Loading...
1996/10/01The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Frank Feldhaus, Lou Lopez, Tom Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M Sauvageau DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Tom Wood POLICE CHIEF: Randall Gaston PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:25 p.m. on September 27, 1996 at the Civic Center Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the Workshop portion of the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. Relative to the subject of the Workshop, there will be an opportunity for public comment this evening at the 5:00 P.M. portion of the Council meeting but certainly on next Tuesday, October 8, 1996 which is the date for the Public Hearing relative to the subject of this Workshop. The actual agreements will also be on next week's agenda. This session today is meant to be an informal Workshop to give the Council an opportunity to ask questions and to hear the staff presentation. City Manager, James Ruth. He introduced Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager who has been involved with and who will introduce the subject and the consultant from Economic and Planning Systems (EPS). 124: ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS FISCAL IMPACT REPORT ON DISNEY ANn CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSION: Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. He summarized the purpose of the Workshop and then introduced Richard Berkson from Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), the City's consultant commissioned to study the public revenues and expenditures associated with the City's Anaheim Resort Area (ARA) which encompasses Disneyland, the Convention Center, and the vast majority of overnight lodging in the City. Mr. Berkson's report was submitted as part of the Council agenda on last Friday. Richard Berkson, Senior Vice President, EPS. He has been working with the City over the past six yearn evaluating plans for the Disney expansion and recently completed the report which is part of the Council packet today (see - Revised Draft - Anaheim Resort Area Fiscal Analysis - Summary - prepared for the City of Anaheim by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. - September 24, 1996). His presentation will summarize the points of the report. They have gone through an extensive process working with staff, interviewing departments and doing market research to develop the forecast. The objectives of the report were to establish the following: CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 The current fiscal effects of the ARA on the City's budget; A 'Baseline' budget forecast to determine what would happen without the Disneyland Resort Project; and The potential incremental fiscal impacts of the proposed Disneyland Resort Project upon the City's budget, i.e., the difference between Baseline and the Disney expansion He then briefed baseline condition and trends noting that the ARA currently contributes a net $11.0 million annually to City funds. He also briefed several of the charts contained in the report (see report pages 3, 5, 8 and 10) Covering ARA Base Year Revenues and Expenditures, Baseline Forecast of Total ARA Revenues and Expenditures--2005, Expansion Forecast of Total ARA Revenues and Expenditures- -2005, and Expansion Forecast 'Down-side' Assumptions--2005 (all in 1995 dollars). Looking at the forecast of City revenues and expenditures assuming the project moves forward, they looked at the stabilized year of 2005 which is four years after the park opens. The forecast considers 750 new Disney rooms in the park itself and approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of Disney retail. In addition to the 750 Disney rooms, an additional 2,000 rooms could be supported within the Anaheim Resort Area and a 5% increase in occupancy rate in non-Disney rooms. The forecast also assumes average room rates will increase in the area as well. The rasuit of these assumptions, all expressed in 1995 dollars, are gross revenues of $75.1 million, approximately a $24 million increase over the baseline forecast. Operating expenditures will also grow by $24.3 million for Police services, Fire services, road maintenance and other departmental services. A net to the City of $16.1 million greater than the baseline forecast will result, revenue that will be available to fund other City-wide programs. In concluding, Mr. Berkson recapped the results of the analysis and subsequently offered to respond to any questions of the Council. Before questions, Mr. Wood stated the package the Council received on Friday also included the Coopers & Lybrand report prepared for the Convention Center to assess the impact of the Convention Center as it is today (submitted to the Council previously relative to the Convention Center Expansion) and as it might be in the future as well as a report commissioned by Disney prepared by the Sedway Kotin Mouchly Group (Summary - Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Proposed Expansion of 'The Disneyland Resort" Anaheim, California - July 2, 1996) which was an independent analysis conducted relative to the larger economic impact of the project. Mayor Daly and Council Members then posed questions which were answered by Mr. Berkson, City Manager Ruth, and Police Chief Gaston revolving around hew information was gathered to quantify the numbers and assumptions presented. Mr. Berkson also cladfied for Council Member Zemel that the $16.1 million bottom line net on the planned growth would continue in perpetuity each year assuming the same level of debt service although debt service levels will change over time as well as other factors. ESP also tried to base their forecast on a mid level of economic activity - not high or bottom. Even though the past six years have seen significant fluctuations, the existing conditions have gone from $5 million contribution to the City to where they are now in excess of $10 million due to the success of the addition of the Indiana Jones ride at the park and the retum of better economic conditions. This reflects a reasonable, long-range mid point. Council Member Zemel asked the number of calls for Police service in the whole City and the resort area; Police Chief Gaston answered, 195,000 City wide. Relative to those attributable to the resort area, he will have to provide that at another time. At the conclusion of further discussion and questioning, Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Berkson and staff for the clear and informative presentation which will be helpful in their deliberations on this issue. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to Closed Session items. 2 CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Agency negotiator: Dave Hill Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association and Anaheim Association. Municipal Employees 2. PENDING LITIGATION: 1 potential case. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (a) - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Delmonico et al. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71 (and 16 related cases). PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY TREASURER (continued to a future date). RECESS: Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. ( 5:23 p.m.) INVOCATION: Reverend Adam D. McCoy, St. Michal's Episcopal Church, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mayor Daly first announced he believes it is staff's intention to delete item C2. from tonight's agenda since it is an accidental duplication of the Workshop item held this afternoon. Next Tuesday when the item is scheduled for consideration and a decision at a Public Headng, there will be ample opportunity for public comment. City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. The Workshop this attemoon was intended to be informational for the City Council and the public. It would be redundant to have the same item under C2. as indicated. The decision on the Disneyland Resort and Convention Center expansion is scheduled for Tuesday, October 8, 1996 as a Public Hearing. 3 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopled by the City Council to be presented to Assemblyman Mickey Conroy for his dedication and contribution to the City of Anaheim and especially for his efforts on behalf of municipally- owned utilities. Mayor Daly. This is the type of honor not bestowed very often; however, recently in Sacramento there were major legislative changes affecting municipally-owned utilities such as Anaheim's. Assemblyman Conroy was a champion for the City of Anaheim on this important legislative matter. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. Governor Wilson just signed into law an electric restructuring bill which affects Anaheim in a number of ways. Anaheim's 100-year old electric utility has delivered electrical services to its citizens for many years at lower rates compared to surrounding areas. In addition, it contributes close to $20 million in funds for services which help to make Anaheim a unique City in total services. Assemblyman Conroy was the Co-Chair of the Conference Committee that set the rules and the tone and he (Aghjayan) cannot say enough about the efforts Mr. Conroy put forth for Anaheim. In addition to the Declaration, Mr. Jemy Jordan, Executive Director of the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) will present the 'Energy Legislator of the Year' award to Assemblyman Conroy. Mr. Jerry Jordan, CMUA. Assemblyman Conroy has been a good friend of the municipal utilities throughout his career. The association does not give these awards every year. In fact, he has been with the Association for 21 years and it was only given one other time. The Board is very appreciative of the efforts of Mr. Conroy protecting not only Anaheim, but also public utilities throughout the State and more importantly the interest of all California electric utility users. Assemblyman Conroy, in accepting both the Declaration and the award, stated that he was extremely honored but feels he did nothing more than the citizens elected him to do. Dudng deliberations when they wanted him to 'surrender' he would not do so. Mayor Daly and Council Members also greeted and commended Assemblyman Conroy and thanked him for his dedication to Anaheim. 119: PRESENTATION - GRAND PRIZE - 1996 SUMMER READING PROGRAM CHILD: Presentation of the Grand Price to the 1996 Summer Reading Program Child and Flying A's to official prize donors. Marcia Myers, Recycle Anaheim, introduced the Grand Prize Winner, 11-year old Jeysen Pino from the Sunkist Elementary School. This is the third year of the program and 28,000 students participated. With her today is Rebecca Pittman of Taormina Industries to receive a Flying A as one of the major donors to the program. (Other donors were the Anaheim Bullfrogs, Disney Sports Enterprises and Motive Sports). Mayor Daly and Council Members greeted, congratulated and commended Jeysen on his accomplishment. The Mayor then announced the Grand Prize. He also thanked Rebecca Pittman from Taormina InduStries for their generous contributions to the program as well as the other entities who were unable to be present tonight. 119: PROCLAMATION recognizing October 6 - 12, 1996, as Fire Prevention Week in Anaheim. Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman. He is present to accept the Proclamation and to thank the Council for recognizing this important week for the Fire Department, one where they go out into the community to talk about fire safety. The focus is primarily on the children in the hope that they will take the message CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 home. He then introduced Tabby Cato who has been with the department for 10 years and was one of the first female firefighters in the department but suffered a career-ending injury last year. She is now a part of the administrative staff, specifically the Public information Officer for the Fire Department and also coordinates the department's community relations efforts. After some bdef comments by Ms. Cato~ Mayor Daly and Council Members welcomed the Chief and Ms. Cato and acknowledged the significance and importance of Fire Prevention Week in the City. RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: PROCLAMATION recognizing October 6 - 12, 1996, as Y~NCA Week VVithout Violence in Anaheim. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,106,388.57 for the period ending September 27, 1996, in accordance with the 1996-97 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:50 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:51 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. City Clerk Sohl. Before proceeding with Items of Public Interest and comments on agenda items, she reiterated that staff is formally deleting Item C2. which is a repitition of the item already discussed in the Workshop session at 3:00 p.m.. There is no action scheduled for the City Council this evening on that issue and the Public Hearing on the Fiscal Impact Report is scheduled as a D. item (Public Hearing) on next week's agenda, October 8, 1996. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Frank Perdicam, 12256 Glendale Avenue, Fountain Valley. He works at a software concern. He recently read some published analysis that it costs $10,000 a day to mn a court house in Orange County. He then relayed an incident that occurred where the City of Anaheim ultimately accused him of urinating on the ground in a parking lot. He also briefed the lengthy process that was going to have to take place, which will be a criminal proceeding, to prove their case. Subsequently, after what he considers a long and costly process, he will be forced to pay a fee of $25 and will be left with a criminal record. He then asked the Council if this was a wise expenditure and awaited an answer. Mayor Daly deferred to the City Attorney; City Attorney White. He is not personally familiar with this case but it would be inappropriate for any comments to be made at this time since there is a judicial process set forth. If the speaker wants to pursue his rights through a jury trial, he has the right to do so. 5 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 This is the time for members of the public to give their comments and not a time for debate between the Council and the public. William Fitzgerald, 856 Turquoise Street, Anaheim. He expressed concern with a law which he 6elieves is misinterpreted by Disneyland which allows businesses up to $500 retribution against shoplifters upon conviCtion claiming that because of this misinterpretation and the process used, Disney makes $4 million a year in colleCting the $500 from parents of children caught shoplifting on their property. He equated this to his opinion of what will happen if Measure B passes in November, that every man, woman and child in the City will be held liable for paying for a $90 million parking struCture to be built on Disney's property 100' away from their new I~otels and entrance under the premise that it is not for Disney's use but for Convention Center use 1/3 of a mile away. He urged a no vote on Measure B. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He was unable to attend the Workshop this afternoon and Item C2. has now been deleted. A week or so ago he asked Council what the timing would be on the matter of the Finance Agreement for the Disney expansion plan. He was told by the Council at that time there would be a two-week pedod after the financial documents were finalized until the Pul~lic Hearing was scheduled. He received the Public Hearing notice on Saturday only to find out that the headng is to be held OCtober 8 whereas the financial documents were only made available on Friday last week. He feels one week is too short a time in view of the fact that the documents are complex. The understanding given to the public was that a two-week pedod would be given. He is asking the Council, if not to delay the headng, to at least hold open the public comment period for another week after OCtober 8 to allow the public adequate time to evaluate the documents. He realizes notices have already been sent out on the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly. Regarding the public notification requirements for the upcoming Public Headng and the availability of all the documents, from his perspective, he does not believe there was a City Council directive regarding a two-week notification. The reality is, there has been a 10-day notification. He deferred to the City Manager. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. The Development Agreement and EIR Addendum came out last week. They were previously approved by the Planning Commission and have been available for public review sometime prior to that meeting or about 60 days. The financial agreement was made available to the public on Monday. Those are the critical documents to be considered on October 8. Later in the meeting under Item C2. which had been deleted, there was additional council discussion relative to the subject broached by Mr. Kirsch (see discussion under Item C2.) PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items. MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of OCtober 1, 1996. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar, Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 96R-169 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held July 17, 1996. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-169: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI'P( OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING GOLF-CART CROSSING ZONES ON GILBERT STREET BETWEEN LINCOLN AVENUE AND CRESCENT AVENUE (ADJACENT TO THE H. G. 'DAD' MILLER GOLF COURSE). Council Member Feldhaus. He asked staff if in establishing this golf cart crossing zone, does it have any significance to the City as far as inheriting any additional liability. If not, he questioned why it was being proposed. City Attorney White. If anything, it should lessen any potential claims of third parties. Under the State Vehicle Code, this would authorize the City to post signs indicating golfers cross at this location. It does not create any additional liability. Gary Johnson, Director of Public Wonts/City Engineer. The request was initiated by the City's Risk Manager who felt the City would have liability exposure that would be reduced by the implementation of this zone. The request was passed on to his department and the Police Department. Both departments concurred with the Risk Manager and brought it forward to the City Attorney. It should reduce the City's exposure. A3. 106: Approving $13,122,047 of expenditure appropriations and $5,587,013 of revenue appropriations from the prior fiscal year. (FY 1995/96 funds requested for reappropriation to FY 1996/97.) A4. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held September 10, 1996 and September 17, 1996. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 96R-'169 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-169 duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. 7 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 ITEM BI FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1996: DECISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 19. 1996 · INFORMATION ONLY-APPEAL PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 4. 1996: 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. t11: OWNER: Michael Chrlstianson, 2780 West Westhaven Drive, Anaheim,CA 92804 LOCATION: 2780 West Westhaven Drive. To construct an enlarged garage for parking of recreation vehicles with waiver of side yard setback (5 feet required; 4 feet proposed). Ai~TION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: ~,dministretive Adjustment No. 111 APPROVED (ZA Decision No. 96-29). D1. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 340 SANTA ANA CANY~)N RD. AccEss POINT STUDY AMENDMENT RECLASSIFICATION NO. 95-96-04 VARIANCE NO. 4292 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: CITY OF ANAHEIM, REAL PROPERTY DIVISION, Attn: Frank Hardcastle, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 TRANSCORP C/F, Attn: William H. Stanly, 5212 Sierra Vista, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: SAM HANNA, 2664 Vista Valley, Orange, CA 92667 LOCATION: 5481 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is an in'egularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located at the northwest comer of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Maude Lane. Petitioner requests an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan (redesignating subject property from the Hillside Low Density Residential designation to the Commercial Professional designation)· Petitioner requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC (Residential/Agricultural) (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the CO (SC) (Commercial Office and Professional) (Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Petitioner requests waiver of maximum structural height, minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary, minimum setback adjacent to a scenic highway, minimum setback adjacent to a local street and required parking lot landscaping to construct a 2-story, approximately 3,800 square foot office building. Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.1 acres located at the northwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude Lane, having approximate frontages of 230 feet on the north side of Santa Aha Canyon Road and 120 feet on the west side of Maude Lane and further described as 5481 East Santa Aha Canyon Road. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended ADOPTION to City Council for General Plan Amendment No. 340 (PC96-75) (6 yes votes, I absent). Recommended approval of Santa Ana Canyon Rd. Access Point Study Amendment subject to plan revision (PC96-76). Reclassification No. 95-96-04 GRANTED (PC96-77). Variance No. 4292 GRANTED (PC96-78). informational item at the meeting of September 10, 1996, Item BI. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in North County News - September 19, 1996 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 19, 1996 Posting of property - September 20, 1996 8 CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 22, 1996. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, announced it appears that the applicant is not present on this item. Answering the Mayor, City Attorney White stated that the Council has all the material from the Planning Commission hearing and they can pmcaed with the Public Hearing or continue it if they choose to do so. Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present regarding this item and if so, are they in support or opposed. It was determined there were six citizens present who were against the project but no one was present representing the applicant. City Attorney White. If the Council wishes, they can hear the staff presentation and subsequently hear from anyone who is present to speak. After doing so, the Council can then decide whether to take action tonight or at another meeting. Mayor Daly. They will proceed to take input and subsequently continue the matter to give the applicant an opportunity to present his case. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the proposal as outlined in staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 19, '1996 noting that the proposal was approved by the Planning Commission with five code waivers, all of which will be necessary in order to construct the project. After his summary, Mr. Hastings stated the reason the matter is before the City Council is due to the General Plan Amendment which requires final action by the City Council. The other items are associated with that and include approval of an access driveway on Santa Aha Canyon Road which was approved with right-out only and rezoning of the property as well as the variances that would be necessary to build the project. Council Member Lopez. He is aware that the subject intersection and the area carries bumper-to-bumper traffic starting at about 2:30 p.m. He has also responded to accidents in that area when he was a patrolman. He questions putting any more traffic into that area and also has additional concerns which were raised last night at a Council candidate meeting, specifically that multi-story businesses not be built along Santa Aha Canyon Road that would impact the visibility or residential integrity of the homes behind them. It was unanimous among the candidates that such projects would impact long-time residents and, therefore, should not occur. Joel Fick, Planning Director. Some of the issues regarding intrusion were addressed through the design of the project. The architect has designed the building with a residential character to fit in with the neighborhood. Mr. Hastings mentioned there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about some of the visual intrusion, how that would be mitigated, and that opaque glass would be used on the second floor of the two-story buildings. Traffic Engineering can respond to the traffic issues. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. They have looked at the intersection and generally with this type of use, the peak hour traffic is different than the peak traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. They also looked at the accident history and it does not have any potential history that would be created by this project. Relative to the number of occupants in the use, he does not have that information but it could be supplied. Traffic engineers use tdp generation which is generally accepted and used throughout the State. Council Member Lopez reiterated his concern that dght behind the proposed building, there are homes that have been there for 25-30 years and now they will be faced with a building which he feels will take their pdvacy away. 9 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mayor Daly again asked if any representative of the developer or the applicant was present; there was no response. He opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak. Rosalyn Perrell. She moved into her home April 1, 1996. The proposed two-story building will butt up to her property. She is very much opposed especially with windows facing her back yard. The developer has agreed to install opaque windows but she does not know what size. She has a swimming pool in her back yard and her kitchen window will be very accessible to the property. There is nothing along Santa Ana Canyon Road adjacent to residential property that is two story. This will be a detriment to her pdvacy. She is also concerned that at the planning meeting, there was no certainty that sidewalks would be developed through the entire length of Santa Aha Canyon Road from Maude Lane to Pinney Drive. The developer said if there was going to be a hardship, he would come back to the Planning Commission to reoegotiate. She reiterated, a two-story building in her back yard is offensive to someone who has lived there for many years. Diana King, 5360 Gerda, Anaheim (20 years). Her property is not affected by the building per se but will be by the property the developer does not want to landscape. Since she has lived there, there has been a water problem in the back of her yard probably six times. There is also a rodent problem. The initial proposal was only to landscape a part of the property leaving the middle section between the other end of the property and his property undeveloped which would force the rodents to this section even more along with more of an erosion problem dudng the rainy season. She is not looking fonvard to an unsightly piece of property in the back of her yard. Further, it does not seem that the parking structure is adequate to handle the parking with a full conference reom and the other space occupied. This will then put all the extra traffic in front of the homeowners. There are a lot of children and the area is busy dudng school hours in the moming and aftemoon. Traffic is also her concem. Rachel Baron, 1t2 N. Lohrum Lane, Anaheim, directly behind the land which the owner is not planning on operating. She has also been flooded about three times and is still owed about $40,000 for the damage that was done. She does not know how the property can keep changing hands, yet she is never paid. If nothing is done relative to the erosion and the drainage, she is still going to have the same problem every time it rains and that is her biggest concem. She is also concerned about traffic. She gets home about 3:30 and any time she wants to leave, it is not possible unless old Santa Ana Canyon Road is used, then by ~e Post Office and out on to Santa Aha Canyon Road at the light. John Maclean. He lives directly next to the property and