1992/03/24City Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES: Chris Jarvi
PARK PLANNER: Richard Mayer
PARKS SUPERINTENDENT: Jack Kudron
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
POLICE CHIEF: Joseph Molloy
CITY TREASURER: Mary Turner
P D & A - MANAGEMENT AUDITOR II: Susan Grabemeyer-Grande
P D & A - SENIOR MANAGEMENT AUDITOR: Gary Huniu
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:30 p.m. on March 20, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the workshop portion of the meeting of March 24, 1992 to
order at 3:09 p.m.
City Manager James Ruth. Before the workshop starts, he asked Mr. Ed Aghjayan
to introduce the new Assistant General Manager for Public
Ut i 1 it les / Elect r ical.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager introduced Mr. Brian Brady who
comes to the City from Southern California Edison Company where he was Vice-
President and General Manager of Energy Services. He then gave Mr. Brady's
background.
Bryan Brady. Having grown up in Orange County, he was happy to now be working
for the City of Anaheim and excited about the many good things that were
happening in the City today as well as future challenges.
Mr. Ruth then introduced the workshop portion, the first presentation on
ridin~ and hiking trails.
150: UPDATE - RIDING AND HIKING TRAILS:
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. He gave a
presentation to the Council on what the Department has been doing and where
they are going relative to trail planning. (Mr. Jarvi's presentation was
supplemented by slides). He discussed the benefits, the history of trail
planning, the implementation strategy used to date, problems encountered with
development and the future direction the Department plans to take.
Trails provide many different opportunities, not just equestrian use. The
authority for trails is provided through the Trails Element of the General
Plan originally developed in 1976. In some instances, problems have been
encountered in acquiring the necessary right-of-way. One uncooperative
property owner can destroy the entire trail system. Twenty-seven miles of
trails have been developed out of the 58 miles originally contemplated or 47
percent - 20 miles of regional trails, 4 miles of backbone trails and 3 miles
of feeder trails.- A problem area in establishing trails is the area west of
207
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Canyon Rim Road from the Mohler Drive area westerly where there are gaps in
the existing trail system with encroachments on dedicated but undeveloped
trail rights-of-way acquired prior to 1981. (The slides illustrated some of
the encroachments occurring on the trail). Some developers object to
dedicating trails as well as some homeowners for a variety of reasons. It is
a matter of law that the trails be implemented. That is why the Trails
Element became a General Plan Element. If not, those who have already put
them in are burdened unduly. The only alternative to not having a fragmented
trail system is to use condemnation but it is a highly unpopular approach.
The department is presently working on revising the Trail Element to the
General Plan. He then briefed the riding and hiking trails Master Plan Map
which was submitted to the Council for the workshop (made a part of the
record). Instead of 58 miles, there are now 53 miles of trails. The revised
Trail Element will be presented to the Council in May. The continued strategy
of implementing trials is on an opportunity basis. The Department is not
proposing condemnation, but want to keep that option open. Trails have been a
very integral and desirable part of the development of the hill and canyon
area.
At the conclusion of Mr. Jarvi's presentation, Council Members posed questions
which were answered by both Mr. Jarvi and Dick Mayer, Park Planner. Questions
were also raised relative to Deer Canyon, the statue of discussions with the
Presley Company, and the access to Santa Aha Canyon Road all relating to Deer
Canyon, etc.
Mayor Hunter thanked Mr. Jarvi and the Department for the excellent
presentation.
. .
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION..'.. City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a), to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
City of Anaheim vs. Ertzen, et al - S.B.S.C. Case No. 246402.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates
any of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
Council Member Simpson moved to recess to Closed Session, Council Member
Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3: 37 p.m. )
208
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24t 1992 - 5:00 P.H:.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:26
p.m.)
INVOCATION=. Minister Harvey Stow, Church of Christ, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE= Council Member Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119= P~SENTATION - CERTIFICATES OF ApPRECIATION~ Certificates of
Appreciation were presented to members of the Citizens Steering Committee for
assisting in the development of the Growth Management Element to the General
Plan which was adopted by the Council at its meeting of March 17, 1992. Mayor
Hunter and Council Members thanked and commended each of the members of the
Committee who were present for the dedication and effort given over the last
18 months. The Planning Department reported that each of the members provided
significant input in shaping the document which represents the City's most
current expression of Growth Management Policies and is the key resource
document for Growth Management concerns.
119~ D~CL_kRATION OF RECOGNITION AND CONGRATULATIONS= A Declaration of
Recognition and Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council
and presented to Mr. Gil Luna upon his retirement from the City following
48 years of service in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department. Mayor Hunter and Council Members personally congratulated
Mr. Luna for his long and dedicated service to the City and the citizens.
Mayor Hunter stated that in his recollection, Mr. Luna's 48 years with the
City is a record for employment longevity.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Mr. Luna
started with the City in the Parks Department in the summer of 1944 as
Assistant Pool Attendant at the "plunge" in the City park. The City's
population at the time was about 15,000. He (Luna) represents the best in
what they think of as an Anaheim employee. Although part-time, the City is
very dependent on such employees. He came up through the ranks and has held
eighteen different positions with the Department. It is a record in the
Department in terms of longevity for a part-time employee. He does not know
if it is a record in the City. During the period of his employment, Mr. Luna
received his degree and became a teacher in the Anaheim Union High School
District.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ClT.Y.. in the amount of $1,958,425.22 for the
period ending March 20, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5: 45 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMM~NTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Jeff Kirsch addressed Agenda Item Al0 (see discussion under that item).,
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He spoke relative to Utility rates and
asked that the City devote more consideration to the citizens/rate payers fair
rates aspect. He also asked questions relative to water rate increases, the
209
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5.-00 P.M.
proposed fee by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of $5 per parcel and
thermo energy storage rate discount approved by the Council last week.
Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager answered the questions posed
on Utility rates and Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant General Manager Water Services
and Warehouse explained the MWD proposal.
Karen Shoener, 4421 E. Bluewater Circle, Anaheim. She and her husband have
owned an apartment building at 2655 E. Park Lane north of La Palma off
Miraloma for over 12 years. During that period, the area has deteriorated.
She explained problems of graffiti, inoperable cars in carports, homeless
people sleeping in carports and breaking into vacant apartments, etc. They
have maintained their apartment building but other owners have not. They
currently have three vacancies out of six and the few calls they get, when
people see the area, they walk away. As an owner, they cannot sell their
building because it does not show a positive cash flow. She has contacted
Code Enforcement, but the only thing they respond to is graffiti. She is
before the Council because she feels it is necessary to get help to see what
she can do as a citizen to bring the area back to a more manageable
neighborhood.
Mayor Hunter asked that she leave her name with the City Manager or a Planning
Director and someone from staff will contact her.
