Loading...
1966/08/169622 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 MINUTE CORRECTION: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte, the City Clerk was instructed to correct the minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held June 28, 1966, page 9525, amending the Title of Resolution No. 66R-449 to read: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~ENDING RESOLUTION NO~ 6481 IN RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 60-61-38; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONSENT TO REMOVAL OF DEED RESTRICTIONS." MOTION CARRIED° MINUTES: The minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held July 26 and August 2, 1966~ and Adjourned Regular Meeting held August 8, 1966~ were approved on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte. Councilman Dutton abstained from approval of July 26 minutes, due to absence, and Councilman Krein abstained from approval of August 8 minutes, due to absence. 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 Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $512,819.23, in accordance with the 1966-67 Budget~ were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~ 827: Submitted by Raymond B. Terry requesting permission to establish a walk-up restaurant with waiver of minimum required landscaped setback; C-1 property located at 711 West Katella Avenue~ Subject Conditional Use Permit was denied by the City Planning Commission~ March 28, 1966. Request for consideration of revised plans for an enclosed restaurant, and to allow an appeal to previous action taken~ was submitted and denied by the Planning Commission, July 6, 1966~ based on the opinion that the proposed use of the property would still be incompatible as originally stated in the denial of Conditional Use Permit Noo 827, as follows: (1) That the proposed walk-up or enclosed restaurant was not considered the highest and best planned use for subject property~ which was located in the Commercial-Recreation area and would be detrimental to the existing commercial development in the area~ (2) That the proposed use would have a deleterious effect on the Convention Center which is located in close proximity to subject property. (3) That the petitioner was requesting waiver of the required landscaping in the area, which might set an undesirable precedent of development in the Commercial-Recreation area. The Planning Commission further noted that a study made by the Development Services staff relative to the definition of an enclosed restaurant found that the estimated average ratio of kitchen areas to eating areas for such enclosed restaurants was 1 to 2.4; that revised plans submitted show a kitchen area of 557 square feet, calling for a seating area to accommodate approximately 89 persons, using said average ratio~ whereas seating for 30 persons was proposed by the petitioner. Zoning Supervisor~ Ronald Thompson, noted the location of subject property and the existing uses in the immediate area, briefing the history of subject application° 9623 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~ COUNCIL MINU/ES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 Revised plans marked "Modified, Exhibits A-1 through A-10 and AD-l", were reviewed by the City Council, and Mr. Thompson reported that said plans were basically the same as the revised plans considered by the Planning Commission on 3uly 6; that the patio area was slightly enlarged and was glassed in, however the Commission indicated that the menu did not offer a full range of meals typical of an enclosed restaurant, and the method of customer service would be through the use of a "walk-up" window. Mayor Krein asked if the petitioner or his representative wished to address the City Council. Mro Ken Kohne, 1523 West Katella Avenue, Attorney representing the petitioner, stated that it was his understanding that in accordance with the revised plans~ no waiver of landscaped setback requirements would be necessary. He advised that the size of the parcel in question was not sufficient to accommodate a different type of restaurant operation. Regarding the proximity of the property to the Convention Center, he called attention to two restaurants in the area specializing in Spanish fare, being of the opinion that Southern California is noted for this type of food, and many tourists would appreciate having the proposed facility available~ He noted the nominal prices which would be charged. Mr. Kohne called attention to the attractive Spanish architecture of the proposed structure, and advised that the facility would be maintained as an example of the nation-wide franchised Taco Bell restaurants planned in their expansion program. In conclusion, Mr. Kohne noted that the hours of operation, 10 A.M. to 11P.Mo, would preclude the restaurants becoming a congregating place for the motorcycle riding crowd. He was of the opinion that the plans submitted for review would qualify the facility as a "sit-down" restaurant, and if the City Council so interpreted the plans, a building permit could be obtained under the existing C-1 zone without subject Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Robert C. McKay~ 833 Dover Drive, Newport Beach, one of the developers of the proposed restaurant, advised that after thoroughly investigating the Taco Bell operation, he was convinced of their excellence and high standards. He stated that after dedication for street widening, subject parcel would measure 100 feet by 130 feet in depth, which would not be sufficient for a larger restaurant operation and the required parking therefor. In answer to Councilman Pebley~s question, Mr. McKay advised that the food served could be consumed in the enclosed patio, or could be purchased to take home. Councilman Pebley expressed concern that some customers would take the food off the premises for consumption and as a result, the area would be littered with trash; he was of the opinion that provision for an outside eating area with proper trash disposal facilities might be more satisfactory. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Gouncil in opposition: Dr. Stuart Fisher, owner of the Waikiki Motel, 631 West Katella Avenue~ submitted and read a petition of opposition signed by 15 persons representing business establishments in the immediate area. He advised that the Convention Center area was a unique location, that future conventions and trade exhibits would bring in many people representing business concerns throughout the country, and the walk-up restaurant would not be an asset at this location° Further, Dr. Fisher noted that the restaurant would be immediately adjacent to the sleeping rooms of two existing motels, and the noise, traffic congestion and debris which would attend the proposed facility would be detrimental to their operation. Dro Fisher called attention to the many business people in the area having large investments 9624 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINLrFES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 P~M. in property~ who wished to retain the integrity already established, and he requested that subject Conditional Use Permit be denied. Mro Christian Thierbach, operator of the Alpine Motel at 715 West Katella Avenue, concurred with statements of Dro Fisher, and agreed with the City Planning Commission,s basis for denial, expressing concern that to grant this request would establish a dangerous precedent for other development in the area. In rebuttal Mro Kohne was of the opinion that the hours of operation would preclude any detriment to the motel operations~ and the establishment would be an attractive asset to the neighborhood. Mayor Krein declared the hearing closed. Council discussion was held, and Councilman Chandler failed to see why the proposed restaurant would be detrimental° He suggested that the City Council view comparable operations before voting on the issue. Councilman Chandler thereupon moved that Council determination on Conditional Use Permit Noo 827 be continued to August 23, 1966, to allow visual inspection of the property and of similar restaurant operations. Councilman Dutton seconded the motiono At the request of Councilman Schutte~ the following roll call vote was recorded: AYES: COUNCILMEN NOES: COUNCILMEN ABSENT: COUNC I LMEN Dutton~ Pebley, Chandler and Krein Schutte None MOT ION CARR I ED. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NOo 66-8A: Public Hearing was held on proposed abandonment of public utility easements, property located North of Cerritos Avenue~ East of and parallel to Vernon Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No° 66R-514~ duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin August 4, 1966, and notices thereof posted in accordance with lawo Report of the City Engineer dated August 2, 1966, was noted by the City Councilo Mayor Krein asked if anyone wished to address the Council for or against the proposed abandonment~ there being no response~ declared the hearing closed° RESOLUTION NO, 66R-547: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution Noo 66R-547 for adoption~ approving Abandonment Noo 66-8A. Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES UPON~ ALONG~ OVER AND THROUGH THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY. (North of Cerritos Avenue and East of Vernon Avenue) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNC I LMEN: ABSENT .~ COUNC I LMEN .. Dutton~ Pebley~ Schutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution Noo 66R-547 duly passed and adopted~ VARIANCE NO. 1788: Request of Jerry A. Brody~ Attorney representing Helen Bouck, for waiver of street widening dedication requirement fronting property located at 319 North Harbor Boulevard was continued from the meetings of 3une 28, 3uly 12 and 26, and August 2~ 1966, to allow further discussion of the issue with the property owner. 9625 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 P.M, Councilmen Krein and Chandler reported they had contacted Mro Robert Wurgaft, owner of subject property, who indicated he was not willing to make dedication for widening of Harbor Boulevard at this time. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Chandler, the requested waiver of street widening dedication required under Variance Noo 1788 was denied. MOTION CARRIED. BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICAIION - EAGLE EYE ARMED GUARD SERVICE: Attention of the City Council was called to letter dated August 12, 1966, from Rosemary Wa Gravelle~ owner of Eagle Eye Armed Guard Service, requesting that Council consideration of application for a business license at 918-B West Lincoln Avenue for Security Patrol and Guard Service be continued to August 23, 19662 It was moved by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton, that said application be continued to August 23, 1966, 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED~ PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mrs. Carmen Moreno, Chairman, Comi%e Central De Festejos Patrios~ for permit to conduct public dance to be held September 49 1966, at Carpenters Hall~ 608 West Vermont Street, was submitted and granted~ subject to the provisions of Title 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, in accordance with recommendation by the Chief of Police~ on motion by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. SIGN REQUEST: The City Manager reported that application submitted by Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for permission to erest a false front and sign at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street~ had been reviewed and determined to be an issue which could be administratively resolved. SIDEWALK WAIVER - 1557 WEST MABLE STREET: Request of Kenneth W. Holt, Director, The Fairmont School, 1557 West Mable Street for an extension of waiver of sidewalk requirement was submitted together with report of the City Engineer dated August 4~ 1966. On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Pebley moved that temporary sidewalk waiver be granted provided that no permanent planning or permanent ~ype improvements be permitted within the area reserved for future sidewalk~ and that the redwood fence presently located in back of the curb be moved back to the property line. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. SIGN REQUEST - 139 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: Application for sign permit, submitted by Herb Luttrell~ of Nu-Art Sign Company~ for "V" shaped sign, with 3 foot~ 11 inch projection~ bottom of sign to be approximately 13 feet above sidewalk~ was reviewed by the City Council together with report from the Zoning and Building Divisions° Mro Luttrell was present representing the owner of the Pawn Shop at subject location~ and advised that there would be no animation or flashing featured on the requested $ign~ Councilman Chandler moved that said sign permit be granted, subject to a maximum projection of 4 feet~ and that the base of the sign be located a minimum of 8 feet above grade° Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MO/ION CARRI£D~ SIGN REQUEST - 119 NORTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: Application for sign permit~ submitted by W. So McNear~ Public Finance Corporation~ was reviewed by the City Council together with report from the Zoning and Building Divisions. On the recommendations of the Zoning and Building Divisions, said sign permit was granted subject to a maximum projection of 4 feet, with a minimum clearance over the sidewalk of 8 feet~ on motion by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Pebleyo MOTION CARRIED. 9626 Qity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16~ 1966, 1:30 PROPOSAL: FOOD SERVICE CONCESSIONAIRE - ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER: Mr. Robert Davis, Assistant City Manager~ briefed written recommendations of the staff committee, relative to informal proposals received from Canteen Corporation and Szabo Food Service~ Inc., for food services and concession contract at the Anaheim Convention Center. (written report previously submitted to each Council member) Mr. Davis noted that the City Council had previously approved the management-fee type of contract which will permit flexibility and City control of the operation, insuring quality of food and service and further reported that it was the recommendation of the staff committee, based on the analysis made~ that the proposal of Szabo Food Service, Inc. be accepted and negotiations for a five year contract be authorized. The following firm representatives were introduced and recognized: Canteen Corporation: Mro Todd Ebbers; Mr. Jim Dillon; 3oe Shea. Szabo Food Service, Inco: Mr. 3oe Szabo; Mr. Eugene Glasco. In answer to a question raised by Councilman $chutte~ Mr~ Szabo advised that the proposed agreement provides the City absolute control over portions, quality and price~ Councilman Dutton stated that in his opinion the two proposals were based on different factors without specific specifications; one projecting accommodations for 5,000 people~ the other projecting accommodations for 3~000 people, which {act in his opinion was reflected in the estimated amount of equipment° Mr. Davis reported that at the time the specifications were drawn, even with the services of the architect and kitchen consultant~ in his opinion no one could have estimated the amount of equipment needed. As a result they relied on the experience of the bidders as to what they felt was necessary in terms of equipment. However, a list of what the consultant felt would be required for a successful operation was furnished to the two bidding firms. The list was not firm on expendable items such as place settings~ that is~ whether it should be 39000 or 59000; however~ both firms would be furnishing the necessary equipment regardless of amount needed and payments of the invoice price by the City would be made over a period of five years. Reference was made to investigations of other clients of both firms and Mr. Davis reported that some of the clients in the Southern California area were contacted and it was the opinion of the staff committee that both of the two bidding firms were well qualified from an experience of operation and financial standpoint° Mro Todd Ebbers representing Canteen Corporation~ advised that their projections were based including all costs covering the highest level of service and required equipment with an investment of $400,000.00. Had they anticipated an investment of only $125~000.00~ he was certain the 50-50 percentage distribution would have been different. In explaining factors considered in their bid~ Mr. Ebbers stated it was conceivable that a loss could be incurred in the first or second year of operation~ and their bid specifically states that they would carry these losses forward and they would not be borne year by year by the City of Anaheim. Further, their bid was a conservative one taking into consideration that the profit level~ in essence~ is controlled by the City of Anaheim and not by the Concessionaire. Mr. Ebbers thereupon briefed the proposal of Canteen Corporation as submitted and at the request of the City Council explained their method of inventory control° Mrs Szabo representing Szabo Food Service~ Inc.~ advised that the apparent problem was the difference between bids on the amount of equipment and in the case of expendable equipment such as china, glassware, 9627 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINU/E$ ~ August 16~ 1966~ 1=30 silverware, cooking utensils~ etco, their bid was on the basis of a 5,000 person capacity; further~ some of the differences would be reflected in the different prices of equipment items such as dish carts, racks~ etCo Mro Szabo thereupon gave an example of the different costs of banquet tables° Mro Szabo further advised that they indicated to the staff committee that they would be willing to increase their investment after specifications are tightened on the individual items required to be purchased and if the investment requires $400,000000 although in his opinion this was a high figure~ they would be willing to go to that amount° Mro Szabo stated that their management-fee of $40,000°00 included the salary of the'General Manager of the operation, and further explained the details of their proposal and method of operation° Discussion was held relative to the food cost and Mr~ Murdoch reported that it was his understanding that the 28 per cent food cost of Canteen Corporation and the 36 per cent food cost of Szabo Food Service~ Inco were the minimum percentages for price setting purposes° Mr. Ebbers advised that his assumption was correct and further stated if a certain price was established for a banquet to attract a certain group, this would automatically affect the food cost; the food cost would vary and this factor would be the result of direction given by the Convention Center ~anager to the operator° Mro Szabo stated that the percentage of food cost would be another item to be determined by the committee considering prices, portions, and the specifications, in other words the cost would be determined by what was served for the selling priceo RECESS: Councilman Chandler moved for a fifteen minute recess° Councilman Schutte seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED (3:33 AFTER RECESS~ Mayor Krein called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council being present° PROPOSAL - FOOD SERVICE CONCESSIONAIRE = ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER (CONT.): Discussion resumed relative to the two proposals and it was determined by the City Council that the proposals be referred back to the staff committee for reevaluation and reconsideration of the following: (1) That the assumptions regarding investment'were appropriate° (2) Reevaluation of the fee with respect to whether salaries were included or excluded° (3) Reevaluation of possible effects of the 28 per cent versus 36 per cent food cost as this would pertain to food qualityo (4) Whether or not the 3055 factor of Canteen Corporation was a minimum price figure under which the City could not charge without paying the difference. (5) Inventory depletion as a control and whether both firms use this control in the same areas~ Mrc Murdoch summarized the basic differences between the two proposals and advised that the items on which further investigation will be made can be reported upon at the next meetin9~ (August 23, 1966, 1:30 Po~.) 9628 City Hall~ Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - AuQust 16~ 1966. 1:30 PROPOSED ABANDONMENT - RESOLUTION NO, 66R-548: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 66R-548 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF AN EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROAD AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES UPON, OVER, ACROSS AND ALONG THE HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED REAL PROPER/Y~ FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING THEREON; AND DIRECTING THE POSTING OF NOTICES THEREOF AND THE PUBLICATION OF THIS RESOLUTION° (Public Hearing September 6, 1966, 1:30 P.M. - Abandonment No. 65-21A, south of Via Burton Street between Baxter Street and State College Boulevard) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, $chutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-548 duly passed and adopted. (Councilman Chandler left the meeting, 4:09 P.M.) PROPOSED HELISTOP: Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission meeting held August 15, 1966, was submitted relative to a Helistop proposed by The City Management Corporation, to be located at the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Lewis Street, in the city of Orange in the new "The City" apartment, retail, and office building complex (FAA Case No. 66-LAX-68-NR). The City Planning Commission recommended to the Council that The Federal Aviation Agency be urged to give consideration to the single family homes within 1/4 mile of the proposed helistop when the flight approach and takeoff patterns were established° On motion by Councilma~ Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton, the City Council concurred with recommendations of the City Planning Commission~ and ordered a copy thereof forwarded to the Federal Aviation Agency° MOTION CARRIED° DEEDS OF EASEMENT~ Councilman Schutte offered Resolution Nos, 66R-549 to 66R-554~ both inclusive, for adoption~ Refer to Resolution Book° RESOLUTION NO, 66R-549: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Owen Ao Murray) RESOLUTION NO, 66R-550~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES° (Melfred Ao and Alice M. Wadman) RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-551: A RESOLU/ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES° (Skeoch Development Corporation) RESOLUTION NO, 66R-552: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES° (Merrell Do and Ann Davis) 9629 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 RESOLUTION NO, 66R-553: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Edwin Durst) RESOLUTION NOv 66R-554: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (Euclid Shopping Center) Roll call vote: AYES: NOES: TE:,,:F©KAkIL¥ ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNC I L~EN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Pebley~ Schutte and Krein None Chandler None Mayor Krein declared Resolution Nos. 66R-SA9 through and including 66R-554 duly passed and adopted. DEDICATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS - RECLASSIFICATION No, 65-66-114: On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Dutton~ dedication of vehicular access rights by Edwin Durst, to Durst Street, in conjunction with Reclassification No. 65-66-114~ was accepted by the City Council and the recordation thereof was authorized. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilman Chandler returned to the meeting, 4:13 PoMo) RESOLUTION NO, 66R-555: On report and recommendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-555 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JIM HARDY ASSOCIATES FOR USE OF ANAHEIM STADIUM ON AUGUST 209 1966 FOR A GA~E OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-555 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 66R-556~ On the recommendation of the City Attorney~ Councilman Pebley offered No. 66R-556 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN COUNTIES GAS COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA WITH REFERENCE TO TEMPORARY PARKING FACILITIES FOR STADIUM EMPLOYEES° (August 20, 1966) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-556 duly passed and adopted~ PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of one Turf-Vac lawn cleaner, as follows~ recommending acceptance of the quotation from Power Rig & Equipment Company in the amount of $2~690o48, including tax. He advised that said company is the 9630 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCI5 MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 P,M, one manufacturer of this equipment, and although their total bid was more than the bid received from their representative, Dime, Inc., discount terms included would reduce the total to a lower figure. Power Rig & Equipment Co. Long Beach Dime, Inc. Costa Mesa $2,690.48 2,678.00 On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilman Dutton moved that the bid of Power Rig & Equipment Company be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $2,690.48 including tax, as the lowest and best qualified bid° Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: In accordance with Council policy, the following claims against the City were denied as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance agent, on motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Chandler: (1) Claim submitted by Douglas J. Gow for damages purportedly resulting from erroneous disconnection of electricity, during the week of July 28 to August 3, 1966. (2) Claim filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf of Eleanor 3ennings for damages to automobile purportedly resulting from an accident involving City owned vehicle, on or about July 11, 1966. (3) First amended claim submitted by Edward K. Nance, Jr. on behalf of Betty Murray and Robert R. Murray, for injuries purportedly resulting from a fall caused by depression in the street (between 9752 and 9762 Pacific Drive), on or about March 28, 1966. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: City of San Juan Capistrano Ordinance No. 121,. regarding erection of certain structures within the public rights of way, was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 2315: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2315 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69 (19) M-1 and P-L) PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE - PAULINA STREET: City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 66-259 recommending a street name change for Paulina Street between Adele and Sycamore Streets~ and between North Street and La Palma Avenue, to Pauline Street, was submitted for Council consideration August 9, 1966; at which time action was deferred to this date for further information relative to the original name of the street. Also submitted and reviewed by the City Council was report from the City Engineer dated August 10, 1966, containing a listing of recorded street names dating back to January 31, 1876 (Pauline Street). RESOLUTION NO. 66R-557: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-557 for adoption, designating those portions of the street located between Adele and Sycamore Streets, and between North Street and La Palma Avenue as "Pauline Street". Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLU/ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CHANGING THE NA~E OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PAULINA STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO PAULINE STREET. 9631 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution Noo 66R-557 duly passed and adopted. CANCELLATION - APPROPRIATED FUNDS: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Manager, cancellation of the following appropriated funds was authorized, of which $325,000.00 was ordered transferred to the Capital Outlay Fund~ the balance to be transferred to the General Fund, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley: 219-266 Census Estimate $ 2,497.89 251-361 Office Supplies 880.50 271-901-01 Land Acquisitions 6,719.50 447-937-01 Downtown Shopping Mall 100~000.00 447-937-02 Parking Lot Improvements 49,649.79 471-937-01 Golf Course Lighting 122,500.00 521-251 Consulting Services 620-243 Building g Structure Maintenance 201-269 Center City Survey 464-901-03 Purchase Access Rights, LaPalma Ave./S.F.R.R. MOTION CARRIED~ 48,607.52 1,900.00 16,000.00 25,000.00 TOURS - CITY FACILITIES: Discussion was held regarding City Council tours of various City departments, parks, and other facilities, and Mr. Murdoch suggested that many citizens also might be interested. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Public Information Officer and Assistant Information Officer were instructed to establish such tours, to be scheduled at convenient times for the City Council, and to be publicized to allow any interested citizens to participate. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-558 - JOB NOS 3507 AND 889: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 66R-558 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 CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: IMPROVEMENT OF A UTILITY YARD, BETWEEN SOUTH STREET AND VERMONT AVENUE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE A. To & S.F. RoR., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ 30B NOS. 3507 AND 889 APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENI 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 August 30, 1966, 9:00 Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, $chutte, Chandler and Krein None None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-558 duly passed and adopted. MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS - OVERTIME PARKING: Councilman Pebley requested that Mr. Murdoch investigate the procedure for citations given for overtime parking in the City-owned parking lots. RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved to recess until 7:00 P.M. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRI£D. (4:38 9632 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Pebley, Schutte, Chandler (Entered the meeting 8:03 P.M.) and Krein. COUNCILMEN: None~ CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: 3oseph Geisler. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Furman B. Roberts. CITY CLERK. Dene M. Williams. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinskio ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Pease. INVOCATION: Reverend Howard L. Dobbs of the East Anaheim Christian Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Schutte led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. pUBLIC HEARING - RECLAS$IFICAIION NO. 65-66-120, VARIANCE NO, 1800 AND AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO, 68: Submitted by Coalson C. Morris requesting a change of zone from R-1 to C-O to establish a professional office building and a waiver of the minimum required site area and minimum side yard setback on property located at 609 North East Street (west side of East Street between Sycamore and Wilhelmina Street). The City Planning Commission pursuant to their Resolution No. PC 66-7, recommended said reclassification be denied, pursuant to Resolution No. PC 66-8 denied Variance No. 1800, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC 66-9 recommended disapproval of Area Development Plan No. 68. Plans and File were reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Ronald Grudzinski noted the location of subject property and existing uses and zonings on both sides of East Street, between Lincoln Avenue and the Riverside Freeway; that briefly, the land uses consist of.concentrations of low density, single family residential, a few multiple family residential, and commercial land use developments at the intersection. He reported that the Traffic Engineer has indicated that the traffic volume anticipated for East Street necessitates future improvement as a fuii arterial highway of secondary ciassification. That an economic anaiysis of /he area and the commerciai deveiopment at the various intersections indicate more neighborhood shopping centers than the area can support~ however, there may be a demand for other types of aiiied commerciai facilities. That at this time in history there is a need for a definite statement of poiicy or direction for deveiopment of the East Street frontage~ as various owners of property are requesting commerciaI usage, however, the Generai Pian indicates residentiai. Mr. Grudzinski explained three possible methods of land development depicted on exhibits posted on the west wall of the Council Chambers: Exhibit A: Retain the low density character of the area but indicate and recognize the desire for commercial concentrations (neighborhood developments) at Lincoln and East Streets, Sycamore and East Streets~ La Palma and East Streets, and Romneya and East Streets. Exhibit B: Complete retail usage of all the frontage on East Street by highway related commercial development~ from the Riverside Freeway to Lincoln Avenue. Exhibit C: Commercial development at the four intersections with commercial-professional office uses linking the retail concentrations. 9633 City Hall, Anaheim° California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 P,M~ The City Planning Commission recommended the policy as depicted on Exhibit A, Relative to the request for C-O zoning, Mr. Grudzinski reported that the City Planning Commission felt that subject application would inject commercial uses into an established and well maintained single family residential area~ and if granted, would set a precedent for commercial developments in homes fronting on East Street; that at the present time the extension of commercial uses in a linear pattern along East Street is not warranted~ It was noted that the Applicant filed concept plans onlyo Due to a possible conflict of interest~ Mayor Krein withdrew from the discussion and action on this issue and Mayor Pro Tem Pebley assumed the Chairmanship of meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Pebley asked if anyone wished to address the Council, Mro Robert Van~ 515 Priscilla Way~ representing the Applicant~ addressed the Council being of the opinion that the suggestion by the area development study that the residential zoning characteristics will continue to be retained is an assumptionl that in researching the neighborhood~ the people who own and reside in the area feel that they cannot maintain the area as residential as it is presently maintained° That because of the annoying factors generated by the traffic and no parking on East Street, the owners in the area have reached an agreement to request a type of commercial zoning rather than a residential type of zoning° Mro Van advised that the property under consideration was vacant undeveloped land, and urged the granting of subject application to allow development progress in the area° The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition, there being no reponse declared the hearing closed° Discussion was held by the City Council regarding the submission of development plans for subject property and the possible rezoning of the entire block and Mro Thompson~ Zoning Supervisor~ advised that General Plan Amendments have been scheduled for hearing before the City Planning Commission° Mro Bert Morley~ 501 East Sycamore Street~ advised he was in favor of subject reclassification° RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-559: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution 66R-559 authorizing the preparation of necessary Ordinance changing the zone to C-O as requested~ subject to the following conditions: l) That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width, from the centerline of the street, along East Street, for street widening purposes~ 2) That the vehicular access rights to East Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, 3) That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land five feet in width along the westerly property line for alley widening purposes° 4) /hat 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 air conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view from abutting street(s), prior to final building inspection, Refer to Resolution Book° 9634 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 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. (65-66-120 - C-O) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley and Schutte NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Krein ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Chandler Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Resolution NOd 66R-559 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-560: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-560 approving Area Development Plan No. 68° Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 68, EXHIBIT A. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley and Schutte NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Krein ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Chandler Mayor Pro Tem Pebley declared Resolution No° 66R-560 duly passed and adopted. VARIANCE NOv 1800: It was moved by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Schutte that the Public Hearing on Variance No. 1800 be reopened and that said hearing be continued to November 15~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M., for the submission of Development Plans. ~OTION CARRIED. Mayor Krein resumed Chairmanship of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARIN~ - RECLASSIFICATION NQ, 66-67-~ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 859: Submitted by Eddie Brinkman requesting a change of zone from C-1 and R-2 to C-1 to allow the expansion of an existing service station site within 75 feet of a residential zone~ property located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard° The City Planning Commission pursuant to the Resolution No. PC 66-21 recommended said Reclassification be approved subject to the following condition: (1) That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width, from the centerline of the street, along Harbor Boulevard~ for street widening purposes, which shall be complied with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. The City Planning Commission pursuant to their Resolution No. PC 66-22 granted Conditional Use Permit No~ 859 subject to the following conditions: (1) That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 66-67-2. (2) That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with adopted Service Station Site Development Standards, provided, however, that the easterly masonry wall shall be deleted. (3) That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim~ marked Exhibit Nod 1. The Mayor asked if the Applicant wished to address the Council. 9635 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16~ 1966~ 1:30 Mro Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property and existing uses and zoning in the area and briefed the findings and actions of the City Planning Commission, noting that the Applicant has been comprised that La Palma Avenue may be designated as a primary highway with a full half-width of 53 feet on the south side. Mr. Kenneth Lac, 914 West Lincoln Avenue, Attorney representing the Applicant, advised they had no objections to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission; that the Applicant is aware of the possible widening of La Palma Avenue and will locate the pumps to avoid relocation in ~he future. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council~ there being no response declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-561: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-561 authorizing preparation of necessary Ordinance changing the zone to O-1 as requested, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. 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 A~ENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED~ (66-67-2 - C-l) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCII3~EN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein None Chandler Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-561 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 66R-562: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-562 granting Conditional Use Permit Noo 859, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMII NO~ 859. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCI L~EN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein None Chandler Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-562 duly passed and adopted° PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 66-67-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ, 863: Submitted by G. P. Brooks, Joseph Seymour and Arnold Heth requesting a change of zone from R-1 to C-O and to permit the office use of existing residential structures with waiver of minimum site area, property located at 3341~ 3347 and 3351 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission pursuant to the Resolution Noo PC 66-23 and Resolution Noo PC 66-24, recommended said application be denied. Mr. Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the area, and briefed the findings and recommendations of the City Planning Commission. 9636 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 The Mayor asked if the Applicant wished to address the Council. Mr. Kenneth Lae, 914 West Lincoln Avenue, Attorney representing the Applicant, was of the opinion the three lots in question were unique in the area as they front on Ball Road and are bounded at the rear by an alley which serves subject property° That the Applicants are of the opinion the proposed use of medical offices would be compatible with the hospital facility directly across the street; that adequate parking will be provided and the existing structures redesigned to remove the residential characteristicso In answer to Council's questions, Mr. Lae advised that the Applicants are presently residing in the homes, and they propose to make the transition to C-O on an individual basis. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition. Mrs. Edmonds, 3348 Deerwood Drive, residing directly behind subject property, addressed the Council being opposed to the use of the alley by large commercial vehicles, and suggested the three lots across the alley adjoining subject property on the north, also be included in the consideration for C-O zoning. Mr. Berlin, 909 Westvale Drive, referred to the petition of protest containing 43 signatures filed with the City Planning Commission, opposing commercial encroachment into the residential community. In answer to Councilman Dutton's question, Mr. Berlin advised he did not feel any commercial use could be segregated from the residential area, because of the proposed use of the residential alley. (Councilman Chandler entered the meeting, 8:03 P.M.) Mr. 3ohn A~ Woitovich, 929 Westvale Drive (corner of Westvale and Ball Road) spoke in opposition, and expressed concern to the increased traffic on Westvale and the fact that the existing alley is blind to the north and commercial use would create an additional hazard. Mro Howard Brown~ 925 Westvale Drive~ advised his residence faces the alley under discussion and he was opposed to the use of the alley for commercial~ and was of the opinion that the commercial parking would overflow onto the residential street, since Ball Road has limited parking. MtSo Ledesma, 342 West Deerwood Drive, resident behind subject properties, indicated her opposition to the requested use. Mr. Lae, in rebuttal, stated the three subject lots are isolated from the three lots to the north by a brick wallo In answer to Councilman Schutte~s question, Mr. Pease, Assistant City Engineer, advised the alley under discussion is a dedicated alley. Mayor Krein declared the hearing closed. RESOLUIION NO, 66R-565: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-563 upholding the action of the City Planning Commission, denying Reclassification No. 66-67-4. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (66-67-4) 9637 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Chandler ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-563 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO, 66R-564: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-564 upholding the action of the City Planning Commission, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 863. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 863. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEN: Chandler ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None Mayor Krein declared Resolution No. 66R-564 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - REGULATIONS: CAMP CARS, TRAILERS, BOATS, ETC,: Pursuant to City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 66-26, public hearing was held on recommended amendment to Iitle 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 18065, regulating the parking and storage of campers, camp cars~ trailer coaches, house cars and certain commercial vehicles. Mr. Furman Roberts, Deputy City Attorney, advised that the proposed ordinance was drafted for the purpose of updating an existing law enacted in 1949, and amended in 1953, wherein parking of camp cars or trailers on private property is prohibited except on the rear of the property or under cover. Reference was made to zoning setback requirements providing open space areas. Slides were shown, and ~r. Roberts briefly explained how certain situations and conditions would comply or violate the present ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Reference was made to Section 15.28.240 and Chapter 14.32, prohibitin9 on-street parkin9 of vehicles and trucks durin9 certain hours. Mr. Roberts reported that the proposed ordinance would include campers~ boats~ etc., and in answer to a question of Councilman Pebley"s with reference to parking a pickup truck or camp car in a driveway or on a street fronting a home, Mr. Roberts advised that the proposed ordinance would allow parking but not storage, which is defined to be a period in excess of seventy-two hours. Mr. Ronald Reeve, 1670 Beacon Street, addressed the Councll questioning why, if this regulation has been a law for fifteen years, were homes permitted to be built with only a five foot side yard, making it impossible for many people to get to the rear of their property. Mr. Carlton Peterson, 621 So. Spring Street~ Los Angeles, Secretary of the California Boating Council and Chairman of their Trailer-Boating Committee, also an Attorney at Law, addressed the Council advising that the Boating Council was of the opinion that the proposed ordinance was in line with similar ordinances of other cities; however, it was recognized that many residences in Anaheim do not have an area at the back that is accessible from the street. 9638 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUT£S - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 Mr. Peterson further advised that in his opinion, the proposed ordinance would be a very reasonable ordinance, if amended to the effect that trailer boats and all the equipment covered by the proposed ordinance shall be parked in the rear yard when there is reasonable access to the rear yard, and he thereupon recommended an amendment making it illegal to park in the front of the house, when the back yard is accessible. Mr. Peterson recognized that the existing law was unduly prohibitive and should be amended; however, in his opinion, if regulations were enforced in accordance with the proposed ordinance, the City would be depriving a major segment of the citizens of the free use of their property. Mr. Thomas S. Duck, National Director of the Family Motor Coach, Inc., and President of the California Chapter, presented a copy of the Family Motor Coach Magazine, and reported that use of the family motor coach was rapidly increasing, and related statistics substantiating this fact. He advised that if there is now an existing problem, it will be substantially increased in ten years. Mr. Duck reported that coaches are priced from $5,000.00 upwards, and are aesthetically attractive and equipment people are proud to owns Further, they can be compared in value with a Rolls Royce. Reference was made to many types of station wagons that are convertible to camp cars, and the ambiguity that might arise in the enforcement of the provisions of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Duck was of the opinion that the proposed ordinance was one to control the aesthetic image of the Community, and that the problem has been created by inadequate subdividing of property. He suggested that further subdivisions be required to provide either alleys or access to the rear of the property. Mrs John Pirtle, 1654 Beacon Street, advised that the majority of people have either a camper, a trailer, station wagon or some means of getting out into the open away from city life. Mr. Pirtle was of the opinion that the proposed ordinance was an infringement on their constitutional rights, and noted taxes paid which in his opinion was without representation. Mr. Pirtle also felt that the problem had been created by the Zoning laws, and agreed that some regulation should be established to clear streets for street sweeping and removing unsightly equipment. Mr. Conrad Olson, 2308 Underhill Street, concurred with the recommendations made by Mro Peterson, and stated he felt it was well that the current regulations be amended, as the ordinance was adopted in 1949 when there was less use of the recreational vehicle, and the fewer homes then in the city had access to side and rear yards. Mr. Lawrence West, 1029 Modena Place, owner of a large metropolitan type bus, parked in front yard driveway as shown on slides, advised that in his opinion, updating the existing law was the result of complaints on the bus made by his neighbors, and it was found that the existing law did not apply to buses, per se. Mr. West stated that if the law existed for fifteen years, and was applied only by exception or complaint, in his opinion this was selective enforcement, and the new law will subject all to discriminatory law enforcement. Mr. Geisler reported that the law was strictly enforced up to approximately three years ago, that the updating of the ordinance was not commenced as result of the complaint received regarding the bus; it has been under study by the City Attorney's office and Planning Department, and other City departments, for approximately three years, so that an 9639 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auqust 16, 1966, 1:30 improved ordinance could be drafted that can be enforced without any discrimination or so-called selective enforcement, and the existing ordinance has not been enforced during this study period, except in cases of strict complaint° Councilman Chandler was of the opinion that the suggestion of Mr. Peterson was valid~ and was of the further opinion that the ordinance should be referred to a committee of experts in the field, so that the ordinance can be drafted to allow use of property in a manner which is reasonable° Mro Roger Steppe, 2840 West Keys Lane, owner of a recreational vehicle business, favored Councilman Chandler's suggestion of a committee composed of officers of various trailer groups and organizations representative of this type of recreational activity. Mro Harold D. Glass, 2269 Belmont Place, referred to Section 18.65o020 (b) as it would pertain to parking of a camper in a driveway screened by a wall or fence° Mr. Glass noted that the screening must be at least six feet in height, and adequate to provide complete screening from view of said vehicle° He further advised that the camper he owns is nine feet, three inches in height, and could not possible be screened from view by a six foot wallo Mr. Don Zander~ Governor of the Travel Trailer Club of America, State of California~ addressed the Council advising that he did not favor the existing ordinance, and felt the proposed ordinance needed further revision as in its present form, was unusable. One reason being the lack of areas other than home sites on which to park the equipment. Mr. Frank Schilling, Trailer Coach Association of Los Angeles, advised that it was the position of their Association that the hardship worked on the people with attached garages and narrow lots has not been considered in the proposed ordinance, as written. Mr~ Schilling concurred with the statements made by Mr. Peterson, and requested consideration be given to the hardship cases. Mr. Donald To Marshall, 237 Brentwood Place, advised that it had been his experience as a Realtor that out of one hundred people, 50% have informed him that they would not consider purchasing a home on which a trailer or camper or boat was parked. He thereupon requested the ordinance be drawn that would be workable, whereby these pieces of equipment can be parked in a manner acceptable to the City. It was determined by the City Council that a committee be formed to work with the City Attorney's Office to further consider the proposed ordinance~ and that the names of those persons interested in serving on the committee be submitted to the City Clerk to be forwarded to the City Attorney. Mayor Krein requested the following names be considered on said committee: Mr~ Carlton 3. Peterson, Secretary of the California Boating Counsel and Chairman of their Boating Committee - Attorney at Law, 621 So. Spring St., Los Angeles. Mr. Thomas S. Duck, National Director of the Family Motor Coach Inc., and President of the California Chapter - (The Shelton Co.) Statler Center, 900 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles. Mr. Donald Zander, Govenor of the Travel Trailer Clubs of America, State of California - (Business - 1428D S. Central Park Ave. Anaheim) ' Mr. Frank Schilling, Trailer Coach Association of Los Angeles. 9640 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 16, 1966, 1:30 Persons expressing interest in serving on committee were: Donald T. Marshall, 237 Brentwood Place Mr. Tony De Rado~ 728 Velare Street Mrs° Walter Hemmingway, 1028 North Modena Place Mr. 3ohn Disher, Field Representative of the National Campers and Hikers Association, 912 South Bruce Street Mr. Don Blood~ President of Searchers Gem and Mineral Society of Anaheim, 534 Glendora~ Orange, California Other names submitted to the City Clerk were as follows: Roger Steppe, 2840 West Keys Lane - Anaheim Recreational Retail Mrs° Virginia A. Bailey, 1135 Boden Drive, Anaheim Mrs. Barbara Brown~ 1015 Irene Place, Anaheim Alexander Discoe~ President of California Camper Coach Corporation, 2263 West 3udith Lane, Anaheim Mro George Smith, 500 North Hanover Street, Anaheim Eo F. Gruenemay, 1268 East Sycamore Street, Anaheim - Treasurer Elect of Alaskan Camper Club, Inc. Mr. Thomas Atkinson, 830 South Olive Street, Anaheim - Wagonmaster, Ken Craft Trailer Club V. C. Kasiah At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Chandler moved that the public hearing be continued to November 1, 1966, 7:00 P.Mo at the Anaheim Public Library, and that the matter be referred to a committee for further study and possible revision° Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. N~DTION CARRIED° AD3OURN~ENT. Councilman Chandler moved to adjourn. Councilman Schutte seconded said motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 10:00 SIGNED:~ ~. \ City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim, California - CQUNCIL MINUTES - August 23, 1966, 1:30 P°M, PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. COUNCILMEN: Dutton~ Pebley (Entered the meeting 1:45 PoM.) Schutte, Chandler and Kreino COUNCILMEN: None. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert Davis. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. CITY ENGINEER: 3ames P. Maddox. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelsono ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinski. CHIEF OF POLICE: Mark Ao Stephenson. CONVENTION CENTER AND STADIUM DIRECTOR: Thomas Fo Liegler. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts. Mayor Krein called the meeting to order°