his concern is drainage. They were flooded out twice dudng the rains - his swimming pool and the neighborhood. The recommendation was for it to be like the adjacent property. The Post Office to the east was cut down and the real estate building to the west was also cut down. This developer wants to build on top of the property. The property has been elevated two to three feet above normal making a swimming pool effect which soaks down into his yard which is approximately six feet below the property. The drainage plan the builder showed them does not suffice in his opinion and he has ten year's engineering experience. There is a 4 X 4' drainage on the property that things could be 'V' drained into which does not show up on the plans. He took photographs to show that drain. Andre King, 5360 Gerda, Anaheim. This is a two-story building with five offices on one story. There are only 18 parking spaces and one is a handicap space. There is not enough parking. Everyone will then park on the street. Relative to the plans, he does not know how they can make any judgment since the plans are not precise as far as elevations, drainage, etc. He sees plans all the time since he is in the asphalt business, He would like to see a better detailed plan relative to drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and additional street lighting. He would like to know the effect of additional street lights on his property. Theirs is a nice 'bedroom community' and all of a sudden it is changed into more office buildings. He reiterated, his main cencem is that he would like to see more detailed plans before a decision is made. Mayor Daly. The City Attorney has indicated there are two options. The Council can make a decision this evening or continue the Public Headng extending the courtesy to the developer to be present. 10 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 city Clerk $ohl reassured the Council that the Clerk's Office did send a legal notice regarding the Public Hearing to the applicant and agent at the addresses indicated on the agenda. Council Member Lopez. The residents are present and have spoken. He does not think there is anything that could be presented by the developer that could change his position of opposition to the proposal. He has worked the area for three years and feels it is a bad location. There are obvious problems relative to drainage, rodents, etc. He is very concerned over the detrimental effect the building would have on the privacy Of those who have lived there for many years. Council Member Tait. The Planning Commission approved the project on a 6-0 vote, He feels they should hear from the property owner and in the interest of fairness, give him an opportunity to be heard before they affect his property rights. Relative to the residents, he realizes that it takes a lot to attend the meeting. The Council now has their input and he will ask staff to make sure the questions and concerns raised are asked and answered. He would be agreeable to a one or two-week continuance. Council Member Zemel. He will second that and also supports a fuller explanation to the homeowners. If the Council were to vote in their favor tonight, the applicant would probably ask the Council to rehear the matter. He feels it is proper to go threugh the complete procedure and get the developer's input as well. MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the subject Public Hearing for three weeks (since there is no meeting scheduled on October 15, 1996) to October 22, 1996. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated, procedurally, the Public Hearing remains open and there will be additional opportunity for anyone to comment. There was further discussion wherein the Mayor noted that it appears there is a small sliver of City- owned property involved which the developer proposes to pumhase which, in his mind, complicates the matter somewhat from his perspective. A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the Public Headng for three weeks. Council Member Lopez voted No. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Daly. He asked that staff in the meantime submit additional background material as well as answers to questions asked by the residents and the Council, Before concluding the matter, additional questions were posed by some of the residents which prompted questions by the Council and were answered by both Mr. Hastings and Fick. There was also a question relative to the legal notices sent wherein Mrs. King stated that not all the affected residents of the area received notices; City Clerk Sohl noted that only property owners who live within 300' of the proposal are sent notices. If they were not received, she will be happy to send those notices as well as any others if Mrs. King will supply the names and addresses. The Public Hearing was continued to October 22, 1996. MOTION: .... CEQA FINDING: Negative Declamtion. RESOLUTION NO.--- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 340. RESOLUTION NO.---- SANTAANACANYON ROADACCESSPOINTSTUDY AMENDMENT. 11 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 95-96-04. VARIANCE 4292. Cl. 114: APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT BOARD, DISTRICr9: To consider the appointment/reappointment to the Orange County Water District Board, District 9 (expires December 6, 1996.) City Clerk Sohi. The current term is being served by Council Member Zemel which will expire December 6, 1996. MOTION. Council Member Feldhaus moved that the appointment be continued until after the November 5, 1996 General Municipal Election. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Council Member Tait stated he would have no problem reappointing Council Member Zemel to the position and to do so today. Mayor Daly noted that there was a motion and second on the floor to continue the matter. Council Member Zemel. He would like to outline some of the water issues that he is presently in the middle of, one being the consolidation issue which he has been involved in for over a year. He is trying to do a lot of scheduling for the month of December setting things aside to attend those meetings. Unless there is an objection in his being reappointed, he is asking for his colleagues to consider reappointing him tonight so that he can move forward. Mayor Daly. The proposed continuance would schedule a decision on the appointment for November 12, 1996. Unless there am further questions or comments, they should act on the motion at this time. A vote was then taken to continue appointment/reappointment to the Orange County Water District Board, District 9, to November 12, 1996. Council Members Tait and Zemel voted no. MOTION CARRIED. C2. 124: FISCAL IMPACT REPORTS - PROPOSED DISNEYLAND RESORT AND CONVENTION CENTER EXPANSIONS: The discussion regarding the subject was held at the 3:00 P.M. Workshop today (see Workshop portion of the minutes of today's meeting). As announced by staff earlier in the meeting, the item should not have appeared under the C. Items since it is redundant, Council Member Tait. He referred to the input by Jeff Kirsch earlier in the meeting that the public was to be given two weeks to analyze the financial documents. He assumes he (Tait) erred in thinking there was a consensus on the Council when he stated that. However, he does not believe that two weeks is unreasonable, He was told by staff that two weeks would be given, He is requesting two weeks unless there is some compelling reason he does not know of to consider them eadier. City Manager Ruth. Staff was attempting to get the documents done and did get hung up on some last- minute negotiations.which delayed the production of documents until Monday. It is a policy decision on the part of the Council. The documents am available and staff is willing to spend any amount of time with Mr. Kirsch, members of the Council, or anyone else. The other alternative is to agendize the matter 12 CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 for next Tuesday and see how the hearing goes and then make a decision at that time whether or not it is appropriate to continue the matter. Council Member Zemel. Checking with different members of staff, he understands it is up to the Council. He also understands there are a couple of major items not hammered out yet and perhaps they need more time. To him it would be nice to take the heat off a little bit, send it back and work out the rest of the items. As Council Member Tait stated, he does not know whet the compelling reason is to act on October 8. He would like to get a postponement of a week or two. Mayor Daly. His feeling is the City Manager has been operating under a schedule and staff has been negotiating for a long time. The City Manager places items on the agenda when he is prepared to make a recommendation. There is nothing to prevent the Council from continuing any matters for one week, or for one year. It is not proper to order him when to put items on the agenda when he has been negotiating for such a long period. When the City Manager feels the package is ready for public discussion and consideration, that is appropriate. He reiterated there is nothing to prevent the Council from considering his recommendation whenever the City Manager puts it on the agenda and either acting or not acting. Council Member Zemel. Part of the City Manager's job is to take policy direction. If the Council would like to have more time and have some of the items looked at in more detail, he feels the City Manager would follow that direction. It is not a matter of ordering. He (Zemel) would like to see the negotiations handled that way rather than on the dais. He encouraged the Council to give extra time and also give the public extra time and not have the October 8th 'gun to their head." City Manager Ruth. Answering the Mayor, he stated that staff at this point feels they have concluded the negotiations and that both sides have moved about as far as they will go. To continue would not bring about any substantive change. Staff has submitted the comprehensive documents and attempted to simplify them. A detailed list of issues and explanations were given to clarify the major issues. At this point, staff feels they have done due diligence. Whether additional due diligence would generate any more information for Council consideration, he is not sure. There will be an opportunity from now until next Tuesday to interact with staff and ask questions. If the Council feels uncomfortable at that time, as a body, it is their preregative to extend the time. He then clarified for Council Member Zemel that in any negotiation there are certain issues where they would prefer a different result. This is a deal where, while the City did not get everything it wanted, it gives a package that is of significant economic benefit to the City with the significant protection hoped for. It is a good program for the City and for development in the resort area~ There are some issues where they would like to have seen a different result, but there were other issues where the City came out better than thought. It was not a matter of giving up. He does not feel there could be any more improvement on either side that can be accomplished by further negotiation. Council Member Tait. He is comfortable that staff has done their due diligence and feels the Council has enough detail to go over it in one week's time, but his concern is more with the expectation of the public. Mayor Daly. Unless there are three Council Members who want to direct the City Manager in a