Loading...
1994/10/04C£t¥ Ball~ Anahe£m~ Cal£fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4r 1994 - 5~00 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Tom Wood PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:30 a.m. on September 30, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there are two additional items to be added to the Closed Session Agenda. The need to take action on these two items was not known at the time the agenda was prepared and posted. In order to take action, it will require waiving of the Brown Act. The two items are numbers 3 and 4 as indicated below: MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act to add items 3 and 4 to the Closed Session Agenda. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 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: 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: Escobar, v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 71-35-97. 3. Golden West Baseball Company vs. City of Anaheim - O.C.S.C.C. 40-92-46. 4. Gammoh vs. City of Anaheim - O.C.S.C.C. 73-61-82. RECESS: Council Member Simpson moved to recess into Closed Session. Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. CARRIED. (3:15 p.m.) Council MOTION AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Council Member Hunter, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:12 p.m.) 604 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Simpson led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S ENHANCED BOND RATING BY STANDARD AND POOR: Mr. Ken Ough, Sr. Vice President of Rauscher, Pierce, Refsnes, Inc. explained for the Council the significance of the City of Anaheim's general obligation bond rating having been upgraded to AA from AA- -- a rating unsurpassed by any City in the State and shared by only six other cities in California. He referred to the material previously submitted to the Council in their agenda packet which listed the major reasons why such a favorable rating was granted to the City. He then briefed the materials submitted. The change speaks not only very highly of the City Manager, but also the City Council in the job they are doing. The Council should be very proud of its credit rating increase. Mayor Daly. He thanked City Manager Ruth and Finance Director George Ferrone and their staffs as well as all those involved which, after the Standard and Poor's audit, prompted the upgrade to the City's rating. It is a sign that Anaheim is very well managed. The Council respects that and it is very much appreciated. He also thanked Mr. Ough for his presentation. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the City Council: Recognizing Public Power Week, October 2-8, 1994 Observing Fire Prevention Week, October 9-15, 1994 Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager accepted the Public Power Week proclamation and Gary Wilder, Fire Marshall accepted the Fire Prevention Week proclamation. Disneyland's Fire Chief, Bill Collins was also present. 119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: Recognizing October, 1994, as Community Associations Month in Anaheim Recognizing October 16-22, 1994, as Character Counts Week in Anaheim FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,781,987.33 for the period ending September 30, 1994, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:34 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:47 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Gordon Ruser, 1221 S. Sycamore, Santa Ana, Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club. Their concern is for the possible impact of general hunting within the adjacent sphere of influence of the City, the Coal Canyon Tecate Cypress Preserve. (Also see minutes of August 16 and September 20, 1994 where 605 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4~ 1994 - 5:00 P.M. Mr. Ruser addressed this issue along with the issue of access to the area.) He noted there are proposed modifications of hunting methods in the preserve being considered by the Department of Fish & Game. He would hope that the City would look into the matter and make a recommendation to the Commission before Friday when the Commission will make its decision possibly approving the use of high powered rifles as one of the hunting methods. He has provided information to Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager and Director of Maintenance and Gary Wilder, Fire Marshal. Action needs to be taken quickly. Through Proposition 70, the people of California paid for the ecological preserve. They feel that the introduction.of hunting as an established management practice would dissuade other groups such as hikers, school groups, etc., from accessing the area. Council Member Pickler. He notes that the County Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission took a position of opposition to the general hunting concept. It is something they should look at and perhaps send a letter. City Manager Ruth. The Fire Marshal and his staff have reviewed the conditions and do feel that the restrictions are appropriate and staff supports those. Staff would be prepared to pass those comments onto Fish & Game - that the City is not in favor of general hunting in that area. With Council's approval, staff can send the letter. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. The area in question is not within the City but within the County and State's jurisdiction. They have been in contact with John Anderson, Senior Biologist at the Department of Fish & Game. They have restricted the amount of hunting that would be done. Safety buffers will be established in all the appropriate areas. Mr. Anderson did not anticipate there would be a great demand for hunting permits if the restrictions are to be put in place. One of the other concerns raised by Mr. Ruser was the issue of access. Currently there are two access roads to the forest land. The State currently has temporary easement rights beyond the gate at Coal Canyon through the Hon Corporation property. The State is attempting to gain additional easements as stated in conversations with them. There is also another access road on the forest property. Gordon Ruser. The access by way of the Cleveland National Forest is proposed to be blocked off in the near future. That will further restrict access which has been open in the past. All of the proposed modifications could be rejected by Fish & Game. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Public input received on Item A6 (see discussion under that item). MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of October 4, 1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member Feldhaus, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Council Member Hunter was absent. Al. 105: Approving minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held June 23, 1994. 606 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. 105: Approving minutes of the Telecommunications Policy Committee meeting held August 30, 1994. 156: Approving the Police Crime Statistics for the month of August, 1994. A2. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, AAA Electric Services, in the amount of $189,760 for North Anaheim Traffic Signal Improvement; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders. A3. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement (Encroachment No. 94- 5E) for a fiber optic cable and a twisted-pair cable located within Miraloma Street and Etchandy Lane. A4. 123: Approving an Agreement with Kimley-Horn & Associates in the amount of $100,000 to proceed with the Auto Use Restriction Zone Feasibility Study at the Anaheim Convention Center. AS. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with KaWes and Associates, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $49,908 for Weir Canyon Road/Yorba Linda Traffic Signal which includes a provision that authorizes the City Engineer to approve incidental engineering services for $13,500. A6. 173: To consider approving the recommendation of staff to move toward the most appropriate solution to the traffic, safety and environmental impacts of increasing rail traffic along the San Bernardino Subdivision Corridor. Submitted was report dated October 4, 1994 from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer Gary Johnson which was an Action Plan for San Bernardino Subdivision Northfield Avenue Community Safety/Soundwall Request. The following people spoke to the subject item. Karen Winkle, 6257 Northfield Avenue, Anaheim. (Also see minutes of September 27, 1994 where extensive discussion and input was received relative to the soundwall issue.) She represents the Anaheim/Sante Fe Neighborhood Safety Coalition also referred to in the action plan as the Northfield Avenue Community Safety/Soundwall. The solution in the action plan is not the construction of a safety soundwall. (She then recounted some of the things said by the Mayor in his meetings with the residents.) The proposed solutions do not have a solid base and are not under Anaheim's control. The safety soundwall is a separate issue. The residents realize it is too much for either the City or a coalition to solve but if the City and the coalition work together, they can find a solution. In the past, they have asked City staff to obtain a no-whistle-blowing ordinance and today they found out that Anaheim already has such an ordinance. Relative to the action plan instead of taxing the residents as staff recommends, why not charge a total of $50 per shipping container. Why tax the victim. Staff made it clear that 900 signatures on a petition does not take priority. Those in the coalition disagree with the staff recommendation. The soundwall can absorb sound and address their safety concerns. She requested that they resubmit the action plan to City staff for a near term solution and a time line. In addition, they would like the Council to consider having a feasibility study done for a soundwall. They are asking to expedite obtaining financing for the near term solution. The feasibility study will be by independent contractors and it is ready to go. They have asked representatives of Fiesta Construction who gave them the proposal to be present and to answer any technical questions. 607 City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4t 1994 - 5~00 P.M. Muriel Wybrow, 1231Northfield Street. She was at the meeting at Mr. Hatfield's house when the Mayor was there. He experienced first hand how close the trains were to the houses and the noise generated. The Mayor said he would find the money to fund the wall. The wall is required not only for safety of the residents, but also small children. It would also cut down on noise pollution. The noise generated by the trains exceeds the limit set by the City. She reiterated, they need the soundwall for safety, quality of life and peace of mind. She asked the Mayor to do what he promised and help find the money to fund the soundwall. Charles Winkle, 6275 Northfield. He has a copy of the action plan but it is totally against what the residents asked for. They asked for the City to work for the soundwall. The action plan addresses a benefit assessment district which the residents said they would have nothing to do with. What is proposed in the action plan will take a long period of time, perhaps years. It is not going to work for the residents. They have a soundwall they feel can address their safety concerns and the noise issues. They do not approve of this recommendation. The action plan is a long-term solution to a short-term situation. They are losing sleep every night. They would like to see something done immediately. Mr. John Tennant. He represents Fiesta Construction and Development Company and the team of professional engineering firms organized to conduct the preliminary engineering study for the soundwall. (See proposal to Anaheim/Santa Fe Neighborhood Safety Coalition for a preliminary engineering study for a soundwall beside the Sante Fe Railroad between Imperial Highway and Weir Canyon Road.) Reading from a prepared statement (statement dated October 4, 1994 - made a part of the record), he explained that they represent an independent and unbiased view and theirs is a technical approach to the problem. It seems that a soundwall is definitely needed and their team feels they have a solution to the situation. He then outlined the benefits of the proposed "on-site" prototype wall which will contain recycled plastic, rubber tires or styrofoam, the provision of President Clinton's Executive Order No. 12873 which specifically addresses the use of recycled materials, and concluded with his list of four recommendations, the first being that the soundwall matter be separated from the other concerns. Based on letters from OCTA, he believes they support that approach as well, the fact that the soundwall needed to stand on its own. The next recommendation was that the City of Anaheim support conducting the preliminary engineering study as proposed. He commented that in the action plan, approximately $15,000 was proposed to handle the technical noise study. From a professional engineering standpoint he would respectfully submit that is not nearly enough money to answer the important questions that need to be answered. The third recommendation is that the City actively solicit funding for the preliminary engineering study as well as the construction cost. They will assist with that process as best they can. Lastly, they would like to have a person designated as a contact point from the City, preferably a Council Member. Questions were then posed to Mr. Tennant by Council Members wherein he (Tennant) confirmed that the cost for the preliminary engineering study is stated in the proposal is $350,000. The $15,000 figure as indicated in the action plan is for a different type of study. In order to give an estimate on what a 3 mile wall would cost, it is necessary to do the study before giving a total cost figure. The City gave a figure in the $3.75 million range and in comparison to soundwalls along freeways, that is in the "ball park" but it would be necessary first to do a study. Mayor Daly. They will ask staff to look at the proposal. 608 City Hall, Anaheim, Callfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. Paul Bostwick, 8105 Woodsboro, Anaheim. He agrees with the action plan in certain respects. It states it is a Southern California problem and not just local. It is the importance of the item that needs to be looked at. He then addressed some of the facts contained in the action plan relative to the increase in rail traffic and why this is happening noting that the 100 trains a day as projected is a fact and it is going to happen. He also gave his recommendations as to what might be done to alleviate the problem. Council Member Pickler. He emphasized that the City has no control over the Sante Fe Railroad. The railroad can do what it wants when they want to and they do not have to prepare an environmental impact report. He explained some of the many efforts the City has made to resolve the problem. Subsequently he asked staff to brief the situation relative to the added traffic on the rail corridors which was provided by John Lower, Traffic & Transportation Manager. Mayor Daly. He asked that staff review the proposal submitted by the private firm which has proposed a $350,000 feasibility study leading to the eventual construction of a soundwall. However, he believes it to be in the best interest to move forward on this item which will institute the action plan. The plan can be modified at a later date to accommodate short-term solutions. The residents would like to see the plan entirely set aside. He feels it is important to adopt the plan and to work with OCTA and adjacent cities. It is an approximate 3 mile corridor and there are activities at the Federal level that the city needs to be monitoring. Karen Winkle. She again approached the podium and asked the Council to set aside the recommendations at this time. She clarified for the Mayor that that is the general consensus of the whole area. They want to take time, go back, get an update and a vote so perhaps they should set the plan aside and in the meantime some near term solutions could be attached to it. Council Member Feldhaus. He posed questions for purposes of clarification also noting that in the plan there is a reference to 735 area residents and then in another section about 800 residents. If they are to assume that there are 735 residents minimum he questioned if it is proper for the Council tonight to take action based upon the input of three or four people. They have not heard from the other 700 plus people. He would like to have at least the majority that are affected to ask that the plan be set aside. Anaheim should also go on record to lobby the United States Congress to look at some of the things they have created by railroad exemptions. Mayor Daly. He suggested that the matter be continued for one week in order for the residents to determine the support. Council Member Pickler. The short-term solution can always be initiated. staff says it is a good idea, the Council can move ahead at that time. He does not feel they should set the plan aside tonight. If Charles Winkle. He feels in one week they can get with all the residents and get that consensus. There is a reason why they do not want this plan. If something is done in the wrong direction, it will take more time to back track. Council Member Feldhaus moved to continue the subject item (A6) for one week. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 609 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5~00 P.M. Later in the meeting (7:50 p.m.), Council Member Pickler stated that he felt the action plan was something of benefit to the whole City and not just those in the Northfield neighborhood. They all want the soundwall and it is something they have been working for. He felt that the plan should have moved ahead with a vote this evening. The people seem to think that the Council/City does not want to resolve the problem. The problem can be eliminated over time but the residents need to be a little more patient. Council Member Feldhaus. He feels they need to go to the root cause of the problem, the railroads and to Congress. The railroads seem to be quite arrogant about their position. Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to ask if any of the five members of the local congressional delegation would be willing to carry forward Federal Legislation similar to what was discussed with Congressman Kim who represents the Northfield Avenue area. The issue was discussed with him but he did not at the time appear willing to move forward to include railroads under the umbrella of the EIR process. Right now, the City has no ability to obtain from the railroads mitigation for impacts of railroad traffic through the City. No City has that because of a Federal law. They need some type of plan in that regard and the residents need to know that is part of the action plan - to ask the Federal Government to apply the same standards to railroads that are applied to other projects which impact communities. City Attorney White. The railroads have a long history of exemption from a lot of different laws. He cannot think of any entity given the same status as railroads. Council Member Pickler suggested that a letter be sent to all the City's representatives in Washington, D.C. that may help in that regard, not only Anaheim and California but the nation. A7. 123: Approving a Third Amendment to the Grant Agreement with Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, Inc., increasing the amount of the grant by $10,000. A8. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with The SWA Group, in an amount not to exceed $20,000 for professional consultant services for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan. A9. 114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held August 9, 1994. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Al0. 155: PUBLIC MEETING - ANAHEIM RESORT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM: Approving the process for the revitalization of the Anaheim Resort Area and Convention Center to be pursued and financed at no increase in residential tax rates, but fully funded by tourism revenue. The program includes: Adopting a tentative area-wide capital improvement program as the critical first step in revitalizing the area surrounding Disneyland and the Convention Center; Authorizing the initiation of a Convention Center master plan and economics study (contracts to be considered at a future meeting) that includes: 1) Preparation of a conceptual master plan and schematic design for the full build-out of the facility so that future 610 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5500 P.M. enhancements may be considered in a logical, sequential and economical fashion; 2) Determination of the business economics and cost/benefits of alternative Convention Center enhancements as proposed through the master planning process to ensure that the investment of City resources is economically justified; Authorizing the use of the existing 1% of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and accumulated balances, currently being reserved, to fund area-wide improvements, revitalization efforts, and Convention Center enhancements; Authorizing future Convention Center debt reductions for reinvestment in the revitalization program; and Establishing of an annual reporting program through which the City Council and visitor industry are advised of the revitalization's progress. Submitted was 5-page report dated October 4, 1994 with attachment from Thomas J. Wood, Deputy City Manager recommending the subject actions. Council Member Simpson stated he will be abstaining from any discussion and action on this item, due to a conflict since he is the Executive Director of the Anaheim Area Hotel-Motel Association. Mayor Daly. He asked first to hear from staff to give a brief introduction on the four action items. Mr. Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager briefed the recommendations contained in the October 4, 1994 report. Mayor Daly. He then briefed the funding sources as proposed noting that there are still questions about the future, the number one question being the future of the Westcot (Disney) Project, how large it will be and when it will happen. Secondly, they do not know what the cost will be with the potential expansion and rehabilitation of the Convention Center or how the bids will come in. It is not possible this evening to pin down each and every dollar. It is a conceptual game plan for the future of the Anaheim Resort Area. One thing he has insisted on in previous months and will continue to insist on is frequent reports back to the Council, the industry and the citizens. He re-emphasized, this is a conceptual financing program and if approved will be the major first step in revitalizing the area. Mayor Daly then invited public comments on the program. The following people spoke and their comments summarized: Carla Daniel, 8472 20th Place, Westminster. She is present this evening not only as a representative of many of her friends and co-workers at Disneyland and a member of Westcot 2000, but more importantly also a wife and mother of six. A lot of groups are saying the Anaheim Resort Plan was proposed as a new name for Westcot 2000. They should look at it as future jobs and in support of families. The City should consider doing what they can start on today so things won't be as expensive in the future. They support the plan. Council Member Feldhaus clarified that the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan was adopted exclusive of the Disney project. 611 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. Anaheim contributes only 6.5% of their 13% Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) to the General Fund. He is concerned about the City's continuing ability to maintain quality of life with consistent contributions to the General Fund and the reason why he has reservations about this improvement. Mr. Kirsch then addressed several problems he had with the information contained in the report. In concluding, he stated it is necessary to have more numbers and more emphasis before committing to the program on the specific economic benefits - what exact benefits is the City going to get. There is nothing to address how the City is going to cover the decrease in revenues while construction is taking place. Charles Ahlers, Anaheim Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, now Anaheim/Orange County Visitor & Convention Bureau. He is present to applaud the work of staff. The report is a good one. He has worked with staff. Anaheim needs help. Business has been on the wane for four years and it will continue to erode unless something is done. The Anaheim Resort concept is a great one and the bureau hardly endorses it. The Convention Center is in need of help and the building needs to be upgraded to make it client friendly once again. Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates. They are very supportive of the City's revitalization program and would like it to move forward as rapidly as possible. In representing his clients, (Tarsadia and Rank Leisure) he met with a potential entity today that wants to invest approximately $200,000,000 and they would like to do some work in the City's C-R area. They all ask what is it going to cost to build in that area once the City completes the financing program. He cannot answer that and he feels the staff report prepared does not make it any easier. At the meeting two weeks ago (see minutes of September 20, 1994) the Council approved the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (ARSP) and when staff asked questions about how the $172.5 million would be funded, staff indicated specifically that there would be adequate funding resources from State, Federal, local and proposed 2% TOT increase and that some additional funding would remain. Staff also indicated at that time that a report would be prepared to answer every last question about fair share issues. With that in mind, he told the people he spoke to that the City will come back on October 4, with a specific funding plan. He then addressed/questioned five items in the report which he feels contradicts what staff indicated two weeks ago. In concluding, he stated their concern tonight in conjunction with the questions he just asked, is what happened between September 20 and October 4 where the program was totally 100% funded and today it has at least a $40,000,000 unfunded obligation. Glen Hale, President, Anaheim Area Hotel-Motel Association. On behalf of that group, he is asking that the City move forward quickly with the proposed initiatives to put a plan into place for funding of the refurbishing of the area and the expansion of the Convention Center. He also serves on the Convention Bureau Executive Committee. A great deal of effort was put forth on that Committee injustifying the need for such an endeavor. If they do not expand the center, they will lose some existing business to the tune of $172.5 million and will be out of touch with potential new business that they can bring into the area of about $334 million. This all translates to TOT revenue. They are in favor of a 2% increase in TOT and suggest that the increase move forward but tied in some way to clearly indicate that it is expressly used for the expansion of the center and the revitalization of the area. They can then justify it to the meeting planners they have to sell their destination to. Relative to existing contracts with tour travel wholesalers, they are asking that those contracts be honored otherwise the hotel-motel industry would be forced economically to dig into their pockets 612 City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4~ 1994 - 5500 P.M. and make up the difference. He urged the Council to move ahead with the project as quickly as possible. B.J. Fair, Disney Development. On behalf of Disney Development and Disneyland, he is present to voice their support for the City's financing proposal for the ARSP. As expressed at prior hearings, they firmly believe this plan is critical to the revitalization of the entire commercial-recreation area. While they support the financing package, he has three comments: 1.) It is important that the Capital Improvement Program include a detailed list of proposed improvements. 