Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1965/11/23
90z~9 .-' City Hall, Anaheim, Califprnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - November 16, 1965. 1:30 PERMiSSION-T© LEAVE THE sTATE: 'On mOtion by-Councilmsn SchUtte, Seconded by Councilman Chandler, Councilman Pebley was granted permission to leave the 'State during the coming week.. MOTION CARRIED ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Chandler moved to adjourn; Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 2:45 ~.M. S I GNED: City Clerk City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in-regular session. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutfon, Schutfe, .Chandler and Pebley. ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein. PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith Ao Murdocho CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler° CITY CLERK: Dene Mo Williams. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan Go Orsborn. ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Oo Pease° ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Ronald Thompson. ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Marvin Kreigero UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon HOyto PERSONNEL DIRECTOR: Roy Heissner. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley called the meeting to order. AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES: Councilman Chandler moved that the Minutes of the Meeting held November 2, 1965, Page NOo 9009~ concernin9 Tentative Tract Map No. 6094, be amended to eliminate only the last sentence of Condition No. 5, which reads: "this easement shall be for an underground structure with service parking being permitted"~ Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Dutton moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is 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 Chandler seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. DF~ANI~S AGAINST THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded 'by Council- man Dutton., payment of demands against the. City, in accordance with the 1965- 66 Budget, in the amount of $1,153~231.72~ was authorized'. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRI ED. PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AM£NDMENTS NOS. 62 AND 63: Public hearing was held to consider amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan, designating the following streets as secondary highways: General Plan Amendment No. 62 - Pacifico Avenue, located between Katella and Orangewood Avenues, and extending from Anaheim Boulevard to State College Boulevard. General Plan Amendment'No. 63 - Convention Way~ located between Orangewood ~and Katella Avenues, and extending from West Street to Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. 1800., Series 1965-66, recommended said amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element~-Highway Rights-of-Way by the addition of Pacifico Avenue thereto; 9050 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M. and pursuant to Resolution Noo 1801, Series 1965-66, recommended said amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan - Highway Rights-of-Way by the addition of Convention Way thereto. Associa~te Planner Marvin Kreiger noted the location of Pacifico Avenue, advising that if included in the Circulation Element - Highway Rights-of-Way as a secondary highway', said street would provide access to presently land-locked parcels in the southeast industrial area, and would also provide additional traffic circulation to and from Anaheim Stadium. Mayor Pro Tern Pebley asked if anyone wished to address the City Council for or agains't the proposed amendment, there being no res- ponse, declared the hearing closed~ Associate Planner Marvin Kreiger noted the location of Convention Way~ advising that the proposed street would provide interior access to approximately forty acres of land located within the commercial-recreation area~ presently ha-~in9 frontage only on West Street and Harbor Boulevard. Mayor Pro Tern Pebley asked if anyone wished to address the City Council for or against General Plan Amendment 63, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. In answer to Council questionlng, Mro Krieger reported that Convention Way is proposed to be located at the southerly boundary of the Convention Center property, with a portion of the width to ultimately be obtained from the adjacent property owners (ultimate width, 90 feet). The City Manager noted that construction of 51 feet of paved roadway at the southern perimeter of the property, with curb and gutter on the north side only, is a part of the Convention Facility construction contract o Councilman Chandler ques'tioned public use of the proposed access street as a through street~ and for access to the property to the South. Discussion was held by ~he City Council, it being noted that a chain link fence could be erected on the south side of the proposed roadway~ or 9ares could be placed at each end of Convention Way and closed when the Convention Facility was not in use~ RESOLUTION NO. 65R-843: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-84~ for adoption° ~ 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. 62. (Pacifico Ave nue ) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-8d3 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-844: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution 'No° 65R-844 for adoption~ Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TH5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 63. (Con- vention Way) Roll call vote: 9051 City Hall. Anaheim.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: D_utton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABS£NT: COUNCILMEN: Krein _ . The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-844 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 66: Public hearing was held to consider amendment to the Table of Exceptions of the Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way, of the General Plan for the following streets: East Street, Haster Street, Manchester AvenUe, Ninth Street, Orangethorpe Avenue, South Street and Walnut Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. 1802, Series 1965-66, recommended the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 66, as depicted on Exhibit "A" dated Oc'tober 18, 1965 Exhibit "A" was reviewed by the City Council, and Mayor Pro Tern Pebley asked .if anyone wished to address the Council concerning said General Plan Amendment, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-845: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-845 for adoption. R~fer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVI~ AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 66. (East Street~ Has%er Street, Manchester Avenue, Ninth Street, Orangethorpe Avenue, South Street and Walnut Street - Highway Rights-of-Way) Roll call vote AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tern declared Resolution No. 65R-8~5 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-66-49: Initiated by the City Planning Commission to establish permanent zoning on territory designated as the Wagner-Rio Vista Annexation: Parcel 1, R-A; Parcel 2, R-l; and Parcel 3, R-A. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1812, Series 1965-66, recommended approval of said reclassification. Associate Planner Ronald Thompson reported that the proposed permanent zoning would be identical with interim zoning established by Ordinance No. 2083. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council for or against the reclassification, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-8~6: Councilman $chutte offered Resolution No. 65R-846 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as recommended. 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. (65-66-49 - R-A and R-l) Roll call vote: 9052 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-846 duly passed and adopted. TAXICAB - TRANSFERS AND NEW-UNITS: Appli. cation .submit~ed~by..Yellow Cab C.ompanY of Northern orange County, Inc., for transfer of four' permits to new units, and for two new units, to be applied to two unused permits, was granted, as requested, on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Schutte. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-26 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Reques.t dat.ed..OCto~er _26,- 1965, from John M_. Kent, Attorney for the petitioners, was:.Submitted for extension of time to Reclassification No. 64-65-26 for compliance with certain conditions, pursuant to Resolution No. 64R-818. One year extension of time was granted by the City Council, on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRI ED. REQUEST - NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS RESEARCH FOUNDATION: Communication dated November 15, 1965, from Alfred H. Bodhaine, President~ Orange County Chapter, National Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation, was submitted requesting permission to solicit ticket sales for their benefit circus~ to be held at the Orange County Fairgrounds on December 18, 1965. Mayor Pro Tern Pebley asked if a representative of the Foundation was present and wished to address the City Council. There was no response. Councilman Schutte moved that the City Manager be authorized to approve said request, subject to existing City of Anaheim standards for non-profit organizations. Council discussion was held, and attention was called to the fact that only a portion of funds realized from the benefit will be used' in Orange County° ~ At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Schutte withdrew his former motion~ and the City Manager was instructed to make the de- termination, on the basis of the established policy governing such requests. ., RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-29: Request of T. E. Lewis, dated November 3, 1965, for approval of development plans for Lot No. 101, portion of Reclassifi- cation No. 62-63-29, was submitted; R-1 property located on the west side of State College Boulevard, south of Broadway. The City Clerk read Condition No. 4 of Resolution of Intent Noo 63R-84, pertaining to the recordation of C-1 deed restrictions on subject property, which condition further provides that said deed restric- tions may be removed upon Building Department certification that all existing residential structures have been removed. Mr. Thompson reported that ail existing buildings will be removed from Lot No. 101~ and he noted that the C-1 zone has been revised to allow commercial use of residential structures~ provided said structures are brought up to commercial standards. RESOLUTION NO. 65R,847: Plans were reviewed by the City Council, and at the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 65R-847 for adoption~ amending Resolution No. 63R-84 by deleting Condition No. 4 therefrom, eliminating the necessity for C-1 deed res- trictions on all properties included in Reclassification No. 62-63-29. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-84 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 62-63-29. 9053 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 93. 1965. 1:30 P.M, Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-847 duly passed and adopted. On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton, Development Plans ~for Lot No. 101, Reclassification No. 62-63-29, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. (Plans dated this date and signed by Mayor Pro Tem Pebley). ORDINANCE NO. 2218: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2218 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (62-63-29, Lot No. 101 - C-l) ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE NO. 5651: Requesting permission to establish a real estate office with the erection of a double-faced lighted roof sign containing 30 square feet on each face, in an existing single family dwelling located on the east side of Brookhurst Street~ approximately 300 feet north of Lincoln Avenue. Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission Meeting held November 229 1965, was submitted, recommending that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to consider the limitations of the City of Anaheim"s C-O, Commercial-Office Zone, which is comparable to the County's R-P Zone, in their approval of any signing of subject property, as the C-O Zone does not permit roof or lighted signs; further, that subject property was located immediately to the west of a single family residential develop- ment located both in the county and in the city, and that the prohibition of lighted signs should be considered in order to avoid the detrimental effects of said signs on the residential integrity of that area. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, zoned R-P, and advised that said zone does not permit real estate offices~ that the City Planning Commission had no objection to the requested use of subject property. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte, the City Council concurred in recommendations of the City Planning Commission, and ordered a copy thereof forwarded to the Orange County Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. ORANGE COUNTY CONDITIONAL PERMIT NO. 1218: Requesting permission to establish a concrete batch plant with sand and gravel bins, cement silo, conveyor, rotary dryer and cement mixer, together with the bagging machine for pre- mixed concrete on property located on the west side of Taylor Street, approximately 450 feet south of Orangewood Avenue, in the Atwood area. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, and briefed excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission Meeting held November 22, 1965, recommending that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to require that any concrete batching operation or the bagging of premixed concrete be limited to that area in the northeast industrial area south of La Palma Avenue extended, in close proximity to other sand and gravel operations as the proposed use was basically an outdoor use in the City of Anaheim's M-2, Heavy Industrial Zone; that the proposed opera- tion would generate excessive traffic on Taylor Street~ and that the appearance of the use would detract from the area. He noted the basis of a similar recommendation concerning Orange County Conditional Permit No. 1202, considered by the City Council on September 14, 1965 (Page 8919), and advised that the Planning Commission further recommended, if the County deems this use compatible, that street dedication and improvement for Taylor Street be in conformance with the City of Anaheim standards, due to the fact that Taylor Street is the main arterial between the 9054 ,. City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965., 1:30 P~.. industrial area and Yorba Linda; further, that the petitioner be required to develop in accordance with the Site Development Standards of the Anaheim M-l, Light Industrial Zoneo At the conclusion of the discussion, and on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by CounCilman $chutte, the City Council concurred with the recommendations of the City Plannin9 Commission, an ordered a copy thereof forwarded to the Orange County Plannin§ Commission. MOTION CARRIED. LA PALMA-RIO VISTA ANNEXAIION - INTERIM ZONING: Mr. Kreiger_ referred to map . of the La Pa!ma-Rio Vista Annexation~ posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber and designated as Exhibit 'A", depicting., existing Orange_ County Zoning of the area° He advised that the interim zoning proposed by the Development Services Department Staff would be comparable thereto, with the following two exceptions: Parcel 1. At the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist Street, the County zoning is Neighborhood Commercial; however the City of Anaheim has ,no comparable zone~ and since the property is vacant and no dedication for street widening has been made, it is proposed the interim zoning be designated for Parcels 8 and 10o Located west of Dowling Avenue, between the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Aha River, Parcels 8 and 10 are zoned M-i, 30,000 by Orange County, and to conform with the Anaheim General Plan, R-A zoning is recommended on these two parcels, it being noted that the area is under study by the City for proposed park and recreation uses. Mro Kreiger further advised that a reclassification is being initiated by the City Planning Commission for permanent zoning on subject propertleso On motlon by Councilman Chandler~ seconded by Councilman Dutton, proposed lnterim zoning was approved for the La Palma-Rio Vista Annexation territory as recommended, and the City Attorney was instructed to prepare necessary interim ordinance° MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 742: On the recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Chandler moved that agreement executed by L. Grant Robinson, Trustee, and Park Properties, Inc~ for installation of asphalt paving over City of Anaheim easements for street and public utility purposes, be accepted~ and the recordation thereof be authorized by the City Council. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pebley requested the record to show that he did not participate in the discussion, nor vote, on this issue° RESOLUTION NO. 65R-848 - JOB NO. 990: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No o 65R-848 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT~ TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL MANHOLES TO EXISTING SEWER LINES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL AREA, CITY OF ANAHEIM, JOB NO. 990; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES~ DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened December 16, 1965, 2:00 P.M.) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Noo 65R-848 duly passed and adopted. 9055- City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES ? November 23, 1965, 1.'30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO~".65R-849 - AWARD OF JOB NO, 982: In accordance with the recom'- mendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-Sa9 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 IHS FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING PQWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORM- ING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND cOMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FURNISHING AND INSTALLING TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOARA STREET AND WESTMONT DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, JOB NO. 982. (E. D. Johnson and Co. - $8,228.00) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT.. COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Noo 65R-849 duly passed and adopted, DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Schutte offered Resolutions Nos. 65R-850 to 65R-861, both inclusive, for adoption° Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-850: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF /HE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Paul L. and Lorraine L. Stebbins) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-85t: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Paul J. and Maxine M. Mc Ghehey) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-852: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Paul L. and Lorraine L~ Stebbins) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-853: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (A. A. Edmondson) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-854: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Shigeto Fukuda) RESOLUTION NO., 65R-855: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Paul L. and Bobble J. Darshay) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-856: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Rober.t L. and Dorothy I o An.gle) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-857: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Rosalio and Margarita D. Gonzalez) 9056 City Hall..Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nouember 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-858: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF , ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (James C. and Helen Duncan) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-859: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Antonio Ho and Irene R. Lopez) RESOLUTION NO. 65R-860: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY .OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Ed Co and Reba R. Feemster) RESOLUTION NOo 65R-861: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CI/Y OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Chlell Lawrence and Genevieve B. 'Pharris) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolutions Nos. 65R-850 to 65R-861, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. RIGHT OF'WAY CERTIFICATION: On the recommendations of the City Engineer, it was moved by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Chandler, that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign Right of Way Certification in connection with the right of way of Project No. 2084 Miller Street, from Orangethorpe Avenue to Miraloma Avenue. MOTION CARRIED. FINAL SETTLEMENT - J. H. BEATTY PROPERTY: The City Attorney reported On litigation filed against 'the City of Anaheim by 3. H. Bea%ty, claiming that no compensation was received for a portion of property acquired, by the City for Park purposes. (South of La Palina Avenue, east of Sunkist Street). He advised that a proposed settlement has been reached which is considered fair and equitable by both parties, wherein the City of Anaheim will pay $1,750o00 to Mr. Beatty, and in return, Mr. Beatty will quit-claim any claim, right or title he may have on subject property. Settlement of said litigation was approved, as proposed by the City Attorney, on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman DuttOno MOTION CARRIED. CANCELLATION OF COUNTY TAXES: On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Schutte, The Orange County Board of Supervisors was requested to cancel county taxes on property acquired by the City of Anaheim for municipal purposes, pursuant to Resolution Noo 65R-626, formerly assessed to E. T. Bradley and Irene E~ Bradley~ Mona E. Bettin, and Theodore B. and Genevieve Uo Kuchel, deed recorded November 10, 1965, as Document No° 9131, in Book 7736, Page 770, Official Records of Orange County, California. MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF TRANSFORMER - WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION: The City Manager briefed reports from the Utilities Director on the failure of Westinghouse Electric Corporation to meet guaranteed losses of 30/40 Power Transformer purchased under City Purchase Order No. B-8585 in May, 1965, and re- commended that a price reduction of $1,953.00 plus applicable sales tax be accepted as settlement for said failure to meet the guaranteed losses, and as compensation to the City for the extra cost of operation occasioned by the higher losses. It was moved by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte that the settlement figure of $1,953.00 plus sales ~tax, be accepted as recommended. MOTION CARRIED. 9057 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD AGREEMENT - POWER LINE ENCROACHMENT: (Anaheim. Branch, MilelPost 18.60 - Mile Post 19.23) On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Chandler the Mayor and City Clerk were authorized to execute the extension rider dated November 22, 1965, with Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad Company, and its Lessee, Union Pacific Railroad Company coverin9 city power line encroachment and crossin9 near Fullerton, .extending the term thereof to December 2, 1970. (Union Pacific Number C.L.D. 10823-6 and Audit No. A-70dl0). MOTION CARRIED. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA SURVEY.. Request of Standard Oil Company_ was submitted for permission to conduct a seismic survey within the City of Anaheim, along the Southern Pacific Railroad from the west City limit east- erly to Euclid Street, between Katella and Cerritos Avenues, during a' 90 day period begining December~ 1, 1965. Councilman Chandler moved that said request be granted, subject to compliance with most recent rules and regulations of the City of Anaheim governing such operations. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim filed by Richard Io Moore, on behalf of Martin Lo Hutchison, Jr., for damages purportedly resulting from improperly placed school crossing sign, on October 13, 1965, was submitted for Council in- formation. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim submitted by Mrs° Gertrude Semmel, for damages purportediy resuiting from electricaI power £aiiure~ on October 29, i965, was denied and referred to the City Attorney and City's Insurance Agent, on motion by Counciiman Dutton~ seconded by Counciiman Chandier~ MOTION CARRIED. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS: The following alcoholic beverage license applications were presented by the City Manager to the City Council for their information: (a) APplication submitted by Albertson's, Inc., dba All American Markets, for New Off-Sale Beer and Wine license at 610 South'Brookhurst Street (C-1 Zone). (b) Application submitted by James Vincent GimOndo & Joseph Carl Nemeth for Person to Person Transfer of On-Sale Beer and Wine license, bonafide public eating place~ for the Casa Roma, 1740 West La Palma Avenue (C-1 Zone, Conditional Use Permit No. 327). (c) Application submitted by Jack Eugene Wade, for Person to Person Transfer of On-Sale Beer license for 3owad Inc., dba Blue Angel~ 401 South Lemon Street (C-2 Zone). No Council action was taken on the foregoing applications. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte; a. California Highway Commission resolution in support of Federal Highway Beautification Program in California. b. Before Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 47689 (as amended) for authority %0 construct, maintain and operate an additional track across Orangethorpe Avenue, in the City of Anaheim° c. City of San Mateo, Resolution Nee 118 expressing support and devotion to members of the armed forces of this Country fighting in Vier Nam. d. Minutes - Community Center Authority - Meeting of October 18, 1965. MOTION CARRI ED. 9058 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965~ 1:30 RE.SOLUTi0N'No.'65R-862: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 65R-862 · i . f.O.r adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Bill Teruo Asawa) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-862 duly passed and adopted° ORDINANCE NO. 2206: Councilman Chandler offered Ordinance No. 2206 for final reading° Refer to Ordinance Booko AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-11 - R-3) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Ordinance No. 2206 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2215: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2215 for final reading. Refer to Ordinance Book° AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (64-65-119 - R-l) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Kreln Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Ordinance No. 2215 duly passed and adopted° ORDINANCE NO. 2216: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2216 for final reading° Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-19 - C-i) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Ordinance No. 2215 duly passed and adopted. 9059 City Hall. A~n~heim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 2217: Councilman Chandler offered Ordinance. No. 9217 for final reading° Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF /HE CITY OF ANAHFIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAH£IM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-18) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Ordinance Noo 2217 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2219: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2219 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF /HE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.72, SECTIONS 4.72.210 AND 4.72.220 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO TAXICABS. PROCLAMATION - MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY DAYS: Proclamation declaring December 3, 4 and 5, 1965, as Muscular Dystrophy Days, was ratified by the City Council on motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Chandler~ MOTION CARRI ED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 59-60-115: On report and recommendation of the City Attorney, Councilman Dutton moved that release of $10,000.00 from total cash security of $14,200o00, posted by J. C. Whitman with the Title Insurance and Trust Company (Escrow No. 5963369CL) to insuze installation of street improvements required by Reclassification No. 59-60-115, was approved. Councilman Chandler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT - PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT: Mr. Geisler advised that his written analysis and legal opinion pertaining to the proposed amendment to City Charter Section 402 would be submitted to the Council November 30, 1965. HILL AND CANYON GENERAL PLAN: Copies of the Preliminary General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area of the City were distributed to the City Council for review by Alan Go Orsborn, Director of Development Services. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski reported that the first public hearing on the proposed general plan will be held by the City Planning Commission 3anuary 5, 1966. TRASH COLLECTION: At the request of Councilman Schutte, study and report from the Director of Public Works was requested regarding citizensv complaints of audible trash collection operations during the early morning hours. CITY EMPLOYEES - RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: Council discussion was held regarding action taken November 16~ 1965, to defer for sixty days consideration of a proposed policy to require employees to reside within the City of Anaheim. Councilman Chandler moved that the motion to continue the determination for sixty days be rescinded. Councilman $chutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton, an open discussion on the proposed policy was scheduled to be held Monday~ December 13, 1965, at 5:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. BIRTHDAY: Cake and coffee was served in celebration of Councilman Pebley's birthday, November 22, 1965o RECESS: Councilman Chandler moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 P.M.) 9060 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINIrfES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 · . AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tern Pebley called the meeting to order. PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, $chutte, Chandler and Pebley. ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein. PRESENT: CI/Y MANAGER: Keith A, Murdocho CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williamso DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan Go Orsborno PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon Hoyto ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Oo Pease. ASSOCIATE PLANNER.. 3ack Christofferson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinski. INVOCATION: Reverend J. K~ Saville of St. Michael's Episcopal Church 9ave the invocation° FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Chandler led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING .~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 762: Submitted by Tierra De Oro requesting permission to establish an operation for the excavation, processing~ storage~ wholesaling and distribution of sand and gravel, including an accessory office, a weighing station and a caretaker's residence, and waiver of required 10 foot landscape strip; property presently' zoned M.-i and briefly described as located adjacent to a parcel of land at the soathwest corner of Walnut Street and Richfield Road. 'the City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1786, Series 1965.-.66, denied said permito Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Gordon X. Richmond and Scott Do Richmond~ Attorneys for the Petitioners, and public hearing scheduled November 2~ 1965, and continued to this date at the request of Mr. Richmond, Mr° Jack Christofferson with the aid of sectional maps, noted the location of subject property and the present zoning in the immediate areao ?indings of the City Planning Commission being the basis of denial, were reviewed by the City Council° The applicant was invited to address the Council. Mr. Gordon Richmond, Attorney, 84 Plaza, Orange, California, representing the applicants addressed the Council advising that he represented taxpayers who support the City of Anaheim, The Metropolitan Water District arid the Orange County Water District, which places the City Council in an unusual situation~ inasmuch as they were sitting in judgement on a property right of a parcel of property in which the City had a definite property interest° Mr. Richmond advised that the two issues to be resolved by the City Council are: 1o Should the applicants be permitted to extract sand and gravel in this particular area° 2° In the event the permit is granted, what should the setback be from the Metropolitan Water District easement. Reference was made to a map posted on the east wall of the Council Chambers, noting the location of subject property, and also noting the location of Foster Sand and Gravels Consolidated Rock and the approximate 95 acres of the Orange County Water District proposed for a settling basin. Mro Richmond was of the opinion that review of the map would indicate that the requested use was a proper one, and in no way violated good planning as the petitioners~ property was virtually surrounded on three sides by the same use° Regarding the setback, Mr. R{chmond agreed with the MWD Engineering recommendations; that a 140 foot area of level ground be provided for the 9061 Cit¥./fall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MtN[.J.T£S - November 23. 1965, 1:30 P.M. Prote~tt°n of the-MWD 40 foot..easement; however, he strongly disagreed that of the 140 foot area, 130 feet should be from his client's property. In his opinion, this in effect, would be condemnation without compensation. He further reported that they would be willing to setback 90 feet from the pipeline, the balance of the recommended distance to be from the Orange County Water District property to the west. Mr. Richmond thereupon requested 'that the permit be approved allowing them the same use t~at exists in the area and as anticipated by the Orange County Water District~ In reply to Councilman Dutton~s inquiry Mr. Richmond advised that the applicant was the owner of the present operation at the southeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Miller Street° Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition° Mr. Howard W~ Crooke, Secretary Manager of the Orange County Water District~ reported that as early as 1925, Orange County recognized it was a water difficient area~and since that time the people and officials of Orange County have dedicated themselves to this problem to insure the orderly economic development of the County. This resulted in the formation of the Metropolitan Water District and the successful sale of $220,000,000.00 in bonds for the construction of an aqueduct to transport water from the Colorado River to this area, and in 1929 the Orange County Water District began receiving water for underground replenishment. From the period 1941 to 3uly of this year~ the City of Anaheim has received and distributed approximately seventy-nine and eight tenths million gallons of water of which 34ol million gallons came directly from the facilities of the Metro- politan Water District° In the future water will also be acquired from Northern California to sustain the economy now existing, and that which is hoped yet to be developed° Mro Crooke reported on efforts made to obtain the site west of subject property for a spreading facility., and the fact that these plans were known for many months. He advised that condemnation actions were filed on all parcels involved, however, in his opinion, the property will be acquired through negotiation. With the aid of a map, Mr o Crooke noted the course of the East Orange County Feeder Noo 2 pipeline, and advised that they would prefer not being next to this easement, but that no other site of this size was available, with the exception perhaps~ in the heart of the proposed industrial area° Mro Crooke advised that the Orange County Water District .plans to excavate to a dep?n of 60 feet, which plans are presently being finalized with the Metropolitan Water District° He stated that the District represents over 900,000 people~ all of who have an interest in the proposed facility. Al- though he heartily favored private enterprise, he felt that private enter- prise must function compatible to the interest of the public. Mro Crooke refluested, should the permit be granted, that the same restrictions as were placed on the Pharris property~ be placed on subject property, namely: 1. That all slopes and setbacks shall conform to Title 17 and 18 of the Anaheim Municipa.1 Code° 2. Ail materials excavated on the premises shall be stock-piled or pro- cessed on the premises° 3. That the owners of land, each for themselves, for their respective heirs.,. executors, administrators~ grantees, etc., shall sign an agreement with the Orange County Water District, the County of Orange and the Orange County Flood Control District, all of who have the right to receive and spread water~ to hold in harmless of any damage claims. 4. That no materials or liquids of any kind shall ever be placed in the excavated aree without the approval of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim° (Mr. Crooke explained the necessity of above requirement 9062 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. ~nd_. kyeported on instances were water has been polluted and the water supply damaged)o 5. Further, since the Orange County Water District is excavating-to a depth of 60 feet, Mr. Crooke recommended the limitation of subject property be set at 40-feet~ He reported that the operation on Miller Street is limited to a depth of 40 feet and it is presently excavated to a depth of 68 feet measured from the elevation of Miller Street. In reply' to Councilman Dutton~s inquiry, Mr. Crooke briefly reported on the amount and cost of water received by the City of Anaheim, and also briefly discussed the sea water intrusion and the resulting cost to abate this situation. Mro Henry Mills, Chief Engineer of the Metropolitan Water District, 1111 Sunset Boulevard~ Los Angeles, addressed the Council and reported that four years ago~ while holding the position of Chief Construction Engineer, he made '%he location across this area for the large 78 inch high pressure pipeline° He advised of the several route studies made and the decision to carry the line closest to the people that benefit from it. He explained the course of the line from the Demler plant to subject property, and reported that at this location the grade was dropped to a dep~rt of 8 or 9 foot cover over the line. If 'the permit is granted, Mr. Mills advised that the MWD llne will be ridin9 on an island which will have a horizontal plateau and a slope on each side of the plateau, and then drop into a pit o£ 60 feet depth° He reported that their concern is, if the line is undercut, it will break, causing en,:rmous property damage. He further reported that when the line was constructed, the general area was agricultural, and property lines, for the most part, were selected for the route° Had they known of the possibility of this use, the line would have been placed much deeper than it is~ now, however, the