1964/01/28City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January.
The Cit> Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session°
PRESENT; COUNCILMEN; Du'tton~ Ghandler~ Schutte~ Krein and Coons,
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None.
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER; Keith Ac Murdoch.
CITY ATTORNEY: .Joseph Geisler~
CIIY CLERK: Dene M~ Williams.
CITY ENGINEER: .James Pa Maddox~
DiRECIOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES: George Oelkerso
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Richard A. Reese~
ZONING COORDINA'FOR: Marlin Kreidt.
Mayor Coons called %he meeting to order.
MINUTES: On mo(ion by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Chandler, minutes
of the Anaheim City Council meeting held January 14, 1964, were approved as
received. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-43: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No. 64R-43 for
adoption°
Refer %o Resoluiion Book.,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND DIR-
ECTING THE PAYMENT OF DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY AS OF JANUARY 28, 1964o
(Warrants Nos° 29325 %o 29597, r~o~h inclusive, iotalin9 $837,926o53o)
On roll call ~he foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Chand!er, Schutte, Krein and Coons.
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None,
The Mayor declared Resolution Nco 64R-43 duly passed.and adopted.
VARIANCE NO. 1611 - CLARIFICATION: S~bmi'tted by Richard R. and Evelyn M. Tetrow;
property located on the nor'th side of Savanna Street, approximately 932 feet
west of the centeriine of Knott Street (3621 Savanna Stre~t)~
Request of the applicant for temporary waiver of engineering
improvements and street light payment (Conditions Nos. 2 and 3 of City Plan-
ning Commission Resoiuti~on No. 985, Series 1963-64), was considered by the
City Council at their meeting held January 21~ 1964. At that time, motion to
grant temporary waiver of siree% improvements~ subject to posting of a two-
year bond~ and to deny wai. ve~ of street lighting payment, was tabled to this
date for further inves'zigation~
Mro Murdoch presented a plan illustrating parcels in the area, on
which zoning actions have occurred or am~ currently pending, and noting
existing conditions of street improvements on Savanna Street. He advised
that it was considered impractical ,%o require street improvements on the
adjacent property (Condltional Use Permit Nco 416) in the year 1960; however,
the situation has changed, and within the next two or three years, the actual
s~reef improvemenls are likely to be ~nsfalled. For ~his reason, Mro Murdoch
recommended that the bond ~e required for said improvements on s~bject
proper~y, and further recommended that street lighting payment not be
required al. this 'timer as the existin9 rlgh~-of-way is extremely narrow and
it would be more practical to waii~ for the full dedicated right-of-way.
He noted the possibility of insfailln9 safety lightin9 in the area for the
interim period.
Mro William Bouck, Jro, representing the appiicant, addressed the
Council re-stating former request for a written agreement between Mr. Te6row
and the Ci±y of Anaheim, that the applicant would participate in an assess-
ment district when other property owners are prepared to do so, or upon
demand of the City°
7449
~i%y Ha.l~., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30
Mr. Bouck was advised that this had been considered, however it was
felt that if the south side of Savanna Streei develops, it would then be
feasible to proceed with the installation of improvements along Savanna
Street.
Further discussion was held, and at the conclusion thereof, on
motion by Councilman Chandlery seconded Oy Councilman Dutton~ motion prev-
iously made and tabled January 21, i964, was amended, as follows= That
temporary waiver of street light requirements be granted, and further,
temporary waiver of street improvements be granted~ conditioned upon the
posting of a two-year bond to insure installation of said improvements.
MOTION CARRIED~
RECLASS.~FICATION NO~ 63-64-58 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~ 503: Submitted by
Eva S. Bielanski, requesting change of zone from R-A to R-3, and permission
to establish a one-story multiple family planned residential development and
waiver of building separation and front yard requirements; property located
on the south side of Crescent Avenue, approximately 310 feet east of Dale
Avenue (2760 Crescent Avenue).
Public hearing was held December 17, 1963, at which time the hear-
ing was closed~ and action of %he City Council continued to January 14, 1964,
for submission of revised pians~ and further continued to this date at the
request of the applicant.
Mr. Stephen Gallaghez~ Attorney representing the applicant, addressed
the City Council stating it was hia understandin9 that the reclassification
was approved, subject to Zhe suOmlssion and approval of revised plans. He
nozed the presence at this meezing of Mr. John Miller and Mr. Phillip O'Brien
of Atlas Builders, to exp]aln revised plans.
Mayor Coons calied athentlon to Plans Noso l.~ 2 and 3, posted on
the east wall of %he Council Chamber, and advised that according to his
information, the second revis~on~ or Plan No, 3~ was submi%ted last Sunday,
and the Planning S~aff recommendations received by the City Council only
this afternoon~ as the first oppori~nity the Staff had to review the plans
was yesterday~
Mro Kreidt reviewed 'the three plot plans~ noting that Plan No. 3
was basically the same as Plan 1, originally submitted, with the addition of
a house containing a manager's office~ plus an enclosed playground area. He
thereupon read the Planning S%aff recommendations~ suggesting alternatives
for possible R-3 development of subject property~ and advised that the basic
issues appear to be the number of guest parking spaces, the distances between
dwelling units and rel. ated garages~ and distances of said dwelling units
from improved streets.
Mr. J~':'hn A. Miller, 583 Wes't igih Street~ Costa Mesa, addressed
the Council representing the applicant, calling attention to Plan 3, wherein
allowance is made for trash ~ruck turn-arounds~ pursuant to information
obtained from the Plannzng Department and Department of Public Works. The
revised plan shows an area of 43.5 feet ~y 52 feet at the terminus of each
driveway~ along the east and west property lines, allowing a trash truck to
back up and turn around. Due to an apparent misunderstanding on the part of
the petitioners, a 38 foot radius was not designed~ He further reported that
said plot plan provides a maximum walking distance of approximately 80 feet
from any of the garages to the units which they serve.
Mr. Miller noted the approval of the original plan (similar to
Plan NCo 3) by thirty-five property owners in subject area, who indicated
their dissatisfaction with %he first revision (Plan No. 2) which incorporated
a cul-de-sac street. He reported %hat both revisions of plans (Plan No. 2
and 3) were shown to the Los Angeles [ederal Savings & Loan and %he Anaheim
Savings and Loan Associations~ who indicated they were not interested in
loaning funds for Plan 2 with %he cul-de-sac street arrangement; however,
both firms stated they would consider a cons%ruction loan for development of
the second revision (Plan 3)~ maintaining the garden apartment concept.
7450
City Hall, Anaheim, Cal.~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 196a~ 1.:~0 P,M,
Mr. Phi!llp O~Bz'ien, of Atlas Builders, read a letter from Willard
Jordan~ A~I.A.~ o£ Costa Mesa~ expressing his preference for Plan No. 3~
and stating his reasons therefor.
In answer to Councilman Schutte~s question, Mr. O'Brien stated
that seventeen guest par~ing spaces are shown on Plan No~ 39 for the forty-
one unit development.
Plans were reviewed by 'the C:'~ty Council. and discussion held.
lin answer' to Mayor Coons~ question, Mr. Miller advised that the
lending agencies contacted verOally indicated their willingness to consider
financing for the p~oject under Plan No. 3, January 22, 1964, and further
explained tha~ suc~ financing ~ould be an individual construction loan for
the entire project~
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-44~ Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 64R-44~
authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance~ changing the zone as
requested~ subjec~ to the following conditions:
1. That the owners of subject property' shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 32 feet in width, from the centerline of the street, along
Crescent Avenue, for street widening purposes.
2. That street improvement plans ~hal. 1 be prepared and all engineering
requirements of the C,itV of Anaheim along Crescent such as curbs and
gutters, sidewa]i~$, ~treet grading and paving, drainage facilities,
or other appurtenant work ~:maL![. ne completed as required by the City
Engineer and kn acco:dance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer; or a bond in an amount and form
satisfactory to the Cit? of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the ~nsta~iiat~on of said engineering requirements~
3. That a modifled cul-de-sac ~h. ail be provided at the terminus of Stockton
Avenue subject to 't~e approval of the City Engineer°
That the owners of s.~.~bjec~ propertf shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
3-foot overhang easement ~iong the east and south boundaries of subject
property.
5. '[hat the compi, etl. on of these reclassification proceedings are contingent
upon the gr~nt~ng of Conditional Use Permit Nco 503.
6o Tha'~ Condiiicn Nos° ]~ 2~ 3 and 4~ above men/ioned~ shall be complied
with wit~:n a perlod of i80 days f=om date hereof, or such further time
as the City Council may grant°
70 That if the deve!ope~ desires Lo sell off: individual lots and units,
(a) a ~acL map be ¢i[ied~ [b) and Covenants~ Conditions and Restrictions
shall be submitted to and approved by' the City Attorney's office prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map~ and further, that the approved
Covenant. s~ Gonditionm and Restz'ictions shall be recorded concurrently
with the Final I'rac[ Map.
8o That subject property snail be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim~ marked
Exhibit Nos. i and 2~ Revision No. 2.
9. That minimum adequate tuzn-aro~nd areas shall be provided by the develop-
er, to [he sa'tisfa:tion of the Dt;~ecLor of Public Works, whether it be
a hammer.-head o;: ~adi~al delfne~tion~
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER-
MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING
SHOULD BE AMENDED AND '[HAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED, (63-64-58 - R-3)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the following vo'te:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandler~ Schutte, Krein and Coons.
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None.
The Mayor declared Resolution No~ 63R-44 duly passed and adopted.
7451
~itv Ha!.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28, 1964, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO~ 64R-45: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 64R-4b,
granting Conditional Use Permit No. 503, subject to the following conditions:
1, That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum o£ $25.00 per dwelling unit for park and recreation purposes, ~aid
amount to be paid at the time 'the building permit is issued.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file in the office of the Director o£ Public Works~ prior to
final building inspection.
3. Ihat fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined to be
necessary by the Chief of ~he Flre Department, to be installed prior to
final building inspection.
4. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion
of Reclassification NCo 63-64-58.
5o That if the developer desires to sell off individual lots and units,
(a) a tract map be filed, (b) and Covenants~ Conditions and Restrictions
shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior
to City Council approval of the Final Map~ and further~ that the approved
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently
with the Final Tract Map.~
6. That subject property shall, be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on flle with the City of Anaheim, marked
Exhibit Nos~ 1 and 2, Revision No~
7. That treewells shall be provided at approximately 40-foot intervals in
the Crescent Avenue parkway abutting subject property, that plans for
said treewells and plant:lng of ~rees there:in, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Superintendent o~ Parkway Maintenance, and said tree-
wells shall be planted with trees prJor to final building inspection.
8. That minimum adequate turn-aro~nd areas shall be provided by the develop-
er~ to the satisfaction of the Di[e~:tor of Public Works~ whether it be
a hammer-head or radial del:zneatlon~
90 A six foot masonry' wall shailt be constructed along the east and south
property line, prior to final b~itding inspection.
Refer to Resolution Book,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF 'THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO~ 503~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the following vo~e:
AYES: COUNCILMEN~ Dutton~ Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons.
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Noneo
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 64R-45 duly passed and adopted,
~IGN REQUEST - BEACH BALL APARTMENTS: Application submitted by Beach Ball Arms
Apartments, 730 South Beach Boulevard~ requesting permission to erect a
non-conforming sign, was reviewed by the City Council together with plans
and reports from the Building and Pi. arming Departments.
On motion by Councilman Chandler., seconded by Councilman Schutte,
said sign permit was granted~ subject to any lighting being reflected away
from the R-1 property to the South~ MOTION CARRIED,
SIGN REQUEST - WEST LINCOLN PROFESSIONAL MALL: Application submitted by West
Lincoln Professional Mall, 1780 West Lincoln Avenue, for permission to erect
a free-standing, integrated sign, was reviewed by the City Council together
with Building and Planning Departmen~ Reports,
Councilman Krein moved said sign permit be granted, as requested.
Councilman Chandler seconded the motion. MOIION CARRIED~
SIGN REQUEST - W. P. FULLER AND COMPANY: Application submitted by W,P. Fuller
and Company, for permission to erect non-conforming sign at 2110 West
Lincoln Avenue, was reviewed by the City Council together with reports from
the Planning and Building Departments.
7452
City Hall, Anaheim, Cal;fo.-nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 P.Mo
It was noted that ;ub3a:t;t applz,tation is for~ (A) Three
revolving si9n~} :n front of the buZidLns,, -~nd :,B,i Four 8-foot by 11-foot
illuminated flat ;'~isn~ on the we;t w~ll of -the buildins~
Mro BLll Bi~.~k:~tone w.-~s present~ representing W. Po Fuller and
Company~ and adv!sed ~hat the :ompany 1~ up-dating their retail stores, and a
new siqn bas been me: :gned for th}.:~ pu:~pose~ and -that the three revolving
pylon slgns request(ed for U~e area ~n Front of the building would be the
in answe; to 3oun zi questlontng~ Mr,, Blackstone stated that
there would be no 'tllum[natton of the ;evolvlng s:[gns from 'the top of
the bulldlng or f~'om wLth/.n the ~ignt the only lighting would be pro-
jected from flooa l~glnt~ on ,st~nd_ard~ tn [zont of the sign,
A ale roo(:ei of the bullOing was shown~ demonstrating the
three revolving ';',"o'rk ~crew" pylon;~ with ';ol. or spectrum design~
Mr,~ Tony BoLand, of ~?entai q~gn and Signal Corporation~ 1100
North Ma~n St~eet~ [.,o~ Angeles,, add:~e:..~.~ed the Council further explaining
the light~.ng of t!~e pylon~ wou~_d or~'~.~t of cont:rol spot-iights~ rather
than flood-ltght;ng, giv:ng an unsual effe. t with l~ght and shadows play-
ing over 'the revol~ng
Coun,.zlman ]hana~e; ailed attention to previous signs granted
by the City :$oun,,,zi wh~,;h,, when ~: tu~ily ,~onst~uc'ted became a problem
because the ~nten::~Lt¥ of the Izshtin9 proved an intrusion into neighbor-
in9 residential :z:ea~:~, He wa~. o~ 'the opinion that a public hearin9 held
at this ~-~tep would eiimin,ate the pou~bility of a futu:e problem conce:nin9
these ~eques ted
Mr. Ed Czon::_n, i'~ 52 G:~:~aen Grove Bouievard~ Executive Secretary
of the Elect~ ,.cat Si.gn . n,"iu;,t:, .e-~ .-~ddzassed the Councii ~elative to
their ~nterest ~n tht< sn~u.~i. :gn '{rom the public relations standpoint,
and then the rea tton of the puni_: to '~'ta installationo He advised that
in consultin~ ~i'th the anoli-~nt.~, chev have tnd~,~.ated 'thei~ williness to move
or adju-%t t:F,~ lkg?~t~ng o{: the ~.gn o tl,e aris/action of the City Council,
At the on iu~::on of fu: ther dks;ussion by 'the City Council~
on motion by Coun-;i~i!n Dutton., :~,e~-onded by Councilman Krein~ sign
permit wa~ g}'~nted, ~ubje t to the ze..ommendat~ons of 'the Planning
Departmentt tha't the ilghts be fo u:~ed so as to p:sevent spillage into
the residentl:=~, p:ropezt:ie~ ~nd the lights be <:ontroled in intensity~
the sign not to be l::ghtea -s/ret ii:30 P~.M~,i and fuz'ther~ subject to
the fliing of a letter sztpul~tl, ng to po~..~lt:[on:i, ng these ligh'ts~ move
or adjust the llght~ to the ~at~<~fa, tion of the City Council, To this
motlon Councliman Chandie:t votea .... No", ~OTION CARRIED~
SIGN REQUEST - WESt-LiN CLEANERS; Appii,:ation submitted by West-Lin Cleaners
for permission ~o ere:t :~ non-.onfoz~Ln9 sign at 3156 West Lincoln Avenue~
was reviewed by the City ,Souncl~ together with plans and reports from the
Planning and Buil. d:~ng Depa~tments~, ~n lud~ng two photos of the proper'['/.
Refezen.::e w-~s m.~ae to-the .~oun:.~l Pol:~,;'y o~ intergrated signs
for business and ~hopping. ompiexev~:~ and Zt was noted 'that there are two
existing sign~ on the front pozt:':on of the property advertising the cleaners~
neither of whi':h have ~ .?ign permit~
Mayo:r. Coon;~ a:sked Lf the _applz(ant or his representative was
present° There was no response.~
Counc.~_fman 3¢;hutte moved that sald sign request be continued
thmee weeks Feb:ruaz¥ 18, 196~ 1:30 P~M, }~ and that the applfcant be
advised to endeavo~ t.o p~oP, ot, e an ~nter-g~:ated ~:~ign for the entire shopping
area° Coun:~ilman Chandle~ ~e< onded the motion~ gOTiON CARRIED°
7453
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California ,- COUNCIL MINg[ES- January 28~ 1964,~ 1:30
SIGN REQUESI - IEXACO SERVICE SIATiON: Applies±ion submitted by Texaco~ Inc,~
for permission to erect a non-conforming sign a't 1001 North Harbor Boulevard,
was subm~'tted and reviewed by 'the City ,Council together with plans and reports
from the Building and Planning Departments,,
Because of a pOSrSible conflict of interest Mayor Coons withdrew
from the discussion and action on 'this issue~ and Mayor Pro Tem Chandler
assumed chairmanship of the meeting~
On motion by Councilman Krein, seconded by Councilman Schutte~
said sign permit was 9ranted as requested° MOIION CARRIED~
~IGN REQUEST - STANDARD OIL COMPANY': Because of a possible conflict of interest
Mayor Coon~ withdrew from the discussion and action on this issue.
Application submitted by Standard 0il Company~ for permission to
erect a non-conforming sign for service station localed at 1233 North East
Street, was submitted and reviewed by the City Council together with plans
and reports from the Building and Planning Departments.
Mayor Pro Tem Chandler asked if the applicant or his representative
was present and wished 'to address the Council~
Mr~ Ro Go Runion, 529 Con.cord Place, addressed the Council notin9
that two signs are being requested for 'thi~ service stationo
Discussion was held by the ~'
,~.zt¥ Council, and at the conclusion
thereof~ Councilman Krein ~o,~ed said sign request be continued one week
(February 4, 1964~ 1~30 P..~M.'~ to allow 'v!~ual inspection of other similar
service station sign~ ~n the ~..a~ .?oun.:~i.m:.~ Dui:on seconded the motion~
MOTION CARRIED ~
Mayor Coons rea~samed .h}~rman.~h~p of the meetin9o
RECESS: Councilman Chandler moved for a flfteen minute recess° Councilman
Schutte seconded the motions, MORION CARRZED (3~30 PoMo}
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Coons called the meeting to oraer~ all members of the
Council being presento
FINAL MAP~ tRACT NO 4643 f ~ ~ ~ ' '
~ .~RECLASS.:F.~[,A[.~ON NO. 62-63.-81)~ Developer~ Jefferson
Canyon Development Coo; Tract lo'ated a't the northwest corner of Santa Ann
Canyon Road and .Jefferson Stl~eet~ and ~ontains 61 R-3 lo:so
Mr~ Maddox reported that ::;aid finai map ~;onforms subs'tan:tally
with the tentative map prevzously appz. oved~ that bonds have been posted
and required fees paid° He refe~ec to cbe forth paragraph of his written
recommendations~ regarding payment of levee protection fees~ and advised
that said payment has not been made°
Mro Oscar Whi'tebook, representing fefferson Canyon Development
Coo~ builders of subSe~':t development., addressed the Council advisin9 of
a technical problem per:ninth9 to zhe levee feeo He reported that said
fee was included in the off.-site improvements and the money therefor is
included in impounded funds at a bank~ however a vouchem, cannot be drawn
for this payment until the tz.a~ t map is recozded~
Mr. Whitebook reaa writ'ten propo~al f~om the construction firm~
to the Ci'ty of Anaheim, stipulaZ:zng that 'the sum of $6~502~13~ due from
Tract NCo 4643 as the pxopo~-tion~te aha~e of levee costs, be paid prior
to construction of and alley improvem, ent~:~, and that the City of Anaheim
be requested to waive the requirement for payment of said sum prior to
recordation, 'thus allowing said map to be recoxded~ and further request-
in9 the City Engineer to hold the improvement maps -until notified in
writ:lng that the foregoin9 amount ha~ been paid in fullo
Mr. Geisler suggested that vouchex-s :for the levee payment be
deposited with the City Attorney, for transmission to the person entitled
to them; upon recordation of the map cz, ~f Mr~ Stephens was present and
7454
City H,all~ Anaheim~ California- GOONGi[L MINUTES ,- January 28~ 1964~ 1;30 PoM.
at:knowledge,s xe,,~e os of ~_a you' her~ fox the payment of the levee fee~
it would .b~ .~ub~t.~t.i~l ~den e of ompl'ance with '~
~ :~ondition No. 3,
required roi~ approval and ~e o:a-~t~on of the map,
Mr, John 'Stephen.,o, 3i. 5 Vale D~i. ve, Whit'tier~ President of
Jo So g M, Cons't~-u, tion Co~ formerly Le Mont Construction Co,, that
actually ,~on;~tru: ted the ~.evee, ~'t~tea tb~t although he ~as ~illing to
acknowledge re~.eipt of 'the 'voucher;;, he ~ould be zeluo[an( to agree ~o
the City Engineez~'~; ~eiea~e of the improvement m. ap~ until the vouchers
were honored,
M.zo Whitebook aavt~ed that a t:er't:ification to the bonding company
that the ~und~:~ n:::e on deposlt h-~.,~ been submittedo
At the ~ on<lu:-~ion of fu~the:.::, d:i.~cussion~ and on the recommenda-
tions of the Z~ty Attorney, ~oun~iim.~n Chandler moved Final Map, Iract
No. ~6.43~ be approved~ sub~le~'t to the payment of the levee protection fee
to the satlsf:a,.:tion of Condi~_tion NCo 3~ ~n conformance with requirements of
the City Attorney.. Court :..iman K~.ein >:e onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED°
FINAL MAP~ TRACT NOo 5302; Southea:-~t Mo:tgage Company~ Developer~ tract located
at the southeast ~ or ne? o~ Orangewooa Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, contain-
lng four R.-3 lot._~.~ '"Re~[~,~!~:~,~tlon No, 62-63~-31)
The ~C: ~
~,~t¥ [ng,~nee~ ~eported :sa:id final map ,~onforms substantially
with the ~ent:a't~,_we map p.~ :~ ...... y appro~red~ that bonds have been posted and
approved:, and ~equi~ea fee-, pa_a,, and ::-,eommended approval thereof°
On the ze.~ommendat:~on~ of the C~ty Engineer, Councilman Dutton
moved Final Map~ Tr~ t No 5302~ be app,:credo Councilman $chutte seconded
the motion, MOT.~ON CARR ED.
REQUEST - HOUSE TRAiLER.~.lii2 EAST FLOWER. STREET~ Communication from
Tad R~ Cook was ~ubmitted, reque:~ting permission to use an 8-foot by
16-foo't hou~!,e r.~::,tie~ in the b~ k y~.rd of re~idence located at 1212 East
Flower Street, a~ tempo~=~V ~leep~_ng ~ua~'ter~
Ai,.,~o ~,~ubm;:tzea :.~.na ::evie~ed wa::~ an area map and report from
the Planning Dep~:~?~ent.~ :e:o~mending the following conditions, should
the request be gx~nted~
1o Minimum d:t:;tan::e of 8~fee% be maintained between residence and trailer.
Five foot .~:iOe ya:d be maintainea~
Fime limfi'tation of three months ~ubje~-'tt to review by the City Council.
On motion by Court iim~n S~hut'te~ seconded by Councilman Krein,
said request 'to u~:)e t:aiiel~ was gx'anted for a period of three months~
subject 'to the re.~om.mendatlon o:f the Planning Department~ MOTION CARRI£D~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMi[ NO~ 250 ~ £X[SN.g ON OF 'rIME: Request of Anne Paulus,
dated January 13~ 196~ fo~ additional one year extension of time for the
construction of a '~ai1 a.~ :~equired in ~ondition of Conditional Use Permit
No~ 256~ wa~s '~ubmttted~,
Counuzlm~n Chandie~ x:equested the record to show that he did
not participate in the d~:s,~:ussion nor- vote on this issue~
On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein,
one year extension of time from February 13~ 1964~ was granted as request-
ed. MOTION CARP/ED,,
REQUEST - MOBIL OFFICE ONiT: Communication dated January 13, 1964, from
Richard Jo Parent, of Bu~iae~:~ Resear~h and Publishing Gorporation~ to-
gether with photo, wa-~ ~ubmitted requesting permi~zsion to locate a mobil
office on Linbrook Har'dw~xe p:'emi~e>~ 21.44 We~t Lincoln Avenue.
Mr~ Richard Pa:rent addres,'~ed 'the Council explaining that the
company was ':ommi~:;~oned to provide Orange County building information
the general publi,~', He advised that they plan to make their permanent
7455
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MiNUIES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 PoMo
loCation within one or two blocks of subject location, possible within the
confines of the Linbrook prernLses~ and explained difficulties encountered
in their endeavours to find an office which meets their requirement of
minimum space°
Mr° Parent submit'ted a rendering of the unit which they propose
to occupy, and stated that 'their publicity has been designed towards the
promotion in the proposed location° He was of the opinion that their
permanent loca'tion~ almost certainly on 'the Linbrook property, would be
ready to occupy within 90 dayso
Mr. George $trachan~ Manager of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce~
addressed the Council suggesting that the applicant contact the Anaheim
Board of Realtors pertainin9 to the proposed service~ and stated that he
had no objec'tion to the request°
Council discussion was held and it was noted that the only other
requests for mobil office units which have been granted were for use on
the premises where actual construction of a permanent facility was in
progress. Further~ it was felt that to grant subject request would estab-
lish a precedento
On motion by Councilman Coon~ ::~econded by Councilman Chandler~
said request 'to use mobil off lee unit was denied~> To thi~ motion Council-
man $chufte vote ~No~°o MOFiON CARRi£D.
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-46: Pursuant to tecommendat~.ons of the City Planning Com-
mission, Councilman Chandtez offerea Resolution NCo 64R-a6 for adoption,
terminating all proceedings in conne<'tlon ~ith Specl~l Use Permit No. 84°
Refer to Resolution Booko
A RESOLUTION OF IHE CiTY COUNCIL OF FHE CiTY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL
PROCEEDINGS iN CONNECTION WITH SPEC]AL USE PERMIT NOo 840
On roll call the foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the following vote~
AYES: COONCiLMEN,~ Du't'ton~, Chandler, Schut'te~ Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNCiLMEN; None
ABSENT: ~' ' ~'
oOUNC ~ LMEN ~ None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nco 64R.-46 duly passed and adopted.
RECLASSIFICATION NOo 55,-56-2'7- REQUEST: Communication dated 3anuary 169 1964,
from Harold Morrison, Secretar'y~ Forest Lawn Cemetery Association, re-
questing waiver of block wall ~equirement on the easterly boundary of
property described in Reclassification Nco 55-56-27~ adjacent to R-A zoned
property, was submitted and reviewed together wlth report from Planning
Department ~ Development Reviewo
On motion by Councilman Krein~ seconded by Councilman Schutte,
said request was granted subject 'to the posting of a bond to insure the
° ~ ~
future ~n~tallation of said wall,~ MOTION CARRIED
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IIEMS~ Action taken by the City Planning Commission
at their meeting held January 5, 1964, pertaining to the following applica-
tions~ were submitted for City Council information and consideration:
VARIANCE NOo 1615: Submitted by $huichi Kusaka requesting permission to
waive required lo± width of 78~5 feet on reverse corner lots to permit
the establishment of an R-I~ one-family subdivision; R-A property located
on the north side of Ball Road approximately 338 feet west of Beach
Boulevard,
The City Planning Commission pursuant 'to their Resolution No.
1012, Series 1963-6~, granted said Variance subject to conditions.
7456
City Hall, Anaheim, California ,- COUNCIL MiNUIES -.January 28, 1964~ i:30.PoMo
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 524: Submitted by the Bank of America, request-
ing permission to establish 'a 10~ foot by 24 foot billboard~ R-A property
located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Loara Street. (1610
West Lincoln Avenue'!.
The City Planning Commission puruant 'to their Resolution No. 1016~
Series 1963-6.4, granted sa[d Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 526; Subm:tted by Herman Freeze~ et al~ request-
lng permission to e~tabli~h a planned professional center to include a fine
arts buiid~ng~ medieval buiiaing~ law ~nd profe~5ional buildings~ R-A pro-
perty located on the ~outh ~ide o{ Lincoln Avenue approximately 1015 ~eet
west of Euclid Avenue 11784 and 1786 West Lincoln Avenue).
[he C:ty Planning ,.~omn:sslon pursuant to their Resolution No 1017,
Series 1963-6~ g~anted ~aid Conditional U~e Permit subject to conditions.
[he forego:~n9 a.~:tLon~ ~eze reviewed by the City Council and no
further a,::tion taken on the above numbered Variance application and
Conditional Use Per~zt~o
CONDITIONAL USE PERMi[ N'O~ 522: Submitted by the Central Baptist Church of
Orange Counfy~ requesting pe~mis~,io:n to ejtablish a complete church and
school igr~ades i through 12::,~ ':~ lud~.ng pze-::~choot~ offices~ gymnasium,
swimming pool aha o~t~:~de phy~',: ~i education facilities~ R-A property
located on the we~t :~ide of Magqolia Avenue adjacent 'to the Orange County
Flood Control lUh.annei 29''? N'ozth gagnolia Avenue)~
'[he Czty Piannlng Comm.:;~lon at 'their meeting held January 6,
1964~, pursuant to ~e,olutz. on No,~ 10!3~ Serles 1963-64~ granted said
Conditional O~;e Permit :~ubje z Zo ~,ondit~onso
No Fui'the: ~,i;t:on wa~ taken by the City Council on Conditional
Use Permit No. 522.~
TEMPORARY STRUC[gRES - 22; NOR'[H MAGNOLIA AVENUE,~ City Council at their
meeting held iuly 30th~ i963~ cron'ted permission to erect three quonset
hut sZructure~ on ~ ~errpo~ ~::y b~:~l,_, to provide phy?~ical education pro-
gram~ dre~s!ng zoom.-~. ~and a ',~ood '~hop? a't the Central Baptist Church
School property~ 227 No, th Magnol:Za Avenue°
Cozze~ponden;e dated .~anuary 9~ 1964~ from Mrs. Hart S~
Oakaen~ 2645 Bzu~.e Avenue, ze;ident of the area, objecting to the location
of 'the tempoi~azy ~zzu~ ture~ ~a:.; submi'ttea 'together ~ith the correspondence
from Mr. paul tiefeld~ P:~_ncipal of ?en'tz. al Baptist Church School,
reques'ting Count;ii on,~ide~:ation of ~atd protest be continued one week
to allow him ~zo be p~:esenz~
Also ~:~ubmitted wa~ ex<erpt from the minutes of the City Planning
Commission meeting held ianuaxy 6~ 196.d, ~ecommending that 'the City of
Anaheim assume ~.e~pon~fbiz£it¥ [o: the installation of cul-de-sacs for the
stub ends of Yaie~ Bru:e and Russell Avenue$~ adjacent 'to 'the west to the
Central Baptizer Ghur[;h and $choolo
On motion by Councii~an St_hutte~ seconded by Councilmen Dutton~
Council consideration of pzo't~t made against t~mpo~ar¥ ~tructure location,
and of the City Planning Commi~io~ reoommendation regarding cul-de-sacs
streets adjacent to subject propert¥~ was continued one week (February 4~
1964, 1:30 P~M.'!,. MO;7iON CARRIED,,
CONDIIIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 52'7; Submltted by Wilton Abplanalp, William and
Shirley Amand~ zeques'ting permission to establish a trailer park~ R-A
property located on 'the north side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately
1090 feet east of Knott Avenue (3345 West Lincoln Avenue).
The City Planning Commlsszon at their meeting held January 6,
196~, pursuant to thels 8esoiut~on Nco 1015~ Series 1963-1964~ granted
said Conditional Use Permzt subject 'to condi'tionso
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 PoM.
Ihe City Clerk noted corre~Dondence received from Dr. David A.
Smith~ withdrawing previous obje~]tion [o Conditional Use Permit No. 727
She further noted petition received in her office this date containing five
signatures of property owners within three hundred feet of subject property
having no objections to subject Conditional Use Permit°
Mro William Almand~ one of the petitioners~ indicated his presence
at the meeting,
No further action was taken on Conditional Use Permit No. 527°
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 525: Submitted by Earl Ha Dahlman~ requesting
permission to establish a service sta'tion~ R-A property located at the
northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Sunkist Street (2541 East Lincoln Avenue).
The City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 6, 1964,
granted said Conditional Use Permit.~ ~bje,~t to cond.~tibn~.
At the ~equest of Councilman Schutte~ the City Clerk was instructed
to schedule Conditional Use Permit No~ 525 for public hearing before the
City Council~ along with all correspondence pertaining theretoo
WORK ORDER NO. 4600 - CHANGE ORDER NOG 15: On the recommendations of the City
Engineer, Councilman Krein moved that Ch~ange Order No. 15 in the amount of
$515.00 credit~ consisting of items of the fln~i pun~;h list at 'the Police
Facilities Building, Work Orde~ Nco ~600~ be approved~ Councilman Schutte
seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~
RESOLUTION NOG 64R-47: On the ce:rtif:,oatfon of the Director of Public Works that
R. 3. Noble Company has completes tne ~on~t:ruction of the Ball Road Street
Improvement~ JOb No~ 790~ lin ~,~cord~n e with plans and specifications,
Councilman Dutton offered Re~olution No,, 64R-,!'? for adoption°
Refer to Resolution Book o
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF FHE CiTY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNiSHiNG OF ALL PLANT? LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTiLiF[ES AND 7RANSPORFAI'iON INCLUDING POWER, FUEL
AND WATER~ AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLTC iMPROVEMENT.. [0 WIT: FHE IMPROVEMENT OF
BALL ROAD~ FROM APPROXIMATELY 202 FEET EAS'F OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO
APPROXIMATELY 1380 FEET EAST OF STAI'E COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM~ .IOB NCo 790~ ,iRc 3° Noble Co,)
On roll call the foregoing resolution wa5 duly passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dut'ton~ Chandler, Schutte~ Krein and Coons
NOES ~ COUNCiLMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNC fLMEN ~ None
'The Mayor declared Resolution Nco 64R-47 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO~ 64R-48: On the ~L;e~tif~]a't.Zon of the Director of Public Works
that DeLeon Construction~ ]]nc.~ has completed the construction of the
Brookhurst Street Sewer improvement~ Job Nco 1267, in accordance with plans
and specifications, Councilmaq Dutton offered Resolution No. 64R-48 for
adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book°
A RESOLUIION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING
THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANI'~ LABOR~ $ERVICE$~ MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTiL!IiES AND TRANSPORTAI'!ON iNCLUDING POWER~ FUEL
AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC iMPROVEMENT, TO WiT: THE BROOK~URST STREET
SEWER !MPROVEMENT~ FROM CRESGENI AVENUE TO APPROXIMATELY 1281 FEET SOUTH OF
CRESCENT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEiM~ JOB NO,~ 1267, (DeLeon Construction, Inc.).
7458
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California -- COgNCIL MINUTES ,- lanuary 2@~ 1964~ 1:30
On roll (;all the foregoing resolution was duly passed and
adopted by the fo]lowing vote;
AYES; COONGiLMEN; Dutton, Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES ~ COUNC l LMI~N :~ None
ABSENT; GOUNC7 LMEN: None
[he Mayor declazed Resolution No~ 64R-48 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-ag: On the r~eommendation of 'the City Engineer~ Councilman
Krein offered Resolution No.~ 64R-49 for adoption~ awarding construction
of the Katella Avenue Street improvement, Project Nco 102-A~ to Sully
Miller Gont~acting Company, the low bidde~, in the amount of $99,212.10~
Refer to Resolution Book°
A RESOLUIION OF IHE Ci[Y 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 WATF. R~ AND PF. RFOR. MTNG ALL ~ORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC LiMPROVEMENF; IHE KAIELLA AVENUE STREET iMPROVE-
MENT~ FROM APPROXi MAFELY i~19 FEET EAST OF STA'[E COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO
APPROXIMArELY 2880 FEET WES:F OF ~FA[E ~gOLLEGE BOOLEVARD~ IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEiM~ PROTECT NO IO'2-A, ~quliy M~.tle~ Con'tzac'ting Company'-
$99~212<, 10
On t:oll .~aii the fo:[egoing resolution was duly passed and
adopted by the follo~tn9 vote:
A'fES~ COUNiCiI.M~N~ Dutton~ Chandler, SYhut'te~ Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNC i LMEN~ None
ABSENT ~ COUNCILMEN: None
fhe Mayoz de:l~:~.eO Re~olutzon Noo 64R-49 duly passed and adopted~
PURCHASE: The Cit'y Manage:: reported on lnformal bids received for the purchase
of one 67 KV Po~ex ['ransfotrre::~ ~ follows, and noted that the Electrical
Division recommenO.~ ~.-.ept:an e of the se.:ond low bid as the low bidder
c. annot del tve~ equipment fo:~ 35 week>,~ whereas both the other bidders
quoted 22 'week,s aei:vet:y d~te~ ~.~id tz'-~n:~former to be installed at the
Anahetzm Substation by i~ui¥, 1964;
Pennsyivania F:~n~fo.zme~.~ ].,o:; Angeles $75~088o00
Gene'zal Electr:~_~ Comp~n¥~ Lo.o Angeles 77~402.00
West~nghou-~e Ele,tri. Comp..~ny~ Los Angeles 77~663~04
M~'~. Geo:~ge Oelke::~ D:zre,:to~ of Public Utilities~ reported 'that
annual co~t of operatr_ng e~ h of the three transformers were evaluated and
oompa:red~ and the Gene~al Eie~'t'~_; model ~a$ 'the most economic.
On the re,':ommend:~t~ono of the C:i'ty Manager and Director of
Public Ut~litieo~ Coun.ilsan Dut~on moved that the bid of General
Electric Company, be ~ .~epted a,s the lowest and best qualified bid, and
purchase authorized in 'the -imount of $77,402o00~ Councilman Chandler second-
ed the motion.> MOriON CAR. R!ED~.~
PURCHASE - CASH REGiSFER: Fhe City Managez reported on request of the Finance
Director 'to pur.~.:ha>;e one National Catch Register, in 'the amount of $2,~76~50
plus 'tax, without bzd in o~-de~ to ma:'..ntain uniformity of equipment stating
advantages 'thez-eof~ wa.~ submittedo
On the ze~ommen~at?.on~ of the City Attorney, Councilman Chandler
moved it be the findlng of the City Court,eli that savings in personnel train-
ing time, we~.e suffi':ient 'to deviate from the standard procedure set forth
.in the Anaheim Muni:tp~l Code~ and purchase of a Na'tlonal Cash Register by
single negotiation be ~utho:i:zed,~ Councilman Dutton seconded the motiono
MOTION CARRIED~
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNC..tL MINUTES- J'anuary 281 19641 1:30 P,M,
EMINENT .DOMAIN - SHIELDS DRIVE: The City Manager reported on proposed storm
drain which normaly would be ~'on~tructed in Dale Avenue, between Broadway
and Orange Avenue~ howevez~ ~n existing Metropolitan Water Dis'trier line
in Dale Avenue, would intezfere~ He advised that 'the same drainaae Could be
accomplished at reduzed cost by con tru~.tlng said drain in Shields Drive which
is located east of Dale Avenue between Broadway and Orange A'venue~ however the
required easement in Shleld~ Dr~ve .~ in priva[~ owner~hipo
Council D~s~ussion was held and ~t was noted that if said street was
opened through the existing ea,~e~ent~ '~riou~ ~unicipal ~ervice~ would be
cilitated~ such as fire and pol'~ce protect;on in addition to facilitating the
storm dra~n installation~
On the recommendation o{ the City' Manager~ Coundilman Krein
moved that tn_ City Attorney be ins'tructed to prepare necessary resolution
authorizing the commencement of Eminent Domain Proceedings to acquire need-
ed easemento Councilman Schutte ~econded the motiono MOIiON CARRIED.
MOTEL STANDARDS: Communication dated January 15~ 1964~ from ~[r. Harold Wo
Smith~ President of the Anaheim Area Visitor and Convention Bureau,
giving notice of the appointment of ~wo Visitor and Conven{ion Bureau
members to the special ~ommittee on cleanlines:~ and health standards for
mo±els, was submit{edo
On motion by Councilman Chandler~ seconded by Councilman Dutton,
notice of appointment of two Visitor and ~
'~onvention Bureau members to said
special committee was ordezed ~eoetved and fiied~ and referred to Council-
men Dutton and Chandler~ with instruction~ to call a meeting of the interest-
ed parties° MOTION CARRiED,~
CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondenoe was ordered received and filed~
on motion by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Krein:
ao Notice of Hearing before the PUC. concerning application of The
Pacific Telephone and ~[eiegraph Company for authority to publish
five telephone directories :in lieu of a :single thelephone directory
for Orange County~
b. Tables showin9 distribution of ±coal sales taxes during 'the fourth
quarters of 1962 and 19630
c. Summary of apportionments of Mo'tot Vehicle License Fees for the
period of 2une 1~ 1963 through November 30~ 1963.
MOTION CARR IEDo
DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman ~rein offered Resolutions Noso 64R-50 and 64R-51
for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-50: A RESOLUTION OF ]7HE C!EY COUNCIL OF ']7HE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO I'HE C!]TY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES°
(Ac J, Barnhart)
RE$OLUIION NO~ 64R-51: A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR EASEMENTS FOR A WATER LINE~ AND WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER LINES. (Great Western Land Co.)
On roll call the foregoing Resolutions were duly passed and
adopted by the following vote~
AYES: COUNCILMEN~ Dutton, Chandler~ Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES ~ COUNC I LMEN: None
ABSENT.. COUNC.~ LMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolutions Nos. 64R.-50 and 64R-51 duly
passed and adopted°
7460
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 P,M,
PROPOSED CITY CHARTER- TRANSFER OF FUNDS: Proposed Charter for the City of
Anaheim was presented to the City Council~ together with letter of trans-
mittal from the Anaheim Citizens~ Charter Study Committee and additional
communication from said committee~ requesting that the Anaheim City Council
discharge the Citizen~' Chaz'ter Study Committee and that official records
thereof be placed in the custody of the City Clerk,
Mr~ Mu~doch reported that .:opies of the proposed Charter have
been printed and are available through the offices of the City Manager
and City Clerk~
The City Clerk called attention to communication dated and sub-
mi'tted January 21~ i964, reflecting dissen'ting opinion on the proposed
Charter by committee member Joshua White~
~k,o Joshua White member of the Citizens~ Committee addressed
~he Council requesting that his '~dissenting opinion" submitted January
21, 1964~ be considered and incoz'porated into the proposed Anaheim City
Charter (printed
~op,~es of Mr. White s address on file),
Mayor Coons thanked NI~,.~ Whzte~ and advised that the suggested
correction to the re:ommend~tion,~ of the Charter Commi'ttee would be con-
sidered by the City 2oun<::il -~t .~ pubii hearing to be scheduled~ at which
time everyone wili be given -~n opportunity to suggest any changes they
might wish,,
late.: in the meetLng, ?GUn,< tim. an iChandler moved that Public
and Gene~al Di~u~:~on on the p:~opo~ed Anaheim City Charter as recom-
mended by the C~zy Cha~..te:.,: 2omm~tZee be held Wednesday~ February 19,
1964~ 7:00 P~,M~ ~ .~na [hat the 2t'zy Ciezk and Public information Officer
be authorized to advexZi~e .~td pdbl~:~ hearth9 at their discretion~ 'the
costs for -,aid advei:tl~-.~ement not to exceed $500o00, further $500.00 be
transferred f~'om the Coun~ ~i Contingency Fund to cover expenditure.
MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Coun:':_~man S,~hut'te~ seconded by Councilman Dutton~
the Citizen~~ CharZe., Committee wa-~ dlsmi-~sed and the official records
of said Committee [urn.ed or.e:; ~o ~he $~ty Cle}k~ Certificates of
preciation for =~erv.~e:: ~ende:zed we~.e o};dered prepaz-ed and forwarded to
each membe~ ~nd ~.itez.n~te ~r'embez of sa~d Com~.itteeo MOT[ON CARRIED~
RECESS: Counc::ilman Kr'ein moved to ~e~.:e:~ to 7:00 O~'Clock P~Mo Councilman
Dutton seconded the mot:.on.. MO~.~ON CARRiED.~ (15:05 P~Mo )
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Coon~ 'ailed the meeting to ordem~
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCILMEN: D'utton,~ Chandier, Schutte~ Krein and Coons.
oOON.~ ~ ~ME~I :~ None.
CiTf MANAGER~ Keith Aa Muzdocho
Ci[~ AT[ORNEY~ o:~eph Gei~ier~
CiTY CLERK: Dene Mo Williamso
DiRECFOR OF PUBi.'C WORKS: '[Fhornton E~ Piersa11.
PLANNING D'::REC'FOR: Ri:hard A~ Reese,
ZON'NG COORDT~ATOR, Ya:rt~n ~e]_dt~
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Coon~ led the a:i;sembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARiNG;~ RECLASSiFiCAtiON NO~ 63-64-34: Submitted by Charles W.
Hushaw, et al~ requesting ~:hange of zone from R-1 to C-i~ property briefly
described as located on the east ~ide of State College Boulevard, north of
South Street, Lot~ I to 10 tn,'lus~ve~ ~rac't NOG 2300 (556, 562~ 604~ 608,
612~ 6187 622~ 628~ 632 and 638 South State College Boulevard).
'The 'City Planning Zommission pursuant to Resolution 913, Series
1963-64~ recommended Re,;lassifi<:ntion No~ 63-64-34 be denied,
Public Hea~ing before the City :Council was held October 29, 1963,
and continued 'to thi,i~ date for additional study and report from the Planning
Department Staff~
7z~61
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -January 28~ 19649 1~30
Mr. Martin Kreidt noted the loc~ation of subject property, re-
ferrin9 to two strip maps in ~;olor~ placed on the west wall of the Council
Chamber~ and reviewed City Planning Commission findings precedent to their
recommended denial of the recla~ificationo
Mr~ Clarence Dingman~ Senior Planner~ outlined the contents of
Plan Study No. 66-103-a, prepared on subject property at the request of
the City Council~ He noted the following possible ~ourses of action; that
the zonin9 request be denied and retention of ~ingle-family residential
uses encouraged, or that C-1 Neighborhood Com~.erclal Zoning be granted.
Included in the study were economic and physical considerations,
and city-wide effect$~ including results of the ~ur'vey of existing land uses
along all major streets designated on 'the Master Plan of Arterial Streets
and Highways° Said survey indif~ated oyez 2700 residential lots facing said
streets, 2200 of which contain single-family homes; and the additional 560
homes which side on said streets, with a total of 478 net acres involved,
which will equal 10 commercial areas 'the size of the Broadway Shoppin9
Center° Mro Dingman noted that the foregoing data was refined by omitting
those streets which probably never will have excessive traffic (primarily
secondary and collec~tor streets), and the resulting figures are over 1200
single-familY homes ~237-aczes! which f:-ont major heavy1y traveled streets.
Other possible oour.$e$ of cotton inoluded in the study were
zoning for commercial office use~ whi~ih would require removal of residences
and redevelopment of the lots~ which would seem unfeasible considering
economic and demand factors~ or retain exis~ting s~truc~tures and permit one
or two additional residential uni~tb to be added°
Conclusions of 'the Planning $'tu~y wereoo
1. It would be unfeasible 'to remove dwetling~ from subject lots on
State College Boulevard in order to redeveiop~ whether for residential
commercial or office re~u~e, due to the value of the structures.
2. It would be impracticable to convert the more than 1200 homes in
similar situations to other use>~ therefor improvement of the resi-
dential enviroment was deemed advi~able.,
3. Commercial use of 'the subject lots would not be a desirable solution,
considering size and shade of the typical lots and problems involved
in providing ,~dequ~te }c. e~ in t}~o~e a~a_~ wL!J~out alleys~ also
because of 'the lack of neeO throughout the city of an additional
237-acres of commercial propertyo
The Plan $'tudy concluded 'that~ in areas where efforts to retain
residential uses failed~ 'the most practicable solution would be conversion
of existing structures to office use~ which would require an amendment to
the C-O Zone 'to all conversion,,
Plans and the file were reviewed by 'the City Council.
Mayor Coons asked if anyone wished to address the Council re-
presenting the petitioners.
Mr. Robert 3, Croft, 638 South grate College Boulevard, addressed
the Council bein9 of the opinion tha't the homes on subject properties should
be converted to offices, no'ting that the street in question is a State Migh-
way, and there is an existing alley behind these homes~ He called attention
to several offices converted from residences on North and South State College
Boulevard, and advised that he and at leas~t two other property owners would
convert their residences immediately~ ~bould ~the zoning be granted.
The Mayor asked if anyone el~e wished to address the Council in
favor of the requested reclassification~
Mr. Charles Wo Hushaw, 632 South State College Boulevard, advised
that their~ was an unique problem in view of the heavily traveled highway;
and in his opinion, C-O zoning could be granted for 'the 10 parcels, subject
7462
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL M.~NOTE$ .- January 287 1964~ 1:30 P.Mo
plans being presented to [he City Council as each property is ready to be
¢onvertedo Mr~ Hushaw called attention to the medical buildin9 proposed
on property acro:~s the st~eet~ and the medical center and apartments
being constructed at Ball Road and State College Boulevard. He further
advised that the applicants f:iled the zoning application jointly because
they felt individual appll~'~a/ion~:~ mlgh[ be considered request for "spot
zoning"~ and stated State College Boulevard from the Riverside Freeway
~o the Santa Aha [Freeway had only four blooks of residential use,
Mr~ HushawO~ attention was called to homes on the west side of
State College Boulevard~ which a~e in the same situation as subject pro-
perty~ and it wa~ noted 'that p~opert¥ to the south is undeveloped,
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council,
for or against the requested rezoning~ there being no response~ declared
'the hearing closedo
[urther discussion was held and it was th~ concsnsus of opinion
that as parcels are prepared to be converted for use other than single-
family residential~ individual application should be made, including
plans~ and each application would then be considered on its own merits.
gtc Richard Ree~e~ Planning Director, advised that the Staff
report was not a recommendation but a statement calling Council attention
to the fact that unlike the C~l~ Neighborhood-Gommercial Zone, the C-O
Commercial-Office Zone did not permit converted residences~ nor does it
permit any residential use~ and said C.-O Zone requires removal of dwellings
and redevelopment of the iotso
RESOLUTION NOo 64R.-52: At the conclusion of Council Discussion, Councilman
Krein offered Resolution Nco 6~R-52, concurring in the recommendations of
the City Planning Commission~ denying Reclassification No. 63-64-34 with-
out prejudice°
Refer 'to Resolution Book~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CitY CO'ONCiL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE O[ ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY' HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. ![ 63-.64-34 )
On roll call the foregoing resolution was duly passed and
adopted by the following vo'te:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES~ COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor de~lared Resolution Nco 64R-52 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARiNG~ RECLASSiFiCATION NO. 63-64-42 AND VARIANCE NO. 1604~
Submitted by Allen E, Ba~.dwell, c/o Leonard Smith, authorized agent,
questing change of zone from R-A 'to R-3~ property lo~ated on the north
side of Ball Road approximately 1'70 feet west of Webster Street (2501
West Ball Road), and further requesting permission to construct the
twenty-seven unit apartment unit with waiver of the following:
One story height limitation.
(2) Side yard requirement.
(3) 1~ spaces in a garage, to permit construction of carports.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 938,
Series 1963-6~, recommended said reclassification be denied, and pursuant
to Resolution No. 939~ Series 1963-64~ denied Variance No, 1604.
Public hearing before the City Council was held November 19,
1963, and continued to this da'te~ said applications being referred back
to the City Planning Commission for their consideration together with
application presently pending on 'the property along Webster Street
(Reclassification No. 63,-64-62).
7463
City Hall, Anaheim~ California .- COUNCIL ~iNU'TE$ -January 28~ 1964~ 1:30
Excerpts from the minutes of the City Planning Gom~nission meeting
held December 23, 1963~ noting the ~ubje,~t property is also included in
Reclassification No~ 63-64-62~ and .~e-affi[ming thezr previous ac'tion
recommending denial of suuh applicat'ion.~ ba~ed on the fact that two story
construction was no% pezmi~s3ible within i50 feet o~ single-family residen-
tial development, wag submitted and ~-ead by Mz~ Kzeid~. He further advised
that Reclassification No~ 63-64-62 for property along Webster Street wa~
continued by the City Planning Commls~[on ko [hei~ meeting ~ebruary 17, 1964o
Mayor Coons asked ~ the appl~:;an~ cz bi5 agent was present and
wished to address the CLty
M~o Leonard Smi'th~ agent fo:~ the petltioner~ submitted revised
plans for Council consideration, and ~eque~ted subjec't reclassification
and variance be granted for, ~ingle ~tory constzuctiono He called attention
to the isolation of subjec~ property from those parcels on ~ebster Street,
and advised that-they had not :ntenaed to Znclude subject property in the
Reclassification Nco 63,-6~--62 appli:zat~on~
Mr, Geisler advlsed that thzs R-3 zoning request is in conflict
with the General Plan~ and 'the~efor would requ~'e an amendment to th~
Plan in order to be grantedo
Mr. K~eidt advised that ther.-e [:~ a ::~mall amount of multiple
family development in 'the immedi, ate ~;ea~ howe:Te~ not enouqh to be reflected
on the General Plan~ further ~f the p.~opo ,ed u~,~, of [:he subject
property had been considered a substantial deviation from the land use
pattern shown on 'the General Plan~ an amendment would of been initiated
on the one parcel°
Mro Kreidt further reported that in ,~.onjunction with Reclassifica-
tion No. 63-64-62~ an amendment to the General Plan is before the City
Planning Commission for 'the entire ~ebste.r Street area~ including subject
property. He suggested that ~sub~e,~:t appli~ ation be t;ontinued to February
18th, 1964~ and that the C~z¥ Planning Commis~:ion further consider said
application together with thel.t :ontinued publi~~ hearing on Reclassifica-
tion No~ 63.-6~-62 to be held Feb:ruaxy iTth~ 196~ with an oral report
from the Planning Commission to City Council on February 18.~ 1964~
Mayor Coons asked if anyone else wished to address the City
Council, there being no response, de,~laxed the hearing closed on Reclassi-
fication No. 63-6~-42 and Variance No~ 1604o
Councilman Krein moved that action of the City Council on Re-
classification No~ 63-64-.42 and Variance Nco 1604 be continued to February
18th~ 1964, 1:30 PoM<~ for report from the City Planning Commissiono
Councilman Dui'ton seconded 'the motion,. MORION
PUBLIC HEARING~ RECLASS!FiCAIION NOo 63-6~-23~ Submit'ted by Giacomo and
Agostina Lugaro, requestin9 change of zone :from R-A 'to C-l; property lo-
cated on the east side of Magnolia Avenue~ app~oximately 658 feet south
of Crescent Avenue.
The City Planning Commission pursuant 'to Resolution No. 1006,
Series 1963-64, recommended Reclassifi~;ation No. 63-64-23 for approval,
subject to th~ following condit:[on~:
le
That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street
along Magnolia Avenue for street widening purposes.
That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering
requirements of the City of Anaheim along ~agnolia Avenue, such as
curbs and gutters~ sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage
facilities~ or other appurtenant work, shall be completed as re-
quired by 'the City £ngineer and in accordance ~ith standard plans
and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer~ and
that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall b% posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said
engineering requirements°
7464
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califox'nla -. COUNCIL MiNOTES- .January 28~ 19647 1:30
3, That the owners of .sub~e,~'t prope~'ty '~hall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of $2.00 per front foot ,.~lon9 Magnolia Avenue for street light-
lng purposes,~
4o The +.rash storage area~ ~h.ali be p~owlded in azzordanze ~ith approved
plans on file ~n the offic~ of the Direr.trot of Public Works prior to
final building ~n-~pe~,tion.~
That the owne~ ut ~ub~e t p:~opexty shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a 3-foot publ.i,~ ut[lit'~~ easement~, ~nd ~ 2~-foot overhang easemen~ along
the e~sterty boundaxy o~ :~ub.je~'t property~
6. That Condition No [, 2, 3 ~nd 5, above mentioned, shall be complied
wi~h within a per,od of i80 day~ from date hereof~ or such further
time as the C!t~ Coum ii maV gra~t,
7. That subjea't p~ope'rty ~ha[l Oe developed ~ubst~ntlally in accordance
with plan~ and ~pe.~if'~ ~tion~ on file wlth +`he City of Anaheim~ marked
"Exhibit Noso 1 and 2'>
That tree weil:~: shall be proviaed at approximate 40-foot intervals
in the Magnolia Avenue parkway abutting subjec't proper'ty~ that plans
for said tree well-~ and planting of trees therein~ shall be submitted
to and approved b~ the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance; and
said tree well~o :~hall Oe pi.~nted with trees prior to final building
fnspe~ tion~
Fhat n 3.-foot strip of land ~hall be iands~aped on the Magnolia
Avenue frontage and ~id iand~apln9 maintained~ as indicated on
Exhibit No,, i on [zle with the City; that plans for said landscaping
shall be ~ubmitted to ~nd ~app~,oved by the Superintendent of Park-
way Main'tenant:e; and that ~aid lands~dpin9 ~hall be installed prior
to final buiidin9 inspe..~tioa.~
10~ That a 6-foot m:~on~y w~ii shall be constructed alon9 the east and
south property lines p~lor to final building inspection~
11~ That all air-conditioning fa ilitie~ shall be proper~y shielded
from v~ew from :~buttlng ~t:~eet~.~
12o [hat the petitioner ~hall file a Petltion for Reclassification or
Variance on the R~-A~ Re~idential Agxicultural~ Zone "not a part"
parcel abutting to 'the :,outh pr'ior to final building inspection.
~tr~,~ Mu:rdo::h refer:red to letter xe,~eived this date from
Robert Wu Mac~ahon~ atto:~ney fo~ the 'appli,~ant~ requesting public hear-
in9 be continued one week.~ He advl.~ed that he :~poke with ~ MacMahon
'this afternoon, anO wa~ aav~:ed that t~e attorney had no objection to
the City Coun.il holding .a:d p~Oi.t~ heaz~zng without his presence;
however~ ~zf 'there wa~ any ont~o~er.:~f o~ questions to be asked, he
would appreciate the heaz~ng Oeing .-ontinuedo
The Mayo: asked ~f anyone wished to address the Council in
opposition 'to Re~:iasstfi<:::at~on No. 63,-.6.4.-23~ There was no response.
Mr. Kreidt noted the location of subject property and the
existing uses and zoning in the immediate area~ briefing the evidence
submitted to and ~"onsidered ny the City Planning Commission.
~tr~ Murdoch further reported 'that Mr~ MacMahon had no objec-
tion ~o the filing of a Cond~_tional gse Permit or Variance application
on 'the R-A pa:~-cel ad3a ent to the south, as noted in City Planning
Commission Cona:t..on No,, ~'..:!, ~n~ exp!-~tned t~at the reason for said
requlzement wa~ t~ :~z t~ e R--A pa.~ eL ~e-::s t~ an one ante would be creat-
Mr o Geislex, adv:sed +.hat the pzoposed reclassification would
require 1nit,at,on of an amendment to the General Plan, as stipulated
by sta+.e law~ in order to h.~ve the commercial use shown on the General
Plan.
Mayor Coons declared the hearing closed on Reclassification
No~ 63-64-23~
On motion by Coun.~ilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman
Dutton~ action of the City Count.il on Reclassifica+`ion No. 63-64-23
was continued to Max-ch 2a~ 1964, 1:30 P,M,, to allow initiation and
public ~:ear~ng~ on .r.e~d~en~. +o the General Piano MOTION CARRIED~
7465
CitY Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MiNUtES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 P.Mo
PUBLIC HEARING~ RECLA$SI[iCAIION NOg 63-,64,-64 AND VARIANCE NOg 1614: Submitted
by Everett Ma Miller~ requesting change of zone from R-A to C-l~ and waiver
of structural height limitation to permit the construction of a three-slory
saving and loan office building~ property located on the east side of Brook-
burst Street approximately 681 feet north of the center llne of Ball Road
(910 South Brookhurst Street)°
The City Plannlng Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1004,
Series 1963-64, recommended ~ecl~s$ifl~ation No. 63-6~-64 be approved~
subject 'to the following ~ondltlons:
le
0
0
e
e
That the owners of :~ubje::t property ;hall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 5.4.-.feet .in '~idth~ .~long B:rookmore Avenue, for street
purposes. (Ihis will provide for a 12.-foot parkway on the south~ a
40.-foot roadway and 2.-foot park~.~y on the north° The addi'tionai
parkway on ~he nor'th ~ill be a~qui:.ed at a future da~e~)
That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering
requirements of the C:i~y of Anaheim along Brookhursq $tree~ and
Brookmore Avenue~ such as curds and gutters, sidewalks, street grad-
ing and paving~ drainage f~cilitie~ o~- other appurtenant ~ork shall
be completed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance ~ith
s~andard plans and spe~iflcation~ on file in the office of the City
Engineer; and that a bond ~_n an amount and form satisfactory to ~he
City of Anaheim shall be po~ted ~ith the City to guarantee the in~-
stallatlon of ~aid engineering requirements.
That owner of subje~t p~ope~t~ shall pay to the City of Anaheim %he
sum of $2000 per front foot~ along Brookhur~t Street and Brookmore
Avenue~ for street lighting purpo~es~
That the completion of these re.:~l~:~lf[cation proceedings is con-
tingent upon the g~anting of a vari:~n~:e~
That Condi%ion Noso 1 and 2, above m, entloned~ shall be complied with
within a period of 180 days from dante he~-eof~ or such further time
as the City Council may g~anto
Ihat subject p~operty ~hall be developed s'ubstantially in accordance
wi%h plans and spe~ifi~ations on file with the City of Anaheim~ marked
"Exhibit No. i~ as amended herezn~ provided that a lO-foo~ setback is
maintained~ and that r~he ~sign lndic~ted shall not be considered a
part of this exhibito
That a iOn-foot ~t~ip of land where adjac~ent to buildings and a 3-foot
s%rip of land where adja:~ent to pa~kin9 a~eas shall be landscaped on
the Brookhurst Stree't and B~ookmore Avenue frontage and said land-
scapin9 main~ained~ as indi~:~ated on ~xhibit Nco 1 on file with the
City; that plans for ~ald land~aping ~hail be submitted to and
approved by %he Superintendent of Pa~kmay Maintenance; and that
said landscaping shall be instaiied prior to final building inspec-
tion.
Ihat the owner of subject p~operty shall place of record City of
Anaheim C.-I~ Deed Restri~tions~ approved by the City Attorney~ which
restrictions shall limit the use of ~ubjec~ proper~y to business
and professional offi<;es only~ and that said restrictions shall be
completed wifhin a period of 180 days from date hereof~ or such
further time as the City Council may grant.
[he City Planning Commission pursuant to their Resolution
No. 1005, Series 1963-64~ 9ranted Variance No~ i61~ subject 'to the
following conditions:
le
®
m
That 'trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file in the office of the Director of Public Works~ prior to
final building inspection~
That this variance is granted subject to 'the comple'tion of Reclassifi-
cation No. 63~64-6q.~
That subject property ~jhail be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and speoifi~atlons on file with the City of Anaheim~ marked
"Exhibit No~ 1'~o, as amended he:~e[n, provided that a 10-foot setback
from Brookhurst Street be m~intained~ and that the sign indicated
shall not be considered as part of this exhibit~
7466
City Hall~ 6[taheim~ California - COUNC~,I. MINUTES - January 28~. 1964~ 1:30 P~M~
4o Th t a lO-foot ~t~fp o~ land where adjacent to buildings and a 3-foot
si. ip of land where ~dja:.:ent to p ~kfng areas shall be landscaped on
the Brookhu~..~t ,Street :~nd B~ookmore Avenue frontage and said land-
scaping m~nt<~:ned~ ~ :nd~;.:at~d on Exhibif No. 1~ on file ~ith the
City~ that plan:~ fo~ -~aid iand.~caping sh;~ll be submitted to and ap-
proved by the Super:ntendent of Parkway Maintenanoe~ and said tree wells
.-~hai1 be zn~taJ, led p~ :o~ to ftnai building '~nspection,
That tree well_, ~hall be prOvLded at npproximate 40-foot intervals in the
Brook~uz ~:, S~-~eet and proposed B~o ~more Avenue parkways abutting subject
proper tyt ~:~ rt pi an~ Fox'. ~ ~d t~:ee ~ells and planting of trees therein,
shall be subm'_tted to and ~ppxoved '.)y the Superintendent of Parkway Main-
tenancet and that '.:~a~d t::nd~zap~ng shall be installed prior to final
bulld~ng int~pe.t.~on,
6. [bat a 6-foot ~'~a-~on:~ ~,v::~li '~l:~li be ..:on:strutted along the east property
l~ne prto.r to ~n~i bu,.Id:ns ~n~pect-on.
That ~11 afr--":ono~t~on~ng ta;~_l~.tt~e,.~ shall be properly shlelded from
v~ew from
Plans snd the ~.le~ were ~ev~ewed by the City Council, and the Mayor
asked if the ~pplt:,ant or ~"~:~ ~cenz ~,~a:~ present and wished to address the
Council.
,, ~ ~ Quey~.ei.~ agent fo~'-the pe'ti[ioner~ indicated his
presence at Zhi~ heazLng for Zhe pu~-po:.-~e of answering any questions.
Fhe Mavo~ a:~ed ~f ~nyone else w);.shed to address the Council
for or agalnst the proposed appii_tatzon~ there being no response, declared
the hearing clo~ed. ·
Disc:ust~ior: w~s held-, and M:r,~ Mreidt reported that property to
the north of subje:t p:rope:.-ty w:~ ~e~::~",::tea to ~.ed~,:a~. dental and
profe~:~o,~:~[ ~e.. fie ~a~..e<~ that t e ~endment to the General Plan
~ouia be ne:'.e.-~'~a~.~.~ a:~ the u~e .~e~uested under Reclassification No. 63-64-64
and Variance No.,i61~: ~.~.-~ ~,ub.:tantiali:~ in agreement ~ith the General Plan
for that a:rea~,
RESOLUTION NO~.~ 64R-$3: Coun:~.lman Schut'te offered Resolution No. 64R-53
for adoption~ autho~_iztng p~epa~at'~on of 'the necessary ordinance, chang-
ing 'the .zone as reque::~ted~ ~ubje t to the recommendations of the City
Planning
.... . ~ston,~ omitting '~ona~t_on No~ 8 thereof~ and changing Con-
dition Nco 4 to read: :[hat the 'ompletlon of the reclassification pro-
ceedings :~ <ont:tngen't upon the g~.~nttng of Variance No. 161~."
Refe~ to Resoiutton Book.~
A RESOLUTION OF FHE ..C['[', COONCiL OF iHE CiTY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND
DETERMINING [HAY Ti!'LE 18 OF I'HE ANAHE2M MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THA'[ THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. "i 63-6~ -64 C- 1 ~i
On roll :ali the fo:regoing re:solution was duly passed and adopted
by the follow:trig vote:
AYES; GO[J'NCfLMEN: Dut'ton, Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES: COONC iLMEN: None
AB~EM~ .. COUNC ILM~N: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No,~ 64R-53 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLU[ION NO~ 64R-54; Councllman Schutte offered Resolution No, 64R-54 for
adoption~ granting Variance No, 161~ subject to 'the recommendations of the
City Planning Commis~iono
Refer 'to Resolut;.on Book,
A RESOLUTION OF THE 'CiT~' COUNCIL OF tHE CiTi~ OF ANAHEIM GRANTING
VARIANCE NO~ 161~
On roll call the foz'egoing :resolution was duly passed and adopted
by the following vote;
7467
~.it, y Hall~ Anaheim~ California -COUNCil. MINUTES -
AYES: COUNCiLMEN~ Dut'ton, Chand,Ier~ Schutte~ Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNC ~ LMEN,~, None
ABSENT; COUNCILMEN; None
The Mayor de:~lared Resolution No, 6~R-5~ duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST - $IGNAL~ G!LBI~SK DRIVE AND BALL ROAD: In accordance with request of
City Council~ meeting of Deoember 17~ 1963~ 'the City Engineer submitted a
report on a re-survey made of the traffic ~ituatlon at the intersection of
Gilbuck Drive and Ball Road~ Said report lncluded range of speed~
number of vehicles and pedestrians during a period when school was in
session and when school was on vacation,~ Sa~id report further verified
former count maae ~nd r~e-aff~r~,eci p~evious report~ that the crosswalk
was safe and perhaps safez than m~ny others, and ttaat cond:ttons
will be further improved with the ;n-~tai.[ation of a signal at Ball Road
and Walnut $treeto
Mr~ Murdoch ~read report from Lieutenant Rogers of the Police
Department~ Traffic Division~ ag:~eeLng wit~: ~epo~t '~ubmitted by Traffic
Engineer, advising that the are~ indicated no more problem 'than any
other school area~
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council on
this issue~
Mr~ Robert A,~ Ham:iiton.~ i517 Bead:on Street~ presented photos
of automobiles approaching the railroad cros~.ing rise, 'to illustrate
the lack of visibility ',f ~'. L~ av-ei:ng ~e.~:, .~t. ~u:'.~je-'t lai. e;rsection~
Mr. Hamilton compared the danger of attempting 'to enter the intersection
from Gilbuck Dri~e~ with the protestation of an automobile~ to the danger
encountered by pedestrians attempt~n9 to cro~ said intersei~tion. In
his opinion the signal was neeoed be~ aurae of thi~ impaired 'vision.
Nk~ Hamilton que~.~tloned the control of this intersection by
signals installed east or we.~t~ ann fu:ther advised that there was one
speed limit sign controilin9 westbound traffi~i:, and 'three speed limit
signs controlling eastbound t:raff[~.; that their con~ern was with west-
bound traffic approaching the sohool.
Mrs, Mildred Campbell aa/~ed that s statement was previously
made that if a traffic signal was info, tailed un every corner it would
hinder 'the flow of traff:c, and fu~'ther advised that the signals could
be synchronized so as to ;ont~oi the normal flow of traffic° !rregard-
less of the traffi,. ~eport? a~ i't ;eiate~ to speed~ they that live in
the area were aware of the ex~esulve speed on Bali Roado
Mr° Wendell Way~ 1537 Adithia Avenue~ referred to 'the number
of car~ that exceeded the ~peed limit du~ing 'the period 'that school
was not in session~ and questioned the '7:[:affi:~ Engineer concerning
said report°
Mr~ Ed Granzow~ 'Fraffi~: Engineer, in .~nswez to Mro Way~s in-
quiries replied that the ~ate of ~,peed was de'retrained by means of a
radar un~t which '~ a'.~u~aLe wztln~n one per :.-,nt., that the car contain-
ing the radar unit wa~ loca'ted fif~iy feet west of the crosswalk~ taking
readings approximately 300 feet east of the vehicle; that the crosswalk
is located approximately 700 feet from the railroad tracks o
Mr o Granzow reported that the :speed of cars txaveling in both
directions were approximately equal, probably a little 9rester travel-
in9 east ~han wes'to Yurthe~ it no:maiy takes ~ vehicle traveling
fifty miles per hour approximately 350 feet to ~.~top~, Taking into con-
sidera~ion 'the drop from the railroad track rise~ and fo~ a stranger
to the area, perhaps an addi'tional 100 fee'~ would be required to stop
~he vehicleo
Mr~ Way wa~ of the opinion that the s'tatis~tics reported did
not take into consideration 'the ies~ than average dx-iver~ or possible
weather conditions~ He felt that the ~urvey ~bould have been made
7468
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28; 1964;,.,1:3,0 P,.Mo
when conditions were les~ than ideal~
Mr~ Way asked what the measures were that warrant a traffic
signal installation~ and further advised ~hat their request was for the
protection of pedestrians rather than automobileso
Mro Granzow advised ~that there has been established minimum
warrants for traffic signals which are based on volume of vehicles on
major stree'ts and enterlng streets; the number of pedestrians crossing
the major stmeets~ speed of vehioles~ degree of hazard and special con-
ditlons, Further, if these minimum warrants are met the signal is in-
cluded in a pignal lzotlng and~ further ra~ed at eaGh signal meet-
ing the minimum warrants~ On 'thi~ basi~ those with the highest number
of points are place,] on a priority list~ and installations are made ac-
cording to funds budgeted,~
Mr. Granzow further z'eported that this warrant system has rather
universal acceptance throughout the nation and particularly in California,
and was the system used thz,oughout Orange County° He stated that sixty-
four locations within the City of Anaheim meet the minimum warrants, and
the intersection of Ball Road and Gilbuck Drive did not meet the minimum
warrants at this time°
Councilman Schutte suggested regular stop signs be placed on
Ball Road at Giibuck Driveo
Mr. Way was of the opinion that 'the problem would be solved if
people would stop ~t the raiiro~d crossing rise°
Councilman Krein asked if additional signing would alleviate
the situation°
Mro Granzow reported that for westbound traffic there presently
is signing both approaching 'the railroad t~acks and west of the railroad
tracks, and in addition a portable sign is placed in the crosswalk.
Mr~ Hamilton asked for an explanation~ relating to the visibily,
of the sixty-fou~ other locations in 'the City of Anaheim meeting minimum
warrants for signalization~,
Mro Gzanzow advi::~ed 'that 'this could not be answered without
further, checking 'those interqe?;tion~; listed~
Mr~ Hamilton felt that if the cost of the signal was considered
excessive~ MT. $chutte~; ~ugge~,tlon of arterial stop signs would be some
measure of pzote,~tion, He further ~;ugge:~ted that the Chief of Police be
instructed to have officez,$ at this loca'tion to issue traffic cita'tions
for violations°
Mro irwin Te!l~ 207~ Marg~e Lane, member of the PTA, advised
that going west on Ball Road there was one speed limit sign between West
Street and Euclid Sqreet Mr~ Tell related a near accident to his son
which was caused by stre~,~ .:'ons'truction in the area° Regarding traffic
law enforcement ~o £urt~ Jiow :speed in the area~ in his opinion this
would require a traffmc oftm~er twen'ty-four hours a day.
Mrs. Campbell stated t]~at %he traffic count on cars entering
Ball Road from Gilbuck was Iow be(ause of 'the danger of entering Ball
Road at 'this point~ Fuzther~ the stop sign as suggested,'~would have to
be placed on the crest of the railroad 'track rise in order to be seen.
Mayor Coons asked for comments from the 'Traffic Engineer con-
cernin9 the ~u99esLion made by Councilman $chu'tte,
Mro Granzow reported that a,;cording to their flndings~ instal-
lation of stop ~ign~ on major highways tend to increase traffic accidents,
Me gave as an illustration Ball Road and State College Boulevard, and
noted that installation of this 'type of stop sign requires traffic to come
to a complete stop twenty-four hours a day~ and during certain periods,
7469
City Hal. iT Anaheim,.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30
backs traffic up quite some distance. Taking fnto consideration the
twenty one thousand cars traveling Ball Road at this location~ the same
condition would occur and t]~e situation could become an extreme hazard,
Further discussion was held by the City Council, and considera-
tion given to the placement of portable signs that could be moved when
not needed, additional speed limit signing and vigorous enforcement of
speed limit laws.
At the conclusion of the discussion on motion by Councilman
Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Coons~ request for traffic signal instal-
lation at Ball Road and Gilbuck Drive was denied, and additional signin9
was authorized at the discretion of the Iraffic Engineer~ the foliage
ordered removed from any sign obscured; further the Chief of Police was
ordered to institute a vigorous campaign in subject area, making concerted
efforts to control traffic° In addi~ion~ further radar check was ordered
to determine results~ ~i'th additional report to be made in 60 days. To
this motion Councilman Krein 'voted '~No"~ MOTION CARRIED~
On motion by Councilman Dut'ton, seconded by Councilman Chandler
photos submitted as evidence ~ere ;~ut?',or~zed returned to Mr. Hamilton.
MOTION GARRIED,
RECESS; Councilman Chandler moved for a t~enty m~nute recess Councilman Dutton
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRiED~. (10:15)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Coons called the meeting to order~ all members of the
Council being present°
ORDINANCE NO, 1967: Councilman Chandler offered Ordinance No, 1967 for final
reading:
Refer to Ordinance Book°
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14~ CHAPTER 14.32~
SECTION 14o32~155 AND 14o32,i90 OP' THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING
TO PARKING. (Restricted parking - Portion Anaheim Road)
After hearing read in full the title of Ordinance No. 1967 and
having knowledge of 'the contents therein, Councilman $chutte moved the
reading in full of said ordinance be waived. Councilman Chandler seconded
the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED°
On roll call the foregoing Ordinance was duly passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT; COUNCILMEN: None
Mayor Coons declared Ordinance No~ 1967 duly passed and adopted,
ORDINANCE NO. 1968: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance Nog i968 for final
reading.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE REALATING TO ZONiNGo (63-64-27 - C-1 and P-l)
After hearing read in full the title of Ordinance No. 1968 and
having knowledge of the contents therein~ Councilman $¢hutte moved the
reading in full of said ordinance be waived° Councilman Chandler seconded
the motion° MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED~
On roll call the foregoing Ordinance ~as duly passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Chandler~ Schutte~ Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
7470
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 28~ 1964~ 1:30 P.Mo
Mayor Coons declared Ordinance No. 1968 duly passed and adopted,
RESOLUTION NO. 64R-55: Councilman $~zhut'te offered Resolution No. 64R-55 for
adoption~
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF IHE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PERMIT THE COUNTY CLERK
OF SAID COUNTY TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~
RELATING TO IHE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN
SAID CITY ON APRIL 14TH~ 19640
On roll call the foregoing resolution was duly passed and
adopted by the following 'vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Chandler, Schutte, Krein and Coons
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 64R-55 duly passed and adopted.
.aDJOURNMENT: Councilman $chutte moved to adjourn° Councilman Chandler seconded
the motion° MOTION CARRiED~
ADJOURNED: 10~56 P.M~
City Clerk
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californi.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 4~ 1964~ 1:30 R~M.
'The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandlery Schutte, Krein and Coons.
ABSENI: COUNCILMEN: None.
PRESENT; CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch.
CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler.
CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams.
CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox.
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR; Richard A. Reese.
ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidto
Mayor Coons called the meeting to order,
.~INUTE$: Approval of the City Council Minutes of January 21 and 28, 1964 was
continued to the meeting of February 11, 1964.
SIGN APPLICATION - STANDARD OIL COMPANY: Application for permission to erect
two non-conforming signs (one canopy sign and one pole sign) at 1233 North
East Street, together with plans, was submitted at the meeting of January 28~
1964, and continued to this date to allow for visual inspection of other
signs in the immediate area.
Mayor Coons withdrew from any discussion and action relative to
subject application because of a possible conflict of interest.
Mayor Pro Tem Chandler asked if anyone wished to comment on the
matter.
Councilman Krein advised that he viewed similar signs and also
inspected the loca'tion of the proposed sign and thereupon moved said permit
be granted as requested~ Councilman $chutte seconded the motion° MOTION
CARRIED.