Loading...
1981/12/0881-1408 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Phil Grammatica HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro ASSISTANT PLANNER: Dean Sherer Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invoca- tion. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 153: PRESENTATIONS - CITY SERVICE AWARDS: The following employees were recognized and presented with service awards marking the completion of 25 years of dedicated service to the City: In the Fire Department, Dwight Allcott, Edward Heinze, John Ladig, Lawrence Lutz, Garth Menges, Gustav Popke, Robert Richard; other Fire Department personnel unable to attend, Sam Bogoshian, Richard Down, Richard Filipy, Arvid Lindquist and Robert Wilkinson. In the Police Department, Derrall Guest and John Kerr; Building Administration, Edgar Thorp; Facility Maintenance, Steve Rachunok; Mechanical Maintenance, John Albright and Casey Burns; Engineering, Matthew Boscia and Lynda Sprague. Mr. A1 McDougall, Engineering Department, was then presented with a 30-year service award for his dedicated service, one of only three employees in the City having served Anaheim for 30 years or more. 114: REPORT - TRIP TO MITO, JAPAN - SISTER CITY EXCHANGE COMMITTEE: Council- man Overholt called upon Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman of the Sister City Exchange Committee, to report on the 5th Annual Sister City Exchange to Mito, Japan, which departed on November 7, 1981, with 42 people in the delegation. Mr. Parker then reported on the trip emphasizing the hospitality extended to them while in Mito by Mayor Wada and those involved in the Exchange Program. He also asked that the several members of the Anaheim delegation who were present in the Chambers audience to stand and be recognized. Councilman Overholt then commended Mr. Parker and his wife, as well as Mr. Bill Riley, Assistant Chairman, and his wife, for their efforts in planning such a successful trip. He then reported that Mayor Wada made a presentation 81-1409 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. to Mayor Seymour, which he (Overholt) accepted in the Mayor's behalf, explaining that he had to visit Mito in order to realize the great admiration and fondness Mayor Wada had for Mayor Seymour. He then presented the gift, a glass encased Sumarai Warrior replica in full battle regalia; Mayor Seymour accepted the gift with great appreciation, following which he gave an overview of the history of the Sister City Program in Anaheim, how it evolved, what it had accomplished, and the value of having such a program. He then asked the City Attorney to research the question relative to the gift just presented. Although he would personally want to keep the gift if regulations or laws were such that he would be unable to do so, he asked that it be more appropriately displayed in the history room of the main library. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of July 14, July 28 and August 4, 1981, subject to the following corrections to the minutes of July 28 and August 4 and, further, continuing approval of the September 1, 1981, minutes for one week: Minutes of July 28, 1981 - Page 27, 5th paragraph, adding this sentence, "Mr. Farano stated that unless he received approval, they would have to evict all of the mobilehome residents' that week because the park was not safe, but if they received approval, they could stay for 12 months"; Page 31 and 33--two typographical corrections. Minutes of August 4, 1981--Page 6, third paragraph, typographical correction. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained from voting on the minutes of July 14, 1981 only, since he was not present. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $11,117,408.79, in accord- ance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. ~ CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Counciln~an Overholt, the following items were approved as recommended: a. 160: Bid No. 3814: Two 6-inch plug valves, Item No. 1; eight 2 1/2-inch plug valves, Item No. 4; one 4-inch plug valve, Item No. 8; and one 16-inch plug valve, Item No. 9. Award to Rockwell International Flow Control Division, $10,819.52. One 20-inch plug valve, Item No. 2; one 16-inch plug valve, Item No. 3; one 12-inch plug valve, Item No. 5; two 6-inch plug valves, Item No. 6; and one 36-inch motorized plug valve, Item No. 7. Award to Dezurik Company, $77,776.87. 81-1410 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. b. 123: Authorizing an agreement with National Revenue Corporation at an initial cost to the City of $3,000 for collection of overdue library materials; guaranteeing a 300 percent return to the City over and above this initial cost; and in the event this return is not met, refunding the full contract price of ~3,000. c. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $12,896, for implementation of electric utility load research software for the Electric Utility Department. d. 153: Granting Henry Bryant industrial accident leave time during the period of November 18, 1981 thru December 31, 1982, as medically required. MOTION CARRIED. 123: EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM - SENIOR SYSTEMS PROGRAMMER: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated December 2, 1981 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae recommending an agreement between the City and the firm of Executive Register Agency, Inc., to recruit a Senior Systems Programmer for the Data Processing Department. Mayor Seymour stated after looking at the item and realizing the request was to pay an executive search firm $9,368 to hire an individual in Data Processing at the proposed salary of $37,467, he found that to be unreason- able. Even after discussing the matter with the City Manager, he was not convinced they should be paying any fee at all and he was opposed to the recommendation. MOTION: After clarification by the City Manager, Data Processing and Human Resources Directors of certain questions posed by the Council, Councilman Bay moved to approve the letter agreement between the City of Anaheim and the firm of Executive Register Agency, Inc., to recruit for a Senior Systems Programmer, as recommended in the subject memorandum. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour voted '~o". MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-559 through 81R-561, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-559: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW- ING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FAIRMONT SUBSTATION PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-665-6329-75800-36100. (Artistic Landscape, $12,972.70) City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 131/101: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-560: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 13 TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FEDERAL-AID URBAN SYSTEM PROJECTS AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. ($181,307, for partial funding of construction cost for the Stadium's Traffic Circulation Improvements. Federal No. M-3041(106) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-561: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS OF UNRECORDED EASEMENTS, AGREEMENTS AND LICENSES. (from Southern California Edison for certain distribution facilities in the vicinity of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, Condemnation No. 1 1) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SEN T: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-559 through 81R-561, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation with no action anticipated. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:32 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:08 P.M.) 107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 EDITION OF NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE: To consider adoption of the 1981 Edition of the National Electrical Code, with amendments thereto, and adding a new Chapter 15.16 to Title 15 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (continued from the meetings of November 3 and December 1, 1981, see minutes those dates) Mayor Seymour opened the public hearing and noted that Mr. Bryan Vaughan was present to speak. Mr. Bryan W. Vaughan, Chairman, Building Codes Committee, Orange County Chapter, Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc., then gave a presentation revolving around the following documents which he submitted in answer to staff report dated November 23, 1981 from the Building Division supplied to him at the meeting of December 1, 1981. The documents were in support of his contention that there was no danger relative to the utilization of aluminum wiring, but that copper was far more dangerous. During the course of his presentation, he showed examples of pigtailing, spring lock connectors and other electrical connectors, and submitted: (1) letter dated December 7, 1981 providing detailed answers to certain aspects of the subject 81-1412 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. staff report; (2) exhibits M through O substantiating the answers provided; (3) information bulletin SHL81-4 dated June 11, 1981 generated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; (4) letter dated July 29, 1981--subject: Recent Changes to State Housing Law--a Reminder to the City's Building Official of the requirements of the State Housing Law. He also answered questions posed by Councilman Roth regarding a letter submitted to the Council from Ralph C. Levin, consulting electrical engineer, dated December 8, 1981 and McLean & Schultz, Engineers, dated December 7, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office) urging that smaller size aluminum wiring not be used in construction because the danger to life and property was too great to justify its use. Mr. Vaughan did not agree with the conclusions contained in the letters. The following people then spoke to the issue of the utilization of aluminum wiring and gave their objections to its use, urging the adoption of the 1981 National Electrical Code as amended: Ralph C. Alexander, Licensed Electrical Engineer; Theodore Stuhl, Licensed Electrical Engineer; Andy Giannelli, Electrical Contractor (Vic Stein Electric); and Nell Coyne of Farrell's Electrical Home Center. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-562 for adoption, setting forth local conditions justifying amendments to the National Electrical Code, 1981 Edition. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-562: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1981 EDITION. Before a vote was taken on the resolution, Councilwoman Kaywood also offered Ordinance No. 4275 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4275: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 15.16.001 THROUGH 15.16.140 OF TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 1981 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WITH AMEND~NTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.16 BY ADDING THERETO NEW SECTIONS 15.16. 001 THROUGH 15.16. 080. Before voting, Mayor Seymour stated from what he had deduced in all of the testimony and documentation presented, aluminum wiring could be as safe as copper wiring, the problem being in the installation, which process was more critical when installing aluminum wiring than copper. There was no doubt in his mind that they would be abrogating their responsibility of protecting the citizens' health, safety and welfare if they moved to do anything other than assure the passage of what had been recommended by staff. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 81-1413 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-562 duly passed and adopted. A vote was subsequently taken on the ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNC IL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4275 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2268 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Armand A. Stephanian, et al, to permit an automobile impound yard on CL zoned property located at 2540 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-211, denied a negative declaration for the subject project since there would be a signifi- cant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2268. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Daniel J. Barrett, Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Paul Maas, attorney representing the applicant, was present with Mr. Daniel Barrett, agent representing the interest of the lessee, Mr. Brazil. Mr. Maas first presented an aerial photo of the subject property from which Mr. Barrett pointed out the property and surrounding land uses. He then sub- mitted additional documentation which outlined and summarized his presentation (made a part of the record) entitled: City of Anaheim, City Council meeting December 8, 1981, Re: Conditional Use Permit at 2540 West Lincoln, Anaheim. Also submitted were two photos of the one flatbed tow truck to be used in the operation. Mr. Maas then elaborated upon the points outlined therein, especially with regard to the property's orientation and relationship with surrounding properties. In summary, Mr. Maas emphasized that the business in question was not a junk- yard but an impound station to be located on the southerly one-half of the subject property, utiliming one tow truck. He maintained that the lessee had his reasonable expectations to use the property in the manner in which the property was zoned and if the Council denied the CUP, they would be attacking Mr. Brazil's livelihood. He would be willing to upgrade the area, plant 81-1414 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. grass, maintain the surface of the area, etc. He reiterated that a "Carte Blanche" denial of the application based on the objective criteria would be a denial of due process, and he urged the Council to consider recent court decisions such as the Topanga case. The applicant was open for whatever crea- tive suggestions the Council might deem appropriate. They remained open and receptive to such alternate solutions° Upon Council questioning, Messrs. Maas and Barrett suggested that possible modifications of the application could be that the business operate from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or thereabouts, instead of a 24-hour operation, a restric- tion on the number of vehicles that could be stored on the premises, or a 90-day trial period with a report back to the Council. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposi- tion. The following people spoke in opposition to granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2268: Mrs. Sets Mori, property owner, 121 Gain (abutting the southeast- boundary of the subject property); Carolyn Ro Robinson, owner and resident of the Pines Condominium Complex, 134 South Magnolia; Alma Koblinsky, president of the Pines Homeowners Association (owners and residents) submitted a peti- tion containing approximately 60 signatures in opposition and the reasons for so being; Oscar Grevner, 134 South Magnolia (Pines Condominium Owner); Melvin Harris, 2533 West chain; Jack Steele, 134 South Magnolia; Bernard Blum, owner of the property west of the subject property; Gordon Craig, 128 Gain Street. It was determined by a show of hands that approximately 30 residents of the Pines Condominium Complex were present in the Council Chamber as a show of opposition. The City Clerk also announced that a letter of opposition had been received from Mr. John Watson Wilder who was unable to be present. The major points of opposition to the proposed use were: Noise, not only from the operations, but also from the guard dog; the ten-foot retaining wall did not entirely obscure the view of the impound yard from some of the condomini- ums; the detrimental effect of the proposed use on surrounding property values and resale values; unwise mixture of residential and industrial use in a small area; fire hazard; unsanitary conditions; the crime element attracted relative to illegal recovery of repossessed vehicles. Messrs. Barrett and Maas then spoke in rebuttal of ~ome of the testim0~y given in opposition. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that the subject project would have a significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject 81~1415 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. property for low density land uses commensurate with the proposal; that sensi- tive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates significant individual or cumula- tive adverse environmental impacts and the project is, therefore, denied a negative declaration status. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour, in summarizing, agreed that this was a question of whether or not the applicant had a right to make a living, but equally whether the neighbors had a right to peace and quiet in their neighborhood. The neighbors were there first, and the Council had the responsibility to uphold that peace and quiet. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-563 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2268, as recommended by the City Planning Commission and based upon their findings. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-563: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2268. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-563 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes, to allow the Council Chambers to clear. (5:30 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:35 P.M.) 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 166 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 247: To consider alternate uses, including but not limited to low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residen- tial and commercial professional designation and combinations of these for approximately 18.6 acres of land located on the west side of Knott Street, south of Ball Road (Appollo Junior High School). Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 2, 1981 relative to the subject property, an owner-initiated General Plan Amendment (Paul T. Salata) to change the current Junior High School designation to medium density residential and commercial- professional. The property owners proposed to either convert or replace the existing school buildings with approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial office buildings on 6.1 acres with the remaining 12.5 acres proposed for the development of a maximum of 450 dwelling units. 81-1416 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Planning Commission in their Resolution No. PC81-237 recommended approval of Exhibit "A" which was posted on the Chamber wall along with alternate Exhibits "B" through "F", changing the current Junior High School designation to medium density residential and commercial professional and, further, recom- mended certification of EIR No. 247 as being in conformance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or his agent. Mr. Robert McClellan, 11 Mountain Ash, Irvine, representing Paul Salata, stated they were seeking certification of EIR No. 247 and approval of GPA No. 166, Exhibit "A", which they felt would lead to a development highly compati- ble with the City's goals and objectives. He then addressed two areas of interest that arose at the Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 1981 (see Planning Commission minutes that date). First, the reason for their desire to have medium density residential was an attempt on their part to retain flexibility at this &rage of the development plan although they antici- pated condominiums or townhomes. However, there had been some interest in apartment potential and they wanted to keep that open. Secondly, concern was expressed over the lack of marketability or need for commercial office space and it was their hope that they could utilize a portion of the property for commercial office uses. If they found that the market was not there, they anticipated incorporating that acreage into the residential plan through the amendment process. They considered the project to be a good one which would be positive in its impact. After Council questions were posed to Mr. McLellan and staff to clarify certain mspects of the proposal, the Mayor opened the public hearing. The following people then spoke in opposition to Exhibit "A" proposed: Windflower Ochoa, a 20-year resident of the area adjoining the subject property. She stated she was representing herself and the Brentwood Home- owners Association involving approximately 250 homes. They were concerned about the quality of life in their community, as well as what was going to happen to their property values and what the impact of the proposal would be for the immediate local residents. She then elaborated upon the basis of their opposition to Exhibit "A", the main reasons being increased density, increased traffic, noise, air pollution, crime, the need for open-space, what would happen educationally to the children presently living in the area and the future children who would be living there, lack of parking, recreational area, graffiti, two-story structures and the additional juvenile problem that would be generated with 450 dwelling units. They were also concerned that none of their dead-end streets be opened up, specifically Myra and Kingsway. They needed a park and that was something the City could provide to further the quality of their lives. In concluding, Mrs. Ochoa stated that they had looked at the proposed Exhibits and Exhibit "F", low-density (RM-7200) single-family homes was considered to be reasonable and compatible with their neighborhood. A possible second choice was Exhibit "C", 12.5 acres of single-family homes with a maximum of 76 units and 6.1 acres of commercial professional. 