2.) The financing plan identifies specific and limited revenue streams that will fund these capital improvements. Disney and other hoteliers will be accepting the burden of a TOT increase to help implement the program. The Council must recognize and acknowledge that the resources identified in the plan and fair share developer contributions will be sufficient to meet the improvements. They encourage the Council and staff to stay committed to completing the plan and to understand how and when the improvements are to be done. 3.) That the Council define the monitoring program. It should identify the sources and uses of the available funds, forecast expenditures for the upcoming year and update the Council and community of the progress and improvements against the master schedule. With the adoption of these three suggestions, the business community will have the assurance needed to support the financing package and to realize the plans overall objective in creating a world-class tourist destination. Mayor Daly. He thanked members of the hotel-motel industry for stepping forward and supporting the TOT increase. It is not an easy thing for them to do. Among the actions tonight will be the introduction of the ordinance proposing a TOT increase from 13% to 15% effective July 1, 1995 and subsequently a public hearing will be held on November 1, 1994 when the Council will consider adoption of the ordinance. He asked if there were comments from Councilmembers. Council Member Feldhaus. He complimented Tom Wood and other staff members involved in putting the plan together which he considers very creative. He does feel that the numbers need to be more specific. The plan is vital to the economic health of the City. One point, they can spend a lot of money on the revitalization but if they do not keep the area policed and the street maintained, they will not be any better off than today. He also noted that Mr. Hale suggested that the plan should indicate that the TOT be specifically earmarked for the ARSP and asked if that was possible. City Attorney White. He referred to Proposition 13 passed by the voters in 1978 and explained one of the provisions wherein if the City legally commits tax dollars to a specific purpose, that cannot be done without the vote of two-thirds of those voting at an election held on the subject. If they increase the tax and the funds generated are not pledged to a specific purpose but can be used for any purpose, the City can do that. Council Member Pickler. Mr. Elfend in his presentation referred to the prior meeting where staff indicated that the project would be 100% funded. He also 613 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5~00 P.M. thought that is what he heard and needs some clarification - is the City going to be able to fund the plan 100%. Tom Wood. The only place they may not be able to do so is if the economic study for the Convention Center and the master planning effort for the Convention Center comes back and states that the City is going to need $130,000,000 in improvements to maintain the market viability of the Convention Center because they do not have that level of funding. They have somewhere in the $60,000,000 range available through this program for Convention Center enhancements. If the studies come back and conclude that those enhancements are justified, what they will be requesting as part of the economic RFP is for an additional funding mechanism that may be available at the Convention Center for such enhancements. The area-wide improvements, the $172.5 million, is funded through this program. One of the other questions raised is the level of detail which he then addressed. They are also sensitive to the concerns raised by the representative from Tarsadia. The program as proposed does not negate payment of a nominal fair share fee for area-wide infrastructure improvements. Particularly with Tarsadia, a meeting has been scheduled for 3:00 o'clock tomorrow with representatives from Tarsadia and the Public Works Department to work through the specifics in accordance with previous Council approval that said within 90 days to come back with a funding program for the fair share improvements. Once staff has an understanding of the Council's policy direction on the area-wide program, they will be prepared to sit down with Tarsadia at the meeting scheduled tomorrow to go through the specifics of what their fair share costs would be. The important factor is that they are setting a policy decision for area-wide improvements and those improvements are going to fund this large group of infrastructure items. By knowing that, it is much simpler to sit down with a particular developer who has particular impacts in different parts of the Anaheim Resort Area and to resolve their issues. Staff believes this is the right sequence of events to resolve correctly with definitive information that developer's concerns. Council Member Feldhaus. What they are doing is approving a process for the revitalization but not approving specific details. City Manager Ruth clarified that was correct and also giving policy direction to staff. After