relocation of the line would be a tremendous cost. Mr. Bob Davis~ of Converse Foundation Engineers, Consultant to Metropolitan Water District, reported that they were asked to stddy this issue to determine what might happen if the water level was brought up'to near ground surface on the west side, and if there was a 60~foot ex- cavation made on 'the east side of the pipeline. He advised that two test borings were made, and at the depth of 56 feet, water was found~ 'this would indicate that pits a depth o£ 60-feet would be the below ground water. He further reported on %ests made and the possibility of erosion caused by the water flow through from one side of the line to the other, thereby creating a very serious problem° Mr. Victor Peltzer, adjoining property owner at the southeast corner of Richfield and Walnut Street, addressed the Council in opposition. He stated that if the permit was granted, he would request there be a sufficient setback on Walnut Street, and that all the sanding equipment be placed at the southern west point of the property for the protection of the residents. Mr. Jack Hamilton, 6651 Richfield Road, addressed the Council in opposition, being of the opinion that the aspect of the entire industrial section could be danaged should the permit be granted. Mr. Henry Harms, 1199 Richfield Road, addressed the Council in opposition, advising 'that subject property surrounds his home. Further, the area is still primarily citrus; however~ industry potential is recognized. Mr. Harms reported that he was born and raised on this property, and if it is decided by the Council that a sand pit is more desirable for this area tax wise, requested the Council also take into consideration future planning for the entire area. He further felt that future planning should not include a sand and gravel operation, as level land would be more valuable. 9063 City Hall. Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965. 1:30 "Mr. C. roQke stated that at the time the orange CoUnty Water District was in the process of acquiring the property west of the pipeline, it was determined ?.hat they could move as close to the tine as possible with their excavation, thereby salvaging as much as 'the acreage as possible. It ' was assumed that the subject property would be ultimately used for industrial purposes, in accordance with Anaheim:s planned development for the area, our water' then would be moving through a sand percolating medium, and would not be weakening the pipeline~ it is the motion under it into a:n open pit that causes the major problem. Mr. Robert Davis, Assistant City Manager, called attention to the report submitted by Mr. Hoyt, Anaheim's Director of Public Utilities, and pointed out that Anaheim has a $700,000.00 investment in the Orange County Feeder No~ 2 line, and last summer received 8 million .gallons per day from this line. Mr. Richmond in rebuttal, stated he was astounded at the lack of concise, logical and reasonable arguments against their proposal. In his opinion~ not one argument was advanced as to why sand and gravel should not be extracted from the easterly side of the MWD easement. He was of the further opinion that damage, if any occurred, would be caused by the Orange County Water District being 30 feet from the easement, and not by his clients who would be 110 feet distant, and thereupon read the last paragraph of the Engineers report upon which the Manager of t.be Metro- politan Water District opinion was based. At the request of Councilman Dutton Mr. Crooke briefly explained the process of excavating a settling basin and the steps that follow in maintaining the basin and the side slopes. Discussion followed, and Councilman Chandler requested the public hearing remain open~ and that a field trip be arranged so that first hand information can be obtained° Councilman Pebley,. reco. gnizing that the applicant is a taxpayer on this particular parcel of property, also noted that not only must the Metropolitan Water District and Orange County Water District be considered~ but the taxpayers adjoining subject property and across the street who oppose the proposed use. Mr. Geisler advised that a conditional use permit is not necessarily a matter of right, and must comply with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code; further, it must be shown that the granting of a conditional use permit will not impair the health, safety and general welfare of the County of Orange, the Citizens and the City of Anaheim. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Chandler moved that the public hearing be continued two weeks (December 7~ 1965, 1:30 P.M.) and that a field trip be arranged and the applicant invited to attend. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. It was determined that the field trip be scheduled at 10:00 A.M., December 7th, 1965, everyone meeting at the site; and further, that the applicant's present operation on Miller Street and Orangethorpe Avenue be inspected. Mr. Dudley Frank, Representative of Tierra De Crc, requested the Council decision as soon as possible. RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a fifteen minute recess. Councilman Chandler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tern Pebley called the meeting to order, all members of the City CoUncil being present, with the exception of Mayor Krein. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 766: Submitted by J. Lear, Incorporated~ requesting on-sale beer and wine in an existing Mexican Restaurant; property presently zoned C-l, located at 518 North State College Boulevard. 9064 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P,M. __ , The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1806, Series 1965-66, denied said permit° Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Howard So Block, Attorney for the Petitioner, and public hearing scheduled this date. _ .Mr. Jack Christofferson noted the location of subject property and the zoning and use in the immediate area. He briefly reported on the findings and basis on which the City Planning Commission denied said permit. Referring 'to Finding No. 3, Councilman Dutton reported that upon investigation by the Police Department, no record of disturbance was found to have been filed. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley invited the applicant to address the Council. Mr. Howard Block, Attorney representing the applicant, 128 East Amerige Avenue, Fullerton, to clarify the record, noted fha2 the proposed use was advertised as a "on-sale liquor license" and in fact only a "on-sale beer and wine license~' is requested. Mr. Block advised that the request is for an existing family style Mexican Restaurant~ and service of beer and wine is incidental to this type of food~ and in most cases, makes the difference between a successful or nonsuccessful business° He further reported that the operator of the restaurant presently operates a similar restaurant in Garden Grove° Mr. Block stated that they were not seeking special privilege, as virtually every restaurant of comparable style serve at least beer and wine~ and in some cases, have a baro To collaborate this statement, a list of restaurants of some of the immediate competitors of the petitioner that serve beer and wine, or have a bar, was submitted. Mro Larry Winder.advised that he, his wife and children, have operated the restaurant in Garden Grove for four years, and was of the opinion that not to be able to serve beer and wine at subject location, would seriously affect the business. He further reported that there has never been any problem in Garden Grove caused by this service. Mtso Eugene Thomas, 2080 South Loara Street, addressed the Council in favor of the permit, and stated that their once a week visit ~o a Mexican Restaurant that serves beer and wlne~ has had no adverse effect on their children° Further, when a restaurant is found that doesn't have beer, they do not return, as in her opinion, beer naturally goes with Mexican food. Reverend Walter Jo Vernon, Minister of the First Congregational Church of Anaheim, 515 North State College Boulevard~ advised that the Church has officially registered a protest with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board in Sacramento, and also with the Anaheim City Planning Commission. Reasons for said protest were as follows: 1. ]]he proposed premises for the sale of alcoholic beverages~ are~located directly accross the street from the church facility; the distance being approximately 182 feet. 2. Their church is engaged in a full program of youth activities, and the facility is in use every day of the week. To have an on-sale alcoholic beverage establishment so close~ would not be compatible to the type of values they were seeking to instill in their youth and community. Reverend Vernon thereupon requested that the action of the City Planning Commission be upheld, and the conditional use permit denied. 9065 City Hall. Anaheim. California -COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965, 1:30 P.M. .In answer to Councilman Schutte's inquiry, Reverend Vernon reported that the church was in existence prior to the development of the restaurant property; and further reported, that their master plan of development places the proposed Sanctuary even closer to the restaurant property than it presently is located. Mr. Block, in rebuttal, advised that in June 1962 a conditional use permit was granted for the Italian Villa located approximately 1 block south of subject property and near two churches. He further advised that the fears that were then presented, have been found to be unfounded, as the record will substantiate. In conclusion Mr. Block stated that if the City Council should feel that there might be substance to the objections voiced, requested the permit be granted for one year and reviewed at the end of the one year ,period. In answer to Council questioning~ Mr. Frank Ciampa, operator of the Italian Villa, reported the proximity of the churches to his restaurant; and further reported that when the restaurant was first opened, beer and wine were sold with food only, however, after two years~ this r~striction was removed. He noted again that no complaints have ever been filed against their operation. There being no further evidence presented on this issue, the Mayor Pro Tern declared the hearing closed. At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, Councilman Dutton offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No. 776. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton and Chandler NOES: COUNCILMEN: Pebley and Schutte - ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein o Said resolution failed to carry~ there being a tie vote,, and was ordered to be again considered November 30, 1965, 1:30 P.M., on motion by COuncilman Chandler, seconded by' Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRRIED. PUBLIC HKARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-66-30 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 743: SUbmitted by Laur~ M. Schultz,, requesting change of zone fr.om R.-1- and R-A ' to C-1 and further requesting permission to establish a shopping center containing a walk-up donut shOp and waiver of the following: 1. Maximum height structure located within 150 feet of an.R-1 zone. 2. Screen planting abutting an R-1 zone. 3. Council Policy regarding setback on Lincoln Avenue in this area. 4. Alley requirement. 5. Required number of parking spaces· Property briefly described as located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Nos 1803, Series 1965-66, recommended said reclassification subject to the following conditions: · . That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lincoln Avenue, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be completed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer; or that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be ~osted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineer- ing requirements. . That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street, for street lighting purposes. 9066 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- November 23, 1965, 1:30 3o That the owner of' subject prOperty shall pay to the City 'of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street, for tree planting purposes. 4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant~ 5. That any atr.-conditionin9 facilities shall be properly shielded from view from abutting street(S)o The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution Not 1804, Series 1965-66, granted Conditional Use Permit NOo 743, in part, subject to the following conditions.· 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works, prior to final building inspectiono 2. That 'this conditional use permit is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification Noo 65-66130o 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Noo 1, Revision No. 1, provided~ however~ that all building setbacks along Lincoln Avenue she,].i be 35 feet, and further provided that landscaping abutting the parking area along Lincon Avenue and Empire Street~ shall be a minimum of 'three (3) feet in width° Mro Jack Christofferson noted the location of subject property, and in summarizing the hearing held kefore the City Planning Commission, advised that Conditional Use Permit No. 743 was granted for an enclosed restaurant in conjunction with the proposed commercial shopping center. This involved waiver of the required building setback of 36 feet from a single family r.~sidential zoned boundary to allow development of a variable 19 feet to 33 foot setbacko Mro Christofferson further reported that the petitioner, working with the Development Services Department, submitted revised plans and withdrew request to establish a walk-up donut shop, and waivers that were originally involved° Mayor Pro Tern Pebley asked if the applicant wished to address the Council. Mro E.~rl Allison, Real Estate Broker representing the Applicant and Developers~ addressed the Council advising that the development pro- posed was the best use of the property, and that the cost of the pro- perty required certain amount of usable square footage in order to produce income; he thereupon requested that the 35 foot setback requirement on Lincoln Avenue also be waived. Plans of development were reviewed by the City Council° Mr° Allison further reported that one problem involved is that the westerly 67 feet are restricted to R-lo Mro Gary Jones~ 2039 West Embassy Street, advised that apparently three plans have been submitted, and that the property owners were not sure they had seen the plans now being considered° He stated ±hat the plans they viewed indicated 16 diagonal parking spaces, which parking would be 10 feet from their patio, and 90 feet from the sliding glass door of their livingroom. Mro Jones objected to the proposed alley, and further noted that previous request for access to Empire Street has been denied~ Mro Rosendo Euzarraga, 2043 Embassy Street, addressed the Council disapproving the proposed alley, and proposed ingress and egress to Empire Street° 9067 City Hall. Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M, Mrs. Passo, 114 Empire Street, addressed the Councll in opposition and reported that her property is immediately south of subject property, and includes the 17 foot easement previously noted. She advised that children play in her yard and the location her gate to the proposed driveway will create a hazard for the children going to and from the yard. Miss Theresa Misner, representing the applicant, noted the size and shape of subject property, and advised that the builder-developer felt the plan proposed was /he best possible plan for the protection of the neighborhood~ meeting all City Code requirements. She further noted that the property is between existing commercial to the east and west. Mrs. Passo stated that if the reclassification and use were granted~ she would be virtually surrounded by commercial~ and questioned the financial effect and value this would have on her property. She asked if her property could also be considered for commercial use. Mrs. Passo related her unsuccessful attempts to purchase subject property as a protection to her property to the south. There being no further evidence submitted, Mayor Pro Tem Pebtey declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-863: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-863 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested~ subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Booko A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF /HE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (65-66-30 - C-l) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-863 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-864: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-864 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 743 to establish a shopping center and inclosed restaurant, and waiver of maximum height structure located within 150 feet of R-1 zone, as recommended by the City Planning Commission, subject to the conditions set forth by the City Planning Commission, and further subject to the relocation of the trash area to parking stall No. 62, and that effective screening of a minimum height of 10-feet upon planting be provided along the south, as approved by the Superintendent of ~arkway Maintenance° Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 743. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-864 duly passed and adopted. 9068 City Hallo Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC H£ARIN~ -"'RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-66,45: Submitted by Argus Investments for a change of zone from R-3 to C-l; property briefly described as 101, 107 and 113 North Jefferson Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1811, Series 1965~66, recommended said reclassification be denied. Mr. Jack Christofferson, noted the location of subject property and briefly summarized the hearing held before the City Planning Commission. The Mayor Pro Tern asked if the applicant wished tO address the Council, there being no response, asked if anyone in opposition wished to address the Council° Mro Nester Noe~ representing Prudential Savings and Loan Association, having a financial interest in the adjacent R-3 development, addressed the Council in opposition being of the opinion that the proposed development in this location would be a detriment to the R-3 property and the Ci ry. Mr. Norman Reed, representing Liberty Savings and Loan Association, having a financial interest in the contiguous R-3 property, addressed the Council endorsing opposition expressed by Prudential Savings and Loan Association° There being no further evidence submitted, Mayor Pro Tern Pebley declared the hearing closedo RESOLUTION NO. 6bR-865: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 65R-865 for adoption, denylng Reclassification No.'65-66-45. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF ~HE 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. (65-66-45) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, $chutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tern declared Resolution No. 65R-865 duly passed and adopted° PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-66-37. VARIANCE NO. 1730 AND AREA DEVt~LOPMENT PLAN NO. 22: Submitted by 3ames Durante, and 3ohn and Jo Ann Lauria' requesting change of zone from R-1 to C-i, and waiver of required screen planting, setback and height limitations; property briefly described as 1216 East La Palina Avenue° The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 1814 Series 1965-66, recommended said reclassification, subject to the following conditions: 1o That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width, from the center line of the street, along La Palma Avenue, for street widening purposes. 2o That the o'wners of subject property shall pay' to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2000 per front foot along La Palma Avenue, for street lighting purposes. 3° That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along La Palma Avenue, for tree planting purposes° 4o That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 5o That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view from abutting streets. 9069 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. '-~ in accordance-With Cit~ planning Commission Resoiution No. 1815, series 1965-66, Variance Noo 1730 was granted subject to the following conditions.. 1. That trash.storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works, prior to final buildin9 inspection. 2. That this Variance iS granted subject to the completion of Reclassifica- tion Noo 65-66-37o 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Nos. I and 2, Revision 1~ provided, however, that a six-foot masonry wall shai1 be constructed along the east and south property lines. Pursuant to Resolution No. 1813, Series 1965-66, the City Planning Commission recommended Area Development Plan No. 22, Exhibit B~ be approved as a logical plan of development of the deep lots fronting on the east side of East Street, between Wilhelmina Street and La Palma Avenue~ and the south side of La Palma Avenue between East Street westerly, approximately 110 feet west of Hawthorne Street. Mr. Chrtstofferson with the aid of sectional zoning maps, noted the location of the property, and zoning in the immediate area; he briefly summarized the hearings held before the City Planning Commission. Mr. Charles Roberts, of Development Services Department, reported on Area Development Plan No. 22~ and advised of the items taken into considera- tion, such as the extension of La Palina Avenue with a projected ultimate width of 106 feet. La Palina Avenue then would be the main east-west primary highway traversing the City, having a projected traffic count of 12,500 vehicles per day 6y 1968, and 18,000 vehicles per day by 1978. He further reported that East Street, having a width of 66 feet is designated as a secondary highway, and presently carries 15,000 vehicles per day with a projection of 22,500 vehicles per day within the next ten years. Reference was made to Development Plan No. 17~ encompasing the west side of East Street~ on which no action has been taken by the City Council. Mr. Roberts exPlained the three alternate plans considered, resulting in Exhibit B being the recommended plan of development. Mr. Kenneth Lae, 914 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council and reported that at the present time a C-1 use exists (service station} adjacent to subject property, however, the property is zoned R-1. Further, that a nonconforming use exists on subject property° Mr° Lae called attention to the fact that La Palina Avenue will be a main arterial highway for the City, and was of the opinion that the re- quested use would be an adjunct to the area rather than a detriment, and would be the highest and best use for the property° Regarding the variance, with reference to height limitation, Mr. Lae explained the precautions taken to eliminate any invasion of privacy to the adjacent property only. A rendering of the proposed building was displayed indicating protection to the east by the panels of the building, and to the south by baffles and landscape screening; further, the building is proposed to be located 90 feet from the nearest property to the south, which area will accommodate required parking. Mr. Lae advised that the recommended Area Development Plan No° 22, Exhibit B, in his opinion, formulates the best development for the area, and creates an excellent buffer between the existing commercial and residential area. In conclusion Mr. Lae reported, that at the two hearings held before the City Planning Commission, no opposition was submitted by the people immediately adjacent to subject property. 9070 City Hall. Anaheim.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1:30 P.M. The Mayor Pro Tern asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition. Mro Elma Clamp, 706 Poplar Place, Anaheim, addressed the Council in opposition, advising that he was speaking for the homeowners in this strictly residential area; he agreed that the traffic along. La Palma Avenue and East Street will become heavier in the future, however, was of the opinion, this fact would not be diminished by reclassification of the property. Mr. Clamp _thereupon presented a petition of opposition to any zoning other than R-t, purportedly signed by 118 residents who live within the area~of Area Development Plan No. 22~ which he stated, represented 75 R-1 homes or 76 percent. Mro Richard Kirk, 705 Juniper Pl.ace, reported that he represented those bordering the area under consideration, and that they were violently opposed to the reclassification and variance in particular, and the area development plan in general. Mro Kirk stated that t~.ese actions, if granted, would establish a precedent for two-story commercial for the entire area, and although the subject application is'for a two-story office building, the C-1 category encompasses many other type of businesses. Further, apartments, garden type or otherwise, would create an undesirable element in this otherwise residential neighborhood. In conclusion, Mr° Kirk advised that they object to any zoning other than the R-1 they now enjoy, as reclassification would create problems in the school as well as transportation° Mr. Kenneth Dunlavy, 728 Juniper Place, adjacent to subject property to the south, addressed the Council in opposition. He recognized /he future possibility of commercial along La Palma Avenue, but could not see any justification of a multiple story building in the area, and no logical reasons for the variances requested. Mro Bob Wilke, 1224 East Wilhelmina Street, addressed the Council in opposition to any development other than R-1 in the area, with the exception of the service station at the corner, and further stated that with the extension of La Palma Avenue and the volume of traffic projected, commercial use of subject property would create a traffic hazard with autos entering La Palma Avenue from the property. Mro Paul Hull, 714 Hemlock, referred to his experience in reclassifyin9 property in Los Angeles County, and advised that they canvas the neighborhood prior to any public hearing. He further stated that this was not done in this case and was one of the reasons the neighbor- hood was opposed to the change° Policy of publication and notification was explained, and Mr. Geisler stated that he believed there was a misunderstanding as the only zoning action before the City Council was the single lot noted on La Palma Avenue, that the area development plan was merely a plan for possible development° Mr. Hull further advised that in his opinion, the two-story office building would not be an adequate buffer for the type of homes at the rear, and if La Palma Avenue becomes a main arterial highway, and if the area remains basically as it is, a bedroom area, they would be able to still maintain their homes if the area on La Palma Avenue becomes commercial in the future, it would not necessarily have to be two-story developments. MtSo Carrie Beeson, 1219 East Wilhelmina Street, asked what the alley design would be, should the property on East Street become commercial. (There was no reply as the East Street frontage was not before the City Council for reclassification). 9071 City Hail. Anaheim, Calif.ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1:30 P.M. _ Mr' DUnlavy was of the opinion that rezoning the one lot, would in fact change the character of the area and affect all the property in the immediate vicinity. ~ Mr. Richard Kirk agreed generally with the statement made by Mr. Dunlavy, wherein the Council action would in fact affect 16 lots. Mr. Lae in rebuttal, was of the opinion, that the basic'concern was lost to some degree by those speaking in opposition; he noted the right of anyone to petition for a variance, and the code provisions made therefor. Further.', to the best of his knowledge, no one on La Palma Avenue and East Street, owners of the large lots, objected to the reclassification and variance. In conclusion, Mr. Lae reported that the requested use would be a continuation of an existing non-conforming use on the property, that there is an office on the property at this time, and the request was made to develop this use in a more attractive manner. There being no further evidence submitted, Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared the hearing closed. Discussion.was held by the City Council, and recognizing that the extension of La Palina Avenue could change the character of the area, it was determined that the requested reclassification was premature. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-866: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 65R-866 denyin9 Reclassification Noo 65-66-37° 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. (65-66-37) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Noo 65R-866 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 65R-867: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 65R-867 denying Variance No. 1730o Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 1730o Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 65R-866 duly passed and adopted. AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 22: On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton, Area Development Plan No. 22, was disapproved. MOTION C ARR I ED. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-66-48. CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT NO. 769 AND. GENERAL PLAN AMEND~4ENT NO. 48: Submitted by Grace Elizabeth Dickerson, requesting change of zone from R-A to R-3, and permission to construct a 42 unit planned residential development; property briefly described as 9072 City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUT£S - November 23. 1965'. 