81-1417 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Richard Russell, 3431 Thornton, expressed his concern relative to Exhibit "A" and the safety hazards it would cause due to increased traffic. He consi- dered the proposal to be an overdevelopment of the property. He would not object to either Exhibit "C" or "F". Nora McKie Past President of the Hanson School PTA and Chairperson of the Hanson School Site Council, 3427 Thornton Avenue, read a letter from Linda MacGoldrick, who was present earlier, objecting to the proposal and recommend- ing the adoption of the Exhibit proposing RS-7200 (single-family homes) and some commercial or RS-7200, only as well as a letter from Shirley Leturec expressing the same. Mrs. McKie then expressed her concerns relative to Exhibit "A" especially relative to parking and also the possibility of having to accommodate additional children in the School District. She would not be opposed to either Exhibit "C" or "F". Lorraine Edwards, 3618 Bouquet Avenue, expressed many of the concerns stated by Mrs. Ochoa, as well as a decline in property values and the need for a mini-park on their side of Knott Avenue (northwest). The Mayor gave Mr. McClellan an opportunity to rebut. Mr. McClellan then spoke to the concerns expressed which he felt were more than adequately addressed in the EIR. In concluding, he emphasized they were talking in theoretical maximums and realistically he did not feel that any type of development would be on the verge of those maximums. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 247 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 247 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Q~ality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, that Environmental Impact Report No. 247 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-564 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 166, Exhibit "A", as recommended by and subject to the City Planning Commission recommendation. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-564: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 166, EXHIBIT "A". Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour explained that he did not believe single-family residential use was appropriate on Knott Street nor on the sub- ject property, but that either apartments or condominiums were appropriate. Although there was not going to be a park, the neighbors could 81-1418 Cit¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. be assured that they would not have additional traffic flowing through the Brentwood Homes area because that would take place on Knott Avenue. As well, there would be no visual intrusion because as he understood the site develop- ment standards on apartments and condominiums, they were more restrictive than for single-family residences. Relative to traffic, a 12.6% increase was not unreasonable. Further, it would be unfair to ask the property owner to develop the property to a lesser use than it could carry. Councilwoman Kaywood first stated that the request by the neighbors for single-family homes, although nice, in the real world that would not be viable as an alternative. However, she was concerned relative to the medium-density designation and the possibility of a maximum of 450 units. They rarely saw a request submitted for a lower density than what had been approved. She pre- ferred the low-medium designation as represented by Exhibit "B" which also included commercial and a maximum of 226 condominiums and townhouses and possibly a good apartment project could be worked in with it. Her concern was that the proposal was too loose, since there were no specific plans. She was concerned about giving such blanket approval. Councilman Bay spoke against the proposed resolution because he felt strongly if the General Plan set the property at medium-density, it would be medium- density. At the same time, he did not feel that RS-7200 would be feasible or practical, but favored Exhibit "B" for a General Plan standpoint that would tend to aim at condominiums and densities within that condominium zoning. He could not vote for a resolution setting a General Plan that predetermined a maximum density that high in that area. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-564 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, the Mayor announced for those present in the Chambers audience that prior to any specific development plan on the property, they would be notified of the public hearing to be held before the planning Commission and/or subsequently before the City Council. He asked that those present give their names and addresses to staff so that they would be notified accordingly. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess for the purpose of a dinner break. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:35 P.M.) 81-1419 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 170 AND NEGATIVE DECLARA- TION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element text of the General Plan to permit higher density developments in certain medium density residen- tially designated areas and to update the current General Plan in this regard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-218, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumula- tive adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, recommended the following change in text constituting an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan: Existing Text: "This category is typically implemented by the R-3, multiple- family residential zone standards governing mobilehome park development." Proposed Text: "This category is typically implemented by the RM-1200, multiple-family residential zone and standards governing mobilehome park development. However in certain geographic areas such as the "downtown" area or under certain conditions with adequate infrastructure and meeting certain specific conditions as identified in the zoning ordinance, higher density residential land uses may be permitted. In such specific cases, the medium density land use designation could be implemented by one or more zones permit- ting a higher density." The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the matter. Mr. Don Bright, representative of Ponderosa Homes, 2082 Business Center Drive, Irvine, submitted letter dated December 8, 1981 from George R. Putnam, Senior Vice President, Ponderosa Homes. He thereupon briefed the Council on the con- tents of the letter and elaborated upon some of the points contained therein (letter made a part of the record). Ponderosa Homes had obtained approvals for a