Phil Knypstra. His concern is the cost of Government in general. He believes
the cost of Government cannot be contained unless there is a willingness to
focus on salaries and benefits which represent the largest expenditures in
Government. He thereupon submitted a report he prepared entitled the City of
Anaheim vs. the Anaheim Union High School District since he believes there is
a big disparity between the salaries paid to the City of Anaheim and the
salaries paid to those in the Anaheim Union High School District. The report
was received and made a part of the record.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR= On motion by Council Member
Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, 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
Hun~ar o~ar~ R~olu~£on Nos. 92R-~9 an~ 9~R-60 for a~op~ion. R~f~r to
Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 92R-59 and 92R-60 for adoption. )
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 156~ Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and
Clearance Analysis for the month of February, 1992.
210
City Hallt Anahe!mt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
117= Receiving and filing the Investment Transactions Summary for the month
of February, 1992, as submitted by the City Treasurer's Office.
128= Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for seven months
ended January 31, 1992, as submitted by the Director of Finance.
A2. 150= Approving a Notice of Completion of the reconstruction of Maxwell
Park Ballfield by Hondo Company Inc., and authorizing the Mayor to sign and
the City Clerk to file the said Notice of Completion.
A3. 107= Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
American Demolition, Inc., the amount of $67,490 for Phoenix Club building
demolition and asbestos removal~ and in the event said iow 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 Iow and
second iow bidders.
Council Member Pickler voted no.
A4. 123: Authorizing a Third Amendment to Agreement with Montgomery Elevator
Company, Moline, Illinois, for providing maintenance services in three (3)
Civic Center elevators for the period from April 1, 1992 through October 31,
1992 with month to month renewable options for an additional six months.
AS. 123: Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Kaufman and Broad of
Southern California for electrical underground conduits, substructures, and an
electrical substation site within the Bauer Ranch Development.
A6. 175= R~_SOLUTION NO. 92R-59= RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $6,400,000
WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1992 SERIES, OF THE CITY~ PROVIDING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF SUCH BONDS~ APPROVING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH~ APPOINTING A PAYING AGENT~ AND AUTHORIZING
OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE THEREOF.
137: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-60: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS NOT TO EXCEED
$6,400,000 WATER REVENUE BONDS, 1992 SERIES~ REJECTING ALL OTHER BIDS~
APPROVING THE FORM OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT~ AND TAKING CERTAIN RELATED
ACTION.
123: Approving the execution of the Escrow Agreement with Bank of America
National Trust and Savings Association, as Escrow Agent. '
Submitted was report dated March 18, 1992 from the Public Utilities General
Manager, Ed Aghjayan re¢ommen~£ng the su~e~ au~h~~a~n and r~lat~d
actions.
Bids were received for the refunding of approximately $5,680,000 of the 1980
Water Bonds at 9:00 a.m.' this morning. Merrill Lynch submitted the lowest of
the eight bids received at a true interest cost of 5.905%. (See report
submitted dated March 24, 1992 from the Public Utilities General Manager
giving a summary of the bids received - made a part of the record. )
A7. 185: Determining that RAR Anaheim Partners, L.P. (Central Park Towers),
has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 90-02 for the 1991-1992 period under review.
211
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
AS. 123: Approving the waiver of liquidated damages as provided in
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Environmental Seal and Security
Inc., for the period January I through February 28, 1992.
A9. 123: Approving a First Amendment to Agreement with OMNI/Lynton
Enterprises, Inc., dba OMNI Telecommunications Company, in an amount not to
exceed $90,190.17 for cabling network Change Orders on the Police 2000
Project.
This item was continued to the meeting of April 7, 1992 as requested by staff.
Al0. 171: Approving the expenditure of $5,000 from the Council's future
appropriations account to participate in a joint city effort to mitigate the
loss of sales tax revenue resulting from the Aerospace Decision (Aerospace
Corporation v. State Board of Equalization).
Authorizing the City Manager to execute the participation document contained
in Attachment I.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He questioned if the City's present
financial condition can support the expenditures of taking a lead role in
trying to reverse the effects of the subject lawsuit.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-59 and 92R-60 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-59 and 92R-60 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
All. 156: POLICE STAFFING ENHANCEMENT PROPOSAL: Report from the City
Manager concerning Police staffing enhancement and possible action thereon.
The report was requested by the City Council at the meeting of March 17, 1992.
City Manager James Ruth. The Police Chief is present to give an overview of
the recommendations.
Submitted was report dated March 24, 1992 to the City Council from the City
Manager - Subject: Enhancement of Drug and Gang Prevention Efforts (made a
part of the record) recommending the following:
modifications to the Anaheim Municipal Code to increase the
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 11.6 percent to 13.0
percent.
Approve, in concept, the allocation of 0.4 percent of this
TOT increase to enhance the City' s Police Department' s
abilities to combat drugs and gangs in the community; and
Approve, in concept, the allocation of 1.0 percent of this
TOT increase to a capital account for improvements to the
Commercial Recreation Area and to the Convention Center.
212
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M,
The report contained Attachments A through D, & - Police Staffing Enhancement
Proposals; B - Parks, Recreation and Community Services proposed programs to
assist in combating gangs and drugs; C- Ten year Police staffing by sworn and
nonsworn positions (1980/81 - 1991/92); D- Bilingual pay comparisons.
Police Chief Molloy. He briefed the Police Staffing Enhancement Proposal as
set forth in Attachment A of the subject report. The proposal appears to be
the best expenditure of new money and allow the building of a plan that is
pro-active rather than re-active.
The main components of the plan are: The addition of one (1) Community Action
Policing Team consisting of one (1) Sergeant and four (4) officers added to
the existing team; the civilianization of the Forensic Services Detail; a
vertical prosecution unit will be established in the Special Operations
Division attached to the gang detail. "All of the enhanced positions and the
proposed civilianization of the Forensic Services Detail are intended to link
together to form a complete approach to the spiraling gangs/drug problem."
Council Members then posed questions relative to the proposal which were
answered by Chief Molloy.
Council Member Daly thanked the City Manager and Police Chief for a very well
done report and for providing answers to the questions he asked at the
previous meeting.
Council Member Ehrle. For the benefit of the public, with the new allocation
of funds to be put into the plan, he asked the Police Chief to give an idea in
terms of Police Officers, how many officers will be doing police work.
Police Chief Molloy. There will be an additional five people assigned to the
CAP Team, two gang investigators, one new money and one reassigned to the
gang, another investigator from Forensic Services assigned to juvenile, two to
be reassigned back to theft and auto burglary where the other two individuals
were taken out and assign the third one to the crimes person side where it
would be an addition to either the assault team or to the robbery/homicide
detail. It is actually six new positions, but a total reallocation of eleven
with new and reallocated positions.
City Manager Ruth then clarified that with the Three-Twelve Plan, it is the
equivalent of thirteen additional Police Officers during high crime periods
that can be reallocated.
MOTION~ Council Member Pickler moved to (1) Direct the city Attorney to
prepare the necessary modifications to the Anaheim Municipal Code to increase
the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 11.6% to 13%, (2) Approving in concept
the allocation of .4% of the Transient Occupancy Tax increase to enhance the
City's Police Departments ability to combat drugs and gangs in the community
and, (3) Approve in concept the allocation of 1.0% of the Transient Occupancy
Tax increase to a Capital Account for improvements to the commercial-
recreation area and the Convention Center. Council Member Ehrle seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEMS B1 - B4 FROM T_~T~ ZONING ~MINIsTRATOR M~ETING OF MARCH 5, 1992 -
DECISION DATE: MARCH 12, 1992, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
MARCH 27, 1992 ..-.
B1. 179: V.ARIANCE NO. 4171, CATEGORIC_ALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
213
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
OWNER: ANTONIO CAMPOS, 709 N. Pauline Street, Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION: 709 N.Pauline Street.
Property is approximately 0.12 acre, having frontage of approximately 48
feet on the west side of Pauline Street approximately 125 feet north of
the centerline of Wilhemina Street.
Waiver of (a) maximum lot coverage and (b) minimum open space
requirement to construct a 1,626 square foot addition to an existing
single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4171 APPROVED in part, denying Waiver A (ZA92-11).
B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4172, CATEGORICALLy EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: ANAHEIM HILLS MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P.O. Box 17177,
Anaheim Hills, CA 92817.
AGENT: CONTINENTAL SIGNS, 7541 Santa Rita Circle "D", Stanton, CA
90680, ATTN: Nancy Gemaehlich
LOCATIONs 500 S. Anaheim Hills Road. Property is approximately 5.14
acres located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Hills Road and Nohl
Ranch Road.
Waiver of maximum sign area and permitted identification to construct a
54 square-foot freestanding monument sign.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4172 APPROVED (ZA92-12).
B3. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4173, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: ROD FRASER ENTERPRISES, INC., 1320 N. Manzanita Street, Orange,
CA 92667.
AGENT: SIGN CITY, 1030 W. Collins, Orange, CA 92667 - Attn: Dave
Richman
LOCATIONs 5665 E. Santa Canyon Road. Property is approximately 5.0
acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and
Imperial Highway.
Waiver of maximum number of permitted wall signs to construct a 56
square-foot wall sign.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4173 APPROVED (ZA92-13).
B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4170, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: JAMES W. DAVIDSON & LORRAINE F. DAVIDSON, 423 Primrose, Anaheim,
CA 92804.
LOCATION~ 423 Primrose Street.
Property is approximately 0.17 acre, having a frontage of approximately
74 feet on the west side of Primrose Street and being located
approximately 580 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue.
Waiver of minimum structural setbacks to retain a patio cover and a
storage room.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINIsTRATQR=
Variance No. 4170 APPROVED (ZA92-14).
214
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5'.00 P.M.
Council Member Daly noted there was a staff recommendation against the subject
items, but yet the Zoning Administrator approved each of them. He asked if
there were changes to the proposals.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The Zoning Administrator can answer specifics
but on behalf of the Planning staff recommendations, of the four items, three
experienced totally revised plans that were submitted. On the other, .as with
all four, these were addressed through additional discussion at the public
hearing discovery and evidence and also added conditions by the Zoning
Administrator. There were substantial changes and information on each of
these items.
Council Member Daly then asked specific questions relative to the items which
were answered by the Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti.
End of the Zoning Administrator Items.
ITEMS B5 - B10 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION M~ETING OF MARCH 9, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 31, 1992:
B5. 179: WAIVER OF CODE BRQUIRFMRNT, CONDITIONAL_ USE PERMIT NO. 3489,
B~CLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-12 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Attn: Mrs. Winda (WEN-NING) KUO, I HSIUNG KUO AND SHU-CHIH
LIAO/KUO FAMILY TRUST, 25683 Nellie Gall, Laguna Hills, CA 92653.
AGENT: Attn: Yvonne Yao, JARARETT AND SUHARNOKOK, 5514 Wilshire Blvd.,
#900 Los Angeles, CA 90036.
LOCATION: 1556 West Katella Avenue.
Property is approximately 0.83 acre located on the south side of Katella
Avenue and approximately 650 feet west of the centerline of Ninth
Street.
For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to the CL Zone.
To permit a commercial retail center with waiver of maximum fence
height.
ACTION TA~N BY THE. P_LANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3489 GRANTED (PC92-27) (7 yes votes).
Reclassification No. 91-92-12 GRANTED (PC92-26).
Waiver of Code Requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
A rsvisw of the ?lan~ing ¢0~issi0~'s ~e¢isi0n was reques=e~ by counc£~
Members Daly and Pickler, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at
a later date.
B6. 134: GENERa?- PLAN AMeNDMeNT NO. 327, B~CLASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-15.
VARIANCE NO. 4175 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: MARGARET L. PETER, 610 S. Sunkist St., Anaheim, CA 92806.
AGENT: HCD CORP., P.O. BOX 5410, Fullerton, CA 92635.
LOCATION: 610 South Sunkist Street.
Property is approximately 1.08 acres located on the east side of Sunkist
Street approximately 400 feet north of the centerline of South Street.
Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating the
subject property from the existing Low-Density Residential to the
Low-Medium Density Residential designation.
For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to the RM-3000 Zone.
215
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5.'00 P.M.
Waiver of maximum structural height, maximum fence height and required
setback adjacent to single-family residential zone to construct a
10-unit condominium complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 327 DENIED (PC92-29) (7 yes votes).
Reclassification No. 91-92-15 CONTINUED to May 4, 1992 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Variance No. 4175 DENIED (PC92-30).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7. 179: CONDITION~AL USE PERMIT NO. 3496 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: EVERETT H. MILLER AND ELMAM. MILLER, 270 Roycroft Avenue, Long
Beach, CA 90803.
AGENT: HANI EL HAI, 944 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804.
LOCATION: 944 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.35
acre located on the east side of Brookhurst Street approximately 200
feet north of the centerline of Ball Road.
To retain and expand a convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3496 GRANTED (PC92-31) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Pickler and Daly, and therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at
a later date.
B8. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3501 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNERS: REDONDO INVESTMENT COMPANY, P.O. Box 14478, Long Beach, CA
90803.
AGENT: HARRY S. WEINROTH/HSW Associates, P.O. Box 1566, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
LOCATION: 6330-6396 Santa Ana Canyon Road (Anaheim Hills Shopping
Village).
Property is approximately 6.6 acres located at the southwest corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard.
To permit a semi-enclosed restaurant within an existing commercial
retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE pLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP N0. 3501 GKANTED (PC92-~2) (7 yes v0~e8).
Waiver of Code Requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B9. 179: WAIVER OF CODE RE_QUIREM~NT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3497 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: HANOVER REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, 1350 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92805.
AGENT: JAMES G. PILCHER, 5045 Marshburn Circle, Yorba Linda, CA 92686;
ANTHONY HERNANDEZ AND LELAND BERGSTROM, 1313 P Street, ~205, Fresno, CA
93721.
LOCATION: 1305 Gene Autry Way.
Property is approximately 4.8 acres located on the north side of Gene
Autry Way (formerly Pacifico Ave.) approximately 1150 feet west of the
centerline of State College Boulevard.
To permit a non-industrial training center for hotel/apartment
management with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
216
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3497 GRANTED (PC92-33) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of Code Requirement APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B10. 179: R~C_LASSIFICATION NO. 91-92-14 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Dorothy Lillian Brunson, 1840 41st. Avenue, Ste., 102-204,
Capitola, CA 95010.
LOCATION: 2970 W. Lincoln Avenue.
Property is approximately 5.11 acres, located at the southeast corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard.
A City-initiated reclassification from the CH to the CL (Commercial
Limited) Zone.
ACTION TAK~_N BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 91-92-14 GRANTED (PC92-34) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration
End of the Planning Commission Items.
Bll. 179: R~_QUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 3746:
Requested by Jeffrey L. Farano, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim
Blvd., Suite 340, Anaheim, CA 92805. The property is located at 1925 West
Lincoln Avenue. The petitioner is requesting an extension of time to expire
April 5, 1993. Variance No. 3746 is to permit construction of a 184-unit,
38-foot high, 2- to 4-story apartment complex with waiver of maximum fence
height, maximum structural height and minimum distance between buildings.
Submitted was report dated March 17, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that the Council deny the requested time
extension for the reasons listed on pages 3 and 4 of the March 17, 1992 staff
report.
It was determined that this item would be acted upon in conjunction with
public hearing Item D2 on today's agenda (see public hearing this date).
At the conclusion of the public hearing (Re: Conditional Use Permit No.
3487), the request for extension of time on Variance No. 3746 was denied.
(See discussion under public hearing Item D2. )
B12. 179: REOUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 4115 - (BROOKHOLLOW
APARTMENTS }:
Requested by Ben Ortega, Orange Coast Group, Inc., 3020 Old Ranch Parkway,
Suite 405, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751. The property is located at the
northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Br00khurst Street, between Gramercy
Street and Crescent Avenue, and Brookhurst Street and Valley Street containing
approximately 5.6 acres. The petitioner requests an extension of time to
expire June 4, 1993 to comply with the conditions of approval. Variance
No. 4115 is for waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum
structural height and required elevators to construct a 124-unit "affordable"
2 and 3-story apartment complex.
Submitted was report dated March 10, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that the Council grant the time extension on
the subject to expire June 4, 1993.
217
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
MOTION.-.. Council Member Hunter moved to approve the requested extension of
time on Variance No. 4115 to expire on June 4, 1993. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
B13. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5291 FOR ADOPTION:
WAIVER OF READING -ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5291)
Council Member Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5291 for adoption, amending Title 18
to rezone property under Reclassification No. 70-71-47(39) located at the
southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and White Star Avenue, from the RS-A-
43,000 zone to the ML zone. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5291: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 70-71-47(39) located at the southwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and White Star Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone. )
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5291 for adoption~
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT= COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5291 duly passed and adopted.
ITEM 6-B FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1992:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM:
B14. 179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO ATTACHED OR SEMI-ATTACHED
ONE-FAMILY DWELLINGS BEING pERMITTED IN THE RM-1200 ZONE SUBJECT TO RM-2400
CODE REQUIREMENTS:
The Planning Commission at their meeting of February 10, 1992 approved the
proposed code amendment by a 7-0 vote and directed the City Attorney's Office
to prepare a draft ordinance for consideration by the City Council.
Council Member Daly offered Ordinance No. 5292 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. .5292 - INTRODUCTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
SUBSECTION .045 TO SECTION 18.34.050 OF CHAPTER 18.34 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
ITEM B15 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1992, INFORMATION
ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 2, 1992:
B15. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14071 (Revision No. 1), SITE PLAN APPROVAL
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Baldwin Companies, Attn: Jeff Warmoth, 16811 Hale Ave.,
Irvine, CA 92714.
218
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24~ 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
LOCATIONs Property is approximately 54.6 acres which comprise a portion
of the 591-acre The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan No. (SP88-2),
and is bounded on the north by the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
Development, to the east by Development Area 107 of The Summit of
Anaheim Hills, to the south by Development Areas 104 and 208 of The
Summit of Anaheim Hills, and the west by Development Area 103 of The
Summit of Anaheim Hills, and further described as Development Area 202
of The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP 88-2).
Petitioner requests approval of Revision No. I to Tentative Tract Map
No. 14071 to establish a 26-1ot (including 14 lettered lots), 273-unit
condominium complex (previously approved for a 290-unit apartment
complex) and including a previously-approved 13.8 acre park site on the
northern portion of the proposed tract. Petitioner further requests
site plan review and approval.
ACTION TA~_~N BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION=
Tentative Tract map No. 14071 (Revision No. 1) APPROVED (6 yes votes, 1
absent ).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Cl. 108: HEARING - ANAM_~IM HILTON HOTEL AND TOWERS - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
TAX:
The petitioner is appealing the decision of the hearing officer which was
rendered on August 15, 1991 in connection with the Transient Occupancy Tax
(TOT) audit report. The hearing officer determined that the operator (Anaheim
Hilton Hotel and Towers - AHHT) remit to the City for the audit period -
$136,749.54 in tax, $37,372.31 in interest to the date of the assessment and
$65,319.14 in penalty to the date of the assessment, plus additional interest
and penalties as provided in the ordinance to date of payment. These amounts
were later revised as a result of additional information provided regarding
the quantities of packages sold and a revised audit report prepared. The
revised net amount to the City is $213,815.59 - $123,077.47, tax - $32,311.31,
interest - $58,426.81, penalty. (See documents submitted by staff which
contained Exhibit A - Determination by Hearing Officer and Notice to Operator,
and Exhibit B - Audit No. 90000 (revised) of Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers -
revision dated December 2, 1991 - made a part of the record).
City Attorney, Jack White. This is the time and place fixed for the appeal on
the Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers regarding the decision of the City Hearing
Officer, Honorable Norman R. Dowds, finding and determining that additional
TOT is due to the City by the hotel operator for the audit period August 1,
1987 through August 31, 1990. The City Council has received the following
~'.~uments regarding this matter which shall be deemed part o£ the record o~
- night's hearing and hereby received into evidence unless there is objection
by either party:
Exhibit A - Determination of the Hearing Officer and Notice to
Operator dated August 15, 1991 including Exhibits 1 through 7,
Exhibits lettered A and B and Exhibits labeled I & II attach
thereto.
Exhibit B - Cover of memorandum dated December 2, 1991 from
William H. Smith to James D. Ruth and the revised audit report for
the Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers for the audit period of
August 1, 1987 through August 31, 1990 which report is dated
January 9, 1991, revised December 2, 1991.
219
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Exhibit C - Letter of Appeal of Decision of the Hearing Officer
dated August 22, 1991 from Vince Shroff to Lee Sohl, City Clerk.
Exhibit D - Is letter dated March 16, 1992 from Vince Shroff to
Malcolm E. Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney and copied to the City
Council and City Clerk together with Exhibits A and B attached
thereto.
Exhibit E - Is staff report dated March 24, 1992 from Mary E.
Turner, City Treasurer to the City Council with attachment
thereto.
Additional documents may be offered into evidence and if so, will be
appropriately marked for identification at that time. Section 2.12.070 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code provides that a rebuttable presumption exists at this
hearing that the amount of the tax, interest and penalties as determined by
the Hearing Officer is correct and the burden of proof on such issues at
tonight's hearing shall be upon the Hotel Operator. It would first be in
order to open the hearing and call upon the City Treasurer for her staff
report and then a representative of the Hotel Operator to present the hotels
position and finally upon the City Treasurer and other representatives of the
City to present additional evidence and closing arguments. The hearing will
then be closed and the Council will ask questions of speakers or
representatives before making a decision.
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.
City Attorney White. Exhibits A and B were given to the Council in a separate
package. Exhibits C, D and E are included in the City Council notebooks.
Mary Turner, City Treasurer. She first briefed the history of the Transient
Occupancy Tax Ordinance from 1977 requiring hotel operators to separately
state the amount of room charge and tax on all receipts and records and
subsequent amendments which gave operators three options on how the tax would
be treated with regard to special packages which she explained. Hotel/motel
operators participated in the discussions leading up to the adoption of the
amendments to the ordinance with the Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers being one
of the participants. The hotel made no objections during the drafting or
final adoption of the ordinance. She then briefed portions of her report
dated March 24, 1992 - made a Dart of the record.
In concluding her presentation, Mrs. Turner stated that the amount imposed by
the hearing officer including interest and penalties due as of today's date
has been revised downward by the City Auditors to a total of $243,026.77, of
which $233,023.98 relates to special packages and $10,002.79 relates to the
disallowed tax exemption.
Mayor Hunter opened the hearing and asked to hear from the representatives of
the Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers, the appellants.
Mr. Warner McLean, Vice President of Tax, Hilton Hotels Corporation. He
explained that Mr. Vince Shroff will make the presentation. During the same
220
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
period the City is saying that the Hilton owes $123,000 in TOT, Hilton
collected over $10,000,000 in occupancy tax for the City. The $123,000 is the
result of a dispute in the interpretation of the ordinance and not that they
take their collection responsibility lightly.
Mr. Vince Shroff, Director of International Taxes, Hilton Hotels. He first
submitted an outline of his presentation entitled, "Transient Occupancy Tax
Hearing of Appeal - Re: Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Towers (Hilton) containing
Exhibits A through D". City Attorney White received the Exhibit which will be
marked as Exhibit F (copies were submitted to each Council Member).
Mr. Vince Shroff. He then briefed and/or read from the documentation
submitted. Hilton feels that the Hearing Officer relied solely upon the
interpretation of the City Attorney which they do not agree with because it
goes contrary to the provisions of the ordinance. They did not get into the
issues of the intent of the ordinance before the hearing officer.
Mayor Hunter interjected and asked that Mr. Shroff's presentation focus in on
the penalty phase particularly Page 9 of the judges decision which goes to the
intent of the ordinance. The Council has a great deal of documentation on the
issue and is aware of the whole situation.
Vince Shroff. The tax is on the hotel guests and not the operator. Hilton
would not do anything where they would end up paying taxes out of their own
pocket. They are comfortable in interpreting the ordinance that they are
paying the right amount of TOT. Exhibit B in the documents he submitted
explains the issue concisely. He first clarified for Council Member Ehrle
that the special packages were not filed with the City as requested, their
position being they could not file the packages because of the way the
provision was written in the ordinance. Referring to Hilton Exhibit B, it
showed a representative package and on the left side showed the computation
used by Hilton in its filing. He briefed the figures contained therein
concluding that because of its typical fact situation, it could not fall into
the provision of filing a package with the City which would comply with the
requirements of filing as stated in the ordinance as follows:
The amount allocated to the room, $75.50, the City said they could
not allocate that but have to allocate 50% of the maximum double
occupancy room rate. The room rate can be no lower than the 50%
of the double occupancy room rate. If they collected $93 and 50%
of the double occupancy rate is $162, he questioned how they could
comply. That is why they did not file the package.
Council Member Pickler interjected and asked staff to reply relative to the
comments regarding the packages.
Mary Turner, City Treasurer. The Hilton could have filed the package with the
City's Treasurer Office for non-compliance. It reverts back to the posted
room rate on the back of the hotel room door.
Susan Grabemeyer-Grande, Management Auditor. The Hilton could have separated
the room and tax and their breakfast coupons on their receipt to their guest.
They chose not to do that which would have met the City's requirements.
Council Member Pickler then posed a series of questions which were answered by
both Mr. Shroff and Mr. McLean. Subsequently, Mr. Shroff continued with his
extensive presentation covering the balance of the items listed in his outline
(Item I through VII) and which were documented in the attachments thereto.
221
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Occupancy Tax is a tax on the hotel guests. Hilton would not have the use of
any money. It is unfair to charge them interest. Regarding the penalty,
about $58,000 is based on the City Audit Report. Non-compliance is about 1%
of the total taxes paid. When Hilton read the ordinance, they felt they were
reading it correctly. If a provision of the ordinance did not apply, and it
is a complicated ordinance, their view was to do the right thing. If they
were not clear relative to the provisions of the ordinance, they determined to
look at the intent, look at the packages and then break down from the packages
what was food, what was Disney and then allocate the balance to the rate.
