Loading...
1966/09/279693 City Hall, Anaheim~ California COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley. COUNCILMEN: Chandler and Krein. CITY MANAGER: Keith Ao Murdoch. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. CITY ENGINEER : James P. Maddox. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinski. TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Edward Granzow. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley called the meeting to order. 1966 TRAFFIC INVENTORY ANALYSIS: Mr. John Hall, District Director, National Safety Council, briefed the Analysis of Report for Anaheim, 1966 Annual Traffic Inventory (copies furnished each Councilman). Mr. Hall urged that certain measures be taken to accomplish desired gains in accident prevention, outlined as follows: (a) Pl,grade the City's traffic ordinance to conform with the model traffic ordinance of the League of California Cities. (b) Expand the data processing system to include traffic citations, for better efficiency. (c) Establish a Coordinating Committee of officials having traffic respon- sibilities, to be chaired by the City Manager, and having representation from the City Council, Chief of Police, Police Traffic Division, Traffic Engineer, Director of Public Works, School Superintendents, Judicial District, Public Health Department, and possibly the State Division of Motor Vehicles, Highway Patrol, and other appropriate State agencies. Expanding on the latter recommendation, Mr. Hall advised that a major program under development by the Federal Government would require States to comply with certain traffic safety program standards to be established by the Secretary of Commerce, the requirement of primary importance being the Coordinating Committee. He stressed the need for uniformity of traffic laws and ordinances from state to state. Mr. Hall commended the City's Traffic Engineering activities on the high level of performance in traffic planning, control and improvements. In conclusion, Mr. Hall announced that the first meeting of the new Orange County Safety Council Board of Directors would be held Wednesday, September 28, 1966. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley thanked Mr. Hall, and announced that the report would be taken under advisement. INTRODUCTION: Public Information Officer Howard Nagel introduced a group of approximately thirty students from Orangeview Junior High School, their Principal, Mr. H. Eo Carlile, and their Teacher Mrs. Bassett, who were observing a portion of today's City Council Meeting, and were to participate in a tour of City Hall and the Police D~partm~nt. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley welcomed the students to the Council Meeting. CITY OF PLACENTIA - HONORARY ANNEXATION: Resolution No. 946 of the Placentia City Council, inviting the Palms Restaurant to annex on an honorary basis to the City of Placentia for the duration of the California Jaycees District 25 meeting October 22, 1966, and setting forth reasons therefor, was submitted. Mr. Joshua White, President of the Placentia Jaycees, advised that approximately 250 persons represenning the various Jaycees' Districts would attend the October 22 meeting, which will be hosted by the Placentia group. 9694 ,City Hall~ Anaheim~ California COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M, RESOLUTION: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution for adoption, consenting to honorary annexation of the Palms Restaurant by the City of Placentia for the duration of the October 22, 1966 California Jaycees District 25 meeting. A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND CONSENTING TO THE HONORARY ANNEXATION OF THE PALMS RESTAURANT TO THE CITY OF PLACENTIA ON OCTOBER 22, 1966. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor' Pro Tem declared said Resolution duly passed and adopted. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Meetings held September 13 and 20, 1966, were approved on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte. MOTION CARRIED° WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Dutton moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolution, and that consent to the waiver of reading ~.s hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED° REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the amount of $1,069,061.29, in accordance with the 1966-67 Budget, was approved. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~ 871: Submitted by Giacomo and Agostina Lugaro, requesting permission to establish on-sale beer~ C-1 property located at 540 North Magnolia Avenue. Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was ordered by the City Council, and the City Clerk was directed to schedule public hearing. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject pro- perty and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. Slide photographs of the property were projected on the east wall of the Council Chamber, and Mr. Thompson summarized the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, together with their findings relative to the denial of subject application. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if the applicants or their representa- tive wished to address the City Council. Mr. Leonard Birch, Authorized Agent,8338 Birchleaf Avenue, Pico- Rivera, noted that on-sale beer has been approved in conjunction with a Mexican restauraDt ~n the same shopping center, whereas the proposed establishment would serve hofbrau-style food. Mr. Birch was of the opinion that no school children would come closer than 100 feet from the proposed establishment, providing they use the sidewalks in the area. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the City Council in opposition. Mrs. James J. Kahler, 526 North Hanover Street, referred to a petition of opposition submitted to the City Planning Commission, signed by approximately sixty residents of the area, and advised that letters of protest were sent to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. She called attention to the close proximity of subject property to the elementary school at the northwest corner of Magnolia and Crescent Avenues, and noted that children often cut across the parking area, passing close to the building in question. Mrs. Kahler was of the opinion that the proposed operation would create noise in the residential area, particularly with the rear door on the east side, and she requested that their children and their homes be protected. 9695 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966, 1:30 PoM. Councilman Schutte recalled that when the original C-1 zoning was approved by the City Council (Reclassification No. 59-60-107), deed restric- tions were required to limit the property to certain uses, which did not include on-sale beer or other alcoholic beverages. Mr. Thompson concurred with the foregoing statement, and further advised that Reclassification No. 64-65-3 pending on subject property, was subsequently approved by the City Council for unrestricted C-1 zoning, which would allow development under site development standards of the C-1 zone. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone else wished to address the Council in opposition. Mr. John Ro Hartman, 527 Hanover Street, directly behind subject property, was of the opinion that the existing Mexican restaurant was not identical, since they were primarily a restaurant and only recently petitioned for the on-sale beer; that the proposed operation would be a beer-bar. He estimated the nearby grocery market to be approximately 25 feet from the building in question, and noted that neighborhood children frequent said market. Mr. Hartman was of the opinion that the proposed business would be incompatible with the high quality residential area. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Pebley's question, approximately five additional persons in the Council Chamber indicated their concurrence with the objections presented. Mr. Birch stated they would be willing to install "fire" doors on the east door, limiting the use thereof to exit only. In response to Councilman Schutte's question, Mr. Birch reported they had withdrawn their application to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, with the intent of requesting a zone change for the property, and making a new application to the Board at a later date. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-616: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-616 for adoption, sustaining the action taken by the City Planning Commission denying subject petition. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 871. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-616 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 872: Submitted by Elden Kanegae requesting permission to establish on-sale beer; C-1 property located at the southwest corner of Lincoln and Dale Avenues (2808-2816 West Lincoln Avenue). The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. ?C66-51 granted said conditional use permit, subject to the following condition: That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 9696 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was ordered by the City Council and the City Clerk directed to set date for public hearing. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area; and with the aid of projected slide photographs, called attention to the portion of commercial building "A" to be used, and its relationship to the other commercial facilities on the property. He briefed findings of the City Planning Commission in granting subject petition, noting that there were no schools nor single family homes in close proximity to the property.. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if the applicant or his agent wished to address the City Councilo Mm Pete Rakovich, 1808 West Lincoln Avenue~ representing the pro- perty owner, advised that no opposition to the proposed operation was expressed at the City Planning Commission hearing, and he requested that subject pe- tition be granted~ The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition~ Mrs. Marie Shook, 2820 West Lincoln Avenue, addressed the Council stating that she operated an Antique Shop in her home, and had no objection to the existing commercial business on subject property; however, children pass the property on their way to and from school, and they patronize the small market, and she felt the type of business proposed would not be an asset to the neighborhood. Mrs. Shook noted that a similar request was made for subject pro- perty several years previously, and was denied on the basis that an elementary school is located 550 feet to the south. She questioned the granting of subject request, being of the opinion that there has not been sufficient change in the area to warrant the use. In answer to Councilman Schutte's question, Mrs. Shook advised that she had not appeared at the public hearing before the City Planning Commission, because of illness. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-617: At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-617 for adoption, sustaining the action of the City Planning Commission granting subject conditional use permit, subject to the recommendation of the Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 872: Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: Schutte ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Chandler and Krein adopted. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-617 duly passed and PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 82: Public hearing was held to consider City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC66-55, recommending an amendment to the General. Plan - Highway Rights-of-Way Circulation Element, designating Riverdale Avenue, from the Anaheim City limits easterly to Taylor Street, as an exception on the Table of Exceptions as an 80-foot wide secondary highway with a standard 64-foot roadway, and parkways reduced from the standard 13 feet to 8 feet. 9697 City Hall: Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski referred to the Hill and Canyon General Plan Map, noting the location of Riverdale Avenue; and further referred to an exhibit posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber depicting that portion of the street under consideration. Mr. Grudzinski advised that the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way of the General Plan indicates Riverdale Avenue as a standard 90-foot secondary street from the Riverside Freeway easterly to Taylor Street. He noted developments approved by the County of Orange in the area, using the County standard width for secondary arterial highways of 80-feet; and that two subdivisions have been constructed and the street developed at 80 feet. He noted that the paved portion of the street could remain at a standard width of 64-feet by reducing parkways from the standard 13 feet to 8 feet, thereby retaining the traffic capacity of the street. Mr. Grudzinski referred to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution No. PC66-55, and reported that at a review held subsequent to the adoption of said resolution, it was noted that Tract No. 5409 in the City of Anaheim also reflects an 80-foot arterial highway width, and therefore it was the recommendation of the Staff that the designation of that portion of the street included in General Plan Amendment No. 82 be amended to read as follows: "Riverdale Avenue from the centerline of Redrock Street in Tract 5409 easterly to Taylor Street." The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the City Council concerning the proposed amendment to the General Plan, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-618: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-618 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 82 as recommended by the City Planning Commission, amending the designated portion of Riverdale Avenue as recommended by the Planning Supervisor. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NOo 82. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-618 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - PRECISE ALIGNMENT' RIVERDAL~ AVENUE: Public hearing was scheduled to consider City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC66-56, recommending that the Precise Alignment for Riverdale Avenue, as depicted on Exhibit "B", extending from the Riverside Freeway approximately 1955 feet easterly to the westerly boundary of Tract No. 5409 within the City of Anaheim city limits, be adopted; and further recommending that the City Council be urged to recommend to the County of Orange the establishment of the Precise Alignment of Riverdale Avenue from the easterly boundary of Tract No. 5409 approximately 2654 feet easterly to Taylor Street, as depicted on said Exhibit "B" on file in the C~ty of Anaheim, Development Services Department. Mr. Grudzinski referred to Exhibit "B", posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber, illustrating the proposed alignment of Riverdale Avenue, and noted findings of the City Planning Commission in recommending approval of said precise alignment. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the City Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. 9698 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo RESOLUTION NOo 66R~619: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66Ru619 for adoption, adopting the Precise Alignment of Riverdale Avenue as depicted on Exhibit "B", and as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE PRECISE ALIGNMENT OF RIVERDALE AVENUE BETWEEN THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY AND TAYLOR STREET° Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCI.LMEN: NOES: COUNCI~LMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-619 duly passed and adopted. RECLASSIFICATION NOo 65-66-89 AND VARIANCE NO. 1.761 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of R. S. McMichael, Agent, dated August 25, 1966, was submitted for 360 day extension~ of time to Reclassification No. 65-66-89 and Variance No. 1761 for compliance with certain conditions, pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 66R-243 and 66R-244. 360 day extension of time was granted by the City Council, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley. Councilman Schutte abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED~ RECLASSIFICATION NOo 60-61-2 AND TRACT NOo 3812: Request of L. Frederick Pack and Associates for release of Bond No. 471139 posted in lieu of required construction of 6-foot masonry wall along the westerly boundary of developed R-3 property described in Reclassification No. 60-61-2, was submitted for Council consideration together with reports of the City Engineer and Development Services Departments. On the recommendations of the Development Services Department, Councilman Dutton moved that the release of said bond be authorized. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 346: Communication from Kenyon K. Kohne, Attorney re- presenting the owners, dated August 29, 1966, requesting elimination of require- ment for 6-foot masonry wall along the southerly boundary of R-3 property, located at 920 South Nutwood Street, said wall required by Condition No. 4, City Planning Commission Resolution No. 611, Series 1962-63, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 346, was submitted for Council consideration together with reports from the Development Services Department. On the recommendations of the Development Services Department, Council- man Dutton moved that said request, be denied. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. Mr. Kohne submitted a map illustrating subject property and adjacent areas, and advised that the walls have been constructed on the north and east boundaries, and barricades erected to prevent tenants from using the east-west drive on property adjacent to the south for access to Ball Road and Nutwood Street. However residents of the R-3 property to the east drive around the barricades across undeveloped C-1 property to the south in order to gain access to the drive, and neighbors have complained about the resulting traffic, noise and dust problem. In his opinion, the erection of the wall on the south property line will not eliminate the cause of these complaints, however the installation of a wall along the east boundary of the R-3 drive and the C-1 property to the south in conjunction with current commercial development taking place, would re- solve the problem. In answer to Mayor Pro Tem Pebley's question, Mr. Thompson reported that the Traffic Engineer and Development Services Department have received numerous complaints from the residents of the area that the R-3 drive south of subject property is functioning as a primary access-way for both R-3 developments. Map of the area was reviewed by the City Council, members of the Staff and Mr. Kohne, and discussion held. At the conclusion thereof, Councilmen Dutton and Schutte withdrew their motion and second. 9699 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte, Council decision on subject request was continued to December 27, 1966, 1:30 PoMo to allow' negotiations with owners of the C-1 property to the south for solution to the problem. MOTION CARRIED° CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 802, EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Harry Knisely, Attorney representing the Applicant, requesting extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 802 for compliance with certain conditions, pursuant to Resolution No. 1933, Series 1965-66. On the recommendations of the Development Services Department, one year extension of time was granted, on motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED° PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS: The following applications for permit to conduct public dance were submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte: a. Application filed by' Carmen Moreno on behalf of Semana Progresista, for public dance October 23, 1966, at Carpenters Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue. b. Application filed by Carmen Moreno on behalf of Sociedad Progresista Mexicana No. 14, for public dance November 27, 1966, at Carpenters Hall, 608 West Vermont Avenue. MOTION CARRIED° SIDEWALK WAIVER - 255 NORTH MANCHESTER AVENUE: Request of Hobart Gillespie, Lessee, for temporary waiver of sidewalk requirements at 255 North Man- chester Avenue (M-1 zone), was submitted, together with reports from the City Engineer. On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton moved that temporary sidewalk waiver be granted providing that no permanent planting or permanent type improvements be permitted within the area re- served for future sidewalk. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-620: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-620 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANBHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON THAT PORTION OF AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES UPON, ALONG, OVER AND THROUGH THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING THEREON; DIRECTING THE POSTING OF NOTICES THEREOF AND THE PUBLICATION OF THIS RESOLUTION° (Public hearing October 25th, 1966, 1:30 PoMo Public Utility Easement, Tract No. 6094) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: AB§ENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-620 duly passed and adopted. ORANGE COUNTY PROPOSED ABANDONMENT: Excerpt from the City Planning Commission Meeting held September 26, 1966, pertaining to Orange County Proposed Abandonment of a portion of Crescent Drive westerly of the Anaheim City limits and the centerline of Royal Oak Road, south of Santa ;na Canyon Road, recommending that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve the proposed abandonment, was submitted. 9700 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California COONCII, MINUTES - September 27, 1966~ 1:30 PoMo On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the City Council concurred with said recommendations of the Anaheim Planning Commission and ordered a copy thereof forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED° ORANGE COUNTY CASE NOo ZC66-47: Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission Meeting held September 26, 11966, pertaining to Orange County Case No. ZC66-47, a proposed zone change from A-1 to R-1 on property located on the west side of Orchard Drive, 1200 feet south of Imperial Highway and east of the Anaheim City limits, recommending that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve the zone change, was submitted. Councilman Schutte moved that the City Council concur with the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, and a copy of said re- commendations be forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-621 AWARD OF JOB NO SS 469-B: In accordance with recom- mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman D~tton offered Resolution No. 66R-621 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 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 PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE LINCOLN AVENUE-VILLA REAL STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, JOB NOo SS 469-B. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. - $9,056.80) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-621 duly passed and adopted. CHANGE ORDER NOo 1~ PROJECT NOo SS 386-B: On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Schutte moved that Change Order No. 1, Project No. SS 386-B, consisting of extra work and materials, in the amount of $6,791.20, be authorized. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° RESOLUTION NOo 66R-622 - JOB NO. 1201: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-622 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 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 ALiL 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: THE PlIRALOM_A AVENUE SEWER IM- ?ROVEMENT, FROM APPROXIMATELY 254 FEET EAST OF BLUE GUM STREET TO APPROXI- MATELY 662 FEET EAST OF RED GUM STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM JOB NO~ 1201 (E. L. Sellars Co.) ' Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-620 duly passed and adopted. 9701 City Hall~ Anaheim: California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Schutte offered Resolutions Nos. 66R-623, 66R-624 and 66R-625 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO0 66R-623k A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, (Oakstone Partners) RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-624~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR EASEMENTS FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Waverly Bo and Dorothy L. Watkins, William W. and Dorothy I. Sharman) RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-625: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES° (Betty Maxine Brawner, Jack Harold and Rosemary S. Burgess) Roll ca]l vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolutions Nos. 66R-623, 66R-624 and 66R-625, duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-626: On the recommendations of the Deputy City Attorney, Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-626 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A DEED QUITCLAIMING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES° (Pioneer Park site) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-626 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: Mr. Murdoch reported on informal bid received from Harley Davidson Motors, in the total amount of $19,321.85 including tax, for the purchase of ten new motorcycles for the Police Department, five replacement units and five additional units, advising of savings to the City at $25 per unit by ordering white paint rather than the special black and wbite paint. It was his recommendation that the purchase of the ten new units be authorized without trade-ins, and the five units to be replaced, be sold at auct~on~ On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilman Dutton moved that the bid of Harley Davidson Motors (Joe Walker), Santa Ana~ be accepted and purchase of ten. new motorcycles be authorized in the amount of $19,321.85, including tax. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CA1RRIED0 SALE OF EQUIPMENT: me City Manager reported that as result of a change of design of a joint transmission line with the Southern California Edison Company, the City has 400 surplus 66 KV horizontal line post insulators. The City of Riverside has expressed a desire to purchase these insulators at the price paid by Anaheim, and he recommended that the sale of said equipment be authorized at the total price of $16,734.72, including tax, it being understood that a new order for 400 insulators of a different design would be ordered for delivery to the City of Anaheim after the current year. 9702 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27: 1966~ 1:30 P.M. It was moved by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte, that the sale of 400 66kv horizontal line post insulators to the City of Riverside be authorized at the price paid by the City of Anaheim, $14,734 72, including tax OT~ON CARRIED° CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claims submitted by Mrs. Gere Ingersoll for injuries purportedly resulting from a fall on city property, on or about August 10th, 1966, was denied as recommended by the City Attorney and ordered referred to the Insurance Agent, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Council- man Schutte. MOTION CARRIED° CORRESPONDENCE: Minutes of the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District Meeting held August 18, 1966, were ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte. MOTION CARRIED° ORDINANCE NOo 2323: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2323 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-102 - C-l) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Ordinance Noo 2323 duly passed and RESOLUTION NO~ 66R..627: On report and recommendation of the Deputy City Attorney, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-627 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COb~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESCRIBING THE STATUS OF THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE KATELLA AVENUE RAILROAD UNDERPASS° (Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley None Chandler and Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-627 duly passed and adopted. ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT: Pursuant to action taken by the City Council December 14~ 1965, directing the preparation of a resolution con- senting to the annexation of City of Anaheim territory not already included in the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District to said District, Mr. Murdoch submitted and read copy of letter requesting that the Mosquito Abatement District commence proceedings to annex the presently unincorporated portions of the City of Anaheim. On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the City Council authorized said request to the Orange County Mosquito Abatement District. MOTION CARRIED° ANAIiEIM JITNEY SYSTEM: Mr. Murdoch briefly reported on the status of the jitney service, advising that the Anaheim Jitney System has been able to borrow two or three units for temporary use, and were accepting delivery of their new units at an early date. RECESS: Councilman Schutte moved to recess to 7:00 PoM~ Councilman Dutton se- conded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° (3:40 PoMo) 9703 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Pebley called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley. COUNCILMEN: Krein. ASSISTANT to CITY MANAGER: Fred Sorsabal. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Alan Watts. DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens. CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddoxo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. FLAG SALUTE: Counc~.lman Schutte led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~ PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NOo 66-67-10 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 869: Submitted by Francis Lo and Wreatha Ro Ricker, requesting change of zone from R-1 to C-l, and permission to establish an automobile service station within 75 feet of R-1 zoned property; subject property located at the north- west corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street (2459 and 2453 East Lincoln Avenue). The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolutions Nos. PC66-45 and PC66-46, recommended denial of Reclassification No. 66-67-10 and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 869. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and with the aid of projected slide photographs he illustrated subject properties presently developed with residential dwellings. He summarized the evidence presented to and considered by the City Planning Commission, and called attention to findings noted in the resolutions of the Commission denying subject applications. Mayor Pro Tem asked if the applicants or their representative wished to address the City Council. Mr. Dale Heinly, Authorized Agent, 611 West 8th Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Council calling attention to the heavy traffic both in Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street, and displayed a drawing from the State Division of Highways illustrating an off-ramp of the future Orange Freeway, which would cut off a portion of service station property located at the northeast corner of the intersection; and he noted that subject property was situated in ]ine with traffic which will use said off-ramp. Mr. Heinly was of the opinion that most home owners along Lincoln Avenue desired to develop their properties for commercial purposes, due to existing traffic conditions, and that the situation would be compounded with the advent of the new freewaY. £hat although property owners i~new that Lincoln Avenue was a well travelled t~roughfare when the homes were purchased, they were not aware of the future freeway, and sufficient change had taken place in the area to warrant the construction of the service station at an intersection which had one such station operating at the present time. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the City Council in opposition to the proposed service station. Mr. Samuel Caldaronello, 2449 East Paradise Road, Vice President of Anaheim-Sunkist Property Owners Association, stated that the proposed use would constitute spot zoning in a residential area, and he reaffirmed the Association's statements of opposition to the service station at the northeast corner of the intersection (Conditional 'Use Permit No. 525, public hearing February 18, 1964). Mr. Caldaronello further advised that he purchased his home approximately eight years ago and was aware of the traffic on Lincoln Avenue at the time of purchase. He called attention to the high standards of maintenance and upkeep practiced by the property owners, and requested that the residential integrity of the area be protected. 9704 City Hall~ Anaheim: California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966~ 1:30 PoMo Mrs. James Enloe, 143 Paradise Lane, noted the community spirit and pride of ownership displayed by the majority of residents in the area. She objected to the construction of the service station, and noted that the well kept homes and beautiful parkways made this area an attractive entrance into East Anaheim. Mr. Bob Wilson and Mr. Richard Carden, 2312 and 2318 Paradise Road, respectively, addressed the Council in opposition, and concurred with statements of Mr. Caldaronello and Mrs. Enloe. In reponse to question of the Mayor Pro Tem, approximately twelve persons indicated their presence in opposition to the proposed development. Councilman Pebley asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council. Mr. S. D. Newcomb, 2421 East Lincoln Avenue, noted that he was one of two original owners of property in the neighborhood of Lincoln Avenue, and called attention to the noise and dust of the traffic. He expressed the hope that owners of those properties fronting Lincoln Avenue would be permitted to sell for commercial purposes, because of difficulties encountered in attempting to sell for residential uses. Mr. Charles Gratuas, owner of property at 2427 East Lincoln Avenue, advised that he moved away because of the heavy traffic, which increased substantially during the two one-half years he resided at that one location. Mr. Tom Maxwell., 2443 East Lincoln Avenue, advised that he was another original owner of a home on Lincoln Avenue, and he concurred with objections previously stated. Mr. Bob Carter, owner of property at 2433 East Lincoln Avenue, described difficulties in renting the dwelling, and noted the approximate amounts of recent home sales in the neighborhood. In rebuttal, Mr. Heinly was of the opinion that the opposition to the service station seemed to be chiefly from residents of Paradise Road and Paradise Lane. He called attention to existing service stations at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, and failed to see how the proposed attractive ranch-styled station could be a burden to the neighborhood. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed. Council discussion was held and attention called to the many homes in the city along arterial streets and highways. Councilman Dutton noted that a substantial change would take place in subject area in several years, when the Orange Freeway is opened, and requests for additional commercial uses in the area could be more appropriate- ly considered at that time. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-628: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-628 for adoption, sustaining action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Reclassification No. 66-67-10. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED° (66-67-10) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution. No. 66R-628 duly passed and adopted. 9705 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966~ 1:30 PoMo RESOLUTION NOs 66R-629: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-629 for adoption, concurring with action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Conditional Use Permit No. 869. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 869. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-629 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO° 66-67-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 870: Submitted by Argus Investments requesting change of zone from R-3 to C-1 on portions A and B; and permission to establish an automobile service station within 75 feet of a residential zone, at the intersection of a secondary highway and a local street on Portion A only. Property briefly described as fol]ows: Portion A - Located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Santa Ana Canyon Road; Portion B - Located on the west side of Jefferson Street, the southerly boundary being north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, adjacent to the northerly boundary of Portion A. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolutions Nos. PC66-43 and PC66-44, recommended denial of Reclassification No. 66-67-11, and denied Conditional Use Permit No. 870. Also submitted was communication dated July 21, 1966, from Lester Marshall, Authorized Agent, requesting that, in the event subject applica- tions are approved, dedicated vehicular access rights on Lots 57 through 61 of Tract No. 4643 be abandoned. Slide photographs of subject property were projected on the east wall of the Council Chamber, and Mr. Thompson noted the location of the property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He summarized the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, calling attention to the findings set forth by the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if a representative of the applicants wished to address the City Council. Mr. Lester Marshall, 51.3 Las Riendas Drive, Fullerton, California, one of the petitioners, adwised that the property has been under study for a considerable length of time. Because of the heavy traffic which will be using Jefferson Street upon its extension across the Riverside Freeway and construction of related off-ramp, it was determined that apartments would be undesirable for subject property; therefore, commercial development with ranch-styled buildings, attractive landscaping and a medical-dental facility in a northernmost portion of the building to buffer the other commercial uses, was deemed a feasible development for subject property. Mr. Marshall was of the opinion that an apartment development would generate more traffic into the alley on the west side of the property, since garages would be located in that area. He called attention to the block wall proprosed for the west boundary of the property behind the proposed service station on the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road, which would preclude traffic entering the alley from the station. In answer to Council questioning, Mr. Marshall advised that they do not own the R-3 lots to the west of subject property. He noted that the proposed development will be visible from only one or two residences to the west, and stated it has been their experience that apartment developments are more successful when located within walking distance of a shopping area. 9706 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 19667 1:30 PoM. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition. Mrs. Martin B. Morgan, 217 Kennebeck Drive, objected to the noise and lights which would emanate from the proposed development, noting that the living areas in most of the homes face Jefferson Street. She was of the opinion that there was sufficient existing commercial property in the area, and requested subject petitions be denied. In answer to Council questioning, Mrs. Morgan stated that the granting of subject applications would be an intrusion into their privacy, and would establish a precedent for additional requests for service stations and other cormnercial uses. Mrs. Richard Fox, 206 North Kennebeck Drive, pointed out the elementary school crossing on Jefferson Street, and objected to the increased traffic which would result' if subject applications were approved. Mr. Lester Noe, Vice President of Prudential Savings and Loan, owners of 29 R-3 zoned lots adjacent to the property, objected to any commercial development on subject property. In rebuttal, Mr. Marshall advised that the medical-dental portion of the proposed commercial facility would possibly be the only portion directly across the existing single-family homes, and the lighting should not cause problem. He noted that the closest shopping center was more than one-half mile away. Mr. Marshall noted that Jefferson Street would be a major boulevard carrying a great deal of traffic, and he was of the opinion that the proposed development would be an asset to the city. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-630: At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-630, sustaining the action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Reclassification No. 66-67-11. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED° (66-67-11) Roll. call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-630 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO° 66R-631: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-631 for adoption, concurring with action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Conditional Use Permit No. 870. Refer to Resolution Book. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-631 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF DEDICATED VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO JEFFERSON STREET: Excerpt from the minutes of the City Planning Commission meeting held August 15, 1966, was submitted recommending that request for abandonment 9707 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966~ 1:30 P.M. of the dedication of vehicular access rights to Jefferson Street be dis- approved, and setting forth their reasons therefor. No action was taken by the City Council on said request. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NOo 66-67-12 AND VARIANCE NOo 1819: Submitted by Frank Muller and Mrs. Walter Muller requesting change of zone from R-A to C-0, and waiver of maximum building height; property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, the easterly boundary located west of the centerline of Broadview Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolutions Nos. PC66-48 and PC66-49 recommended denial of Reclassification No. 66-67-12 and denied Variance 1819. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He summarized the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, and noted findings of the Commission contained in their resolutions. Slide photo- graphs were projected on the east wall of the Council Chamber illustrating the existing dwelling on the property in question. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if the applicants or their repre- sentative wished to address the City Council. Mr. David Hook, Authorized Agent, 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, advised that they had only a pencil sketch available for display at the Planning Commission hearing; since that time, they have contacted neighbors and fully explained their plan for the two-story office building proposed. He submitted into evidence a petition of approval, signed by residents of seven homes on Embassy Avenue, Emerald Place, Echo Place and Nutwood Street, and the owners of undeveloped property fronting on Lincoln Avenue immediately adjacent to subject property on the east. He displayed the sketch of the general area depicting those properties which are re- presented on said petition. Mr. Hook showed slide photographs of the existing dwelling on subject property, renderings of the various elevations of the proposed development, aerial photographs of the area in question and other develop- ments on Lincoln Avenue adjacent to single-family homes. He advised that their intent was to retain the existing old Pepper tree on the premises, and he noted the proposed landscaped berm along the south boundary, together with slumpstone walls in keeping with the Spanish Style architecture, and the use of opaque glass in the windows adjacent to residential properties in order to afford protection to the homes. He stated there would be no ingress nor egress requested from residential streets; that in addition to the 35-foot front setback, the first 10 feet of the building structure actually will consist of a walk- way along th~ ~ront of the building~ In Mr~ Hook's opinion, a commercial office was the least objectionable development adjacent to single family homes, and he advised they are attempting to create a professional atmosphere along Lincoln Avenue without "strip" commercial. Regarding vacant property immediately to the east, Mro Hook noted tentative plans for a professional building at that location, and he felt that the proposed developmemt on subject property would establish a pre- cedent for further development ~n the area. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council lin favor of the proposed development~ Mr. William Payton, 103 Echo Place, adwised that he had expressed opposition to subject applications at the Planning Commission hearing, but after viewing the elevations and plot plan, he concluded that the proposal would be a feasible use of the property~ 9708 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL ~MiNUTES - September 27~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo Mr. Payton referred to t~e sketch placed on display by the pe- titioner's representative, noting the location of his own residence, and reported that he was not planning commercial development of his property which extended to Lincoln Avenue. He advised of his eleven year re- sidency in the neighborhood, noting that he was one of the charter members of the Lincoln Park Civic Association, which had worked towards retaining the residential integrity of the area. The Mayor Pro Tem asked ~f anyone wished to address the City Council in opposition. Mr. J. H. Vonderloh, 114 Emerald Place, stated he was also a charter member of said civic ass.ociation, and advised that a C-1 zoning and motel use, requested for subject property had been denied by the City Council in January of 1965. He called attention to the high quality of the homes in the area, and noted extensive additions and improvements to his home. Mr. Richard E. Tevlin, 106 Echo Place, noted that in the past the City Council had designated Embassy Avenue to remain single family residen- tial. He expressed concern that in the future, Muller Street might be extended south of Lincoln Avenue directly into their neighborhood. In Mro Tevlin's opinion, a precedent for depth of commercial pro- perties on the south side of Lincoln Avenue had been established, and he felt the proposed development would be excellent, if limited to the front half of the property. Mr. James Chavos, 1903 Embassy Avenue, addressed the Council advising that his residence was 150 feet from subject property, and if the applications were granted, in his opinion, should he desire to sell his home, no long term financing would be available and the residential atmosphere of the area would be losto Mrs~ Jan Payton, 103 Echo Place, was of the opinion that the proposed development was far superior to many that might be requested, and she noted the provisions for protection of residential property. In rebuttal, Mr. Hook displayed a plot plan of the property, noting the rear building setback with parking and driveway on the south side of the building. He was of the opinion that with the wall and the landscaped berm, pedestrians on Embassy Avenue would not be aware of the existance of a commercial office building. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared the hearing closed. Discussion was held by the City Council., and Councilman Schutte recalled that some years previously the Council had worked together with the property owners in the area, determining that commercial development should be confinded to L~ncoln Avenue frontage and the area extending southerly from the properties on the north side of Embassy Avenue should be retained for residential development. Councilman Dutton was of the opinion that the proposed development was a good use of subject property; however, to allow commercial development on property extending to the residential street adjacent to single family homes would establish a precedent for requests for commercial encouragement into the residential area~ RESOLUTION NOo 66R-632: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-632 for adoption, sustaining the action taken by the City Planning Commission denying Reclassification No. 66-67-12. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED~ (66-67-12) Roll call vote: 9709 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966~ 1:30 PoMo AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCIIg~EN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-632 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-633: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-633 for adoption, denying Variance No. 1819. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NOs 1.819. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-633 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-14~ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOo 81~ AND RECLASSIFICATION NO0 61-62-69: Initiated by the City Planning Commission concerning P-L, Parking-Landscaping zoned portions of those parcels of land adjacent to arterial highways which are in the M-1 and M-2 Industrial Zones. RECLASSIFICATION NOo 66-67-14: The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-52, recommended a change of zone from P-L to M-1 and M-2, in accordance with the existing zoning on the balance of the land adjacent to subject properties. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOs 81: Pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-53, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 81, changing the present general description and extent of land uses in those areas presently designated as the "Landscaped Buffer" areas along arterial streets and highways within the City of Anaheim's industrial areas. RECLASSIFICATION NOo 61-62-69: The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-54, recommended an amendment to Resolution of Intent No. 62R-335 (M-I, Northeast Industrial area), deleting the P-L, Parking and Landscaping zone from said resolution, and updating the street names within said resolution for certain streets, as follows: Anaheim Road to Miraloma Avenue Placentia-Yorba Boulevard to Crowther Avenue Los Angeles Street to Anaheim Boulevard. And further amending legal description with reference to Findings Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that refer to the general boundaries of the industrial area, as follows: That the City should establish the easterly Right-of-Way line of Route 19, the Orange Freeway Right-of-way, as the westerly boundary and the northerly Right-of-way line of the Riverside Freeway as the southerly boundary of the Northeast Industrial Area. o That the entire area delimited by the southerly Right-of-way line of Orangethorpe Avenue and Crowther Avenue (formerly Placentia-Yorba Blvd.) on the north, the northerly Right-of-way line of the Riverside Freeway and the northerly boundary of the Santa Ana River on the South, the easterly Right-of-way line of the Orange Freeway Right-of-way on the west, and the westerly Right-of-way line of the Imperial Freeway Right- of-way on the east should be designated for industrial use on the Anaheim General. Plan. 9710 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27, 1966, 1:30 PoMo That the entire area delimited by the southerly Right-of-way line of Ball Road on the north, the easterly and northeasterly Right of way lines of Anaheim Boulevard (formerly Los Angeles Street) and the Santa Ana Freeway on the west, and the southwest, and the westerly boundary line of the Santa Ana River on the east should be designated for in- dustrial use on the Anaheim General Plan. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts displayed a base map illustrating the locations of P-L zones throughout the industrial areas of the City. He briefed the staff report for studies conducted relative to industrial zones, and noted findings of the City Planning Commission in recommending approval of subject petitions, advising that Site Development Standards have been established for the M-1 and M-~2 zones, providing for setbacks, landscaping and parking, rendering P-L zones along arterial streets and highways unnecessary. Mr. Roberts reported that P-L zones on both sides of Lewis Street and Cerritos Avenue in the southeast industrial area were deleted from action taken by the Commission for further consideration, since 25-foot setbacks had been established by the City Council in these areas. He requested an expression from the City Council concerning Lewis Street and Cerritos Avenue setbacks, advising that if separate reclassifications were initiated from said P-L zones to M-1 zoning, a 60-foot setback would be required. Mr. Roberts further reported that the south side of Vermont Street, between the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and East Street, was not included in subject applications; that said street is presently designated as a local street on the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and if the 50-foot P-L zone were changed to M-l, a local street would re- quire a 5-foot setback. The staff was to give further study to the traffic conditions in said area to determine whether Vermont Street should be up- graded to arterial highway designation, prior to making recommendation to the City Planning Commission and City Council. In summation, the recommendations of the City Planning Commission were that all of the areas presently zoned P-L, in conjunction with industrial zones, as more precisely described in legal description accompanying Re- classification No. 66-67-14, be rezoned from P-L to M-1 and M-2, except the south side of Vermont Avenue between the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way and East Street, both sides of Lewis Street between Ball Road and Katella Avenue, and both sides of Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and the easterly city limits. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if anyone wished to address the City Council relative to subject reclassifications and general plan amendment, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-634: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-634 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 62R-335 in Reclassification Proceedings No. 61-62-69, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 62R-335 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NOD 61-62-69. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-634 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-635: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-635 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing all of the areas presently zoned P-L, in conjunction with industrial zones, to 9711 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 27~ 1966, 1:30 PoMo M-1 and M-2 as recommended by the City Planning Commission, excepting the south side of Vermont Avenue between the Southern Pacific Railroad right- of-way and East Street, both sides of Lewis Street between Ball Road and Katella Avenue, and both sides of Cerritos Avenue between Anaheim Boulevard and the easterly city limits. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED~ (66-67-14 - M-1 and M-2) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-635 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-636: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-636 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 81 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO° 81. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley None Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 66R-636 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Chandler moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° ADJOURNED: 9:10 P~Mo SIGNED City Clerk