Loading...
1983/03/01City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood (entered at 10:11 a.m.), Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Red Cross Month in Anaheim, March 1983. Women's History Week in Anaheim, March 6-12, 1983. Save Your Vision Week in Anaheim, March 6-12, 1983o Flo Tarlton, Bea Douglas and other representatives of the Red Cross accepted the Red Cross Month proclamation; Ann Mee, Women's History Week proclamation; and Bob Mulgrew, Save Your Vision Week proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Park Conference to be held at the Disneyland Hotel from March 4 through 7, 1983. The California Fark and Recreation Society and the National Recreation and Park Association joined efforts to sponsor the Conference. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Ed Gardner, tenant member of the Housing Commission, who passed away on Thursday, February 24, 1983, and expressing their appreciation for the many contributions Mr. Gardner gave to his friends and the citizens of Anaheim. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 1, 1983, with the following addition on Page 11, last paragraph line 1 after, Councilwoman Kaywood stated: "...they had not spent 100 percent of their time in one area, even though..." Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° 143 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,584,127.36, in accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Picklers, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 83R-72 through 83R-76, both inclusive, for adoption. 'Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Karen Hayward for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to failure of City to remove a parkway tree at 1772 West Colonial Avenue, on or about January 8, 1983. b. Claim submitted by Eugene Burger Management Corporation for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to electrical failure and power surges at 200 North Dale, on or about November 21 and December 22, 1982. c. Claim submitted by Ford Motor Company of personal property damages purportedly sustained to car tires Convention Center parking lot attendant inadvertently directing claimant over spikes at Convention Center exit, on or about December 28, 1982. d. Claim submitted by Catherine C. Czech for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of the City in not cleaning up paint spilled on Ball Road near Flores Avenue, on or about January 12, 1983. e. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damages to their facilities purportedly sustained due to actions of City employees at Via Arboles, north of Calle Del Norte, on or about January 4, 1983. f. Claim submitted by American States Insurance, Sedgwick Sales, Inc., Insured, for indemnity damages purportedly sustained due to slip and fall accidents at the Convention Center, on or about August 28, 1982. 144 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for January 1983. b. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of January 19, 1983. c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of February 14, 1983. d. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of January 12, 1983. 3. 160: Accepting the low bid of McMahan Desk Company in the amount of $42,509.88 for Convention Center Lobby furniture~ in accordance with Bid No. 3949. 4. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-72: 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: HARBOR CENTER PARKING LOT W/S HARBOR BOULEVARD, S/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 89-362-6327. (Bids to be opened April 7, 1983, 2:00 p.m.) 5. 167/174: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-73: 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: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, FEDERAL NO. HES-MO05(001), ACCOUNT NO. 49-795-6325-E5230. (Bids to be opened March 24, 1983, 2:00 p.m.) 6. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LINCOLN-MAGNOLIA STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-791-6325-E1240. (Mladen Buntich Construction Company, $169,121) 7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Central Capital Corporation; Dali Travel, Inc.; Henry Krieg, et ux.) 8. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS~ HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-8A, public hearing scheduled March 22, 1983, 1:30 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-72 through 83R-76, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 145 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 167: LINCOLN AVENUE CROSSWALK RESURFACING: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the cobblestone effect was going to be made smooth; City Engineer William Devitt answered that it would be made smooth. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-77 for adoption, finding and determining that public convenience and necessity require the construction and completion of a public improvement, Lincoln Avenue Crosswalk Resurfacing, Lincoln Avenue at Lemon Street, Lincoln Avenue 580 feet east of Anaheim Boulevard. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-77: 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: LINCOLN AVENUE CROSSWALK RESURFACING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-793-6325-E3670. (Bids to be opened March 31, 1983, 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-77 duly passed and adopted. 123: CONTRACT PROGRAMMING - AMENDING AGREEMENTS WITH DPCS AND JOHN CAPPELLETTI ASSOCIATES: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that on both amendments to the agreements (DPCS and Cappelletti Associates), that on Lines 12, 16 and 24 the date should read July 13, 1982, and not 1983; City Manager Talley stated those dates would be corrected accordingly. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize first amendments to agreements with DPCS and John Cappelletti Associates, changing the compensation to an amount not to exceed $75,000 and $450,000, respectively, to include certain Utility programming services, as recommended in memorandum dated March 1, 1983, from the Data Processing Director. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 156: AUCTION OF PROPERTY RECOVERED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-78 for adoption, authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction of unclaimed property on March 19, 1983, 9:00 a.m., at 425 South Harbor Boulevard, and in the event of inclement weather, conduct said auction on March 26, 1983, as recommended in memorandum dated February 23, 1983, from the Police Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON MARCH 19, 1983. 146 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-78 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Clerk was directed to publish a legal notice of said auction and of the City's intent to transfer certain unclaimed property to the Purchasing Division for City use. MOTION CARRIED. 144: RESIGNATION FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of William S. Postma from the Orange County Health Planning Council as tendered in his letter dated February 19, 1983, and that a letter of thanks be sent for his services. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Council consider the appointment of a delegate and an alternate at this time. Mayor Roth suggested that the Public Information Office initiate a news release relative to the vacancy, encouraging people who were interested in serving on the council to submit their names for consideration by the Council in two weeks. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held February 7, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-44 (READVERTISED) AND VARIANCE NO. 3317: Submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills Inc., to amend City Council Resolution No. 72R-208, Reclassification No. 71-72-44, to add 2.4 acres of Portion B to the existing 675-acre Anaheim Hills Planned Community located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road between Anaheim Hills Road and Weir Canyon Road (Portion A), and to redesignate the remaining northerly 5.5 acres located on the southeast side of Serrano Avenue, northeast of Hidden Canyon Road, (Portion B), from CL-HS(SC) to RM-3000(SC) zoned property, to construct a 34-unit condominium complex on the total 7.9-acre site (Portion B), with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) type of parking spaces, (c) required location of parking spaces, and (d) required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-24 and PC83-25, denied Reclassification No. 71-72-44 (Readvertised) and Variance No. 3317. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that the applicant had requested withdrawal of the zoning application and the amendment to the reclassification. He did so in case any member of the public or the Council wished to set the matter for a public hearing. 147 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2415: Submitted by Anaheim Village III Owner's Association, Inc., to permit a pre-school and day care center with a maximum of 44 children on RM-1200 zoned property located at 2050 West Greenleaf Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-29, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2415, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2416: Submitted by City of Anaheim, (Fire Station No. 8), to permit a microwave receiving station on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 4555 East Riverdale Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-30, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2416, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3316: Submitted by Chien Shan Wang and Huei Yu Chai Wang (Waikiki Motor Inn), to construct a restaurant addition to an existing motel and to permit a roof sign on CL zoned property located at 631 West Katella Avenue with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) permitted location of roof sign, (c) minimum distance between signs, and (d) minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-31, denied Variance No. 3316, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3320: Submitted by Burton E. Anakin, to convert an existing apartment rental office to a dwelling unit on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1603 West Ball Road with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) minimum floor area per dwelling unit, (c) minimum recreational-leisure area per unit, and (d) minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-32, granted Variance No. 3320, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. VARIANCE No. 3322: Submitted by Jorge and Idania Caravia, to construct a two-story, single-family residence on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 773 Peralta Hills Road with a Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-33, granted Variance No. 3322, and grantad a negative declaration status. 7. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9602 AND 9864 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by The Gunston Hall Company, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 9602 and 9864, to establish a 49-1ot and 34-1ot (two open space lots) RS-HS-10,O00(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, approximately 400 feet west of Andover Drive. The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos. 9602 and 9864, to expire February 9, 1984. 148 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 8. VARIANCE NO. 2983 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Randy C. Bucholtz, requesting termination of Variance No. 2983, to permit a four-unit office building with a Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback on CL zoned property located at 230 South Magnolia Street, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2394. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-36, terminated Variance No. 2983. 9. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11820: Submitted by The Barisic Company, to establish a 1-lot 30-unit, RM-3000 zoned subdivision on property located at 721 South Beach Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 23, 1983, approved Tentative Tract No. 11820, and granted a negative declaration status. It was noted that the 10-day appeal period would expire March 5, 1983, 5:00 p.m.; however, due to it being a Saturday, appeal period will expire March 7, 1983, 5:00 p.m. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Iberham Ali Ata, to permit the addition of a convenience market to an existing gasoline service station on CL zoned property located at 1725 South Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-26, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2373 (Readvertised). A negative declaration status was approved on November 2, 1982. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2405: Submitted by Centralia School District, (Centralia Elementary School), to permit a private vocational and business college in an existing public school facility on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3301 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-27, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2405, and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2414: Submitted by North American Investments, to permit a beer and wine tavern on CL zoned property located at 2424 West Ball Road, S and T. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-28, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2414, and granted a negative declaration status. 149 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3321: Submitted by Robin Hill Development Co., for a change in zone from RS-HS-10,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC), to construct a 72-unit condominium complex on property located on the north side of Big Sky Lane, southwest of-Imperial Highway, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, and (c) required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-34 and PC83-35, denied Reclassification No. 82-83-20 and Variance No. 3321. EIR No. 218 was certified by the City Council on August 28, 1978. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. TRACT NO. 8418, LOT NO. 78 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Jerry M. Shulman, requesting approval of specific plans for construction of a two-story dwelling on Lot No. 78 of Tract No. 8418, to permit a 79-1ot, RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of Forest Glen Road, abutting the southern portion of Peralta Hills. The City Planning Commission approved subject specific plans for Tract No. 8418, Lot No. 78. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision of approval of specific plans on Tract No. 8418, Lot No. 78. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON ANAHEIM HILLS PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA: Planning Commission recommendation that the City Council require an environmental impact report on all the cumulative environmental effects present and future development will have in the Anaheim Hills Planned Community Area. Mr. George Mason, Jr., President, The Gunston Hall Company, 380 Anaheim Hills Road~ managers for Texaco-Anaheim Hills, o%rners of the property, briefed his nine-page detailed letter of February 23, 1983, previously submitted to the Council (on file in the City Clerk's office). The point of contention was the fact that at its meeting of February 7, 1983, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that if requests for increased densities in the Anaheim Hills Planned Community were appealed to the City Council, that the Council require an EIR "on all the cumulative environmental affects the present development and future development are having on the canyon area." Presumably, although not stated, the preparation of such a cumulative EIR and cost thereof would be borne by the applicant seeking the adjustment in the density previously approved. 150 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. After further elaborating upon the extensive historic data contained in his letter beginning with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 123 relating to the approximate 4,200 acres of land comprising the Anaheim Hills Planned Community, Mr. Mason concluded the following: To require a costly and unnecessary cumulative EIR as a condition precedent to a full and fair consideration of a legitimate application of a land owner for a change in a development plan for his property where that change was clearly not of a nature as to require major revisions in the EIRs that had been certified was not, in their judgment, authorized by State law. It was unjust and unfair to the land owner, because it deprived him of any full and fair consideration of the development program that he was presenting to the governmental agencies. The cost of undertaking an EIR of the type suggested by the Planning Commission could not be borne by the land owner. It was economically unfeasible for him to do so, the only alternative being to withdraw his application. For the reasons stated and documented in his letter, they were requesting that the recommendation of the Planning Commission not be approved. Mayor Roth stated having reviewed the data, and particularly the fact that 40 environmental impact reports had been prepared in connection with the Anaheim Hills Planned Community since 1972, to require additional EIR's would be awesome. He felt it was unfair to add more paperwork to any housing development which added to the cost of the housing provided. He felt they had the necessary tools at hand to deny any tracts that came in with higher density than stated in the General Plan Amendment. He was, however, aware of the Planning Commission's deep concerns relative to the issue. Councilman Pickler asked staff the reasons for the Planning Commission's recommended action. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, answered that since the Planning Commission's recent action, staff was pursuing an analysis and report preparatory to go back to the Planning Commission to give them an updated report on development trends occurring in the hill and canyon area of Anaheim, which was done on their own initiative. As they were all aware, in 1976, the City undertook a massive hill and canyon area General Plan study that involved land owners, developers, citizens and Council Members. The comprehensive process set forth the goals and policies they were currently operating under in the Canyon Area General Plan adopted in 1977. Since 1977, there had been some 23 environmental documents associated with specific development projects in the hill and canyon area. They also had developed in the interim, intervening period, a computerized growth monitoring and tracking methodology generating a report which gave the current status of all existing and approved tracts, which was the report they were going to be taking to the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 7, 1983. Councilman Pickler asked if he was suggesting that it would not be necessary to require additional EIR's; Mr. Fick answered that each project did undergo an environmental assessment procedure, where it was determined whether an environmental impact report was necessary, and that was reviewed by City staff. Further, staff was undertaking a master environmental assessment 151 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. program that would reduce the magnitude and complexity of some of the EIR's the City was experiencing, as well as all agencies in California, since the introduction of the California Environmental Quality Act, and it was something they would be bringing before the Planning Commission and Council during this year. The information staff was taking to the Planning Commission was not available to them when the subject recommendation was made. Councilwoman Kaywood first commented on the issue from her view as a Planning Commissioner and then as a Council Member during the formative stages of the hill and canyon area General Plan Study. She concluded that they must keep a handle on exactly what was happening in the area, where switches had been made with lower density in one area equating to higher density in another, and the effect of those switches on the entire area. There were areas now where some of the traffic problems were horrendous. After additional input by the Council, Councilman Overholt posed questions to Mr. Mason. He (Overholt) then commented that he felt the Planning Commission, in raising the issue, was doing so in good conscience. He felt with the additional information the staff was going to provide to the Planning Commission, Mr. Mason's input and the input of the homeowners associations in the area, perhaps a plan could be proposed that would be satisfactory to all. He believed that the subject proposed action was premature and recommended that the matter be continued or tabled until such time as the Planning Commission had an opportunity to receive and evaluate the additional input. Ms. Martha Schnieders, Robin Hill Development Company, complimented the City on having such a fine, professional Planning Department. She felt, however, it was possible that the Planning Commission had not been made aware of the time and energy that had gone into each project that was submitted to the Planning Department. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that no action be taken by the Council on the Planning Commission's recommendation that environmental impact reports be required on all cumulative environmental effects present and future developments would have in the Anaheim Hills Planned Community area until further consideration of the matter by the Planning Commission, who would be receiving additional data from Planning Staff on March 7, 1983, with a subsequent recommendation to be submitted t° the Council for consideration. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 134: SETTING A DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOS. 182, 178 AND 181: On Motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following General Plan Amendments were set for public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.: (1) General Plan .Amendment No. 182, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from general industrial and general open space designation to general commercial and general industrial on approximately 57.8 acres located north of the Riverside Freeway, west side of Weir Canyon Road, and approving the recommendation of the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on Reclassification No. 82-83-21, proposed CL and/or CO(SC) and ML(SC) zoning, 152 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. and Development Agreement No. 83-02, SAVI Ranch Associates, owners, in conjunction with GPA No. 182. (2) General Plan Amendment No. 178, to consider an alternate proposal of ultimate land uses, including general commercial, general open space and combinations of these on approximately 50 acres located easterly of the terminus of La Palma Avenue, bounded on the north by The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, on the west by Tract No. 9169, and on the south by the Santa Ana River, and approving the recommendation of the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on Reclassification No. 82-83-23, proposed CL(SC) zoning, City of Anaheim, owner (Shorb Wells), in conjunction with GPA No. 178. (3) General Plan Amendment No. 181, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the current hillside, low-density residential and general open space designation to hillside low-medium density residential on approximately 4.32 acres located on the west side of Villa Real Drive, south of. Nohl Ranch Road, and approving the recommendation of the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on Reclassification No. 82-83-15, proposed RM-3000(SC) zoning to construct a 25-unit condominium complex, and request for removal of specimen trees. MOTION CARRIED. 108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Submitted by Jette Birgitte Holgersen, Foxey's, 1007 East Balsam Avenue, to permit dancers on stage behind the bar, seven days a week, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (continued from the meeting of February 22, 1983; see minutes that date). Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the applicant wished to change the lO:00 a.m. starting time to an afternoon time. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; no one was present. The Mayor noted that the continuance was to give Councilwoman Kaywood an additional opportunity to consider the application. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the subject Entertainment Permit Application. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Roth moved to approve the Entertainment Permit Application submitted by Jette Birgitte Holgersen, Foxey's, 1OO7 East Balsam Avenue, to permit dancers on stage behind the bar, seven days a week, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.~ as recommended by the Chief of Police. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Ifaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. 106/i64: DISTRICT 8 STORM DRAIN: Report relating to the ~150,000 funding for continuation of the District 8 Storm Drain, requested at the meeting of February 22, 1983 (see minutes that date), was submitted. MOTION: Following a briefing by the City Manager of the staff report dated March 1, 1983, Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the recommendation of staff, appropriating ~125,000 from Capital Improvement Reserve Fund balances to the District 8 Storm Drain to complete financing for a total of ~625,000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 153 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 107: CHEROKEE MOBILEHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION: Request of Sophie V. Ertl, to discuss conditions in the Cherokee Mobilehome Park located at 235 South Beach Boulevard. The Mayor asked to hear from Mrs. Ertl. Mrs. Sophie Ertl stated that she and her husband had lived at the subject park, 235 South Beach Boulevard, Space B, for 10 1/2 years. She and a large number of residents from the park, who were in the Chambers audience, were present because of a $50 rent increase effective February 1, 1983, as well as the conditions in their park. She recounted that they had previously met with the Council on February 5, 1980 (see minutes that date where extensive input was received), and on the recommendation of the Council, accepted the proposal of the park owner relative to capital improvements that needed to be made in the park, which involved a rent increase, part of which was to finance those improvements. It was indicated at the time that they were desperately needed, but no such improvements had yet taken place. She alleged that instead, Mr. Liggett Lancaster, the park owner, decided to drop the entire project and subsequently engaged in a personal vendetta on the residents for bringing the matter to the Council's attention. He and his management had never forgiven them and they were being punished for the privilege of expressing themselves and fighting for their rights. Mrs. Ertl continued, reporting that the following was a schedule of rate increases that had occurred: $26, 1980; ~19.20, 1981; ~20.43, 1981--total $65.63. With the $50 increase, which went into effect on February 1, 1983, they had paid $115.63 in increases since 1980, but with the same situation existing in the park and the same promises. She referred to a letter dated November 24, 1982--Rent Increase Notice, Attachment No. 1, sent to all Cherokee residents announcing the increase, attached to which was a listing (Attachment No. 2) of improvements and maintenance projects which they indicated had to be undertaken at a cost of approximately $200,000 (on file in the City Clerk's office). They desperately needed the Council's help. They could not continue to be plagued by outrageous increases. They were asking for the creation of a mobilehome commission with enforcement powers to deal with mobilehome problems only. They maintained that a mobilehome commission would help solve the problems of the approximate 14,OOO residents living in mobilehome parks in Anaheim. If they did not get any help, they were going to be coming to the Council again and again. Councilman Bay asked if their conception of a mobilehome commission would be one that would make that commission a rent review board; Mrs. Ertl stated she would like to see something where management and the residents, with an outside party, could get together and talk things over before "slapping" the residents with an increase. Councilman Bay stated that he was trying to get Mrs. Ertl's idea of the makeup of such a commission, because that was the essence of their request. He asked if she pictured it as one that would listen to the owners and tenants relative to projected increases. 154 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mrs. Ertl answered that would be one example, or anything else that come up in the park of grave importance, such as rules or similar items that they felt were unjustified. As requested by the Mayor, City Attorney William Hopkins then briefed the Council on his memorandum to them, which indicated that the California Civil Code required that a park owner give a tenant written notice of any rent increases at least 60 days before the date of the increase. He also explained that the Civil Code provided for the maintenance of mobilehome areas and it was not a City requirement. The following people also spoke on behalf of the mobilehome residents, specifically addressing some of the issues raised by Mrs. Ertl, as well as their own concerns in Cherokee and other mobilehome parks. Their input was followed by questions posed by Council Members: Mr. John Dailey, Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, 211 South Beach Boulevard, Space 6, Pacific Sunset Mobilehome Park; Brian Rowbotham, 320 North Park Vista, Rio Vista Mobilehome Park; Carl S. Shori, Riviera Mobilehome Park, Space 51; Consuelo Zupp, Space 77, Cherokee Mobilehome Park; Shirley M. Gurley, 2300 South Lewis. Mr. Brent Swanson, 203 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Ana, attorney for the Cherokee Mobilehome Park owner, first clarified items where he felt the Council had been misinformed. Relative to the rent increase of three years ago, Mr. Lancaster, the owner of the park, determined after that Council meeting that it was impossible on a phased-in rent increase basis to complete the needed improvements, since it would not work out economically. As a consequence, they indicated to the residents that they would not collect the additional amount of the increase, but would continue with a Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase and not go forward with the capital improvements because they could not afford to do so. The rent increase of three years ago was the first in three years, and it was actually $28 and not ~26, representing a cumulative increase for the preceding three-year period. Further, Mr. Lancaster was not the type of person who engaged in a vendetta against anyone, particularly the residents of the Cherokee Mobilehome Park. After answering the concerns expressed by Mrs. Ertl (also see letter dated February 25, 1983, from Mr. Liggett Lancaster, which addressed the issues of the rent increase, the offering of a 12-month rental agreement, capital improvement pro,ram, ~hr~e me~ting~ that were held in the park, one with the resident association and two with all residents, requests of residents which were added to the improvement program and those which were not). Mr. Swanson emphasized that it was an economic necessity that the increase go forward. If not, it would be impossible to meet Mr. Lancaster's obligations to the residents. Further, he hoped that the Council would continue to reject rent control. The Commission being requested was nothing more than a request for rent control and that was all it had ever come down to in any city where it had been made. Mr. Lancaster and every other park owner provided moderate cost housing in a housing market that did not begin to approach the price of living in a mobilehome park. What would happen, if residents or government did not face up to the fact, was they were going to kill the industry, which would be a tragedy and it would eliminate a valuable part of the housing stock. 155 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth stated that was his concern. If they hammered away at some attempt at rent control or additional government interference, they could very well accelerate conversions of mobilehome parks. Councilman Overholt then questioned Mr. Swanson on the issues, particularly on the meetings that were held in the park. In concluding, he quoted from the minutes of the meeting of February 5, 1980, "No doubt his client had not done a good job of communicating with the people." He (Overholt) felt that was the problem and it was the same now as in 1980. It did not appear that Mr. Lancaster was making any great effort to try to communicate with the organization the residents put together to protect their interests. Mr. Richard Farnell, One Newport Place, Newport Beach, attorney for the residents of the park, stated what the residents were asking to do was exactly what Councilman Overholt pointed out, increased communication between the people in the park and the owners. They were no longer faced with mobile homes, but pre-manufactured housing, and the residents were less mobile than any other person who was a tenant elsewhere. Mobilehome living was not ali that it was stated to be. Because of the rental increases, the residents were captives, because they did not have any place to move to, and the park owner was perfectly free to raise the rents to whatever he would like, resulting in a monopoly. They were asking the Council to have some compassion and to increase communication that was non-existent between residents and park owners--to form a Commission in order to get the people together to see if they could discuss their mutual problems. He did not think that the City, the park owners or residents had anything to lose by the formation of a Commission. Mayor Roth stated that the position of the Council on rent control was a solid 5-0 in opposition. They would be willing to support some type of activity to improve communications, but not to move in the direction of rent control. Unless the philosophy of the Council changed dramatically, he saw a problem in that area. Councilman Pickler questioned Mr. Farnell relative to communication between the residents and the owner; Mr. Farnell stated that the meetings they did have, the owners refused to address the amount of the rent. It was going to be a $50 increase and they would not discuss it. He emphasized they needed to get the people together to discuss their concerns and rent in particular. Councilman Overholt stated that a Commission was government, and he questioned why they felt that government had to be involved. Perhaps there was a broader organization State-wide representing residents of the parks. He wanted to know why those two organizations could not set up a way to resolve disputes, perhaps a mediation procedure or some other procedure, so that the owners' organization and tenants' organization could provide the vehicle or the tool to resolve those disputes. He again asked why government had to enter the picture, either the City, County or the State. Mr. Farnell stated there was no vehicle without a law. He questioned who was going to supervise or be the go-between between the parties. 156 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Swanson then reported that the residents association met on a monthly basis and his client was not only not invited, but specifically requested not to attend the meetings. Mr. Gordon Lewis, 15300 Magnolia, Space 34, Westminster, stated he was present because he received a newsletter from the Anaheim Board of Realtors. He was a member of the organization, but he was not speaking for the Board. He had a great deal of empathy for everybody's problem, but the continued hearings and harangue between mobilehome residents, owners, city councils and realtors was developing nothing but a bad name for the entire industry, and hurting the resale value of coaches. He hoped that after all of the meetings, someplace along the line, there could be some arbitration, not for rent control or City commissions, but some way tenants and owners, or whoever, would get involved to settle the disputes before they became further magnified and out of proportion. Mrs. Ertl then answered some of the statements made by Mr. Swanson, as well as questions posed by Councilman Overholt, regarding meetings of the association board, during which she clarified that they did not invite the management of the park to their meetings and the reasons they had justified their not doing so. Management had completely ignored them as an association and she did not care if they ever got together. Councilman Overholt concluded that management did not want to communicate with the association and the association did not want to communicate with management. Therefore, they were not going to accomplish very much if they did not find a way. The Mayor then thanked Mrs. Ertl for her interest and support of the people of the Cherokee Mobilehome Park. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file the report from the City Attorney dated February 24, 1983, and also correspondence received from the Cherokee Mobilehome Owners Association and the park owners. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that there should be some further explanation that at least individually they had all given some direction to encourage communication between the management and residents in the park. If that communication was not increased and efforts made on both sides, they would be hearing the issue again. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, amended to include the following: encouraging both the resident group and management group to communicate in order to resolve the issues brought forth in a fair and equitable manner. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. 157 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:20 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:18 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3300 (READVERTISED): William J. Clark, to construct a 168-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1231 South Palm Way, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, and (b) permitted type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-1, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further granted Variance No. 3300, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a 15 feet property line radius at the corner of Palm Lane and Palm Way be dedicated to the City of Anaheim for street and public utility purposes. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. That vehicular entry gates shall not be permitted as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy No. 542, Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects. 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5. 158 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 8. That street lighting facilities along Euclid Street, Palm Lane and Palm Way shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager and/or that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory installation of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 9. That Condition Nos. 1 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 10. That Condition Nos. 2 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickier at the meeting of February 1, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Dennis Bolsinger, 2013-B West Commonwealth, Fullerton, agent for the applicant, was present. Councilman Pickler stated his main concern was with left-hand turns from the project onto Euclid Avenue. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then briefed report dated February 22, 1983, from the City Engineer, which was an analysis of the left turns that would most likely take place based on the traffic generation of the project. The findings indicated that the 168 dwelling units would generate a total of 1,482 trips in any 24-hour period, with peak hours generating 15 percent of each of the two highest hours. The conclusion was that the installation of median islands would eliminate 567 left turns daily at mid-block on Euclid Street, but would increase U-turns by 153 daily at Palm Lane and Ball Road. He also noted, as evidenced by the aerial photograph of the area posted on the Chambers wall, if median islands were constructed on Euclid Street, the small commercial center on the west side of Euclid, south of Bail Road, would be affected. He confirmed for Councilman Pickler that it would be safer with the median. It would cause delay to traffic wishing to enter or leave the project, but it would probably expedite traffic on Euclid Street. Councilman Pickler reiterated his concern over the fact that vehicles from the project would be exiting onto Euclid and turning left across traffic near a corner that was one of the worst in the City. He felt that to allow that to happen would create a hazardous situation. 159 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Bolsinger stated they were concerned over the number of U-turns that would be generated at Ball Road and Euclid Street if a median was constructed. As well, the median would create a hardship on the properties across the street on the west side of Euclid. Relative to the two driveways, they needed access to get into the major portion of the project, and the northerly driveway was mandated by the City for trash pick-up to the project. Mr. Singer then confirmed for Mr. Bolsinger that they were, in fact, talking about a raised median and not merely a double line median. Mr. Bolsinger stated it was their contention that people exiting the project making left-hand turns would more than likely exit on Palm Lane, make a right-hand turn, and use the intersection, as opposed to bucking traffic by exiting onto Euclid directly. Further, although the median would stop left-hand turns, it would be an added cost to the project. He asked whose responsibility it would be to install the median, theirs, the City, or theirs in conjunction with the rest of the surrounding community. Mr. Singer stated they were not budgeted for such a project and, if a condition of development, it would be the responsibility of the developer. Further discussion followed wherein questions were posed to staff by Council Members. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, reported that the original project, which was destroyed by the April 1982 fire, consisted of 116 units, and the proposed project was for 168 units. Relative to the concern raised by Mr. Bolsinger for the small commercial center, notification was sent out to ali property owners, but the issue of a median was not advertised; Mr. Singer reported that the Engineering Department indicated the cost of the median would be between ~12,000 to ~15,000 to install and would be + 600 feet in length. He reiterated for Councilwoman Kaywood that the media--n island would definitely be safer, but that the trade-off would be an increase in U-turns at Ball Road and Euclid Street and the left-turn pocket would have to be increased. Mayor Roth stated that he would be reluctant to proceed with approval of a median without notifying the people on the west side of Euclid Street, realizing the impact it would have on them. Later in the meeting, Mr. Singer stated that the median would extend from Palm Way to Ball Road, which would prohibit left turns into the com~ercial center. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay offered a "middle-of-the-road" approach, prefacing his remarks by stating that he personally could not agree that a raised median was justified. He suggested that they not install a raised median, but that the Traffic Engineer monitor that area for a year to see if accidents occurred which would justify a median. After a year of actual data, if there were accidents at such a rate, they would then have a proven need, and if the 160 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.Mi. Council saw fit, they could pay for the median. He clarified that the data to be gathered would be accumulated within the year after completion of the project. He was not a proponent of raised medians, since he felt they also caused other problems plus, in this case, there was a concern for the commercial center on the west side of Euclid. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered a resolution of approval of Variance No. 3300, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, adding the condition that a median be installed on Euclid Street between Palm Way and Ball Road to prevent left-hand turns onto Euclid Street from the project. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to oppose the resolution. He did not feel the situation was a good comparison to the situation existing on Ball Road between Harbor and Anaheim Boulevard, which was brought up in the discussions, where medians were to be installed, in some cases affecting commercial businesses. As well, he could not support any action prior to the commercial enterprises on the west side of Euclid having an opportunity to speak. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of approval with the added condition of the installation of a median and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler NOES; COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER$: None Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-79 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3300 in accordance with the City Planning Commission recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3300 (READVERTISED). 161 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if Councilman Bay wanted to include a stipulation; Councilman Bay requested a report from the Traffic Engineer 12 months after completion of the units, which would include gathering data regarding any left-hand turn accidents from the project for Council evaluation. Councilman Overholt asked if that would include any financial involvement on the part of the developer; Councilman Bay answered "no." Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a concern with that, since if there was a problem caused by the development, it should be up to the developer to fund a solution to that problem. Councilman Overholt stated he was opposed to holding the developer to the cost of the construction of a median. If they were going to restrict left turns using the median technique, it might be something more extensive than that one city block. He felt they should study the matter for a year and then reevaluate the situation. Mayor Roth stated it was not the intent to assess the developer, but it would be more appropriate to indicate that in the form of a motion. Councilman Pickler questioned why it had to be a 12-month period. If in three months a problem was evident, they should act at that time. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution granting Variance No. 3300. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-79 duly passed and adopted. The Mayor then clarified, as had been articulated by Councilman Bay, that a report was being requested from the Traffic Engineer 12 months after completion of the units to ascertain if, in fact, a hazardous condition was being caused by ingress and egress onto Euclid Street from the two driveways. If warranted, the matter would be brought to the Council's attention before the end of the 12-month period. Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that if a problem was being created by someone, they should not go to the General Fund, because it was broke. 170: FINAL MAP~ TRACT NO. 9815: Developer Crown Development Company; tract is located north and east of the northeast corner of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street, and contains a l-lot, 29-unit subdivision in the RS-5000 Zone. 162 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 9815, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 18, 1983. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4395: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4395 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4395: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-19, MHP (Mobilehome Park) Overlay Zone, Del Prado, 1616 South Euclid Street, Satellite Mobilehome Park, 1844 Haster Street, Plantation Mobile Estates, 1835 Manchester Avenue, Del Ray Mobile Estates, 1849 Manchester Avenue, Ponderosa Mobile Estates, 2300 South Lewis Street, Sunkist Gardens, 1400 South Sunkist Street, and Orange Tree Mobile Park, 1400 South Douglass Road) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4395 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4396: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4396 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4396: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.05.074 OF CHAPTER 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (to permit time extensions for advertising flags and banners in the commercial zones) ORDINANCE NOS. 4397 THROUGH 4401: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4397 through 4401, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4397: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .032 OF SECTION 18.32.062 OF CHAPTER 18.32 AND SUBSECTION .032 OF SECTION 18.34.062 OF CHAPTER 18.34 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (minimum floor area required per dwelling unit based on number of bedrooms) ORDINANCE NO. 4398: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-9(10), CL, 126 North Brookhurst Street) ORDINANCE NO. 4399: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-63(8), CO, southeast corner South Street and Harbor Boulevard) 163 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4400: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-29, RS-5000, southeast corner of Ball Road and Sunkist Street--Cerritos-Freeway Annexation) ORDINANCE NO. 4401: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-10, RM-1200, 304 West Vermont Street) 166/179: STATUS OF BILLBOARDS IN THE CITY: Councilwoman Kaywood requested staff to provide information on where billboards were now permitted in the City, how many there were, and how they could control proliferation, whether by total square footage, location, or whatever means. 173: JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS: Mayor Roth recalled that the Council, at their meeting of February 15, 1983 (see minutes that date), moved that the resolution adopted by the City (83R-44) relative to the encouragement of the subject improvements, be referred to the Orange County League of Cities. A couple of days ago, he received a resolution from Newport Beach that was a combination of our resolution and theirs, with comments from the Mayor of Placentia, Don Holt, which He (Holt) felt was a good compromise. He requested the City Clerk to provide Council with a copy of Resolution No. 83R-44, as well as a copy of the resolution of Newport Beach, so that the matter could be discussed at the meeting of March 15, 1983, in order to give direction for action to be taken at the March 17, 1983, League meeting. 159: EROSION PROBLEMS - FAIRMONT BOULEVARD: Mayor Roth noted as he traveled down Fairmont Boulevard that morning that there were erosion problems along that road. He asked that as soon as the rain subsided that staff evaluate and mitigate the erosion problem on Fairmont Boulevard, especially at Santa Ana Canyon Road. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:37 p.m.) 112: GAITIiER VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32-42-87, Gaither vs. City of Anaheim, et al, for a sum not to exceed $7,250,000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 112: DALEY MARKETING CORPORATION VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney to settle North Orange County Municipal Court Case No. A-5-9019, Daley Marketing Corporation vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed ~8,153.39. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 164 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:38 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 165