Loading...
1966/11/229800 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler (entered the meeting 1:40 P.M.) and Krein. COUNCILMEN: None. CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Mickelson. ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson. PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinski. Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. MINUTES: The Minutes of the Anaheim City Council Meeting held November 9, 1966, were approved on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley 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 Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED° REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City in the amount of $554,176.77, in accordance with the 1966-67 Budget, were approved. DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by A1 Young for dinner dancing place permit at the Purple Lion Restaurant, 919 South Knott Avenue, was submitted and granted, subject to provisions of Chapter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, as recommended by the Chief of Police, on motion by Council- man Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-47 (VARIANCE NO. 1522): Request of Tom Key Realty Inc., dated November 10, 1966, for waiver of Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 63R-18, was submitted together with reports from the City Engineer and Development Services Department - Zoning Division; property located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and State College Boulevard - C-1 zoning pending. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reported that said Condition No. 1 required that the existing structure be removed from subject property, and plans for development shall be submitted to and approved by the Archi- tectural Review Board prior to the adoption of an ordinance changing the zone to C-1. He advised that a plot plan and elevation rendering had been submitted to the Development Services Department, illustrating the proposed remodeling of the existing structure for use as a real estate office. Said plans were taken forward to the Council Table for review. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-726: At the conclusion of the brief discussion that followed, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 66R-726 for adoption, amending Resolution No~ 63R-18 in Reclassification No. 62-63-47 by deleting Condition No. 1 therefrom. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-18 IN RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-47. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte and Krein None Chandler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-726 duly passed and adopted. 9801 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - Novemb.er 22~ 1.966~ 1:30 P.M. PETITION - CROSSING GUARD: Petition received November 4, 1966, containing approximately 454 signatures, was submitted from the Mattie Lou Maxwell Elementary School P. T. A. Council, requesting reinstatement of a crossing guard at the intersection of Orange and Magnolia Avenues. Mayor Krein asked if a representative of the petitioners wished to address the City Council. (Councilman Chandler entered the meeting, 1:40 P.M.) Mr. Richard B. Scott, 419 Gain Street, representing the Mattie Lou Maxwell P.T.A., noted their meetings held with representatives of the Police Department, Traffic Engineering Division and the City Manager's Office, in an unsuccessful effort to gain reinstatement of the crossing guard at subject recently signalized intersection. He noted statistics compiled during their observation of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic activities at the intersection, resulting in an estimated accident possi- bility factor of 47 percent. In addition to the lack of a crossing guard, Mr. Scott was of the opinion that inadequate signing to warn of the school crossing was a major factor in the driver's safety violations. He noted that on each street approaching the intersection, there is only one school warning sign located at the side of the right-of-way. Based on observation and analysis of traffic distribution, pedestrian use and violation of safety regulation, Mr. Scott was of the opinion that special circumstances exist at subject school crossing which warrant a school crossing guard at this signalized intersection, as follows: 341 of the Mattie Lou Maxwell School children are between the ages of five and seven. The existing regulatory traffic signal does not provide maximum safety for the children, due to the following: a. The "walk" phase of the signal has an inadequate time span to allow pedestrians to complete crossing of Magnolia Avenue. b. Young students' observation of safety regulations is not dependable, due to lack of maturity and responsibility, in spite of training afforded by the school, and a portion of the dhildren are attending a special class for the mentally retarded. The crossing guard acts as a symbol of authority, warning both children and motorists to use safety precautions. In conclusion Mr. Scott was of the opinion that there is an urgent need for a crossing guard at the intersection, and the Parent- Teachers Association recommends that the City Council, Traffic Engineer and Chief of Police concur with the foregoing opinion, and further, that the City Council take appropriate meassures to reinstate the guard without delay. Mayor Krein asked for a show of hands from those persons present in the Council Chamber connerning the pedestrian crossing at Magnolia and Orange Avenues. A number of persons responded, and in answer to Council questioning, indicated that Mr. Scott had accurately expressed their opinions. Mr. Justin Farmer, of the City Traffic Engineer's office, briefed their report dated November 14, 1966, noting that on March 9, 1965, three young school children were struck while crossing the street in subject crosswalk with a-guard on duty. He noted the installation of the permanent traffic signals at the intersection in June, 1966, and advised that in accordance with the crossing guard program, an adult crossing guard would not be assigned at this location. Relative to the three children struck in the crosswalk in the presence of a crossing guard, Mr. Scott noted that without the protection of guard, many others would of been hurt in that accident. 98O2 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES November 22, 1966, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Dutton read memorandum from the Chief of Police dated November 10, 1966, reporting on their complete investigation of the inter- section and stating that it is felt that with continued enforcement of traffic laws together with continuation of the safety educational program, the intersection in question will be as safe as any signalized intersection in the City. Councilman Pebley inquired about bus service for the school. Mr. Ralph Hammack, Principal of Mattie Lou Maxwell School, advised that all the children in attendance walk to school. Relative to the 1965 accidents in the crosswalk, he advised that the crossing guard was able to prevent approximately 25 children from getting struck. Mr. Hammack noted that the "walk" signal is turned on for 14 seconds before the flashing "don't walk" signal activates, and in his opinion, the average child in the upper elementary grades could not cross the 106 foot right-of-way in 14 seconds. He advised that the speed limit on Magnolia Avenue is 40 miles per hour, however signal time spans at various intersections were not the same. Councilman Pebley reported on his observation of the school crossing, and was of the opinion that the problem could be remedied by increasing the time span of the "walk" signal and installation of additional warning signs. Mr. Hammack advised that 485 children use this crosswalk, and he was of the opinion that the crossing was eligible for a guard. Mrs. Barbara Herron, President of the Mattie Lou Maxwell Parent- Teachers Association, briefed a statement by Dr. George C. Scholl, Psycho- logist, 1019 West La Palma Avenue, advising that a child of the age group attending kindergarten through third grade does not have a sufficient attention span necessary to take responsibility to independently cross the street with a signal, and their reading ability is inadequate. She advised that although they educate their children, they cannot educate the driver to observe the speed limits and proper safety precautions. Discussion was held by the City Council and the City Manager, and Councilman Dutton suggested that the timing of the signals be checked, and police surveilance be increased. Mr. Murdoch inquired if it was the City Council's intentio~ to permit a crossing guard at signalized intersections. At the suggestion of Mayor Krein, the City Manager was instructed to work with the Traffic Division and the Police Department in an effort to resolve the problem by adjusting the time span on the traffic signals and by increasing police surveilance in the area; it being the consensus of the City Council that no change' is to be made to the existing regulations con- cerning crossing guards. Mr. Richard Scott asked whether there would be a period of time established to observe the effects of the suggested measures. Mr. Scott was advised that if the situation had not improved after a reasonable period of time, for instance 30 days, the matter could again be considered. CITY HALL SPACE ANALYSIS: The City Council, at their Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 8, 1966, held public discussion on the need for a new City Hall, received an analysis of space requirements for existing City functions, and considered the proposal of Mr. Milton Gordon, of Mortgage Banking and Real Estate Development, Los Angeles, to construct two eleven-story buildings for lease by the City, and becoming the property of the City after a thirty year period. Action by the Council on the City Hall issue was deferred to a time after the November General Election. 9803 City Halls Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lewis Rerbst, Chairman of the Civic Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council advising that for the past month, the Committee had been studying the Space Analysis compiled by the City Manager's office. In connection therewith, they toured the City Hall, and the Committee was convinced of the immediate need for a new facility. Mr. Herbst further advised that the Committee intends to convey their findings to the Chamber's Board of Directors as soon as a complete report can be prepared. Mr. Murdoch noted that several areas are of concern to the City Council in relation to the proposed new City Hall, one being consideration of how the Civic Center plan and administrative center would fit into the urban redevelopment projections relative to site location. Other items of concern were the financial implications, as related to the City's operating budget, other City capital improvements, and the establishment of priority sequence therefor. At the conclusion of brief Council discussion, no formal action was taken by the City Council° FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 5989: On report of the City Clerk that verbal request had been received from the developers to consider Final Map of Tract No. 5989 at the 7:00 O'Clock Meeting this evening, in conjunction with public hearing on Reclassification No. 66-67-19, which includes subject property, Council action on said final map was deferred to the 7:00 P.M. session. CITY OF FULLERTON - RECLASSIFICATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Proposed reclassification from zone M-P-100,000 to C-i, or to any potential or intervening zone classification, and proposed conditional use permit for the establishment of a 150 room Holiday Inn Motor Hotel, coffee shop, lounge, dinner house and banquet facilities; property located on the east side of Raymond Avenue, adjacent to the Riverside Freeway off-ramp in the City of Fullerton. Excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission Meeting held November 21, 1966, was submitted reflecting action taken by the Com- mission to receive and file notice of said reclassification and conditional use permit. On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton report of the City Planning Commission pertaining to said City of Fullerton proposed reclassification and conditional use permit was ordered received and filed by the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 240: Communication dated November 18, 1966, from Frank L. Ciampa, operator of the Italian Villa Restaurant located at 404-406 North State College Boulevard, was submitted and read, requesting deletion of Condition No. 3, Resolution No. 62R-689, granting Conditional Use Permit Noo 240, said condition limiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on the premises to beer and wine only, in conjunction with the serving of food, and no bar to be installed. Also submitteH was report from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning petition of the applicant for removal from his alcoholic beverage license of the condition that "no bar for the serving of alcoholic beverages shall be installed"; said report setting forth the granting o~ the petition and the removal o~ restrictions that alcoholic beverages shall be sold only with the serving of food, and that no exterior signs shall advertise alcoholic beverages. Councilman Chandler requested the record to show that he did not participate in the discussion, nor vote on this issue. Councilman Dutton reported on his investigation of subject request, noting that a similar request to allow on-sale general license and a bar at a pizza restaurant in the immediate area had been granted, and subject property was located a greater distance from the nearby church than was the pizza restaurant° 9804 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Frank Ciampa addressed the City Council noting the change in the area since his family restaurant was opened four and one-half years ago, and advised that they reserve one portion of the restaurant for adult patrons. He further advised that there had been no protest to the alcoholic beverage license application notice posted on the premises, that the church had not protested his application for on-sale general license, and in his opinion the granting of subject request would be a direct benefit to his business. The City Attorney referred to conditional protest filed by the City of Anaheim against the alcoholic beverage license application, and was of the opinion that because the conditional use permit for on-sale beer and wine was granted at a public hearing, a new application and public hearing before the City Planning Commission would be required to amend the condition. At the conclusion of the discussion that followed, Councilman Dutton moved that the City's conditional protest filed against alcoholic beverage license application for on-sale general license at 404-406 North State College Boulevard, be withdrawn subject to the applicant's filing a new application to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 240. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. Councilman Chandler abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED° (Councilman Pebley left the meeting, 3:15 P.Mo) RESOLUTION NO. 66R-727 - AWARD OF JOB NO~ 1003: In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-727 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: FURNISHING AND ERECTING STEEL BLEACHERS AT LA PALMA PARK, AT HARBOR AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARDS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, JOB NO. 1003. (Russell and Russell Inc. - $21,108.00) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-727 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-728 - AWARD OF JOB NOo 1203: On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 66R-728 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PER- FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: THE GROVE STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM LA PALMA AVENUE TO APPROXIMATELY 1270 FEET SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, JOB NO. 1203. (Martin's Sewer Construction - $10,838.00) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-728 duly passed and adopted. 9805 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ ~.966.~ 1:30 P.M. PAYMENT - VERNON STREET - WINSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENT (SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY,: On the recommendations of the City Engineer, it was moved by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutte, that the Finance Director be authorized to pay to the Southern Pacific Company the sum of $16,577o95, in accordance with conditions pursuant to agreement and to Resolution No. 66R-120, pertaining to the paving of Vernon Street and Winston Road. MOTION CARRIED° JOB NO. 5019 - EXTENSION OF TIME: In accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer, a fifty-two and one-half work day extension of time to Job No. ~5019 was approved, with liquidated damages to be assessed in the amount of $120o79, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Schutteo MOTION CARRIED° DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Chandler offered Resolutions Nos. 66R-729, 66R-730 and 66R-731 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book~ RESOLUTION NO~ 66R-729: 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. (Francis W. and Margaret D. Elliott) RESOLUTION NO. 66R-730: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR GRADING AND MAINTENANCE OF A SLOPE AREA° (Evert S. and Anna Louise Peterson, Robert C. and Rita J. Aurand) RESOLUTION NOo 66R-731: 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. (Japanese American Development Enterprises) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None Pebley The Mayor declared Resolutions Nos° 66R-729, 66R-730 and 66R-731, duly passed and adopted~ PURCHASE: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of 23 street light standards, as follows, and recommended acceptance of the low bid, that of General Electric Supply Coo, Inc., in the amount of $5,205o51 including tax: General Electric Supply Co., Inc., Anaheim Joslyn Pacific, Los Angeles Graybar Electric Coo, Inc., Anaheim Line Materia] Coo, Pico Rivera E~D~ Johnson, Anaheim Westinghouse Electric Supply Co., Anaheim $5,205.51 5,212.64 5,261.04 5,268.33 5,268.64 5,321.22 Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Anaheim 5,293.44 On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilman Dutton moved that the low bid of General Electric Supply Co~, Inc., be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $5,205.51. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion~ MOTION CARRIED° PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on informal bids received on the purchase of 15,000 feet of 7/8 inch po~propylene rope, as follows, and recommended acceptance of the low bid of Graybar Electric Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,578~99, including tax: 9806 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November .22~ 1966~. 1:30 P.M. Graybar Electric Co., Inc., Anaheim General Electric Supply Coo, Anaheim Maydwell-Hartzell, Inc., Los Angeles Howard Supply Co., Garden Grove J.Go Tucker, Los Angeles T.A. Ford, San Gabriel $2,578.99 2,620.80 3,027.02 2,939.04 No Bid No Bid On the recommendations of the City Manager, it was moved by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Dutton, that the low bid of Graybar Electric Co., Inc., be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $2,578.99. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Chandler moved for a ten minute recess. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:30 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Pebley. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: 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 Chandler, seconded by Councilman Schutte: a. Claim submitted by Rosa Togel for damages purportedly resulting from recent installation of storm drain facilities on the corner of Zeyn and North Streets. Also received at open meeting was communication dated November 22, 1966, from Rosa Togel detailing further information pertaining to said claim b. Claim submitted by M. Conway Morris, Attorney representing Harry W. Peterson, for damages purportedly resulting from a dangerous condition on the Riverside Freeway in the vicinity of La Palma Avenue, on or about August 3, 1966. MOTION CARRIED. CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: Claim filed by Arthur W. Gray Jr., Attorney, on behalf of Lutheran Home Association, together with application to file late claim, for damages purportedly resulting from construction on Walnut Street during the period of July, through August, 1966, was submitted for Council considera- tion. On motion by Councilman Chandler, seconded by Councilman Dutton, permission to file late claim on behalf of Lutheran Home Association was granted, and said claim was denied as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the Insurance Agent. Councilman Schutte abstained from voting. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Chandler: a. Minutes - Community Center Authority - Meetings of October 3, and 17, 1966. b. Financial & Operating Reports for the month of October, 1966. MOTION CARRIED° ORDINANCE NO. 2331,- LICENSE FEES~ LAUNDRY MACHINES: Mr. Mark Ancel, Attorney representing Web Service Company, addressed the City Council with reference to litigation pending in the District Court of Appeal relative to his client's business license for laundry machine services, which concern provisions of Chapter 3.04.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and he pro- tested the adoption of Ordinance No. 2331 on the basis that they have not had an opportunity to review said ordinance relative to .its possible impact to the Web Service Company business operation and to their litigation. City Attorney Joseph Geisler was of the opinion that the appeal would be prosecuted on the reason and theory of interpretation of the Code 9807 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966, 1:30 P.M. provision at the time the litigation commenced, and the adoption of subject ordinance would not be descriminatory to Web Service Company. On the recQmmendations of the City Attorney, Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No~ 2331 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 3°36, SECTION 3.36.020 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Laundry Machine license) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte, Chandler and Krein None Pebley Mayor Krein declared Ordinance No. 2331 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOo 2333: Councilman Chandler offered Ordinance Noo 2333 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (66-67-24 - R-A and M-l) ORDINANCE NO. 2334: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No° 2334 for first reading~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO PARKING° (No Parking - certain portions of Ninth Street) ORDINANCE NO. 2335: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2335 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (66-67-27 - R-3) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS: The following applications were presented by the City Manager to the City Council for their information a. Application submitted by Paul Peter Lewko for Person to Person Transfer of On-Sale Beer license at Mimis, 3148~ West Lincoln Avenue (C-1 zone - Variance No. 1256)~ b. Application filed by Eugene and Theo M. Stutzman for Person to Person Transfer of Off-Sale Beer and Wine license at 7-Eleven, 2437 West Ball Road (C-1 zone). c. Application submitted by Albert C. and Helen J. Brower for Person to Person Transfer of Off-Sale Beer and Wine license at 7-Eleven, 2145 East Ball Road (C-1 zone). d. Application submitted by Sam G. and Bonita R. Stramaglia for Person to Person Transfer of On-Sale Beer license at the Nine Twenty Seven Club, 927 North Anaheim Boulevard (C-3 zone). No Council action was taken of the foregoing applications. REQUEST - ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Request of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce for Council approval of payment for the costs of printing certain publications which contribute to the benefit of the Community, in an amount not to exceed $6,000.00, was continued from the meetings of October 11 and November 1, 1966, for report and recommendations of the City Manager resulting from negotiations with the Chamber of Commerce. Communication dated November 3, 1966, from William I. Kott, DoD.S., requesting permission to address the City Council relative to the Chamber of Commerce, was submitted. 98O8 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966, 1:30 P.M. Dr. Kott, 601 South Harbor Boulevard, expressed opposition to the entering into a contract with what he felt was a "special interest group" thereby duplicating services that either were, or could be, rendered by the Public Information Office° The City Manager read the proposed agreement with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, noting the terms and conditions under which services would be performed, and payments made. Mr. Murdoch explained the function of the Public Information Office, in comparison to the services performed by the Chamber of Commerce, the former being basically concerned with informing the public as to official events within the City; the Chamber of Commerce being primarily concerned in the field of commerce and industry, together with providing information to visitors and prospective residents. Mr. Frank Feldhaus, 617 South Harbor Boulevard, member of the Chamber of Commerce, advised that the organization was not seeking a subsidy from the City, but a reimbursement of services rendered in accordance with an itemized accounting. He was of the opinion that every dollar spent for promotion would be returned many times in new residents, new business, and in additional tax monies to the City. (Councilman Schutte left the meeting, 4:30 P.M.) Mr. Marvin Essenmacher, 1717 East Lincoln Avenue, Director and Treasurer of the Chamber of Commerce, advised that, of the 17 publications of the Chamber of Commerce, ten can be classified as advertising and pro- motion of the entire City of Anaheim, and only those would come under provisions of the proposed agreement. Further, that it was the unanimous vote of the Chamber to enter into the proposed contract. In answer to Councilman Chandler's question, Mr. Essenmacher advised that the purpose of the contract was to allow reimbursement from the City for items used by and for the City. Dr. Kott expressed the opinion that the services to be performed by the Chamber of Commerce would be for the benefit of certain groups and businesses, and not for the benefit of the entire community; and disapproved use of City funds for what he felt would be for the benefit of a few. At the conclusion of the discussion, Council determination on the agreement with the Chamber of Commerce was deferred to the 7:00 P.M. portion of the meeting. (See Page 9822) RESOLUTION NO. 66R-732: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 66R-732 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE ORANGE COUNTY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT OF THAT PORTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PRESENTLY NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DISTRICT° Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandler and Krein None Schutte and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-732 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-733: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No~ 66R-733 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE PLACENTIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING PETITION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF Tt{E 9809 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -November 22~ 1966~ 1::30 P.M. COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR SUCH ANNEXATION. (Esperanza High School Annexation) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandler and Krein None Schutte and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-733 duly passed and adopted. BROADWAY-BROOKHURST ANNEXATION: The following certificates relative to the sufficiency of a petition of annexation of inhabited territory to the City of Anaheim, were submitted by the City Clerk: CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF INHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, DENE M. WILLIAMS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that upon receiving in my office a petition requesting the annexation to the City of Anaheim of certain territory known and designated as BROADWAY- BROOKHURST ANNEXATION, I have checked said petition and have examined the County Registration of Voters Records to ascertain the total number of qualified electors residing within the territory described in said petition, and I FURTHER CERTIFY, that from such examination and inspection, I find that the total number of qualified electors residing in said territory is four hundred fifty-eight (458) electors, and I find that said petition is signed by one hundred forty-six (146) qualified electors residing within the territory described in said petition, as shown by the County Registration of Voters of Orange County, California, and I FURTHER CERTIFY, that the last mentioned number of qualified electors constitutes not less than one-fourth of the qualified electors residing within the territory proposed to be annexed, as shown by such County Registration of Voters Records. I FURTHER CERTIFY that said territory described in said petition is contiguous to the City of Anaheim and does not form a part of any other incorporated City. DATED this 15th day of November, 1966. (StoL) /s/ Dene M. Williams. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFICATE RELATING TO SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF INHABITED TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF SANTA ANA ) I, W. Eo ST JOHN, County Clerk of the County of Orange, do hereby certify that I am the County Officer having charge of the Registration of Voters in the County of Orange, and I HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY, that I have examined, or caused to be examined, the petition received by the City Clerk of the City of Anaheim for the annexation of certain territory to said City of Anaheim known and designated as BROADWAY-BROOKHURST ANNEXATION, to ascertain the total number of qualified electors residing within the territory described in said petition, as shown by the County Registration of Voters, and to determine the number of qualified electors whose names are signed to said petition. 9810 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966~ 1:30 PoMo I FURTHER CERTIFY that from said examination, it appears that the total number of qualified electors residing within the territory described in said petition is four hundred fifty-eight (458) electors, and that the total number of qualified electors whose names are signed to said petition is one hundred forty-six (146) electors, and that said number represents one-fourth, (or more), of the qualified electors residing within said territory proposed to be annexed. DATED this 15th day of November, 1966. (SEAL) /s/ Wo E. St John COUNTY CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE By /s/ Mo J° Mayer Deputy Mr. Murdoch indicated the general area of subject territory from which signatures on the petition requesting annexation were obtained, and reported that only slightly more than the required one-fourth of the re- ristered voters in the territory were represented on said petition. Discussion was held by the City Council, it being the general consensus that although the said petition met the legal requirement, a stronger interest should be evident prior to calling special election for said annexation. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-734: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 66R-734 for adoption, terminating proceedings on the Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO PROCEED FURTHER WITH THE BROADWAY-BROOKHURST ANNEXATION, AND TERMINATING THE SAME. Roll call vote. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Chandler and Krein None Schutte and Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution NOo 66R-734 duly passed and adopted. PERALTA HILLS WATER COMPANY - POLICY RELATIVE TO FUTURE CITY ACQUISITION OF FACILITIES: Mr~ Murdoch read a draft of communication to be sent to the Peralta Hills Water Company Board of Directors, setting forth the position of the City of Anaheim with regard to future disposition of the Peralta Hills Water Company, if the annexation of the Peralta Hills area is completed. At the conclusion of the brief discussion that followed, Council- man Dutton moved that the City Council approve as a policy of the City for future acquisition of private water facilities as result of annexation, the statement outlined in the letter dated November 23, 1966, and that said letter be forwarded to the Peralta Hills Water Company Board of Directors. Councilman Chandler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Chandler moved to recess to 7:00 PoM. Councilman Dutt0n seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° (5:00 P .Mo) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein. COUNCILMEN: Schutte. CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams. CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox. 9811 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966, 1:30 P.M. ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson° PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinskio ASSISTANT PLANNER: Charles Roberts. FIRE CHIEF: Edward Jo Stringer~ Robert Mickelson. INVOCATION: Reverend Earl Broce of the Magnolia Baptist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Chandler led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86: Public hearing was continued from the meeting of October 11 and November 9, 1966, for con- sideration by the full City Council of proposed amendment to the General Plan by relocating the fire station symbol presently located on the west side of Euclid Street north of the Santa Ana Freeway, to the east side of Loara Street immediately north of the Flood Control Channel (approximate- ly midway between North Street and Catalpa Avenue). Said amendment was recommended for approval by the City Planning Commission. Mayor Krein asked if anyone had new evidence to add to that previously considered by the City Council. Mr. Richard Berg, 1261 Catalpa Avenue, advised that he represented several people in the residential neighborhood and again confirmed their strong opposition to the proposed relocation of the fire station symbol and the future establishment of a fire station on the property in question. He noted that there had been no expression of opinion from representatives of the major commercial areas which would be under the protection of the proposed fire station; and in briefing the opposition previously expressed, he was of the opinion that a tangible argument had been presented, and requested disapproval of General Plan Amendment Non 86. Relative to the statement of Mr. Berg that members of the City's staff had, at one time, assured him that subject property was designated as a future park site, Councilman Dutton advised that the 8.61 acre Sage Park to the east does not connect to subject 2.04 acre parcel, and he noted the intermediate parcels and the possibility of future acquisition thereof for parking and alternate access to Sage Park. Also noted were plans to develop the fire station with landscaping to be in a park-like atmosphere. Mr~ Murdoch advised that at one time, a study had been initiated to consider possible park use of the property on the north side of the Orange County Flood Control Channel, in conjunction with the 8.61 acre park however the study was never completed and no recommendation was made to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr° Berg called attention to a vacant parcel of land located on Crescent Avenue, and suggested that the fire station be located in the commercial area rather than in a residential neighborhood~ Mr. Murdoch advised that the original site on Euclid Street was selected because at that time, there was no expectation of a future over- crossing at the Santa Ana Freeway on Crescent Avenue; however, the State recently indicated approval of the overcrossing, and it then became possible to consider relocation of the site to the east, to more effectively cover the area to be ~ > ~e~ by the facility. He called attention to a map posted on the east wall of the Council Chamber, noting the areas of the city covered by each fire station, and advised of surveys conducted throughout the country by the American Insurance Association, rating the various factors pertaining to fire; that wherever possible, facilities are placed so as to be within the established minimum running distances for fire service, in order to get the best insurance rating and lower insurance premiums for property owners. 9812 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. Fire Chief Edward J. Stringer, addressed the Council concurring with statements of the City Manager, and advising that the minimum running distance for commercial and industrial properties is one mile, and for residential properties, two miles. The city's goal is to qualify for lower fire insurance ratings, thereby benefiting everyone. Mr. Berg was of the opinion that the establishment of a fire station in the proposed location would be extremely detrimental to the residential area, and that alternate sites were available in the area. He expressed concern that Loara was a narrow, heavily traveled street, in- adequate to handle fire equipment on a regular basis, and again requested that alternate sites be investigated. Mayor Krein declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-735: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-735 for adoption, adopting General Plan Amendment No. 86, in the best interest of the entire City of Anaheim, subject to the condition that every effort be made to provide additional access to the existing parksite, and that the fire station site be maintained in a park-like atmosphere as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NOo 86. (Fire Station Symbol) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-735 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-17: Submitted by Charlie J. Dominguez requesting change of zone from R-A to R-3 to permit construction of additional residential units; property briefly described as located at 2221 South Loara Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-108 recommended approval of subject reclassification, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners of subject property shall pay to'the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the Building Permit is issued. 2. That the City of Anaheim shall be provided recorded evidence of a perpetual easement for vehicular ingress and egress for the parcel to the west, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the irmnediate area. He summarized the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Mayor Krein asked if the applicant wished to address the City Council. Mr. Charlie Dominguez, 2221 South Loara Street, addressed the Council advising that his property contained a large area to the rear of the dwelling, which he understood was sufficient for two residential units. Concerning access to the landlocked property to the west, Mr. Dominguez advised that a 16 foot perpetual easement along the south portion of his property is on record with the County of Orange; that his fence has been constructed along the north side of said easement. He 9813 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo noted that ingress and egress for the proposed residential units would be provided on the property, and would not include the existing easement. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition to the reclassification. Mr. Leo Lepore, 2121 South Loara Street, spokesman for the opposition, advised that he was opposed to any additional multiple family dwellings in the area; that the street could not accommodate any additional traffic, and in his opinion an on-street parking problem would result from additional multiple family residential units. He noted that an application for R-3 zoning on property at 2145 South Loara Street had been disapproved approximately two years ago~ In response to Mayor Krein's question, several persons in the audience indicated that they agreed with Mr. Lepore's statement. Mrs~ LaDonna Rhodes, 1599 Sim Place, addressed the Council concurring with Mr. Lepore's statements, and advised that they hoped to preserve their neighborhood of high quality homes. In rebuttal, Mr~ Dominguez expressed surprise at the opposition, since no one had appeared at the City Planning Commission hearing. He noted the improvements he had made to his property, and reported that a plot plan had been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission. He requested that the application be approved. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the City Council, there being no response, declared the hearing closed: Plans and the file were reviewed by the City Council, and Mr. Thompson reported that to specific plans had been submitted, only a concept plot plan. Mr. Dominguez advised that the plot plan was submitted at the continued public hearing before the Commission, depicting two single story 800 square foot units with a separate 21 foot access drive. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilman Pebley moved that Council determination on Reclassification No. 66-67-17 be continued to January 3, 1967, 7:00 P~Mo, for submission of specific plans for the proposed development~ Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66~67-19 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87 .(TRACT NO. 5989): Submitted by Butler & Harbour, Inc. and Adolph Schoepe, requesting change of zone from R-2 to R-2 5000, One-Family zone, to allow single family residential development on property described as lot Nosy 1 through 59 of Tentative Tract No. 5989, and further described as located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue between Highland Avenue and Orchard Drive. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 87: Proposed amendment to the General Plan to reflect low-medium density land uses in the area bounded by' Lakeview Avenue, Orchard Drive, Orangethorpe Avenue and the Yorba Linda Reservoir; alternate Exhibits "A", "B" and "C". The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-106 recommended approval of Reclassification No. 66-67-19, subject to the following condition: 1. That a final tract map of subject property be approved by the City Council and recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No~ PC66-107 recommended approval of General Plan Amendment Noo 87, Exhibit "B". Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses in zoning in the immediate area, summarizing the evidence 9814 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. submitted to and considered by the City Planning Cormnission. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts noted the three exhibits for General Plan Amendment No~ 87, posted on the west wall of the Council Chamber, and on the General Plan Map, outlined the boundaries of the proposed amendment. He noted the present designations of industrial and low density residential land uses, and advised that the amendment was initiated on the basis of recent Council approval of low medium density zoning on approximately 57 acres within subject area. Mro Roberts noted that Exhibit "A" depicted low medium density residential use for the entire area included in the amendment. Exhibit "B" reflected the same designation, but reserved a portion located along the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Orchard Drive, for low density residential uses. Exhibit "C" designated low medium density use from the elementary school site westerly to Lakeview Avenue. Mayor Krein asked if one of the petitioner wished to address the City Council. Mr. Merrill Butler, President of Butler & Harbour Construction Company, advised that the portion of subject property originally owned by Mr. Schoepe had been purchased by his company; and was present to answer any questions of the Council. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in opposition, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-736: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 66R-736 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the recommendation 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 AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED° (66-67-19 - R-2, 5000) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-736 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-737: Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No~ 66R-737 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 87, Exhibit "B". 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. 87. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-737 duly passed and adopted. FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 5989: Developer, Butler- Harbour, Inc.; tract located on property described in Reclassification No~ 66-67-19, and contains 59 proposed R-2, 5,000 one family zoned lots. 9815 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo The City Engineer reported said final map conforms substantially with the tentative map previously approved and amended (Revision No. 5), that bond has been posted and approved, and required fees paid° He re- commended approval of said final map~ On the recommendations of the City Engineer, Councilman Chandler moved Final Map, Tract No. 5989 be approved. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED° RESOLUTION NO. 66R-7~8: On report and recommendation of the City Engineer Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No~ 66R-738 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING THAT CERTAIN OFFER OF SIERRA DOWNS, INC., a CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN REGARD TO THE GRANTING BY SAID SIERRA DOWNS, INCo OF AN EASEMENT OVER CERTAIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO TRACT NOo 5989 AND ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF SIERRA DOWNS, INCo TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS OVER SAID EASEMENT WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REIMBURSE SIERRA DOWNS, INCo FOR A CERTAIN PORTION OF SAID IMPROVEMJ~NTSo (Orangethorpe Avenue street widening) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution Noo 66R-738 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66m67-29: Submitted by J. Turek, Po Pletz, J. Fuquay, E. Sones and H. Lieberman requesting change of zone from R-A to R-3, property briefly described as follows: Portion 1 - Northeast corner of Western Avenue and Lanerose Drive; Portion 2 - North side of Lanerose Drive, west of Courtright Street; Portion 3 - South side of Ball Road, east of Western Avenue~ The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution PC66-115, recommended approval of R-2 zoning on Portions 1 and 2, and R-3 zoning on Portion No. 3, subject to the following conditions: Portion 1o 1. That the owners 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 Western Avenue, for street widening purposes. 2~ That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Western 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 specifi- catzons on file in the office of the City Engineer; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineering requirements° 3. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2~00 per front foot along Western Avenue and Lanerose Drive, for street lighting purposes° That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along the northerly 88 feet, more or less, along Western Avenue and Lanerose Drive for tree planting purposes~ That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential homes, prior to final building and zoning inspections. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25°00 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned,, shall be complied o o ° ° 9816 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 PoMo with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant° Portion 20 1. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Lanerose Drive, for street lighting purposes° 2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Lanerose Drive, for tree planting purposes. 3. That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential homes, prior to final building and zoning inspection. 4. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, 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. Portion 3. 1o That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Ball Road, 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; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineering requirements. 2. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2°00 per front foot along Ball Road, 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 Ball Road, for tree planting purposes° That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent residential homes, prior to final building and zoning inspection~ 5. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $25.00 per dwelling unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be paid at the time the building permit is issued° 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. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He summarized the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission, and called attention to findings of the Commission as contained in the resolution. The Mayor asked if the proponent had anything to add to the evidence submitted. An Agent for the petitioners made his presence known, advising of his willingness to answer any questions. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed reclassification, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-739: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 66R-739 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone to R-2 and R-3, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission° Refer to Resolution Book. 9817 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED° (66-67-29 - R-2 and R-3) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-739 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-30 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 356): Submitted by Gordon Lo Hodge requesting change of zone from R-A to C-1 to permit establishment of a motel and coffee shop (motel previously approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 356); property described as located at 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-116 recommended approval of said reclassification, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineering requirements. 2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Lincoln Avenue, for street lighting purposes. 3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Lincoln Avenue, 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 air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view and all sound shall be buffered from adjacent residential homes, prior to final building and zoning inspections. Also submitted for Council review was excerpt from the Minutes of the City Planning Commission Meeting held October 10, 1966, wherein 180 day extension to Conditional Use Permit Noo 356 was approved, in order that the petitioner might be fully covered for the use permitted thereunder, pending determination on Reclassification No. 66-67-30 by the City Council. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, surmnarizing the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the City Council for or against subject reclassification, there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NOo 66R-740: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution Noo 66R-740 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinanae changing the zone 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 9818 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED° (66-67-30 - C-i) Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-740 duly passed and adopted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 356 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Pebley, extension of time was granted to Conditional Use Permit No. 356, said extension to expire April 14, 1967. MOTION CARRIED° PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-31: Submitted by Broadway Village of Anaheim and Paul Spehar, requesting change of zone from R-A to C-i; property located on the east side of Euclid Street, north of Crescent Avenue (immediately north of Orange County Flood Control Channel). The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-117 recommended approval of said reclassification, subject to the following condition: That concrete wheel blocks be provided to separate the proposed tier of parking and the adjacent driveway easement, prior to final building and zoning inspections° Councilman Chandler requested the record to show that he did not participate in the discussion, nor vote on this issue. Mr. Thompson noted the location of subject property, and advised that no development plans had been filed for the land-locked parcel located adjacent to the R-3 property on the east; however, C-1 development on said parcel would be in conformance with the general land use and zoning in the immediate area° The south 20 feet of the 34 foot southerly strip of subject property would be reserved for access from Euclid Street to the Broadway Village Apartments on the east, and the remaining 14 feet thereof was proposed to serve as access to the land-locked parcel and as additional parking area for the existing C-0 development to the north. Mayor Krein asked if a representative of the petitioners wished to address the City Council° Mr. John Zylstra, 710 North Euclid Street, Agent for the petitioners, advised that access to Broadway Village Apartments from Euclid Street had been required at the time said R-3 use was approved by the City, and he requested that the reclassification stipulate to the 20 foot easement. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the City Council in opposition to the proposed reclassification, there being no response, declared the hearing closed° RESOLUTION NOo 66R-741: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution Nos 66R-741 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the recommendation of the City Planning Commission, and further subject to the following condition: "2. Subject to the southerly 20 feet of subject property being retained for access from Euclid Avenue to Broadway Village easterly of said property." Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (66-67-31 - C-i) 9819 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22~ 1966~ 1:30 P.M. Roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: Dutton Pebley and Krein None Chandler Schutte The Mayor declared Resolution No. 66R-741 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - 66-67-3~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 891 AND VARIANCE NO. 1835: Submitted by Lloyd R. Pettengill requesting change of zone from C-1 (limited to office-professional uses) to C-1 (unlimited), and permission to establish a walk-up restaurant, with waivers of minimum required parking spaces and maximum building height; property located at the north- east corner of Euclid Street and Buena Vista Avenue (1426 South Euclid Street). The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC66-118, PC66-119, and PC66-120 recommended denial of said reclassification and denied said conditional use permit and variance. Mr. Thompson, noted the location of subject property and the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area. He advised that the C-1 zoning was requested to establish a walk-up restaurant, a drive-in dairy and future commercial office building, and he noted the findings made by the City Planning Commission in recommending denial of subject application. The City Clerk submitted in evidence letter of opposition from Ina Walker, received at open meeting. The Mayor asked if the petitioner or his representative wished to address the City Council. Mr. Stoltenberg, Attorney representing the applicant, requested that each of the three applications be considered on its own merits. He was of the opinion that the proposed plan uses would not affect the residential integrity of the area. As presently restricted, Mr. Stoltenberg did not foresee any potential development on subject property, since there was no longer a demand for a professional office use for which the property is zoned. In his opinion, the approval of subject applications would stimulate development for other properties in the area. Mro Stoltenberg called attention to the plot plan submitted, illustrating the restaurant and dairy located on the westerly portion of the property, and the future office building at the northeast corner thereof, with parking on both sides and at the rear. He noted the 15 foot drainage easement adjacent to subject property on the north, which constituted a natural barrier between the two properties° Attention was called to the high school located on the west side of Euclid Street, and Mr. Stoltenber8 noted that the entrance to the school was located on Cerritos Street, which in his opinion would discourage young people from crossing Euclid Street to the restaurant at a point where there were no cross-walks or traffic lights. Councilman Chandler asked how circumstances had changed to warrant the City Council lifting restrictions they had previously re- quired on subject property. Mr. Stoltenberg noted that no proposal for the development allowable on the property had been made since the restricted C-1 zoning was approved in 1961, and he was of the opinion that the restricted zoning had proved to be impractical. He further advised that the office building was proposed to act as a buffer for the residential properties to the east. 982O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Novomher 22, 1966, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Krein asked for a show of hands by those present in opposition. Approximately 20 persons responded. Councilman Chandler stated that he was completely familiar with subject property, that all the evidence had been presented.previously, and he saw no justification for removing the restrictions. The City Council indicated they were in accordance with Councilman Chandler's state- ment. Mr. Lloyd Pettengill, owner of subject property, addressed the Council advising that approximately 21 residences were located on Buena 'Vista Street, and in his opinion, if the presently allowable development took place, a greater traffic problem would be created on Euclid Street than if the proposed development were approved, having access from Buena Vista Street. He noted unsuccessful attempts to interest developers in the office-professional development previously approved, being of the opinion that there was a surplus of properties in the city zoned for the this type of development. Mr. Pettengill noted his previous dedication and street improvement fronting his property on Euclid Street, and advised that he currently has a bond posted for sidewalk construction. Mr. Harry Newman, Jr., of Newman Associates, Long Beach, and the National Trustee of the International Council of Shopping Centers, submitted and read letter dated November 15, 1966, from Tishman Realty & Construction Co., Inc., regarding the recent survey pertaining to the office building market in Anaheim. At the conclusion of the brief discussion that followed, Mayor Krein declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Chandler offered Resolutions Nos. 66R-742, 66R-743 and 66R-744, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-742: 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. (66-67-32) RESOLUTION NO. 66R-743: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 891. RESOLUTION NO. 66R-744: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 1835. Roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte The Mayor declared Resolutions Nos. 66R-742, 66R-743 and 66R-744, duly passed and adopted. RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a fifteen minute recess. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED° (9:00 P.M.) Cake and coffee were served in celebration of Councilman Pebley's birthday. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Krein called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council being present with the exception of Councilman Schutte. AIRPORT COACH SERVICE: City Manager Keith Murdoch reported on amended offer to lease 2.13 acres of Convention Center property (portion of Zahl lease- hold, west of the convention facility, fronting on Katella Avenue) as submitted by Airport Coach Service, proposing to establish a transporation center providing passenger services connecting with Orange County and 9821 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966~ 1:30 P.M. Los Angeles International Airports. He noted proposed terms and provisions of the lease, as set forth in their letter dated November 22, 1966, and briefly reviewed terms of the City's existing lease on the Anna Zahl property. Mro Murdoch further advised that the proposal included a request for a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress, adjacent to the west side of the Convention Center, and for parking south of the exhibit hallo Discussion was held relative to parking provisions, and Mr. Murdoch was of the opinion that temporary storage of vehicles could be worked out separately in conjunction with the convention events and need not be a part of the lease. Mro Don Boyles, 19091 Barrett Lane, Santa Ana, President of Airport Coach Service, addressed the Council noting that whatever policy is determined for storage of charter busses, etc., in connection with convention center events, would apply to their storage needs. He agreed that this was a matter which could be resolved separately. Concerning the proposal, Mro Boyles advised that the pros- pective term of the lease was a maximum of fifty years. That they would continue to maintain their present Disneyland Hotel coach service so long as public necessity and convenience so required; however the new facility would greatly relieve congestion at that location. Mr. William H. Fritz, 3017 Gainsboro Road, Orange, Manager of the proposed facility, noted that a general outline of the proposed One Million Dollar development had been submitted to the City Manager in July of 1966. He was of the opinion that the unique convenience of the service in the location proposed would add to the prestige of the City and the Convention Center. In answer to Council questioning, Mr. Fritz advised that plans can not be finalized until they have a commitment from the City; although they have had a solid reaction from discussions with the airlines, they can go no further without assurance of the lease. He called attention to parking problems and congestion at International Airport, and noted the possibility that the new facility would eventually provide passenger check-in service, allowing passengers to check their baggage there, and be transported directly to their departure gate at the airport. Mr. Fritz displayed elevation plans and diagrams of the proposed transportation center~ Councilman Chandler favored the City retaining the right to approve the architecture of any structure on the property. In answer to Council questioning, Mr. Murdoch reported that there apparently is no area of conflict with the service provided by Los Angeles Airways~ He was of the opinion that the facility would be beneficial to conventionaires and other travelers, and should be located near the general commercial-recreation and convention center area° Mr. Fritz noted that they were asking for a six months option to lease the property, with the privilege of extending the option for an additional three months, in the event financing and airline leases are not finalized. Councilman Chandler noted the proposed payment for the option period, and was of the opinion that a minimum of $1,000. per month should be paid for the initial six month period, and although a six month option without extension was in his opinion sufficient, any extension beyond six months should be at $2,000° per month due to the fact that the pro- perty would be off the market during tLe term of the optiont 9822 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES November 22, 1966~ 1:30 P.Mo Discussion was held regarding the reappraisal of the property after 20 years of the 50 year lease, and Councilman Pebley firmly felt there should be no provisions for a possible decrease in the initial rental payments. Mr. Fritz advised that the reappraisal provision was based on the value of the land, which could possibly lower in 20 years, however he agreed that the property would not likely decrease in value, and stated they were willing to waive the "decrease" factor in the reappraisal provision. Further, it was agreed that the lease rental would commence at the time construction is commenced and if at any time during the option period it is found that the plan will not materialize, the option would be released immediately. Mr. Don Ramberg, of Ramberg & Lowrey, Santa Ana, Architect for the project, advised that six months would be the minimum reasonable construction time for the facility, however approximately three months are required to complete the plans. Discussion was held relative to the financial aspects of the proposed business, and Mayor Krein noted that a "step-up" plan for rental payments could be instituted for the first five year period of the lease, graduating the payments from a lower amount to a higher amount, resulting in the same total payment at the end of the five year period° Mr. Walter Fo Davis, President of Rea]. Estate Analysts, Inco, 1777 North Vine Street, Hollywood, who had completed an economic survey for the Airport Coach Service, noted that the developers would not own the land, and could not use it as equity for construction loans. In analyzing some twenty-five similar ground leases in the Los Angeles area, he advised that several were found to have a reduced rental payment during the construction period when the facility is non-productive. Regarding the stability of the proposed project, Mro Davis advised that his company made a thorough independent study, and found solid assurance that the project would be a successful venture° Councilman Pebley advised that the documents should be so worded as to protect the City from the sale of the lease to another party. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was agreed by the pro- ponents and the City Council that action on the proposed option of ground lease be deferred one week (November 29, 1966) to allow the City Attorney to review the documents and incorporate modifications expressed and agreed to by the proponents. ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (Continued from Page 9808): Proposed contract with the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce for promotional advertising on behalf of the City, was reviewed by the City Council° The City Attorney reported that vouchers of expenditure would be submitted for approval by the City Manager, and would be checked by the City Attorney to be certain they were legal expenditures, in accordance with the contract° RESOLUTION NO. 66R-745: Councilman Chandler offered Resolution No. 66R-745 for adoption, approving the contract appointing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Agent for and on behalf of the City of Anaheim for promotional advertising during the period of November 15, 1966 to June 30, 1967, both inclusive; payment for said services not to exceed a total of $6,000.00. Refer to Resolution Books A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROPRIATING CERTAIN FUNDS FOR ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH THE ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE DOING OF SAID ADVERTISING; AND PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATION TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR SERVICES TO BE RENDERED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM° Roll call vote: 9823 City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 22, 1966a 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Chandler and Krein None Schutte adopted. The Mayor declared Resolution No.66R-745 duly passed and ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn to November 28, 1966, 2:00 P.Mo, and also moved waiver of further notice of said adjournment. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. To this motion, Councilnu~n Chandler voted "No". MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 11:00 P.M. City Clerk City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 28, 1966, 2:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Pebley, Schutte, Chandler and Krein. COUNCILMEN: None. CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch. CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph Geisler. DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Alona M. Farrens. CHIEF OF POLICE: Mark A. Stephenson. Mayor Krein called the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 186 AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The City Council at their Special Meeting held November 17th, 1966, set this date and hour as the time to hold and conduct a public hearing to review Conditional Use Permit Noo 186, and to determine whether said conditional use permit should be revoked pursuant to Section 18o64.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Notice of said public hearing and order to show cause having been duly served on the parties concerned, Mr. Leo Freedman, 2018 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California, and Mr. Sammy Lewis and Danny Dare, Melodyland Theatre, 10 Freedman Way, Anaheim, California. The Mayor announced that he had been informed that Mr. Danny Dare or his Attorney wished to make a statement at this time. Mr. Charles Schlegel, Attorney representing Melodyland Theatre stated, in every controversy there should be consideration given to re- solving same with a full understanding of the issues on both sides; that as result of working with City Attorney Joseph Geisler, he personally came to understand in greater depth the problem of the City in protecting its image. Mr. Schlegel introduced Mr. Danny Dare who would present a statement on behalf of Melodyland. Mr° Danny Dare, 235 West Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, California, personally and on behalf of Melodyland, read in full communication to the City Council, wherein, based on the spirit of cooperation, they agreed, for a period of one year, that Melodyland will not present any reviews or productions where nudity such as the models of "Vive Les Girls" constitutes part of the productions. That this statement is made on the assumption that valid regulations will be forthcoming, controlling this area of the