1:30 located on the nor{h side of Broadway between Date Street West and Wayside Place (1651 East Broadway). At the request of Mr. MacMahon, Attorney for the Petitioner, said hearing was continued to December 14, 1965, 7:00 P.M., on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded.by Councilman Chandler. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HfARING - CONDITIONAL US£ P£P~IT NO. 522: Pub~%c hga~ing was held ~o considgr an amendmgnt to Condition No. 1 of City Planning Commission Resolution NCo 1013, Series 1963-64, pertaining to the requirement that vehicular and Pedestrian'access rights to Yale, Bruce and Russell Avenues be dedicated %o the City of Anaheim~ Hearing was called pursuant to petitions submitted requesting that pedestrian access rights to Yale Avenue be Permitted. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council on this issue. Mr. David Gater~ 437 North La Reina Street, addressed the Council requesting the pedestrian access be permitted from Yale Avenue to provide access to the church property and private school, for the benefit of many in the area° He advised of the walking distance necessary without the accesso Councilman Chandler advised those present, that when the church originally requested the conditional use permit to permit the establishment of a church and school facility, the residents in the area asked that no access be permitted from the streets noted in Condition No. 1. He further stated that access rights can be given back to the church, however the church has not requested them. Mr. Paul Liefeld, Coordinator of the Central Baptist Church, advised that the people in the neighborhood have requested that the Council reconsider this condition~ and it was handled in this manner, due to the fact that the people in the neighborhood were the ones originally responsible for the imposition of the condition. He further advised that they were in support of the request to establish an opening in the block wall, preferably at Yale Avenue. Mrs° Doris Conely, 2652 Yale Avenue, asked if the swimming pool would be separately fenced and be over 150 feet from the requested entrance, and also~ if an opening in the fence would create school parking on Yale Avenue° Mr. Liefeld explained that high school students driving to school are bound by school rules, and that this matter could be strictly controlled. Further~ they would agree to lock the gate, except during school hours. In answer %o an inquiry by Mr. Ed Zwickl, 2656 Russell Street, 'Mr, Geisler explained the proposed amendment and the possibility of the Council to amend any portion of Condition No 1. Mr Z'wickl advised that there were 41 ~children on .RusSell Street, and none of them attend the church school. He further advised of his opposition to the extension of Russell Street. Mr° O. G. Hinman, 2649 Yale Avenue, Spokesman for those on Yale Avenue, advised that the fence is presently constructed, and was of the opinion that no access should be allowed in the wall. He further reported that before the wall was constructed, he on occasion noticed only an estimated 15 persons crossed the lot to the church; therefor, the number of provable users would not justify an opening at Yale Avenue. Mrs. Art Oakden, 2645 Bruce Avenue, addressed the Council in opposition and advised that the subject school was a seven-day-a-week school, and is estimated to grow in the number of students. She related experiences in the past, prior to construction of the walt., and asked that the wall remain as is for the protection of their prC~perty. 9073 City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23. 1965. 1330 P,M. . . Mrs. Anita Dukeshire, 2784 RUsSell Place, reported that she and her husband and their ten children, request the gate be permitted so that the children would not have to walk the present distance to school. FUrther~ another family near them have seven children attending the church school. Mrs. Dukeshire reported that it takes 30 minutes to walk around the property to the school facility. It being determined that sufficient evidence had been submitted, Mayor Pro Tern Pebley declared the hearing closed. Councilman Chandler was of the opinion that the situation had not changed since the original hearing on the issue, that the only change has been in that some of the people of the church have moved into the neighbor- hood; he thereupon moved that the request to permit a gate through the fence at Yale Avenue, allowing pedestrian access at this point, be denied. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. To this motion Councilman Schutte voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING- AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18: ._Public hearing oh proposed amendment to Chapter 18 04, Section 18 04 020 "General Use" .... , and Chapter 18o 18 ."'Residential Estates Zone", was continued to November 30, 1965, 7:00 P.M., on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton.' MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18: Public hearing was scheduled to consider an amendment to Chapter 18 08 ~'Definitions" and Section 18 08 390 "Home Occupation", as recommended pursuant to City Planning Commission Resolution No. 1799, Series 1965-66o Mr. Marvin Krieger read the recommended wording of said amendment, and reported the comparison to the present provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Mr. Geisler noted the definition "'Home Occupation", and reported that the recommended amendment was' not a proposal to change the R-A Zone, but a proposal to chanqe the definitions onlY, and in connection therewith, the changes were: (a) TO permit the sale of commodities upon the premises. (b) To permit the employment of persons. (¢) To allow use of mechanical equipment, and (d) Apparently does not limit production upon the property. Mrs. Eugene Thomas, 2080 South Loara Street, questioned the possibility of five unrelated employees residing in the house to meet the "Family Requirement" of the Home Occupation provision of the Code. Mrs. Avis Oveson, 1598 West Orangewood, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed amendment, and further advised of the concern of their neighborhood caused b'y an electrical contractor transacting business from the home; and further advised of the unpleasantness resulting therefrom. Mrs. Oveson stated that this situation has been reported to City Officials. Mr. Bill Palmer, 2106 Glen Avenue, addressed the Council on behalf of 27 of his neighbors in opposition to the proposed change, and was of t'he opinion, that the suggested change was to cover the existing violation of the current provision of the Code. Mr. Palmer stated that a psychological social service business has been established near his residence, and the neighborhood registered a complaint with the City Planning Commission. At the request of Mr. P. M. Ward, 2057 South Eileen Drive, President of Walnut Park Estate Home Owners Association, the City Attorney briefly interpreted the provision of the present status. Discussion was held concerning the regulatiOns as written, and the proposed amendment, and various illustrations were given to indicate how both, the present regulations are violated~ and how the proposed 9074 · ., City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 23, 1965, 1'::'30 -. ,\ amendment could fur,:her such violations, Mrs. Donna Rhodes, 1599 Sim Place, and. Mr's. Mlldr~d, Wetbington, addressed the Council in opposition to the changes in the Code'~as re- commended. Mr. Sidney Lewis, 2083 Eileen Drive', operat6~ of an office'from his home, advised that the trucks used in his business were stored at 18012 Katella Avenue. At the'.,conclusion of the discussion, it was determined that those present were opposed 'to the proposed amendment, and a~lso opposed 'the ordinance as it presently exists. Thereupon, on motion-by Councilman Chandler, secbnded by Councilman 'Schutte, said hearing was continued to February 23, 1966, 7:00 O'clock P.M., and the issue referred back to the City Planning Commission to consider more restrictive provisions regulating home occupations~ MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNEN~NT: Councilman Dutton moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion.~ MOTION CARRIED. (1:30 A.M.) S I GNED ~_~.~; City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1965. 1:30 The City Council of ~he City of Anaheim met in regular session. PR.ESENI: COUNCII~EN: Dutton (entered the meeting 2':2Q p!.M.), Pebley, Schutte, Chandler (entered the m~eting, l:55 P..~' add Krein~ ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None. PRESEN/: CITY MANAGER: Keil~h. A; Murdoch. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert Davis. CITY ATTORNEY: 3oseph Geisler. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. DEVELOPMFNT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G., .Orsborn. .' . CITY ENGINEER: James P'. Maddox. ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Ronald Thompson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ron.ald Grudzinski. Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. ' , . . MINUTES: The Minutes bf the Anaheim City Council Meetings,_held November 9 and 16, 1965, were approved on motion'by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte. MOTION CARRIED.· , WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONSI Councilman Schutte moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after reading of the title, specific reque.~s,t is made by a Counci!mgn 'for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. PUBLIC.HEARING - ABANDONMENT: On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Krein, 'public hearing on proposed abandonment of easement and right-of-way, was continued two weeks (December 1~, 1965, 1:30 P.M.) to allow posting of the property. (Abandonment 65-18A, northerly 16 feet of Lots 7 and 8, Tract No. 30~2). MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - W.~I.VER OF LICENSE FEES, CHRISTMAS TREE LOTS: Request 'of Bishop David 3. Belcher,. of Garden Grove II Ward,. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,-'for",watver of fees and licenses for two Christmas Tree lots, a welfare project, Was submitted,