiations with the property owner on numerous occasions and had also been in contact with the property owner's attorney, recently retained. She noted that Dave Cosgrove of Rutan and Tucker, the City's counsel, had provided a memo in response to opposing counsel's letter addressing the concerns raised. Ms. Meeks ended the presentation by stating staff recommended the City move forward with action tonight, recognizing that staff would continue to work with the property owner for resolution and to reach settlement. Mayor Pringle indicated testimony would be taken from the owner of record or designated representative of 2501 East Lincoln Avenue and that testimony would be limited to the following five issues only: 1) whether public interests and necessity required the project, 2) whether the project was planned and located in a manner most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, 3) whether the property sought to be acquired was necessary for the project, 4) whether the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 had been made to the owner or owners of record, and 5) whether the City had met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property. Mayor Pringle opened the hearing and invited the owner of the property located at 2501 E. Lincoln Avenue to address the Council. With no response given, Mayor Pringle asked for any public testimony related to the property, closing the hearing when no testimony was offered. Council Member Sidhu moved to approve Resolution 2005-217, and to authorize the firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the City, to proceed with said condemnation; seconded by Council Member Galloway. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-217 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at 2501 East Lincoln Avenue for the purposes of the Lincoln Avenue/Sunkist Street intersection project (R/W ACQ2003-00181). Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion carried. Report on Closed Session Actions: None. Council Communications: Council Member Hernandez reported on his attendance this date of the Veteran's Day commemoration at the Downtown Community Center to honor those who had served in the Armed Forces. Council Member Chavez recognized the promotion of Captain Jaime Hirsch to Battalion Chief, Anaheim's first female battalion chief. Adjournment: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Page 13 With the consent of Council, Mayor Pringle adjourned the meeting at 6:29 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Sheryll Schroeder, MMC City Clerk