additional questions were posed, Mr. Wood explained some specifics of the plan - the process of awarding contracts which will ultimately be presented for Council approval, that it is not the intention to create a development fee for new Convention Center growth, the bulk of the revitalization will involve about a five-year program, etc. Council Member Pickler. He referred to page four of the report (paragraph 2, the last sentence) and assumed that referred to the Tarsadia Project where at one time it was thought there was an exposure of $25,000,000 to the developer but now the same exposure under the financing program is under $1,000,000. Tom Wood. He clarified that was correct. He also explained that the improvements are those that have been identified as necessary for the amount of development authorized by the Specific Plan. One of the items is a benefit assessment district for landscaping maintenance. One of the concerns of staff and one the industry shares is the amount of maintenance in the area will be above City standards. He wants to make it very clear that they think it is fair for that area to consider a benefit assessment district for the increment above what the City is already investing in maintaining that landscaping to 614 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - S:00 P.M. ensure that the City's investment in landscaping and streetscape is maintained. MOTION: Council Member Daly then moved approval of the process for the revitalization of the Anaheim Resort Area and Convention Center to be pursued and financed at no increase in residential tax rates but fully funded by tourism revenue which includes approval of Items (a), (b, bl, b2), (c), (d) and (e) as specified above. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Pickler, Daly NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter 108: ORDINANCE NO. 5457 - INTRODUCTION: Amending Section 2.12.010 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Transient Occupancy Taxes to increase the T.O.T. tax rate from 13% to 15%, effective July 1, 1995. Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5457 for first reading, with final consideration of the ordinance to be deferred to the noticed public hearing to be held on November 1, 1994. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 5457: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 2.12.010 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAXES TO INCREASE THE T.O.T. TAX RATE FROM 13% TO 15%, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1995. ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994~ DECISION DATEs SEPTEMBER 22, 1994 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS OCTOBER 7t 19945 BI. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4263, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5: OWNER: Boualoy & Kari Khamphanh, 605 S. Pandora Place, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Evonne Morton, 1177 N. Grove Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 605 S. Pandora Place. Property is approximately 0.15 acre, having a frontage of 73 feet on the west side of Pandora Place, having a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet and being located approximately 390 feet north of the centerline of Apollo Avenue. Petitioner requests waiver of required rear setback, to construct a 312 square foot patio enclosure. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Variance No. 4263 APPROVED (ZA Decision No. 94-26). B2. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0092: OWNER: ~elb Enterprises, 17547 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, CA 91316 LOCATION: 2424 W. Ball Road (Units S, T, V). Petitioner requests waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, to establish a 4,292 square-foot restaurant/bakery shop. ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Administrative Adjustment No. 0092 GRANTED (ZA Decision No. 94-27). END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS 615 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. SWEAR-IN OF THOSE TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS: The City Attorney announced that it is appropriate at this time for all those intending to testify at any or all of the public hearings including staff be sworn in at this time. Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise their right hand. The oath was then given. D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CANCELLATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE CONTRACT FOR THE DOUGLASS PROPERTY, AND APPROVAL OF CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The subject property is located at 1501 and 1551 South Douglass Road and is a triangularly shaped parcel consisting of approximately 7.3 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road between Cerritos Avenue and Katella Avenue. The public hearing is relative to the cancellation of the Agricultural Preserve Contract for the Douglas property and determining that the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Anaheim Arena Area Public Parking Facilities is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for this project. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 30, 1994 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 29, 1994 Posting of property - September 1, 1994 This matter was first heard on September 13, 1994 and continued from the meetings of September 13, September 20 and September 27, 1994 to this date as requested by Tejas Partners. On September 13, 1994 the public hearing was opened to determine if anyone wished to speak and subsequently continued for one week to September 20 and at that meeting was continued one week to September 27 and then again to this date. STAFF INPUT: See staff report dated September 7, 1994 to the City Manager/City Council from the Zoning Administrator recommending that certain actions be taken in connection with the subject cancellation. City Clerk Sohl announced that the City Attorney has received a letter from J. Wayne Allen of Tejas Partners requesting an additional continuance of the subject public hearing, this time for two weeks to October 18, 1994. MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to continue the subject public hearing to Tuesday, October 18, 1994. Council Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3707 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Shell Oil Co., 511 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Service Station Services, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Ste. 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2100 South Harbor Boulevard and is approximately 0.52 acre located at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and further described as 2100 South Harbor Boulevard. The request is to permit an existing service station with a 1,215-square foot convenience market with waiver of (a) 616 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5~00 P.M. maximum number of permitted freestanding signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3707 GRANTED, IN PART (PC94-107) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and I absent). Denied waiver of code requirement waiver (a) was deleted following public notification and waiver (b) was denied. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: This matter was set for public hearing on an appeal by Service Station Services. Subsequently, the appeal was withdrawn stating that they will accept the conditional use permit as approved by the City Planning Commission. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - September 22, 1994 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 22, 1994 Posting of property - September 23, 1994 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 8, 1994. City Clerk Sohl. After filing the appeal and after the item was advertised, noticed in the papers and neighbors noticed, the applicant indicated they were willing to withdraw their appeal. She indicated they might want to come forward and withdraw their appeal at the public hearing, but the public hearing had to take place. City Attorney White. It is legally necessary to go through the hearing but the Council can simply confirm the action taken by the Planning Commission. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak. Suzanne Hazell, Service Station Services, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Santa Ana 92707. They act as an agent for Shell Oil Company. Their General Manager, Barry Hammond, had been working with Council Member Pickler and they would like to formally withdraw their appeal. They have been able to meet the conditions of approval of the Commission and to settle all of the issues that were of concern to them. They appreciate the help, cooperation and patience given by staff and Council on these issues. Mayor Daly asked staff if there were any remaining waivers associated with the project. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The only issue that had existed and was the subject of the applicant's original appeal related to the signage. Staff subsequently met with the applicant and explained in more detail the sign regulations and they are now in total conformance with respect to the sign. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will 617 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 4, 1994 - 5:00 P.M. have a significant effect on the environment. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-246 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3707 subject to City Planning Commission conditions with no waivers. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 94R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3707. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-246 ~or adoDtion~ AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-246 duly passed and adopted. Cl. COUNCIL COMMENTS: 114: LIVE TELEVISING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: Council Member Feldhaus. In the near future, City Council meetings are scheduled to go "live" on cable t.v. He has heard some "horror" stories about what happens on some occasions, i.e., extending Council meetings as much as 3~ to 4 hours, people wanting to be on live t.v. and others bringing in video cameras, etc. He does not understand the purpose of going live or where the idea came from. His first reaction is why, and secondly he does not think it is necessary since the Council meetings are otherwise aired three times a week. Mayor Daly. He recommended that the Council needs to discuss the pros and cons before a final decision is made. council Member Pickler noted that they received a memorandum from Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer asking if there were any problems, the Council should communicate those to her. Mayor Daly. They will need some follow up by the City Manager to communicate with the entire Council on that subject. C2. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney White stated that there are no actions to report. ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent,.the Council meeting of October 4, 1994 was adjourned. (8:00 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 618