certain way this evening, the documents have been made public, the Council has the documents which are available to the public, the matter will be heard next week. It is the City Manager's prerogative to place the item on the agenda and the Council's prerogative to do what they want at this time. MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the matter and send it back to the City Manager to try to work on a couple of issues that are outstanding without disclosing the issues, and that it bo placed on a future agenda, not on the agenda of October 8, 1996, and try to get the principals back to the table to negotiate those items at the City Manager level and subsequently bdng it back to the Council. After Council Member Zemel clarified the motion, Mayor Daly asked if there was a second. There being no second to the motion proposed, the motion died for lack of a second. 13 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1996 MOTION. Council Member Tait moved that there be 14 days from the date the financial document was presented to the public before Council consideration at a Public Hearing, not two weeks from now, but 14 days from the date the documents were made available. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. Ayes: Council Members Tait and Zemel. Noes: Council Members Feldhaus and Lopez, Mayor Daly. MOTION FAILED. City Attomey White. He explained they were operating under one legal time constraint. Procedurally, legal notices had to be sent out with commencement of the hearing on the development agreement scheduled within a certain number of days after the Planning Commission took action. The last meeting to do se is October 8, 1996. It does not mean if the Council as a body decides it needs more time that the matter could not be continued past that. It was necessary that the matter be placed on the October 8, 1996 meeting. Council Member Tait asked if that was true of the financial agreement as well; City Attorney White answered, the development agreement but the Council may recall at one meeting it was indicated that they would attempt to track both together. Council Member Tait, later in the meeting under Council Comments, clarified that his request for an extension in no way reflects he is not excited about the project or is not satisfied with staff's efforts. He feels staff has done a yoeman's job. It is a difficult issue and is very complicated. C4. 114: REPORT ON CRIME STATISTICS - 1996: Council Member Lopez. He is happy to report that the overall crime rate in Anaheim continues to show a downward trend including Part I (more serious) crimes. The Police Department is doing a great job. Vehicle thefts have also declined for the past two years. The 1996 projections indicate this trend will continue. Calls for service continue to decrease. Clearance rates have improved over the past three years over 30%. It is a compliment to the Police Chief and also the Council who continues to make the hiring of additional Police Officers and fighting crime a No. I priority. 114: INS PROGRAM IN CITY JAIL - NEW FEDERAL BILL WITH ANAHEIM AMENDMENT: Council Member Feldhaus. He commended Council Members Tait and Zemel for their tenacity in pursuing with the Legislators, HR2202, the Bill signed by President Clinton two days ago. This assures that Anaheim will have INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) representatives back in the City jail for another six months. Anaheim will now be a model for the rest of the country and is getting the recognition it deserves. Council Member Zemel. Anaheim's own amendment is in the Bill, the Gallegly amendment. It is the first such program ~o be approved in the United States. It is a pilot project they will be able to hand off city to city with regard to illegal alien criminal identification done before arraignment. It differs from the County program which deals with illegal aliens when they are released from prison. With Anaheim's program, every person regardless, is interviewed by the INS and that information passed on to the judge so that judges will know who they are dealing with. Those persons will now come to justice where presently they are getting away free. The process was a very extensive one. They were not only able to get legislation introduced, but through the committees where there were several amendments and adjustments by the House and Senate. It is a tremendous accomplishment for a City to do this in less than a year. A great deal of credit is due to Congressman Elton Gallegly of Oxnard. Also to be commended are Congressman Bob Doman who was there every step of the way, Congressman Cox, Congressman Rohrabacher, Congressman Royce, Congressman Klm and Congressman Baker. Senator Diane Feinstein, in conjunction with the Mayor, helped on the Senate side along with Senator Simpson. City staff involved - Police Chief Gaston, Kris 14 CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1~ 1996 Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Assistant City Manager, Dave Morgan and the entire Council, especially Council Member Tait who traveled back to Washington, D.C. and actually authored that portion of the Bill. Thanks also to the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce who provided the fund raising effort to pay the way to Washington. It is a tremendous day for Anaheim and ultimately for Orange County as they pass the program on to other cities. He believes it will change the way they live in California and the nation with regard to criminal alien activity. C3. RI~PQRT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney Jack VVhite Stated that there are no actions to report. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of October 1, 1996 was adjourned (7:10 P. M.) LEONORA N. SOHL CITY CLERK 15