They felt if they did that, they would always allocate an amount of rate equal
to the fair amount of value to the room and thus would be paying the proper
amount of Occupancy Tax. They feel they have complied with the intent. In
the City Attorney's opinion where he would like them to pay tax on the $93
means they would be treated worse than somebody trying to cheat the City and
pay two types of taxes. They believe their interpretation is better and is
not contrary ~o the ordinance. The City Attorney's interpretation is contrary
to a definitional section in the ordinance which defines rent and goes against
Paragraph I and 2. He hopes the Council Members will treat taxpayers who have
been conscientious and have done whatever possible to comply with the
ordinance by not burdening them in paying the tax.
City Treasurer, Mary Turner. Relative to the $700,000 audit, that was a
preliminary finding and not an audit. That figure was downsized as a result
of additional material they were able to use. It is an irrelevant figure.
The fair market value of the room is not in accordance with the ordinance. If
the package is 50% more than the posted room rate on the back of the door, it
is necessary to take 50% of the back of the door rate. She then read a
prepared statement emphasizing that the operator could have complied with the
ordinance, but chose not to for its own business or public relations reasons.
The Hilton could have separately stated room rate and tax on all receipts and
records for special packages and chose not to that. They chose not to file
special packages with her office nor has she received a package to date. Even
if the room tax included by the operator were less than 50% of the maximum
double occupancy rate for the rooms as posted in each room, the operator could
have revised the posted room rate and complied with the requirements of the
ordinance but again, the Hilton chose not to do that. Imposing the tax is
necessary to uphold the integrity of the ordinance and avoid sending a message
to other operators that provisions of the ordinance can be ignored without
consequence.
Questions were then posed for purposes of clarification by Council Member
Simpson which were answered both by the City Attorney and City Treasurer. At
the conclusion, Council Member Simpson asked that the issue be reduced to its
simplest terms - if the Hilton had changed the stated rate on the back of the
hotel room doors, he surmised they would not be present today; City Attorney
White confirmed that was correct, or if Hilton filed as they are doing now the
room charges and the tax on all receipts, either way they would not be here.
Vince Shroff. On the room rate that is posted, the low range is very low and
the high range is very high. They do not want to have to change the room rate
every day on the back of the doors. They are now complying with the ordinance
by taking the total package amount and treating it all as rent. They cannot
go to the trouble of breaking it down. It is not an easy problem to fix.
They did file a package breakdown with the City after the audit, but were
informed that their package filing was not proper. It is incorrect to say
they did not file. Lastly, Hilton would like an answer to the question -
although they did not file the package breakdown, did they pay the right
amount of Occupancy Tax, yes or no.
222
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter declared the hearing closed.
Council Members then gave their input and comments concluding as follows:
Council Member Ehrle.- He agrees with the Hearing Officer that Hilton does owe
the money but that the penalty is something the Council could reconsider or
impose a lesser penalty. He (Ehrle) feels the interest is due to the City.
He supports the Hearing Officer's decision with some consideration to be given
relative to the penalty.
Mayor Hunter. The Hearing Officer is a retired superior court judge who
submitted a ten-page written opinion. In the future, he feels the Hearing
Officer's decision should be binding. He quoted several statements made by
the Hearing Officer particularly, "...the Hearing Officer recommends, in the
event of an appeal from this decision, that the City Council give honest
consideration to waiving the penalty or some part thereof." He is inclined to
go along with the judge and waive the penalty portion but not the $123,000
figure plus interest.
City Treasurer, Turner clarified the amounts as follows up through today:
Tax, $123,077.47- Interest, $58,410.49- Penalty, $61,538.81
Totaling $243,026.77
Council Member Pickler. The judge upheld the $123,000 figure. The Council
has not waived the penalty and interest in the past. Hilton was aware of the
ordinance and could have approached the City with their problem. If the
penalty is waived in this case, it is not fair to those who have had to pay
that penalty in the past.
City Treasurer, Turner. She clarified for Council Member Ehrle that a late
payment penalty has been waived in the past, but to her knowledge the penalty
has not been waived on an audit finding.
Gary Hunui, Senior Management Auditor. An item was brought before the Council
on the issue of packages by the Pan Pacific Hotel. They also asked for a
waiver of the penalty and it was denied. The only recollection he has of
waiver of a penalty by the Council was probably five or six years ago on the
Marriott for a totally different issue.
Council Member Simpson. Each case should be considered on its own merit and
not what has been done in the past. He agrees with the Hearing Officer when
he stated, "The Hearing Officer is convinced that the operator, however,
unwisely acte~ in good faith and that its ~ro~osed allocation of the ~acka~e
charge between room rent and other charges is not an un~easonable one." He
does not think there was any intent on the part of the Hilton to deprive the
City of its rightful share of Transient Occupancy Tax. He has difficulty in
assessing penalties. Penalties should be assessed as a measure to punish or
penalize. He thought the ordinance was to the point where it was very clear.
It was so complex at the time he was hearing cases when he was the City
Manager, but is now hearing the same kind of confusion. He hopes that the
entire jurisdiction for the process gets taken away from the Council or that
the ordinance is one that someone can interpret and understand. He will
support denying the penalty portion.
MOTION~ Council Member Hunter moved that the determination of the Hearing
Officer dated August 15, 1991, be confirmed and the findings and
determinations contained therein be adopted as the findings and determinations
223
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
of the City Council in this matter with the following exceptions and
revisions: the amount of the tax due shall be $123,077.47; interest to this
date shall be an additional $58,410.49 and shall continue to accrue at the
rate of one and one-half percent _Der month until the date of payment; and that
the amount of penalty shall be waived in its entirety based upon a finding
that such waiver is necessary to avoid a substantial injustice to the operator
for the reasons set forth in the determination of the Hearing Officer.
Council Member Simpson seconded.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Daly stated that the City Treasurer in
collecting the taxes is the City's Banker. He feels they should not be
waiving penalties because they are the banker.
After additional discussion and comments between Council Members where
opposing views were expressed relative to the penalty, a vote was then taken
on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: Simpson and Hunter
NOES: Ehrle, Pickler and Daly
ABSENT: None
MOTION! Council Member Pickler moved that the determination of the Hearing
Officer dated August 15, 1991, be confirmed and the findings and
determinations contained therein be adopted as the findings and determinations
of the City Council in this matter with the following exceptions and
revisions: the amount of the tax due shall be $123,077.47; interest to this
date shall be an additional $58,410.49 and shall continue to accrue at the
rate of one and one-half percent per month until the date of payment; and the
amount of the penalty shall be $61,538.81; for a total due today of
$243,026.77. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. The motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: Ehrle, Pickler and Daly
NOES: Simpson and Hunter
ABSENT .- None
RECESS..'. By General Consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:55 p.m. )
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:07 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: PUBLIC HEARING - R~_CLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-31 - AMEND CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL:
REQUESTED BY: David L. Tsoong, M.D., Anaheim Harbor Medical Group,
Inc., 230 S. Euclid, Anaheim, CA 92802.
LOCATION/REQUEST~ The property is located at 710 North Euclid Street.
The petitioner requests amendment to conditions of approval adopted in
connection with Resolution No. 66R-741 and Ordinance No. 2340.
Reclassification No. 66-67-31 is for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to CL.
224
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin- March 12, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 30 feet - March 11, 1992
Posting of property- March 13, 1992
The City Clerk announced that staff requests a continuance of the public
hearing to Tuesday, April 7, 1992.
Mayor Hunter asked if anybody was present who was opposed to the requested
continuance; there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to continue public hearing on
Reclassification No. 66-67-31 request to amend conditions of approval to
Tuesday, April 7, 1992. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE R~QUIR~_MENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3487 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:.
OWNER: Habitat I, 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1880, L.A., CA 90067.
AGENT: Farano and Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Ste. $340, Anaheim, CA
92805.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue
and is approximately 5.7 acres located at the northwest corner of
Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street.
To permit a "mixed use" project consisting of a 2- and 4-story,
184-unit, "deck type" apartment complex and 10,000 square feet of ground
floor commercial uses with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces,
minimum distance between buildings and required distance to elevators.
ACTION TA~N BY T~__E P_LANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3487 DENIED (PC92-17) (6 yes votes and i no vote. )
Waiver of Code Requirement DENIED (5 yes votes and 2 no votes. )
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (4 yes votes and 3 no votes. )
Bll. 179: R_RQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - VARIANCE NO. 3746:
Requested by agent for the applicant Jeffrey L. Farano, Attorney, Farano and
Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 340, Anaheim, CA 92805.
The property is located at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. The petitioner is
requesting an extension of time on the variance to expire April 5, 1993.
Variance No. 3746 is to permit construction of a 184-unit, 38-foot high, 2- to
4-story apartment complex with waiver of maximum fence height, maximum
structural height and minimum distance between buildings. (Item Bll on agenda
for this date. )
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3487:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - March 12, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 30 feet - March 11, 1992
Posting of property- March 13, 1992
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by Farano and
Kieviet agent for the applicant.
STAFF INPUT:
225
City Hallr Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24r 1992 - 5=00 P.M.
See Staff report dated March 17, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that the Council deny the requested time
extension on Variance No. 3746 and also staff report to the Planning
Commission dated February 24, 1992 relating to Conditional Use Permit
No. 3487.
City Attorney White first explained that although Item Bll relative to
the request for extension of time on Variance No. 3746 does not require
a public hearing, he would suggest that the Council conduct the public
hearing, act on that and follow that with action on Item Bll. Any
comments that any parties or witnesses have regarding Item D2 or Bll can
be received as part of the subject public hearing.
Jeff Farano, Farano and Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Attorney
representing the applicant, Habitat I. He will give a history and a
brief description of the project and subsequently have the architect
describe the project in detail and items at issue relative to the mixed
use. Larry Greet who prepared the Parking and Traffic Anaylsis will
subsequently give his report.
Council Member Pickler. He asked first if the project differs in any
way from the project that was submitted initially in 1988.
Jeff Farano. The structure of the project remains identical as approved
in 1988. The only change that took place was in 1989 where the bedroom
mix was changed to increase some one bedroom apartments and decrease
three bedroom apartments. The project itself is what the Council saw in
1988. The only changes would be the retail parking underneath which has
now been designated to be segregated for retail parking only.
Council Member Ehrle asked why the project was again before the Council.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The original proposal was only
for a residential project. The developer at that time left out
approximately 10,000 square feet and he indicated that it could be
commercial in the future. Staff indicated it could not because the code
at that time did not allow the mixed use. Tonight they are talking
about the whole project. Since then, a mixed use ordinance has been
adopted which includes certain types of criteria which are satisfied by
the project. Subsequently, the developer is coming back at this point
with a project including the commercial portion. What was approved
previously was a wholly residential project with 10,000 square feet of
storage/recreational space inside a building.
City Attorney White. Item Bll relates to the project approved in 1988.
At that time, the code did not have a requirement for a cond£tlonal use
permit and did not recognize a mixed use of commercial and residential
on the same property. In 1988, Variance No. 3746 (Item Bll) was
approved for only the residential portion of the project with the
indication that there were 10,000 square feet of ground level space
being reserved for some future use. The code at that time did not allow
approval of the commercial portion in conjunction with residential. The
developer has not exercised that variance and it is due to expire on
April 5, 1992, unless extended. Item Bll is a request to extend the
previously approved variance. Item D2 is under the new ordinance
section adopted that recognizes mixed uses of commercial and residential
projects on the same piece of property and allows the Council by
conditional use permit to approve such projects. The developer has now
226
City Hall, Anahe!_m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
applied for a CUP. The basic difference is the 10,000 square feet on
the ground floor the developer is asking to be approved as commercial in
conjunction with the residential previously approved. It is actually a
new CUP for the entire project. If the Council denies the CUP (Under
Item D2) and yet approves the extension of time (Item Bll) the developer
could still build a residential portion but not be able to build the
10,000 square feet of commercial on the ground floor.
Jeff Farano. If the project was built in 1989, tonight they would only
be back asking for a CUP to include the retail as a portion of an
already completed project. The subject CUP request today requires that
the entire project be considered as one project. The variance
originally requested and approved remains the same. (He briefed the
Council on what had occurred since 1989.) In 1991, the mixed use
ordinance was finally adopted. In January 1990, the deck-type housing
ordinance was approved. There is substantial conformance with the deck
housing ordinance based on the plan submitted and reviewed under the
mixed use application. The project also complies with all the
requirements under the mixed use ordinance including being located on
RM1200, an arterial highway, and rental fronting on a main arterial.
Both under the criteria of mixed use and deck housing, the project
exceeds all of the requirements. Mr. Turhorst will brief the Council on
the project.
Phil Turhorst, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, Architect, McLaren and
Vasquez. He described the project as he had done at previous Council
meetings. The site plan is identical. The front building is the
building that contains the retail fronting on Lincoln and Muller.
Retail is at grade. (Mr. Turhorst's presentation was supplemented by
slides. )
Relative to the reduction in parking spaces, retail has parking beneath
it in the garage plus parking open all the way along the west edge of
the project. There are approximately 100 open spaces to be shared
between the retail and guests function of the apartments. They are
asking for a variance reducing parking from 550 spaces to 505 spaces.
The other waiver is distance to elevators. At the time the project was
designed, the City did not have a 200-foot maximum distance to
elevators. They proposed placing the elevators away from the neighbors.
This project physically from the exterior is identical to the one
previously approved. Some space is merely being converted from
miscellaneous recreation space to retail space.
Larry Greet, President, Greet and Company. He prepared the Traffic and
Parking Analysis. He explained the process used in the analysis and the
resulting conclusions. They made a conservative assumption that they
might expect about 40% of the traffic they would normally find in the
10,000 square feet of retail uses that would be walk-in from the project
and surrounding residential areas. Type of uses are going to be
convenience services that will draw from the project population. It is
not a regional mall concept. The other aspect is shared parking. There
are 505 spaces, 92 of which will be in a residential project designated
as visitor space. Retail will be open day time hours when residents are
at work which leaves empty visitor spaces for use by retail customers
who are driving in. Later, the retail stores are closed and residents
are home with whatever visitors there might be. Using the 40% figure
that would normally be required for retail or 55% would leave a 33 space
parking demand for the retail portion. The surface spaces are shared-
227
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MARCH 24, 1992 - 5:00 P.M.
use spaces. There will be a sharing of 23 parking spaces, 16 designated
for retail at all times. It is a good mix. The variance is only an 8%
parking variance for the entire project.
Jeff Farano. He spoke briefly relative to the parking issue, the issue
generally of apartments in Anaheim, the appropriateness of the project
for the area, appropriateness of mixed use in this location, and
reiterated the fact that they have complied with all the provisions of
the deck housing in mixed use ordinance.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak either in favor or
in opposition. (A show of hands indicated that approximately 35 people were
present in opposition to the project. )
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN FAVOR: None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
Betty McFarland, 231N. Carol Drive. The residents have attended both
Planning Commission meetings in the past two months and both times the
Planning Commission denied the plan. There are too many apartments in
the area many of which are not rented. Traffic is heavier, schools are
overcrowded. If the project were to be approved, there is still the
issue of the installation of a traffic signal at Aladdin Drive and
Lincoln also, if approved, she would like Diane Way red lined on both
sides so that residents from the project will not park in that area. It
is important to consider the people who have been leaving in the area
for 40 years.
Gary Andresen, 234 N. Dahlia Drive. The elementary school is year round
even now. Traffic is a concern. He questioned what kind of retail is
proposed and what are the hours of operation. Car alarms are a noise
problem with people coming and going. There are new people living along
the west wall of the project because many residents have moved.
Charles Stall, 216 N. Carol Drive. This is not a residential or
pedestrian area. People will be using their automobile to access the
retail. In 1998, when the project was originally approved, it probably
would have been absorbed very well. Much has changed in four years.
The economy is sagging. There are too many units. Parking and traffic
will be a problem.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais. He shops in the area. Traffic is already
difficult and will only worsen with the project and there is
overcrowding of schools.
Louis Andresen, 234 N. Dahlia Drive. There will be 184 apartments and
ten retail units or 194 units. She questioned where employees will
park. There will be at least three per unit in the ten retail units.
S%FMMATION BY
APPLICANTs
Jeff Farano. The Planning Commission only denied the mixed use and not
the apartments. The economy has affected almost any type of use. The
project as originally approved only required that the traffic light be
228
City Hall~ Anaheima California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MA~.. CH 24a 1992 - 5=00 P.M.
installed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. The developer will
commit to having a condition that the traffic light be installed prior
to grading. They will also agree to whatever the Traffic Department
agrees to relative to red lining Diane Way. The application indicates
that there will be no more than ten units available for a retail. No
restrictions has been placed on hours of operation. The Traffic
Department has agreed to the mitigating measures on the project which
the developer has also agreed to including changes in the median strip
on Lincoln and Euclid and some re-striping to Lincoln to satisfy the
concerns relative to traffic that would be created.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Council Member Ehrle. The Council does not usually have an opportunity to
make a decision in reevaluating a project. Over four years, many things have
changed. He has voted against this project in the past, but with compromises,
he finally voted in favor. One of the overriding concerns he has is the
impact the project will have on the school system as well as on other public
services. They have developed a philosophy of pride of ownership moving away
from apartments and towards condominiums and single-family homes. He feels
the project potentially could be reworked. Staff should have an opportunity
of reevaluating the property as well as the Planning Commission. He is going
to vote to deny the project as it exists today. It is not the right project
for 1992.
Council Member Daly. He shares the same concerns and feels there is a better
use for the property. There has been growing recognition that some of the
neighborhoods in Anaheim have too many apartments and this is an example of
such a neighborhood. They recently approved a townhome condominium project
about a block away from the subject property with about half the density. The
subject project is about 35 units to the acre~ about half that would be more
appropriate. He agrees it is painful to see property remain vacant. Perhaps
they have overlooked the site in their surveys of the City. The location is
not right for the kind of density proposed.
Council Member Simpson. He does not think they are reviewing a project four
years later since the Council has approved a time extension twice - each of
those times after the design criteria was changed. This is in substantial
compliance with deck type apartments. It is not four years later but eleven
months later.
Council Member Pickler. The City is going to need apartments again. He
believes this is one of the finest developments that is going to happen in the
City. He has no problems with the mixed use but, if possible, that they have
some control over what goes into the retail units and that there be limits on
operating hours. This is an apartment complex to be proud of done by the
finest architect in the County and perhaps the State. When the plan was
proposed, he said he wanted to make certain they were going to build exactly
what was shown in the plan and to get the best quality. If 86 or 96 units, he
is not certain they will get that quality. There are still many people who
cannot afford a condominium, a townhouse or a single-family home. This is a
project they have looked at from year-to-year, not just four years ago.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Council Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Pickler, the City Council
does hereby approve a mitigated Negative Declaration on the subject project
and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code on the basis that the Planning Commission/City
229
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES. - MARCH 24t 1992 - 5:00 P.M:
Council has considered the proposal with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and accompanying Monitoring Program, together with any comments received
during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF _R~ADING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-61)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-61 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3487. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-6!.'. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3487.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 92R-61 for adoption:
AYES= COUNCIL MEMBERS.. Ehrle, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson and Pickler
ABSENT= COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-61 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION.'. Council Member Hunter moved that the request for extension of time 'on
Variance No. 3746 which is Item Bll on today's agenda be denied. Council
Member Ehrle seconded the motion. Council Members Simpson and Pickler voted
no. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hunter. He voted to deny, but agrees that the architect is a dynamic
one however times have changed. The Council has made a commitment to
downzone. RS2400 is probably what is appropriate for the site at this time.
Council Member Pickler is correct - young families have to have that first
place to live, but looking at the statistics, the west end of Anaheim has been
overloaded with apartments. It is time to build apartments someplace else
rather than West Anaheim.
ADJOURNMENT.- Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn, Council Member Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:13 p.m. )
No City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 1992 since no
quorum is anticipated.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
230