single-family residential subdivision with 149 single-family detached dwellings on an approximate 27-acre parcel in Buena Park which site was directly adjacent to the boundary of Anaheim near the juncture of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue. His company believed it inappropriate for the Council to approve the subject General Plan Amendment at this time, the reasons for which were contained in the letter. They urged that the Council defer any action on the proposed GPA until such time as the EIR had been com- pleted and undergone public review and until such time as a specific removal plan had been formulated relating to the landfill material on which the existing Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome Park was originally developed and the plan reviewed and approved by all concerned constituencies (Page 2 of the December 8 letter). He asked that they also defer action on proposed Ordinance No. 4287 to be considered for final reading later in the meeting, adding Chapter 18.35 to Title 18, proposed RM-1000 residential, multiple-family zone. 81-1420 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. After discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Bright, Planning Director Thompson explained for the Mayor that the reason the item was before them was that under the existing General Plan and zoning ordinances, it was anticipated that they would not have the appropriate tools to process an application for the redevelopment of the existing mobilehome park (Lincoln-Beach Mobile Manor). Approval of the change in text of the General Plan would establish that tool so that after a very comprehensive EIR along with a zoning application was processed much the same as on the Apollo School site, many of the concerns expressed by Mr. Bright would be part of the public hearing and EIR that would be submitted with that development. If they delayed much longer on that mobilehome park, they might well have to close the park and at the present time, there was no place for the residents to go. The General Plan Amendment would permit the type of density anticipated it would take. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour stated that on a number of occasions, Council Members Kaywood and Bay raised the point that they were concerned that this item, as well as Ordinance No. 4287 to be discussed later in the meeting, could result in a higher density being applied throughout the City. He was in support of the proposed GPA but wanted some assurances as well and as clear a statement as possible as to where in the City they were applying that type of density and making it clear that it was to be applied in those areas only. He asked what else could be done other than what had been recommended by the Planning Commission to assure that. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, explained that the subject GPA was a public policy guideline and the RM-1000 zone as proposed was an interim zone. He anticipated it would be in effect for six months at the most. Staff was currently working on a new zone that would have conditions attached to it. There might be a condition stating it would have to have a minimum of 15 acres or something to that effect. They did not have the actual conditions as of yet but in a matter of two or three months they would have the permanent zone which would implement the subject GPA. The conditions would be very restric- tive, so it would be limited to only certain areas of the City. The Mayor surmised then if they approved the General Plan Amendment this evening, they were looking at an intent of a statement general in nature to be applied with specific standards in 60 or 90 days; Mr. Tashiro confirmed that was correct. Councilman Seymour, with that understanding, offered Resolution No. 81R-565, approving General Plan Amendment No. 170 subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-565: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 170, EXHIBIT "A". 81-1421 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Tashiro explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the subject zoning would only be for interim use; however, when the permanent zoning came into effect, it would have certain criteria which would make it very restrictive relative to location. Planning Director Thompson also con- firmed that in the next 60 to 90 days before permanent zoning was established, a project could not slip through without City Council approval. Subsequently, Mr. Tashiro and Thompson explained for Councilman Bay why special projects such as Lincoln/Beach Mobile Manor or the Mazza development in downtown could not be handled as waivers or variances to the existing zoning. Relative to residential land use, under State Law, it was possible to exceed 36 dwelling units per acre if the General Plan was amended to give that flexibility and also legally if zoning was adopted to implement a higher density. If a conditional use permit or variance were utilized to do so, based on court decisions that staff both in the Attorney's Office and the Planning Department had been monitoring, indications were those methods were an inappropriate vehicle for approving greater density. Councilman Bay stated that he had not received any staff information on the matter and he had failed to understand up to this time why an RM-IO00 zone was being requested and why they were starting to "play" with the General Plan with regard to densities, using as a basis Lincoln/Beach Mobile Manor and downtown development. The appearance of going the route of the RM-1000 zone was to open the door on higher density throughout the City. Mr. Thompson stated that was staff's intent but that the City would be vulner- able to legal action if they were to use a CUP or variance. Councilman Bay surmised that the General Plan Amendment would allow them to go on and set density zones they wished, while the RM-1000 was not being tied to any specific area at all. Mr. Tashiro explained that relative to the density aspect, there was a provi- sion in the State Subdivision Map Act stating, "...that the cities cannot approve any final or tentative tract map unless it is in conformance with the General Plan..." The subject amendment to the General Plan text would permit the densities that the Lincoln/Beach Mobile Manor would be proposing which would then be in conformance with the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act. A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-565 duly passed and adopted. 81-1422 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 142/179: PUBLIC HEARING - MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD IN THE STADIUM INDUSTRIAL AREA: To consider an amendment to Title 18 of the Code, pertaining to required setbacks in special areas; more specifically described as portions of Anaheim Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard in the Stadium Industrial Area. The City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 19, 1981 recom- mended that the staff prepare an ordinance giving a building setback option along the three streets, State College Boulevard, Orangewood Avenue and A~aheim Boulevard, in the Stadium Industrial Area of: (1) minimum 15-foot building setback with minimum 10-foot landscaped or (2) minimum 35-foot building setback fully landscaped. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. John Hardy, representing Burnett Ehline Properties, owners of the parcel at the corner of Orangewood and State College Boulevard, submitted additional signatures to enter into the record as he did two weeks ago (see minutes November 10, 1981), totalling 16 land owners in the area, representing 41 parcels whose feeling was that the existing C-O setback was adequate and could be retained without any deleterious effect to their property. He also pre- sented a hand drawn map of the subject area illustrating all the land owners who felt that the current restrictions were adequate. He suggested if the Council felt it appropriate to have a 35-foot setback on State College Boulevard that was one thing, but he asked that they look at Orangewood Avenue (the portion between State College Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard in a different light because it was a different street where discontinuity already existed by virtue of a building that was sitting 10 feet from the lot line (Sunset Construction Building). Mrs. Lorraine~Hardy then explained that the other properties Mr. Hardy referred to in the course of his presentation as 10-foot setbacks were on State College Boulevard, on County property, a professional administration zone, property over which the City had no control. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood introduced an ordinance for first reading adding Subsections .015, .016 and .017 to Sections 18.04.045 of the Code relating to minimum building setbacks of certain designated streets as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor Seymour stated he felt (1) they were making a mistake in not recognizing the reality of what was taking place and (2) not recognizing or acknowledging the request of the property owners in the area° He was not convinced at all that the 10-foot setback as it applied to Orangewood was not appropriate. He supported the 50-foot setback with 10-foot landscape or a 35-foot setback with fully landscaped on State College Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard, but he believed the ordinance should be amended to reflect a 10-foot setback along Orangewood Avenue. 81~1423 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to amend the first reading as follows: That there be a 10-foot setback along Orangewood Avenue and a 50-foot with lO-foot landscaped or 35-foot fully landscaped setback on State College Boulevard and Anaheim Boulevard. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that this was a very long range and serious decision about to be made for the next several hundred years in Anaheim. They were presently looking to a large development coming in on the Stadium properties. If they were going to create a "jumble", they might be jeopardizing such development. Planning Director Ron Thompson suggested that they inform Cabot, Cabot and Forbes (developers of the Stadium property) of the proposed action. Council discussion then followed relative to continuing the matter and in the interim soliciting not only the opinion of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, but also that of other property owners, including David Hook of Sunset Construction. The City Attorney suggested that the matter be continued one week. Councilman Seymour moved that consideration of the matter be continued one week and the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance reflecting the following: a 10-foot setback on Orangewood Avenue and 50-foot with 10-foot landscaped or 35 feet fully landscaped on State College and Anaheim Boulevards. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 108: ANAHEIM HEALTH SPA: Request submitted by David Saller, Anaheim Health Spa, 1771 West La Palma Avenue, for an additional extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment (continued from December 1, 1981 meeting). Report of the City Attorney dated October 30, 1981 and from the Chief of Police dated December 2, 1981 recommended denial of the requested extension. Mr. David Saller, 6581 North Uh~, recalled that he appeared before the Council approximately one year ago (see minutes September 23, 1980) for the same reason, to request an additional extension to the period of abatement which was necessary because of underestimating and problems he had experienced through no fault of his own. He referred to the documentation submitted--his letter of October 16, 1981 outlining the problems he had experienced in the past year, placing a financial burden upon him, attached to which was a sum~nary of the major expenses incurred from October 6, 1980 to October 7, 1981, totalling $2,651.25. He was trying to stay in business as long as he could and he did not understand why other businesses of a similar nature were allowed to remain open for a two-year period, but yet he was not allowed to do so. Before concluding, Mr. Sailer also submitted photographs substantiating part of the information submitted in his letter. 81-1424 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Council then questioned Mr. Saller relative to some points raised in his testimony and in particular with regard to three violations which had occurred just recently, two of a minor nature and a third which Mr. Saller termed poor judgment on his part in letting a woman start to work in his facility who was not l'icensed to do so, assuming that his appearance before the City Council was to have been last week, but instead was c'ontinued to today's meeting'. He implied if the matter had been continued one week she would have had her license. During the course of questioning, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Police Department report dated December 2, 1981, the last paragraph of which stated, "Employees of the Anaheim Health Spa have engaged in sex acts and have violated Anaheim Municipal Ordinances coverirrg the operation of massage parlors." Mr. Sailer answered that was the first time h'e had heard that and requested a copy of the report. City Attorney Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Overholt that their intent in the ordinance was that all adult entertainment operations within 500 feet of residential property would terminate on December 20, 1980 with the possi- bility that they would get an extension, one extension. One was granted in Mr. Saller's case when he appeared before the Council on September 23, 1980, to expire on December 20, 1981. The extension was granted because of a hard- ship substantiated at the time and in order to.give Mr. Saller an opportunity to recoup his investment. If the Council so desired, the additional time could be granted but that was not the intent. He reiterated that the Council would be empowered to grant an additional extension for a total period of two years, but it was not the intent that there be more than one extension. Mayor Seymour stated he had not heard anything today or seen anything in the written documentation which would lead him to believe that there was justifi- cation for violating their own ordinance. As the -City Attorney pointed out, the ordinance was drawn with the provision that they could grant one extension based upon hardship, which they did over a year ago. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request of Mr. David Sailer, Anaheim Health Spa, 1771 West La Palma Avenue, for an additional extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PETITION BANNING FIREWORKS: Submitted by Dawn Johnson, requesting the City to ban the sale and use of all ~ireworks and fireworks stands excluding controlled professional displays. By general consent, the Council continued consideration of the subject peti- tions for one week. 81-1425 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 102: ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT APPOINTMENT: Request by the District for the appointment of a Board Member for the ensuing term ending December 31, 1983, was submitted. A letter received from Gilbert challet, District Manager, dated November 23, 1981 suggested the reappointment of Ms. Judie DePerry. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Judie DePerry was reappointed to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Orange County Vector Control District for the term ending December 31, 1983. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 61-62-64 - CANCELLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS: Request of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Steinbrink Trusts, for removal of Deed Restriction No. 6 of Declaration of Restrictions, "C" and "M" Zones, recorded at Orange County, in Book 6097 at Pages 40 through 43, relating to property located at 511 South State College Boulevard, was submitted. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, removal of the subject Deed Restriction No. 6 was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated December 1, 1981 from Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti. MOTION CARRIED. 1.18: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Roth moved to deny and refer to Risk Management the ten claims against the City as listed on Sheet A dated December 8, 1981 and to allow payment of the two claims listed on Sheet B, dated December 8, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. a. Claim submitted by Mission Insurance Company for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident caused by traffic signals at Claudina Way and Katella working improperly, on or about October 15, 1981. b. Claim submitted by George Duentas for personal property damages purported- ly sustained as a result of claimant's parked truck being hit by City driver at 400 North Harbor Boulevard, on or about November 4, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Ohio Casualty Group for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's insured's stopped vehicle being struck by City-owned vehicle, at North Street and Anaheim Boulevard, on or about August 5, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Charlotte L. Dreher for reimbursement of expenses incurred purportedly as a result of a power failure at 1656 West Palais Road, on or about October 1, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Kathleen Bailey for personal property damages purport- edly sustained as a result of claimant's car hitting a pothole in the #2 southbound lane, on Euclid Avenue, on or about September 13, 1981. 81-1426 City Hall, Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. f. Claim submitted by Lee McIntyre, Good News Radio, 90 FM, on behalf of one of their employees, for personal property damages purportedly sustained to claimant's employee's vehicle as a result of Convention Center parking lot attendant lowering gate-too soon, on or about September 11, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Steven Owen Haulenbeck for personal property damages purportedly sustained to claimant's car at 19722 Ridgewood Place, Yorba Linda, when his City motorcycle stand collapsed and'struck private vehicle, on or about November 4, 1981. h. Claim submitted by Kathryn Page for personal injuries purportedly sus- tained as a result of slipping and falling on ~idewalk at or near cabot and Western Streets, on or about August 31, 1981. i. Claim submitted by Bartholomew Genovese for personal property damages and personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of traffic accident caused by an improperly installed traffic signal at the intersection of Haster Street and Freedman Way, on or about October 8, 1981. j. Claim submitted by Barbara A. Johnson for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of slipping and falling on the steps in front of the clubhouse at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course, 6501 East Nohl Ranch Road, on or about October 31, 1981. The following claims were allowed: k. Claim submitted by Jeannine Simmons for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of the claimant's vehicle being struck by an unattended City vehicle near 235 South Beach Boulevard, on or about September 18, 1981. 1. Claim submitted by William L. Jones for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's parked vehicle being struck by City equipment at 1415 Burton Place, on or about October 16, 1981. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 81R-566 through 81R-570, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-566: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (James J. L~berio; John Donald Smith, et ux) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-567: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LOARA STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, S/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2770; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF 81-1427 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES- December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on January 7, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-568: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O SANTA ANA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2800; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on January 7, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-569: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CHANTICLEER ROAD CUL-DE-SAC E/O HACIENDA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2810; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF.. (Bids to be opened January 7, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 175: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-570: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND LEWIS STREET ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 55-665-6329-75800-36100 AND 55-665-6329-8034A-35300. (Russco Construction, Incorporated) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS:- Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-566 through 81R-570, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. .. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 16, 1981, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 81-1428 City Hall, Anaheim, california - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-1 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc.~ requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-1, for a change in zone from RS-HS-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-iO, O00(SC) on property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Royal Oak Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-1, to expire August 15, 1982. 2. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10983 and 10984 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Kaufman and Broad, Inc., requesting approval of specific plans for a) Tentative Tract No. 10983, a 164-1ot, 162-unit RM-3000(SC) zoned condo- minium subdivision located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, and b) Tentative Tract No. 10984, a 151-lot, 150-unit, RS-5000(SC) zoned single-family subdivision located south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east of Weir Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved the specific plans for Tentative Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984. No action was taken on the foregoing items, Cherefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278: Submitted by Shiow-Ing Lin and Fang-Ling Liao, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on CL zoned property located at 3347 West Ball Road, with a Code Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-244, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject conditional use permit. 155: REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: City Planning Commission, to consider a revi- sion to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study as a part of an overall access plan for an approved church and educational facilities on property located on the southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Eucalyptus Road. C6uncilman Roth moved to establish January 12, 1982, at 3:00 p.m., as the date and time for the public hearing to consider the subject revision. Council- woman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 172 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider an alternate proposal of land use from the current medium density residential designation to general commercial designation, for approximately 3.1 acres bounded on the north by Cypress Street, south by Lincoln Avenue, east by an alley and Helena Street and west by Harbor Boulevard. 81-1429 city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt moved to establish January 5, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for the public hearing to consider the subject General Plan Amendment and negative declaration. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11030: Developer, Oranco Development Inc.; tract is located at the northeast corner of Dallas Drive and Katella Avenue and contains a one-lot, nine-unit proposed RM-3000 zoned condominium subdivision. Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood~asked staff if this was the project where it would have been six or seven units under the new standards; Dean S~erer, Associate Planner, answered, "yes". On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvements, was found to be con- sistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tracer No. 11030, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated Decemb&r 1, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" because of density reasons. MOTION CARRIED. 142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4287: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4287 for adoption, with the understanding that it was consistent with the earlier discussion today on General Plan Amendment No. 170. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4287: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 18.35 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (RM-1000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood,,Roth and Seymour Bay No ne The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4287 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO.~4292: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4292 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4292: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(94), ML) 148: MONITORING OF ACTIVITIES ON LAND FILLS: Councilman Roth referred to letter received from Dr. Heinsheimer, chairman of the South Coast Air Q~ality Management District Board recommending the appointment of an individual, either a Council Member or staff representative, to get involved in monitoring some of the dump sites and activities that were going to be taking place on those land fills. He (Roth) assumed that he could do it, being a member of the Board and having to attend the hearings, but if the Council desired to have staff members attend, they would be welcome. The first such meeting was to take place on December 15, 1981. 81-1430 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 8, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 107: PERMANENT MOBILEHOME ZONING: Councilwoman Kaywood asked when they would be receiving the report on the permanent mobilehome park zoning. Planning Director Ron Thompson referred to the report submitted September 29, October 15 and the latest status report submitted in early November with the request from staff as to the Council's wishes in the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood asked when the item would appear on the Council agenda; Mayor Seymour agreed that they should schedule the matter but at the same time they must be prepared to discuss the relocation park because he did not feel that 'they could discuss one without the other. It should be as soon as possible, but staff would need additional time to work on the relocation park. Plahning Director Thompson stated they would have to coordinate with the private sector who was in the process of preparing an EIR. He anticipated that would be available shortly. He asked if they should process that report through the Planning Commission, along with the zoning and General Plan Amend- ment, so they would all be heard at the same hearing. The Mayor answered "yes", but on the other hand he was sensitive that they address the issue as soon as possible but not without the relocation park. the timing would require that the Council and Planning Commission work together in a joint session to speed the process, he for one would look for- ward to such a joint session to discuss the whole matter at one time. If After Council discussion, it was determined that the issue of permanent mobilehome zoning would be addressed at a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission wherein all interrelated matters would be discussed--the General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit for a mobilehome park on the respective parcels under discussion for a relocation park, some- time in January 1982. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:15 P.M.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK