Loading...
1969/04/2969-238 City Hall, Anaheim,, C.alifornia COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT ABSENT: PRESENT COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley (entered the meeting at 1:55 PoMo), and Clark COUNCILMEN: None CITY MANAGER: Keith Ao Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Clark called the meeting to order. INVOCATION: Reverend William Auld, of St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation° FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Krein led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag~ PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamations were issued by Mayor Clark and unanimously approved by the City Council: "Youth In Government Day" - May 1, 1969. "Law Day, UoSoAo" - May 1, 1969 "Orange County Firemen's Day" - June 14, 1969. "Sons of Italy in America Week" - May 5 - 10, 1969. MINUTES: Minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held April 8 and 15, 1969, were approved on motion by Councilman Krein, seconded by Councilman Schutte. MOTION CARRIED° WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Dutton moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions, and that con- sent 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 Krein seconded the motion° MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED° REi~ORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City, in the a~6unt o~ $964,192e35, in accordance with the 1968-69 Budget,were approved. RE~oLUTIoN NO. 69R-243: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 69R-243 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (George Boone - 68-69-43)° Roll Call Vote: AY~: COUNCILM~N~ NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT~ COUNCIIaMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark None Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-243 duly passed and adopted. DEDICATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-43: On motion by Councilman Schutte, seconded by Councilman Krein, dedication of vehicu- lar access rights to Lincoln Avenue, by George Boone, in connection with Reclassification NOo 68-69-43, was accepted by the City Council and the re- cordation thereof was authorized. MOTION CARRIED. 69-239 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 2664: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2664 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (68-69-13 - R-3'- Parcel A, Tract 6843 Only). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2664 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2665: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2665 for adoption. Refer ~ Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-55 - R-2, 5,000 and R-1 - Tract 6820). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2665 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2666: Councilman Krein offered Ordinance No. 2666 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-22 - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2666 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2667: Councilman Clark offered Ordinance No. 2667 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-63 - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2667 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2668: Councilman Krein offered Ordinance No. 2668 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-9 - C-l). Roll Call Vote: 69-240 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2668 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2669: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2669 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (68-69-59 - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN~ None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance NOo 2669 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2670: Councilman Clark Offered Ordinance No. 2670 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING~ (68-69-43 - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2670 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOo 2671: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2671 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book° AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-25 - R-1.-Tra~~ 6735). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2671 duly passed and adopted. ~QR~iNANCE NO. 2672: Councilman Schutte offered Ordinance No. 2672 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-40(1) - R-1 - Tract No. 6771 Only). Roll Call Vote~ AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark None Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2672 duly passed and adopted. 69-241 .City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 2673: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2673 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (68-69-56 - C-I). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES~ COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance NOo 2673 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NOo 2674: Councilman Krein offered Ordinance No. 2674 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(3) - M-l). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2674 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2675: Councilman Clark offered Ordinance No. 2675 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (66-67-61(26) - C-R). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2675 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2676: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2676 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(8) - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance Noo 2676 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 2677: Councilman Krein offered Ordinance No. 2677 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Bookm AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(4) - M-l). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILb~N: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2677 duly passed and adopted. 69-242 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 2678: Councilman Dutton offered Ordinance No. 2678 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- CIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING° (66-67-61(27) - C-R). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark None Pebley The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 2678 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-80: Submitted by William L. Dornon, et al, requesting a change in zone from R-A to C-i, to permit the develop- ment of a bank on property located at the southwest corner of ~atella Way Mountain View Avenues, and further described as 320 East Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-77, recommended said reclassification be approved, subject to the following con- ditions: 1o That the owners of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 60 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Katella Way, for street widening purposes. 2. That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all en- gineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Katella Way and Mountain View, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drain- ~ge 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 guaran- tee 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 Katella Way and Mountain View, for street lighting purposes. 4o That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per front foot along Katella Way and Mountain View Avenue, for tree planting purposes. 5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 6~ That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 7o That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south property lineo 8. That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent residential homes. 9. That any parking area lighting shall be lighted with down-light- ing a maximum 6-feet in height and shall be directed away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 10o That Condition Nos. 1~ 27 37 and 4~ above mentioned~ shall be complied with within a period of 180 days from the date hereof, or such fur- ther time as the City Council may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the location of the subject property, the existing uses and zoning in the immediate area, and briefed the evidence submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Mayor Clark asked if the Applicant or his Agent was present and wished to address the City Council. Receiving no response, he then asked if anyone was present in opposition to the subject reclassification; hearing no objection, he declared the hearing closed. 69-243 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.Mo RESOLUTION NO. 69R-244: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No. 69R-244 for adoption, authorizing the preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone as requested, subject to the conditions recommended by' the City Planning Com- mission° Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMIN- ING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (68-69- 80 - c-i). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte and Clark NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pebley The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-244 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 113: Initiated by the City Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the General Plan, Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way to extend Sunkist Street southerly from Cerritos Avenue to Howell Avenue, as a Secondary Highway; and to amend the Highway Rights-of- Wa~ Map and Resolution No~ 67R-376 to include that portion of Cerritos Avenue extending easterly from the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way to Douglas Road as an exception to a Secondary Highway. Further, to consider the Precise Alignment of Sunkist Street, between Ball Road, on the north, and Howell Avenue, on the south. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts briefed the proposals under consi- deration, and advised that the Orange County Board of Supervisors has adopted a Precise Alignment for Sunkist Street; that the Planning Staff and City Plann- ing Commission felt the location of the industrial plant on the north side of Howell Avenue should be taken into consideration and, therefore, recommends the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 113, to coincide with the County Master Plan, am approval of the Precise Alignment of Sunkist Street in ac- c~ance with Exhibit "A"o He stated that the Orange County Board of Super- visors has been advised of the latter recommendation and will amend their resolution accordingly, if approved by the City Council° The City Clerk reported receipt of two letters of protest from Mr. and Mrs. Furman Bo Roberts, and a supplemental protest containing 101 signa- tures which, she noted, had not been checked as to location in relation to the proposed General Plan Amendment. Councilman Schutte requested the record to show that he did not par- ticipate in the discussion nor vote on this issue, because of a possible con- flict of interest, since the proposed alignment of Sunkist Street passes through his property. He first noted, however, that it is preferred by his neighbor, Mr. Gregg, that the proposed alignment through his property be straightened out, rather than angled to the west. The City Manager noted that the recommended alignment as shown on Exhibit A was previously requested by Mr~ Gregg as being preferable to the previous alignment. Mr. Furman Bo Roberts, 2504 East Paladin Road, expressed opposition to the proposed alignment of Sunkist Street, as shown in Exhibit "A", noting that his residence is located at the corner of Sunkist Street and Paladin Road. He was of the opinion that no public hearing was held on the proposed extension of Sunkist Street, south of Ball Road, and that this was the first occasion that official notice was received by the public, affording them an opportun- ity to present their views. Although he did not deny the need to open up this area, he felt it would not be desirable to circulate traffic from an industrial area and from Anaheim Stadium through a single-family, residential area, and noted an example in the Lincoln-Brookhurst area. Councilman Pebley entered the meeting, (1:55 P.M.). 69-244 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. Mro Roberts requested an agonizing reappraisal of the proposed cir- culation plan, and suggested that if an additional circulation is felt to be necessary that Sunkist Street be extended further west, which would encour- age traffic to circulate onto State College Boulevard, rather than through a residential district. He felt that with the completion of the proposed Orange Freeway, approximately ten years in the future, traffic from the in- dustrial areas and from the Stadium would use the Sunkist route and may con- tinue to do so~ even after the Freeway opens° Councilman Dutton observed that it would be necessary to provide circulation in this area, if the property south of Ball Road is to develop. Mr. Roberts replied that there are alternate methods of providing needed circulation, such as additional east-west streets, from State College Boule- vard. Mayor Clark felt that ~.'£th the proposed Freeway ramps at both Ball Road and Katella Avenue, the Freeway' route will be chosen instead of surface streets by many motorists° The City Engineer reported that the latest information indicates the construction of the proposed freewa will begin in the Spring of next year, and will be completed within approximately two years. The City Manager concurred with the proposed time schedule as re- ported by the City Engineer. Mr~ Murdoch reported that with the freeway con- struction the City is committed to install a storm drain estimated in excess of one-half million dollars, and when extended from Katella Avenue south to Orangewood Avenue, the City is committed to provide permanent rear entrance to the Stadium estimated to cost $600,000.00 or $700,000.00, therefore, the time schedule has been carefully checked with the State, for budgetary pur- poses° The extension of Sunkist Street to Howell Avenue is an approved Arterial Highway Financing Project proposed for this coming year. The ex- tension of Sunkist Street as a Secondary Highway has been indicated on the Master Plans of both the City and the County for many years, even before the development of the residential area to which Mr. Roberts referred. The possibility cf placing load limitations on Sunkist Street was discussed, and the City' Manager advised there is normally no such limitation on Secondary and Arterial Highways, nor would he recommend a weight limita- tion as their very purpose is to move traffic of all types in high volume. Mr. Brent Holmes, representing Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Com- pany, 9400 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills~ indicated his company owned the industrial tract located between Howell and Cerritos Avenues, and that although he did not object to the concept of the subject proposal, he was concerned about the possible reduction in the Cerritos Avenue frontage that this would necessitate, and wished to have more specific information on the subject. He indicated that a 50.-foot frontage presently exists, and he would consider unacceptable any proposal which would reduce it to 25 feet, thereby affecting their parking and access. The City Engineer noted that the information necessary to answer Mr. Holmes' question is available in his office, and suggested deferring the matter to later in the meeting~ pending investigation of the dedication requirement~ Mayor Clark asked if anyo~e else wished to be heard at this time. Mro Charles Wo O'Brien, 2504 Whidby Lane, stated that traffic is already very heavy on Sunkist Street, and includes many large trucks which create a great deal of ncise~ He also felt that it is unsafe for school children to cross Sunkist Street at the present time, and if it becomes 69 -245 City Hall, Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969, 1:30 PoM. a Secondary Highway the situation will become even worse. Mayor Clark asked if anyone else wished to address the City Coun~ cil; receiving no response, he declared the hearing closed° Upon return of the City Engineer to the Council Chambers, it was reported that Mro Holmes had received the information he requested. Mr. Holmes thereupon requested that the matter be continued for two weeks, in order that his staff may have the opportunity to review this information° On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Krein, de- cision on General Plan Amendment No. 113 was continued, as requested by Mr. Holmes, to the meeting of May 13, 1969, at 1:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 114: Initiated by the City Planning Commission to consider Amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element, Highway Rights-of-Way to delete that portion of Coronado Street between Jefferson Street and Tustin Avenue from the Arterial Streets and Highways and Highway Rights-of-Way Maps; and to amend the Highway Rights-of-Way Map and Resolution No~ 67R-376 to include that portion of Jefferson Street be- tween Coronado Street on the north, and Tustin Avenue on the south, as an exception to a Secondary Highway° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-62, recommended said General Plan Amendment be approved, in accordance with Ex- hibit "A". Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the proposed align- ment of Tustin Avenue was adopted by the City Council a few months ago; that it is presently designated as a collector street; and it is felt by the City Planning Commission that an additional intersection in this vicinity is in- appropriate, and would cause traffic conflict. In answer to Council questions, Mr. Roberts outlined a proposal to abandon that portion of the old alignment of Jefferson Street, which is not included in the new alignment; however, noted that abandonment is not proposed for that portion of Coronado Street which is to be deleted from the Master Plan, as the property owners in the area may elect to extend it as a stub street, at some future date° At the conclusion of Council discussion it was noted by the City Attorney that public hearing would be held on any proposed abandonment of Jefferson Street° Councilman Schutte left the Council Chambers, (2:50 P.Mo). RESOLUTION NOo 69R-245: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No° 69R-245 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment NOo 114, 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 AMfENDMENT NO. 114, "EXHIBIT A" Roll Call Vote: AYES~ NOES~ TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT~ COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN~ COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN~ Dutton, Krein, Clark and Pebley None Schutte None The Mayor declared Resolution Noo 69R-245 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-246: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No. 69R-246 for adoption, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. 69-246 City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 291 19691 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CII¥ OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 67R-376 RELATING TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Roll Call Vote; AYES: NOES: TEMPORARILY ABSENT: ABSENT: COUNCI~iEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Pebley and Clark None $¢butte None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-246 duly passed and adopt~d. Councilman Schutte returned to the Council Chambers, (2:52 P'.Iq ). RECLASSIFICATION NOo 63-64-40; Request of Mosaburo Nakamura, for a waiver of the block wall requirement on C-2 zoned property at the northwest corner of Lin- coln and Magnolia was submitted, together with reports and recommendations of the Development Services Department. On the recommendation of the Development Services Department, Coun- cilman Dutton moved that said request be denied,and that the bond presently in force for the subject wall be continued until such time as the small par- cel to the northeast of subject property is developed as proposed, or is re- zoned to other than residential. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. Raymond H. Dancy for per- mit to allow dinner dancing at The Morgue, located at 1116 North Fountain Way, 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 Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein~ MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mr. Leonard Bedolla for permit to con- duct Public Dance on May 3, 1969, at the Windsor Dance Hall, 135-1/2 West Lincoln Avenue, was submitted and granted subject to the provisions of Chap- ter 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, and providing that four officers and one matron be hired to police said dance, as recommended by the Chief of Po- lice, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application filed by Mrs. Frances B. Gonzales, on behalf of Sociedad Progresista Mexicana Noo 24, for permit to conduct public dance on May 11, 1969, at Carpenters Hall, 608 West Vermont 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 Councilman Dutton, second- ed by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED° CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM~I Actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held April 7, 1969, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information and consideration: VARIANCE ~0. 2067: Submitted by Glen Martin, requesting waivers of minimum rear yard and maximum coverage of required rear yard to erect a storage ad- dition to an existing garage, R-1 zoned property located at 638 Peregrine Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-66, granted said variance,subject to conditions. VARIANCE NOo 2068: Submitted by Esther Rosborough, requesting waiver of the required rear setback to permit construction of a room addition, R-O zoned property located at 922 Pioneer Drive° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-65, granted said variance, subject to conditions. 69-247 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969, 1:30 P.Mo VARIANCE NO. 2069: Submitted by Lewis Re and Judith E. Schmid, requesting waivers of setback from a local street, distance between buildings, distance of dwelling units from a standard street, and setback from interior property line, to establish a 109-unit, one and two-story apartment complex on R-3 zoned property, located west of State College Boulevard and north of Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-73, granted said variance, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO. 2071: Submitted by Thomas A. and Audrey V~ Hawkins, requesting waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a room addition, on R-2, 5,000 zoned property located at 1126 South Chaucer Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-69, granted said variance, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nee 1104: Submitted by Nick Pokrajac, et al, to es- tablish a fabrication plant (heavy metals) with waiver of material of wall enclosing outdoor use, R-A zoned property located east of Blue Gum Street, south of the centerline of Coronado Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos PC69-74, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nee 1105: Submitted by Alfred Helve and Sons, Inc., to permit On-Sale Beer and Wine in conjunction with a Mex~an restaurant, C-1 zoned property located at 1723 West Katella Avenue° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-67, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1106: Submitted by Paul Jo Burnside to establish a towing service with outdoor temporary storage of wrecked and impounded ve- hicles, M-1 zoned property located at 549 West Central Park Avenue° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-70, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1108: Submitted by M~S. Bernard, et al, to es- tablish a 100-bed convalescent hospital, R-A and C-1 zoned property located at 916 South Knott Street and 3435 West Ball Road° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-68, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 1109: Submitted by Frank and Loretta Krogman, to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant, C-1 zoned property located at 1029 North Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-71, granted said conditional use permit, subject to conditions. VARIANCE NO. 2013: Request of Covington Brothers for extension of time to comply with conditions of Variance Nee 2013, for development of ll2-unit apartment development, on the west side of Magnolia, south of Crescent Ave- hue. The City Planning Commission, by motion, granted six-month extension of time for completion of conditions; said time limitation to expire Septem- ber 19, 1969. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~ 1088: Submitted by Anaheim Y.M.C.A., to establish a private educational institution at 121 South Citron Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-79, amended legal description of Reso]ution Not PC69-11, as depicted on Exhibit 69-248 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. The foregoing actions were reviewed by the City Council, and no further action taken. TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. 6819: Tentative Map of Tract No. 6819 was continued to bc heard in cenjunction With Reclassification No. 68-69-87, a~ rsqu~cd by the developer, on motion 10y Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED. TENTATIVE MAP - TRACT NO. 6931: Tentative Map, Tract NOo 6931, was continued as requested by the developer, to be heard in conjunction with Reclassifi- cation No. 68-69-84 and Variance No. 2075, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-247 - WORK ORDER NO. 565-A: Councilman Dutton offered Reso- lution No. 69R-247 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE i.A PALS~-BROOKHURST STREET IMPROVEMENT, IU THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 565-A. APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORD- ANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CON- STRUCTION THEREOF~ (Bids to be Opened May 22, 1969, 2:00 P.M.). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-247 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-248 - WORK ORDER NO. 536-B: Upon receipt of certification from the Director of Public Works, Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 69R-248 for adoption° Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COM- PLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: THE IMPROVEMENT OF CRESCENT AVENUE, FROM BROOKHURST STREET TO MAGNOLIA AVENUE, IN THE CITer OF ANAHEIM, WORK ORDER NO. 536-Bo (Sully-Miller Contracting Company). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark None None The Mayor declared Resolution No0 69R-248 duly passed and adopted. PURCHASE: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the printing of 65,000 Summer Programs for the Parks and Recreation Department, as fol- lows: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX Rotary Offset Printers, Anaheim ...... $5,094.10 Graphicolor, Anaheim ............... 7,275.75 Dennis Printers, Santa Ana ............. 8,732.25 Engineering Reproductions ......... NO BID Home Town Printers ............... NO BID Conklin Printers .................. NO BID 69-249 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. On the recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Schutte moved that the low bid of Rotary Offset Printers be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $5,094~10, including tax. Councilman Dutton seconded the mo- tion. MOTION CARRIED° PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on the recommended purchase of a Refuse Compaction Truck, and advised that the one manufacturer meeting spe- cifications, Data Veyors Corporation, has submitted a quotation for said equip- ment in the amount of $7,197,75, including tax. He thereupon recommended pur- chase be authorized° On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte, said purchase of Fast-Pack Compaction Unit from Data Veyors was authorized, as recom- mended by the City Manager° MOTION CARRIED. PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT: The City Manager reported on informal bids received for the purchase of a Composer, as follows: VENDOR TOTAL AMOUNT~ INCLUDING TAX I.B.M. Corporation, Anaheim ........... $4,646~25 Varityper Corporation, Anaheim ........... 4,698.75 On the recommendations of the City Manager, Councilman Pebley moved that the low bid of IoBoMo Corporation be accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $4,646.25, including tax. Councilman Schutte seconded the mo- tion. MOTION CARRIED° DIEHL-EVANS AND COMPANY - AUDITING AGREEMENT: The City Manager reported that Diehl- Evans and Company has notified the City that the cost under their continuing agreement with the City to conduct a financial audit will increase from $3,600.00 to $4,800.00 maximum, per year. The Mayor requested the City Manager to investigate the possibility of combining the financial audit with an efficiency study, and requested that additional proposals from other firms be solicited for these services. Following Council discussion, it was agreed by general consent to continue the matter for further information and study. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied, as recommended by the City Attorney, and ordered referred to the insurance carrier, on motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein: ao Claim submitted by Southern Ca?ifornia Edison Company, for pro- perty damages purportedly sustained on or about January 29, 1969. bo Claim submitted by Mrs. Paul Witte, for personal property dam- ages purportedly sustained on or about April 11, 1969o MOTION CARRIED° ~EQUEST TO FILE LATE CLAIM~ Request of Dannemeyer & Lange, Attorneys, on behalf of Juergen Stengel, was submitted requesting permission to file a late claim. On recommendation of the City Attorney, said request was denied on motion ~? Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein. MOTION CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE: ~he following correspondence was ordered received and filed on motion by Councilman Dutton~ seconded by Councilman Schutte: a. Public Utilities Commission hearing for application of Grey- hound Lines, Inc~, for an order authorizing a Statewide increase in express rates and main line passenger fares. COMMltTER CENT~RSn INC~ ~ PROPOSED METROPORT: The City Manager requested discussion of a proposal by Commuter Centers, Inc~, to establish a Metroport in the City of Anaheim be continued for submission of a formal letter of intent from that organiza[ion.~ By general consent of the City Council, discussion of the pro- posed Metroport was continued to the meeting of May 13, 1969. 69-250 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-249: Councilman Krein offered Resolution No. 69R-249 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOo 69R-238 DECLARING ALL WEEDS GROWING UPON ANY PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO BE A NUISANCE° (Public Hear- ing May 27, 1969, 1230 PoMo)o Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-249 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-250: On the recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 69R-250 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 68R-426 AND ESTABLISHING A RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE NEW JOB CLASSI- FICATION OF SENIOR KEY PUNCH OPERATOR IN THE DATA PROCESSING DIVISION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-250 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-251: On the recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Pebley offered Resolution No. 69R-251 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOo 68R-426 AMENDING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT NOW EMPLOYED IN THE RECREATION DIVISION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-251 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST - LA HABRA LIONS CLUB: Request of the La Habra Lions Club was submitted for permission to sell tickets, l~ay 1, 1969, to August 1, 1969, for their Annual Corn Festival, to be held in the City of La Habra on August 2, 1969. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte, said request was granted on the basis of solicitation for donations, subject to the provision that no solicitation of funds be conducted on the Anaheim Stadium or Convention Center properties. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST - ANAHEIM FIREMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION: Request of the Anaheim Fire- men's Benevolent Association was submitted for waiver of business license fees, in conmection with their sponsorship of the Rudy Brothers Circus, ~ be held May 15 and 16, 1969, at Handel Stadium, at Western High School. On motion by Councilman Krein, seconded by Councilman Schutte, said request was denied, on the ~§is Of not meQting requirements outlined in Coun- cil Policy No. 305. MOTION CARRIED. 69-251 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNC%L MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. PROPOSED LIN-DA VISTA ANNEXATION NOS. 1 AND 2: On recommendation of the City Mana- ger, Councilman Pebley moved that the Mayor be authorized to sign application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for the proposed Linda Vista No. 1 and No. 2 Annexations to the City of Anaheim. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CA~RIED~ SUBSTITUTION OF SUBCONTRACTOR - WORK O8DER NO. 1952: On report and recommenda- tion of the City Engineer, Councilman Krein moved to authorize the substi- tution of painting subcontractor~ for the Anaheim Utilities Service Center, Phase III, contingent upon receipt of a letter of release from Hugo H. Wie- hardt and letter of acceptance from John Jory Corporation. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. DATA PROCESSING LrRBAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS - NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, (DEPART- MENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT):, On report and recommendation of the City Manager, Councilman Krein moved that the City of Anaheim indicate an interest in participating in the Urban Information Systems Program, under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as one of the ten cities to be selected to develop an integrated municipal management information sys- tem. Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO~ 1050: Mr. William Weisel, 353 South La Brea Avenue, Los Angeles, appeared on behalf of Mr. Frank Horny to request that the City Council allow payment of the Park and Recreation In Lieu Fees required under Conditional Use Permit No. 1050 at the present rate of $25.00 per dwelling unit, on the basis that when the application was before the City Planning Commission, the Department of Parks and Recreation requested a study to de- termine whether a portion of the subject property should be acquired by the City for park purposes, and that this study caused a delay of 69 days, which subsequently made it impossible to qualify for the lower fees before the dead- line of May 1, 1969. The City Manager pointed out that the Department of Parks and Rec- reation did not request the study; rather, it was the City Planning Commission that felt an analysis of public facilities in that area was necessary before a decision could be made. He further noted that the application was origin- ally denied by the City Council, then granted a rehearing and subsequently approved; all of which reinforces the fact that the application required a great deal of study and analysis before a determination was possible. Mr. Weisel pointed out that the applicant cooperated fully while the study was being made, and felt that he should not be penalized $10,000.00 for the resulting delay. The City Attorney advised that a rehearing is considered as a new application, and what transpired in connection with the original application would have no bearing on the present situation. He noted that the conditional use permit was granted on January 28, 1969, and the applicant has had since that time to complete the necessary processing before the May 1, 1969 dead- line for payment of fees at the lower rate. Since the City caused no delay sir~.e the application was granted, he felt that the request was not warranted. Mr. %J?isel concurred that the City has caused no delay since the application was granted in Jam~ary, but was still of the opinion that the request is justifiable. Upon conclusion of discussion, it was agreed that no delay had been the responsibility of the City. MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD - APPOINTMENT: Mayor Clark reported that Mr. Richard E. Fitzwater has been recommended to fill the existing vacancy on the Mother Colony House Advisory Board. On motion by Councilman Dutton, seconded by Councilman Krein, Mr. Fitzwater was appointed a member of the Mother Colony House Advisory Boards replacing Glen G. Fry, deceased. MOTION CARRIED. 69-252 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. PROPOSED LITIGATION - PAY RAT~S, PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS: It was recommended by the City Attorney that the City of Anaheim participate in proposed litiga- tion regarding the paymeat of construction industry pay rates rather than City pay rates to employees working on public works projects. He reported that the firm of Rutan and Tucker will file an amicus curiae brief, and the City's share of the costs would not exceed $100.00, plus possible assistance from the City legal staff. On motion by Councilman Pebley, seconded by Councilman Schutte, participation' by the City in said litigation was authorized, at a cost not to exceed $100.00. MOTION CARRIED. ELECTRONIC VOTING EQUIPMENT: Mayor Clark requested the City Manager to investi- gate the cost of installing electronic voting equipment in the Council Cham- bers, for further consideration by the City Council° PROPOSED CITY HALL: Councilman Dutton requested that the May 27, 1969, agenda include discussion of placing a measure for a new City Hall. on the next Municipal Election Ballot in April, 1970. RECESS: Councilman Krein moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: The meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark, (7:00 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley (entered the meeting at 7:15 P.Mo), and Clark COUNCILMEN: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Williams ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: Ralph Pease CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 68-69-75: Initiated by the City Planning Commission to consider change of zone from County R-l, County 100- C-l-10,000 Commercial, and County R-3, to City R-A, property described in the proposed annexation designated as Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation. Public Hearing was continued from the meeting of April 1, 1969, for a full Council. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-28, recommended said reclassification unconditionally. Mr. Charles Roberts reported that R-A zoning on the approximate 20 acres was initiated by the City Planning Commission as a normal proced- ure on a proposed annexation, to bring the property into the City in the most appropriate City zoning. Referring to a map, he noted the parcels under consideration and the existing zoning, and advised that on annexation it was customary to zone the property R-A, until such time as a specific zone is requested. That one of the reasons the property is recommended for R-A is due to the fact that the property is presently primarily in agricul- tural use. Mayor Clark askeH i~ anyone wished to address the Council regard- ing this issue; there being no response, declared the hearing closed. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-252~ Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 69R-252 for adoption, authorizing preparation of necessary ordinance changing the zone of subject property to R-A unconditionally, subject to the completion of annexation of said property to the City of Anaheim. Refer to Resolution Book. 69-253 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969~ 1:30 P.M. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETER- MINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (68-69-75 - R-A). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN~ NOES: COUNCILMEN~ ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-252 duly passed and adopted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ~ RECLASSIFICATION NOo 68-69-71~ VARIANCE NO. 2057~ AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOo 112: Submitted by Frances H. Blower, Ben Fo Hein, Fredrick Hein, Myrtle Mo Sawyer, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, Owners; R & B Development Company, Agents; requesting a change of zone of property described as the Broadway-Brookhurst Annexation,as follows: Portion 1 - County R-1 to City R-3; Portion 2 - County 100-Ci-10,000 Com- mercial to City R-3; Portion 3 - County R-3 to City R-3. Variance No. 2057 requests certain waivers of Code requirements to permit a 768 unit, 3-story apartment complex. General Plan Amendment No. 112 initiated by the City Planning Com- mission to consider a land use change from low-density, single-family to medium-density, multiple-family uses; property briefly described as bounded on the north by Lincoln Avenue, on the east by Brookhurst Street, on the south by Orange Avenue, and on the west by Gilbert Street. Said public hearings were continued from the meeting of April 1, 1969, at the request of Attorney Harry Knisely, representing the Petitioners, to be heard by a full Council° The City Clerk reported receipt of a supplement to the protest brochure, an additional petition of protest, plus letters which were received too late to be duplicated for the City Council agenda packet. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-32, recommended said reclassification, subject to the following conditions: 1o That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width on Broadway and 60 feet in width on Brookhurst Street from the centerline of the street, for street widening purposes. 2o That street improvement plans shall be prepared and all en- gineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Broadway and Brookhurst Street~ such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be completed as re- quired by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and spe- cifications 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 owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Broadway and Brookhurst Street, for street lighting purposes. 4. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of 15¢ per foot along Broadway and Brookhurst Street, for tree planting purposes. 5. That the drainage shall be disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the City Engineer° 6o That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works. 7. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 8~ That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be pro- perly shielded from view, and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent residential homes. _City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES .7 ~April 2_9_,_[196~q. 1:30 P..M.. 9. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim park and recreation fees for each dwelling unit, es required by City Council resolution, which shell be used for perk and recreation pur- poses, said amount to be paid at the time the Building Permit is issued. 10. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of 180 deys from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant. 11. That subject property ~h~]l be developed substantially in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8. The City Plenning Commission., pursuant to Res,~]utton No. PC69-33, approved Vartence No. 2057, subject to the ~ollowt~g conditions: 1. That this variance is granted s-bject to the compt~.~tton of Reclassification No. 68-69-71. 2. That a 6-foot ~sor~ry wall shall bc. ~'ou~tructed 8].ong~ the we~t and north property lines. 3. ~at any parking area [i~htt[~g sha~[ be ~ighted w]~b down- lighting a ~ximum 6-feet in height and shall be d~rec~ ~d away from the property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 4. That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above mentioned, shall be com- plied with prior to final building and zonlng inspections. 5. That subject property shall be developed sub~tamtia]]y in ac- cordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, ~rked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, add ]0, provided, however, that all parking spaces shall be a minimum of 8-1/2 x ]9 feet~ ~nd that the number of parking spaces shall be in coDformaoc~ with the req,l[rememts of the R-3 zone. The City Planning Commission, [,urs,~ant to R~s,~,~tton No. PC69-31, r3commended Generel Plen Amendment No. 112, gxhib~i' "A". Mr. Roberts, reporting on General Plan Amendment No, 112, advised that the City Planning Commission considered four ]and ,~s~ alt~rn~t~ve~ of which subject property is a part. Considered a]~o was th~, effect these four alternatives might have on public facl[ities iD the ar~.~a. Mr. Roberts explained each of the tour oxhibtt~ stud]ed, end es a result of the City Planning Commission's recmmmemded R.-3 rec~assificetlon, it was recommended that Exhibit "A" be approved. Regarding the variance, Mr. Roberts reported that said variance was approved, excepting therefrom the requested waiver of the size of the parking stalls for the 300 open parking spaces projected on the plens, ea 7-1/2 feet by 18 feet. The City Planning Commission was of the opinion that these stalls should be a minimum of 8-1/2 feet by 19 feet. Mayor Clark, recognizing the concern evidence b~ the attendance and the material received, requested that testimony not be repetitious. H~ advised that all material received has been carefully studied by the City Council. Mr. Bruce Wallace, Attorney representing the firm of Ruten and Tucker, requested the public hearings be held separate]y, In that they in- volve different matters of evidence to be c~mside~ed, The City Attorney, having been asked to expres~ an opinion on the request to hear the actions separately, advised that the City Council has the authority to consolidate the hearings. As to the Generel Plan Amendment, the City has the authority to amend the General Plan without annexation to the City. As to the zoning and other items, the City Council's action is subject to annexation of the property t~ the City of Anaheim. Mayor Clark asked if the Applicant was satisfied with the recom- mendations of the City Planning Commission. 69-255 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Harry Knisely, Attorney, 1741 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, replied in the affirmative; howe~ar, based on the experience of the devel- oper, advised that it was a known fact that 30% to 40% of the cars would be compact cars, and more spaces would be accomplished if this waiver was ap- proved. Being assured of right of rebuttal, Mr. Knisely agreed to the pre- sentation of the evidence in opposition, first. Mayor Clark then invited a spokesman for the opponents to address the Council. Mr. Bruce Wallace, Attorney, of the firm of Rutan and Tucker, rep- resenting the opponents, addressed the Council, reporting that their presen- tation would be in two portions: 1. The legal merits of the application, and, 2. The factual merits of the application. Mr. Wallace presented a legal memorandum, and req~ :sted that the legal memorandum and petition and brochures submitted by the applicant, prior to the opening of the hearing, be received as evidence. Mr. Wallace noted that two separate issues were being considered, and while the variance was dependent upon the reclassification, they sho ld be considered separately on their merits. In his opinion, reclassification of the property by the City of Anaheim was without authority, under the State Planning Act, the State Constitution, the State Statu~ ~s, the City Charter, or the City ordinances, and application, for this reason alone, must be de- nied. Mr. Wallace reported that the exercise of zoning is a polic~ power that can only be exercised within the boundaries of the City. Reference was made to Section 65859 of the Government Code, which provides for prezoning, prior to annexation. He stated that this Chapter does not apply to Chartered cities, except insofar as the Chartered city may adopt it by ordinance or char- ter, and that the City of Anaheim has not adopted the pre-zoning provisions of the State Zoning Act, therefore, the City of Anaheim does not have the power to prezone subject property. Mr. Wallace referred to Section 18.12.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, iabdivision 4, providing for City Planning Commission investigation and report to the City Council, on existing County zoning affecting annexa- tions, and noted the steps followed to adopt interim zoning upon completion of the annexation proceedings, followed thereafter by provisions set forth in Section 18.72.010 to establish permanent zoning. He felt there was no authority fo~ the City Council to tak. the action requested in this case. Mr. Wallace advised that the petition for reclassification did not meet the requirements of the Anaheim Muncipal Code, as the only authority to apply for R-3 zoning received from the Right Reverend Benjamin G. Hawkes, Chancellor of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, owner of a par- cel of subject property, was the authority to apply "as purchaser in escrow." The lack of authority was further evidenced, in his opinion, by a let r from J.J. Brandlin, Attorney for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los A.~geleso (Excerpts of said letter, as noted in legal memorandum, were read by Mr. Wallace.) Mr. Wallace contended that the owner o~ 8.8 acres of subject property had not made application for rezoning, as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code, and for this reason the application was invalid, and must be rejected. Mr. Wallace questioned, from a legal standpq~q~ .~ .plzb!ication ~f notic~ Of P~bL~-~i~.-~Refer~12~'W~§--~a~-~ SJ~iio~ 658~4 of the Govern- ment Code, a part of the State Planning Act adopt.ed by the City of Anaheim, wherein the notice is required to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circu~ ted in the area to be prezoned. He noted that the Anaheim Bulletin is adjudicated as a newspaper of general circula- tion in the City of Anaheim, not in the unincorporated t~rritory of the 69-256 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. County of Orange. ~urther, to the best of his knowledge, the alternative, that of posting, was not accomplished. As a result of the foregoing Council action to prezone subject property R-A, Mr. Wallace was of the opinion that application No.68-69-71 to prezone the property R-3 must be considered void in that the application request is from existing County zonings to City R-A. If both applications for reclassification were approved, he asked which would take effect, the R-A or the R-3. He felt the Applicant no longer had a valid application on file. Regarding Variance No. 2057, Mr. Wallace reported ~h~ the ap- plicants request variances from a City zone that does not exist on the pro- perty, and as there is no authority to prezone, there is less authority to grant pre-variances. The State Planning Act has no provisions for variances until and unless a property has zoning. Requirements for a variance, as set forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 18.68.030, (Required Showings), and State Planning Act, was referred to. Also noted was Section 18.68.010, of the Anaheim Municipal Code, providing that the sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination, and no variance shall be approved which would, in effect, be granting a special privilege not shared by other property owners in the same zone and vicinity. Mr. Wallace reported that the Applicant has not presented facts to meet the criteria for granting of a variance, and felt sure that none wc,~ld be presented at this meeting; that in fact, the Applicant seeks a special privilege by the 8 variances requested. Mr. Wallace reported that the Applicant stated at the public hear- ing held by the City Planning Commission that the Basin Street Apartments justify the variances sought. He noted that the Basin Street Apartments are in the unincorporated area in County C-1 zone, not R-3 or R-l, and prob- ably exist as a non-conforming use, which would be no justification for the granting of a variance, as it is not a privilege shared by other properties in the same classification, zone and vicinity. He stated that in essence, the Applicant is endeavoring by use of the variance to obtain a zone change to a non-existing zone in the City, and thereby create a new zone. Excerpts of the City Planning Commission hearing held February 26, 1969, were briefed in support of the above contention. Mr. Wallace noted that the variance requests the follows: s tori es. 1. Reduction of the minimum building site area per dwelling unit by 25%. 2. Reduction of the minimum floor area per unit as much as 55% for more than 80% of the dwelling units proposed. 3. Requests permission for 3-story construction, instead of two creased. 4. Reduction of landscaped setbacks, adjacent to arterial streets. 5. Requests the distance between livimg units and streets be in- 6. Increase the number of permitted buildings per building site by approximately 600%. 7. Requests open, rather than covered parking spaces, and reduc- tion of parking space size. (It was noted that Issue No. 7, above referred to, had been con- ceded by the Applicant.) He again stated that the variance would, in fact, create ~ new zone, and substantiated this by reading Finding No. 3 of City Plan~£ng Com- mission Resolution No. PC69-33. He further noted that said resolution made no attempt to com~'.y with Section 18.68.030. 69-257 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL__.MINUTES - A ril 29 1969 1:30 P.M. Mr. Wallace advised that the application for a variance was im- properly received, and again referred to the letter received by the Right Reverend Benjamin G. Hawkes, wherein the only authority given was to apply "as purchaser in escrow" for a zone change only, and the letter of J.J. Brandlin, Attorney, setting forth that no authorization had been given to the development company to act as agent for any application. Mr. Wallace referred to required Public Notice of Intention to Con- sider a Variance, as covered in the Government Code, Section 65905, and felt, since the City of Anaheim had not adopted a local ordinance governing the procedure for mailing or posting notices of public hearings on variances, that the notice given was invalid and as a result, public hearing before the City Planning Commission and action taken was invalid, and subsequent appro- val by the City Council would be invalid for the same reasons, in the event the same procedure was followed by the City Clerk in giving notice of this meeting. In conclusion, Mr. Wallace referred to the legal memorandum sub- mitted and offered to answer any Council questions. Mr. Geisler noted there was no contention on the part o~f the City that the City of Anaheim has jurisdiction to impose its zoning ordinances in areas outside the City. True, it is prezoning, subject to annexation. Further, it was our contention, in connection with the Charter which provides for those powers specifically related, and all of those powe~ not prevented by the Constitution and granted to any other cities the City of Anaheim has authority to prezone. ' Mr. Geisler felt that the argument that the City did not have ~uris- diction wag a poor one, for if this was the case and no action was taken, and the property was annexed to the City, anything could be done with the property. He stated that zoning did not grant a privilege, but imposes a restriction upon the use of the property. The action then, would be restricting the use of the property upon annexation to the City. As to the variance, it was Mr. Geisler's opinion that when you ex- ercise the police power of zoning, you exercise all of it or none of it, and this would include the right to grant those exceptions necessary because of the application of the first police power. Mr. Geisler advised that variances and conditional use permits granted by the City of Anaheim, the County of Orange, and other cities were somewhat questionable, in that they are difficult for determination. Probably the cor- rect procedure would be to create a new zone and impose the zone; however, this is a growing application of the police power; it is not the grant of a priv- ilege, but an imposition of restriction on the use of property and on occa- sions, removing some of the restrictions imposed. Regarding the matter of notice, Mr. Geisler felt everyone present objecting certainly had sufficient notice. The basic objection to the type of notice given would be that a person could not appear and be heard at the hearing. As far as notice in the Anaheim Bulletin, which is a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and the City being in the County, it would probably qualify. In any event, it was his understanding that the property was posted and mailing was made, and that no one could object on the grounds of notice. Mr. Geisler further advised that if the City proceeded and the mat- ter was litigated he would dislike losing the part of the argument that the City had no jurisdiction to zone the property subject to completion of annexa- tion, because then whatever restrictions were imposed on the property could not be enforced. In these instances, the City Council exercises a matter of legislative discretion, and that is an intent to impose zoning as fairly and equitably as possible. 69-258 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri! 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to a question raised by Councilman Dutton, Mr. Geisler advised that if the City Council or City Planning Commission wished to re- fuse to hear this or any other application because it was not made by the property owner, it would be proper; however, the determination is that of a proper zone to be imposed upon property, and it really had no relationship to any person, and for this reason, there is also the power to initiate zon- ing by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. In his opinion, the City Council had the power to waive any insufficiency as to the appli- cation in the same manner that the City Council has the power to initiate the proceedings in thc first instance. Mr. Charles Woodall, 2318 West Broadway, Anaheim, addressed the Council as chairman of a group of citizens he reported numbered in excess of 1,100 people, which was on file in the form of a protest petition. Mr. Woodall requested the protest petition, the brochure, and sup- plement thereto, submitted by them, be entered into evidence. With the aid of a map, he pointed out the area covered by those signing the protest petition, noting those within the 300 foot, 600 foot, 900 foot, 1,200 foot radius, indicating the concern of the City and County residents, as well as businesses in the area. It was reported that the City residents outnumbered County residents by five to one. Mr. Woodall referred to the Cornelia Connelly School, established approximately 10 years ago, at which time they were aware of the fact that this school might be used as a buffer zone, for the rezoning of adjacent land. Feeling the school would be an asset to the neighborhood, they with- drew their objections filed, and today find themselves faced with the very problem anticipated ten years ago. He stated it was their opinion that the present zoning under the County is adequate and conforms to the general area, being predominantly single-family, single-story residences; that the present zoning has been in effect approximately eleven years, and most of their homes were built on the supposition that this property would remain as zoned. Mr. Woodall stated that this was a family area, in a "family town," an image created with the help of everyone; that this was one of the few areas where land was available for homes; an area where children can safely walk to nearby activities without crossing a main highway; an area which is stable, as mos t of the residents are the original owners, having lived there from eight to fifteen years. To substantiate the fact that homes are being built in the area, Mr. Woodall referred to the Rldgecrest Homes on Broadway and Dale, and the Saddleback Homes, on Broadway,west of Gilbert, presently under construction. He noted the surrounding uses to the homes, and further advised that the cost of the Ridgecrest Homes range from $36,000.00 to $37,000.00, which refutes the argument that homes cannot be built in this area because of the cost of land. Mr. Woodall reported that it is the opinion of the citizens in West Anaheim, which he represents, that this application should be denied. He stated that it was hard for them to believe that any developer would come into this community asking the elected and appointed representatives for a complete waiver of our laws, without attempting to give any legitimate rea- son, making it necessary for them, as citizens, to expend time and money to produce statistics and reasons as to why they should not be allowed to dese- crate their neighborhood. He further advised, that if approved~ because of the many variances, a complex would be created that could only be used as originally intended, or because of its substandard size would only be suit- able for a motel or hotel-type operation; there was no way of projecting the probable success, ownership, or use it might be put to five years hence. Mr. Woodall reported on a visit by him and his wife to the existing complex in Newport Beach and tour made of that facility. He noted their ad- vertisement of the "Open Door Policy" and that "children" is an obscene word around the South Bay Club, and asked why, if children are obscene, would they want to locate in a neighborhood where so many children live. 69-259 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Dutton, referring to the petition of protest, noted that while it consisted predominantly of Anaheim residents, twelve other cities were represented; 607 signatures representing City and County and 493 signa- tures representing outside the City and County. Mr. Woodall advised that the petition represented people seriously concerned about the project, and those outside the City and County could rep- resent owners of property within this area, and that some could be the signa- tures of parents of girls attending the Cornelia Connelly School. Mr. Woodall thereupon presented Mrs. Jean Kincaid, 8922 West Broad- way, Anaheim, Chairman of the Human and Woman's View Committee. Mrs. Kincaid, in answer to Councilman Dutton's observation, advised that the petition of protest represents the people involved, and does include signatures of the parents of girls attending the Cornelia Connelly School, as this will be an attractive nuisance. She stated that a 19,000-square foot building is projected across the street from her home; that guest parking will be in front of her home, and people will be coming and going all hours of the night. Mrs. Kincaid, representing the women in the area, noted the many worthwhile civic and community projects that the women assist in helping and furthering the City's image as a "family community." Mrs. Kincaid advised that 165 children live on 2 short streets in the immediate area, and also that 70% of the apartments are designed for males, and the balance of the units are designed for girls. She reported on her visit to the complex in Garden Grove, and the literature she received at that time, and felt that the type of development proposed was not compatible in an R-1 neighborhood, because of the type of activities planned. Slides were shown, taken from Mrs. Kincaid's home, and Mrs. Kincaid was of the opinion that twelve, three-story buildings directly across from their home would be a gross invasion of their privacy. Mrs. Kincaid further reported on adverse comments received from resi- dents in other areas near similar developments. Discussion was held concerning anticipated problems, and Councilman Dutton noted that the present County zoning could produce a four-story apart- ment complex, resulting in a greater population than that projected by the subject development. Mr. A1Coppola, 9811 Theresa Avenue, Anaheim, presented studies made on density, and with the aid of slides, showed the Van Nuys development, noting it to be one-half the size projected for subject property, and the Garden Grove facility, being slightly more than one-half of the size proposed. (Councilman Krein left the meeting, 8:45 P.M.). Mr. Coppola presented View Foil No. 1, indicating how the area could be developed in its present concept, the R-1 projected for 44 units, including 88 covered and 88 uncovered parking spaces; the R-3 projected for 115 units with 144 covered parking spaces; the commercial ~rea developing as appropriate. The next View Foil indicated the transition of medium-density to a high density area. Slid~.~ of the developer's advertisements, indicating full occupancy, were shown and it was felt that full occupancy of the proposed project could be expected by this admission. The next View Foil illustrated the significance and degree of the variances requested. 69-260 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. (Councilman Krein returned to the meeting, 8:55 P.M.). Mr. Coppola referred to statement made at the City Planning Com- mission hearing to the effect that open parking was requested for easier policing, and unless the R & B Development Company has had experience which can be corroborated by police records in the various cities where their fa- cilities exist, easier policing would not, in his opinion, be a substantial reason for open parking in this case. He felt the open-periphery parking would be harder to police than subterranean parking where the area could be viewed by closed circuit television. Another View Foil compared the Garden Grove and Torrance facil~ ties to the proposed Anaheim complex, noting the number of units in Garden Grove - 402, Torrance - 248, and proposed for Anaheim - 786; the floor area in Garden Grove - 405 square feet minimum, compared to 375 square feet in Anaheim, (City requirement is 700 square feet); density in Garden Grove 1,137 square feet, Anaheim - 901 square feet, (City requirement is 1,200 square feet); covered parking, Garden Grove - 262 spaces, plus 410 open spaces, Torrance - 292 covered space, Anaheim - requesting none. To this point Mr. Coppola felt Anaheim requirements should be 1,000. Recreational area - Garden Grove - 297 square feet, Torrance - 450 square feet, Anaheim - projected for 206 square feet; setback - Garden Grove - 15 feet, Torrance - (including sidewalk) - 24.5 square feet, Anaheim - a minimum of 8 feet. Re- garding storage area, Mr. Coppola advised that it was not calculated in Gar- den Grove, as it is not a requirement; that Torrance provides 128 cubic feet per dwelling unit, and Anaheim is proposing none. Mr. Coppola reported that none of the other developments have front yard parking, as is planned for Anaheim. The next View Foil indicated the definition of apartments, bache]or apartments, dwelling units, and dwellings, as considered by An&he tm. Another View Foil set forth the proposed new concept, ver~u~ code re].ating to apartments, bachelor apartments, and recr~ational r~qu~r~ment~. Mr. Coppola wa~ of the opinion that the ~urrent ciently farsighted to provide minimum ~tandard~ to orderly dmvelop ~aeh zone without restricting the owner. In subject cass, he felt there was nothing to warrant a single variance requested. Another slide compared Anaheim requirements with those of other cities. Mr. Coppola advised that Torrance has recentiy upgraded their zon- ing requirements because of the significant problems found in density, park- ing, etc. Changes were indicated on the next View Foil, (Torrance Ordinance No. 1938). Mayor Clark noted the time spent on evidence submitted by the op- position, not only at this meeting, but on the material previously furnished, and felt that in the interest of time, the proponents should be given an op- portunity to present their evidence, and if the Council felt additional evi- dence was warranted from the opposition, the group would again be called upon. Mr. Woodall apologized for the lengthy presentation, and in with- drawing at this time, requested they be permitted to return with the addi- tional evidence and rebuttal, if it is determined by them to be needed. An unidentified gentleman in the audience made known his interest in the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 112, and requested an opportun- ity to speak on the issue when this portion of the hearing is considered. Mr. Harry Knisely, Attorney representing the Applicant, noted that the issue involves an annexation representing approximately fourteen and one-half million dollars, and representing millions of dollars in terms of direct and indirect benefit to the City; the projected 998 tenants will represent between ten and eleven million dollars of spending power in this economic area. He further reported that the project represents 768 electric kitchens and central air-conditioning, or a projected $69,000.00 in electri- cal revenue. 69-261 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Knisely advised of the research on this case, checking with the County and every department of the City, which resulted in no basic objections. Regarding density, he stated that they know from experience of the 9 other projects there will be 1.3 persons per unit; that this is determined by the size and design of the units, and the policy of uanagement; the pro- jected density represents one-third of the average Anaheim standard. Regarding traffic, Mr. Knisely stated that the Anaheim Traffic En- gineer and traffic engineers of eight other cities, plus a consultant em- ployed by the developers, estimate that the proposed development would generate only ~ to ½ of the traffic that would be generated by a family-type, R-3 de- velopmmnt. This projection was based on the highest estimate of five trips per unit per day, versus ten trips per unit per day of a standard, family- type R-3. That portion of the Staff Report pertaining to traffic was read by Mr. Knisely. Regarding parking, Mr. Knisely referred to a plot plan posted on the west wall of the Council Chambers, indicating a 6-foot berm between the street and the parking area, and reported that this was designed to discour- age on-street parking, and that in his opinion, the design of the parking will solve any possible parking problems. Reference was made to the parking problem fear, as expressed by Mrs. Kincaid, and Mr. Knisely noted the present construction by S & S Construction Compan., at Euclid Street and Katella Avenue, of 110 R-I, four and five- bedroom dwellings, on minimum size lots, and felt that i~ her analysis re- garding parking was followed, a parking structure would be required. By an- alysis, it is known those homes will be occupied by 4.2 people, and we know the proposed project on subject property will be occupied by 1.3 people per unit. Mr. Knisely referred to a map noting existing uses in the immediate vicinity and reported upon existing County R-3 requirements, whereby realis- tically 43 units per acre could be developed. He further reported that one- third of the 78-1ot R-1 tract to the south, abuts R-3, commercial, school and church use. Development under County Code was compared to City Code, including density and traffic generation of the presently R-3 zoned property. Also pro- jected was the result should the westerly 9 acres be developed R-3, and these projections were compared to the proposed development. Mr. Knisely advised that the R & B Development Company is recognized from coast to coast, as one of the top management teams. Further, the rental structure, age group, average income and education of tenants, rules and regu- lations, policy of management, precludes any "hippie" element. In conclusion, Mr. Knisely reported that their studies did not reveal any problems, and in his opinion, the proposed complex will be the most luxurious and beautifully landscaped complex in Anaheim, and will enhance the area, and be compatible thereto. Mr. Larry Throngard, 11570 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing ~h~ R & B Development Company, presented slides of the South Bay Club in Garden Grove, showing the imported, mature trees used in land- o~aping the recreational area, interiors of the apartments, and interior of the courtyard. Mr. Throngard reported that in the Anaheim project there will be 5 tennis courts, 3 volleyball-basketball courts, billiard room, color TV lounge, indoor golf driving range, ping-pong and shuffleboard room, gymna- siums c~luipped with the latest equipment, arts and crafts room, plus a room for meetings and discussions. The size of the resident staff was explained, as well as methods of operation, using as an example the requirements of a card key to gain entrance to the facility. 69-262 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Throngard advised of their intention to provide suitable blending of the project and the neighborhood, and noted that the sketches posted show a landscaped berm between the depressed parking areas and the street. Slides were also shown of the Van Nuys facility, noting the ad- jacent uses being a church and residences. The Newport Beach facilities, where development of 1,500 units is currently under way, was shown, as well as the homes in the immediate area. Slides of the Sherman Oaks facilities were viewed. Pictures of the San Diego project neighborhood were shown, and it was noted that a let- ter of approval from those neighbors was included in their brochure. Another view of the adjacent neighbors properties to the West Los Angeles project was shown. Mr. Throngard advised that five of the existing nine projects are adjacent to schools, and thereupon showed slides of subject schools, in r~ lation to the close proximity of the facilities. In summary, Mr. Throngard advised that it was their opinion that the average $220.00 per month rental for a one-bedroom apartment will at- tract people who will be an asset to the community. He reported that at the Garden Grove complex, 61 of the 400-plus tenants work in the City of Anaheim, ten of whom are teachers in the Anaheim School District, and in his opinion, this answers some of the allegations ~de regarding the type of tenants at their clubs. Mr. Throngard advised that two of the three principal ~artners of the R & B Development firm were present; Mr. Robert Frank and Mr. Howard Ruby. Also present was Mr. Robert Skinner, President of the architectural firm, Mr. Jack Butler, Vice-President of Planning and Design, and Mr. Dennis Jay, Vice-President in charge of management; all would be happy to answer any Council questions. At the request of the R & B Development Company, Dr. Emile Bern- stein, Planning Commissioner of the City of Garden Grove, addressed the Council relative to the experience of Garden Grove with a similar develop- ment. Dr. Bernstein advised that he was not a member of the team, and was neither for nor against the project, and he agreed to relate Garden Grove's experience on condition that should the results be unfavorable this would be revealed as well as a favorable report. Dr. Bernstein thereupon related results of his investigation, and reported that in checking with the Police Department, it was learned that some calls have been received relative to burglaries inside the Garden Grove project; however, it was stated by a representative of the Police Department that if there were as few problems with major projects in Garden Grove, as subject project, the police force could be reduced. His investigation re- garding traffic indicated no problems; however, a problem was anticipated when a major commercial complex is developed in the City of Orange, but this amticipated problem would be created regardless of whether the apartment com- plex had been constructed. Dr. Bernstein further reported that the Principal Plamner stated that the project was of the finest construction and looks as it was projected, with relatively few .~hanges, and the Assistant Chief of the Building Department indicated very few problems were encountered and extremely few modifications of the original plans were made during construc- tion of the project. Mr. Don Cunningham, 2880 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, speak- ing as a City Planner, advised of the traffic count made by pressure counters across the driveways at the Van Nuys Club, having advance knowledge of the number of residents, automobiles, units, and parking spaces; he reported that the facility in Van Nuys was somewhat like the one proposed here, in that it is not completely remote from commercial activities, nor is it a downtown club. 6f' 263 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29, 1969, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Cunningham stated that it is known from the State Highway rec- ords that approximately 20% of the cars in California qualify as compact cars; 48% of the cars in the Van Nuys facility fall in this category, 52% are full- size cars. The number of arrivals and departures in the peak morning hours was calculated and projected for the proposed Anaheim development. As a result, he estimated that 20 cars will arrive at the site and 350 cars will leave the site during the morning peak hours; taking into consideration the six driveways, it could be assumed that there will be 1 car per minute on each driveway, either coming or going. In his opinion, this was traffic of such negligible quantity that it could easily be absorbed by the traffic system that surrounds subject site. Mr. Cunningham submitted a photograph with overlays, shc~ing the traffic pattern of the proposed development, as related to the traffic sys- tem available to the site. He stated by development of the entire acreage as a unit, a better form of traffic control can be achieved than if a number of individual projects were developed, each requiring some form of traffic circulation. Reference was made to the objection based on invasion of privacy, and Mr. Cunningham reported that the proposed building is approximately 27 feet high, and somewhat depressed below the level of the street, and that the difference, viewing the elevation from eye level to the subject building, would be a rise of 22 feet, 150 feet distant, or 7 feet in 50 feet, which was, in his opinion, negligible. line. Another overlay was shown, establishing the City-County boundary Mr. Cunningham stated that planning must take into consideration the various types of people, and that the same situation and objections be raised to a senior citizens' complex, and as a result of endeavoring to accommodate the various types of housing to fit the needs of people, more than 465 different zones exist in the State of California. As a planner, he thought there was nothing wrong with the variance procedure, as it is a method of establishing control. Regarding the article referring to children as an obscene word, Mr. Cunningham indicated that articles about R & B Development Company are written by many people with different viewpoints; however, an effort is made to get a copy of each article written. RECESS] Councilman Kretn moved for a IS-minute recess. Councilman Pebley seconded the motion. M~TION CARRIED, (9~50 P.M.). AFTER RECESS[ Mayor Clark called the meeting to order, all members of the City Council being present. Mr. Robert Franks, 11570 Olympic Boulevard, Los ~kngeles, stated that his particular activity in their business was land acquisition, zoning, and financing, and one of the prime considerations is to cheek with the City and the City Staff to determine whether or not they are open to what the com- plex is endeavoring to accomplish. After making this check, and with their professional advisors, if it had not been felt that this project would be successful at this location, they would not be here this evening. Mr. Franks advised of one zoning case, in the City of Sausalito, that the company lost, because the city took the position that they wanted Sausalito to be a family community. Mr. Franks reported that their company has been investigated by the major lenders, that this particular loan would be approximately twelve million dollars, and will be made by one of the largest insurance companies. He doubted the availability of the loan had the insurance company not had confidence in the project and the management. He further reported that a management contract is tied to the loan, and if their management team did not continue management, the lender had the right to call the loan at that time. 69-264 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Franks listed the following lenders that have made loans on these projects: Prudential Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan Life In- surance Company, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Connecticut General, Hancock Life Insurance Company. He stated that some of the major savings and loan associations have also loaned money on these projects, and that the only reason they did not work more with a savings and loan company was because savings and loan associations are prohibited to make loans of this size. Mayor Clark asked if anyone else, on the part of the applicant, wished to address the Council and hearing no response, called for rebuttal. Mr. Bruce Wallace, Attorney representing the opposition, request- ed that all of the slides and view graphs submitted by them be considered evidence. Mro Wallace requested, since the applicant has dwelled to a high degree on traffic, parking and site study plans, that their committees cov- ering these points be heard. In summary and rebuttal, Mr. Wallace noted the following: 1. There is presently before the City Planning Commission a pro- posal to raise the parking requirements of the City of Anaheim. If the park- ing requirements are inadequate under the present requirements, it will be that much more inadequate if the standards are raised. 2. Regarding County R-3 zoning, permitting 4-story construction, he noted that the concern is with County property intended to be annexed to the City of Anaheim, under City zoning. 3. He did not deny the need, but felt the need was not justifica- tion to place this development at this location at this time. 4. As to the variance, there was no evidence of hardship presented on the part of the applicant, as required by the City zoning ordinance, and therefore there is no authority to grant a variance until this evidence is shown. 5. Use of the variance procedure to apply control is contrary to all recognized valid principles of planning and zoning, and in the first in- stance, there must be a finding of justification for the variance, or hard- ship, and that property rights are being denied. Mr. Woodall requested the balance of evidence in opposition be in- troduced, and called attention to the fact that there will be only one lane eastbound on Broadway, which will divert traffic into the residential area. Mr. Mario Vinci, 9281 Greenwich Street, reported on traffic with the aid of charts and slides, noting existing traffic lanes on Brookhurst and Broadway; also noting an area on Broadway that will be County territory, and not widened unless purchased by the County. The proposed development will create 2 lanes westbound and 1 lane eastbound. Traffic flow and p~ojected increases were shown on a chart by zone classifications. Regarding traffic accidents, Mr. Vinci reported from the Fatal and Motor Injury Traffic Report of the State of California, 19677 notin8 that in hhe 20 ho 40 age range a 7% increase in accidents is projected in relation- ship to the percentage of driver population; and 20% increase is estimated because of "have been drinking." Mr. Vinci felt that this proposal would place a higher density use, creating higher density traffic at a main artery intersection. He reported on present traffic back-up, during peak hours, at this location. 69-265 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILiMINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. Slides were shown, noting an abutment projecting into the street, which cannot be purchased or corrected at this time. Another depicted the ex- isting back-up conditions at the intersection of Broadway and Brookhurst. An- other showed flooding conditions on Broadway. Mr. Vinci reported that he was informed that the flooding condition was due to the lack of a storm drain in this area. Councilman Dutton advised that this area elected to remain in County territory, and the City storm drain has not been extended from the City Limits because there is no jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Vinci stated that he checked with the County on this matter and was advised that since the City of Anaheim has storm drains in the area the County was not going to do anything, as it appears this might become a City problem. Another slide was shown, and Mr. Vinci felt the situation depicted illustrated the improbability of getting out of the proposed exits during peak traffic periods. A slide was shownil]lustratingprojected off-street parking by zone classification; 140 projected under present zoning, 1,175 projected under pro- posed plan of development. He stated that 70% of the t~na~ts will not use the parking area provided, and that no provisions have been made for guest parking. Slides were shown depicting off-street parking at the West Los Angeles, Van Nuys, and Long Beach developments. Mr. Cornelius Fo Moyer, 2173 Victoria Avenue, Anaheim, stated that all charts in his presentation have been included in the brochure; however, the con- clusion drawn by their site study directly contradicts statements made by the Applicant; that most of their facilities were located in residential areas. He stated that in no case, in the sites they had studied, was there a situation similar to subject property; that in every case the projects were located in a commercial area, R-3 area, or in some cases, in an undeveloped area. Mr. Moyer presented slides taken of areas adjacent to existing pro- jects which were admittedly not taken from the best vantage point. One was of the rear of the Van Nuys complex; another showed an adjacent oil-well type operation in Torrance. Mr. Moyer, in conclusion, urged the proposed zoning and use be denied,' and requested the City not be influenced by dollars. Mr. Woodall quoted the statement made that "what was good for the people, was good for the City," and felt what 1,000 people believed, against a few, could not be wrong, and that their homes and living habits should be considered, and thereupon requested the Council to place themselves in their situation and determine if it would be wanted. Mr. Woodall thanked the City Council for their consideration. Mayor Clark ruled the proponents be permitted to speak last, since the opposition presented their evidence first. Mro Knisely, in rebuttal, stated the key words were "adverse impact," and projected impact was considered relating to density, traffic, police, fire, and utilities, and found not to be adverse by the City Planning Commission, the Local Agency Formation Commission, and the zoning experts working on the project. Regarding traffic and drainage conditions at this intersection, Mr. Knisely advised that the development, as proposed, will alleviate this situa- tion; that drainage will be taken care of. 69-266 City Hallt Anaheim~ Californi& - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969t 1:30 P.M. Regarding the statement made that 70% of the tenants will not use the parking facilities provided, Mr. Knisely again referred to the plot plan, whereby the design itself discourages curb parking, because it would be more difficult. As to the areas in which these facilities locate~ reference was made to the brochure, wherein a map indicating zoning of each project has been furnished. In conclusion, Mr. Knisely welcomed any questions and offered any cooperation possible, as it was their hope to successfully develop this pro- ject in the City of Anaheim. Mr. John Simpson, 3309 West Deerwood Drive, although not directly involved, stated he was personally interested, in that he traverses this area daily, and although it is not the shortest or easiest route available, he fim~s it to be the most pleasant route. He stated that he has viewed the facilities in Long Beach, which is on a wider street than any in Anaheim, and in Garden Grove, which is in an R-3 area, and that in these cases, where there is compatibility, there should be no objections, but this location in Anaheim, in his opinion, would be a violation to the zoning code. Mr. Robert Franks wanted it clearly understood that if any prob- lems with the project are foreseen by the City Council, every effort would be made to correct them. Councilman Pebley asked how many additional parking spaces could be provided, without being, detrimental to the project. Mr. Franks replied that it was their opinion that sufficient park- ing has been provided; that this was another area where professional man- agement will solve problems existing in unprofessionally-managed buildings. He related their previous experience in this area, and how it was corrected; that if there are two people living in a one-bedroom unit, two parking spaces are made available. Councilman Pebley asked how this could logically be approved with 1.3 parking spaces per unit, when possibly at the next Council meeting a change in the Code will be made, requiring 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Franks stated that the plans are in excess of present required parking, however, agreed to increase parking to 1-1/2 to 1, and further stated that if there are any other areas where they can cooperate, they would be happy to do so. He advised that they did not particularly want this design, but it represented a combination of ideas of the Fire Chief, Building Department, Utilities Department, and is a product of what was considered necessary and desirable. It being determined that sufficient evidence had been presented, there being no further questions by the City Council, the Mmyor declared the hearing closed. Councilman Dutton stated his position as previously expressed; that as a Councilman, his responsibility was not only to the 1~100 people representing opposition to this project, but to the total City population of 165,000. He advised that it has always been his premise that a person is entitled to use his land to the maximum economical use, predicated on two conditions; first, that it did not hurt the neighbors, and secondly, that it did not hurt the City of Anaheim. Councilman Dutton was of the opinion that the proposed project would not hurt the neighborhood, and it must be realized that the City of Anaheim is attempting to create a broad range of housing for all of the citizens, to allow living within the confines of their own environment. 69-267 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. In pointing out some of the benefits to be derived by taxes, Coun- cilman Dutton advised that total taxes are estimated at $363,902.00, of which the schools will benefit by $202,691.00, without any additional burden on the schools. In addition, the average income per ~.~a~ being $11,000.00 per year, multiplied by the number of tcm. ants, brings $10,878,000.00 into the economy of the City. Councilman Dutton stated that he knew of very few issues before the City Council, during his seven years as an Anaheim Councilman, that he has de- vc Id as much time and study to, and thereupon offered necessary resolutions, granting Reclassification No. 68-69-71, subject to the conditions set forth and recommended by the City Planning Commission, and also subject to the com- pletion of a~xation of said property to the City of Anaheim; and granting Variance No. 2057, as requested by the Applicant, subject to the conditions set forth and recommended by the City Planning Commission, and amending Con- dition No. 5 thereof, in accordance with the Petitioner's stipulation increas- ing parking to 1.5 space per dwelling unit; and granting reduction of 30% of required parking spaces to 7-1/2 feet by 18 feet; the balance to be 8-=/2 feet by 19 feet. Prior to Roll Call Vote, Councilman Scl ~tte related similar prob- lems coming before the City Council during his sixteen years in office, and noted the importance of friendship, regardless of the outcome of this zoning action. Reference was made to a survey indicating 77% of the people working in Anaheim industries live outside of the City, because accommodations are unavailable. Prior to Roll Call Vote, Councilman Pebley advised of his thorough study of the issue, and personal inspection of other similar developments. Anticipating probable zoning of the area, should this project not material- ize, it was his fi~-~ conviction that at least three-fourths of the area would ultimately be zoned County R-3, and developed similar to the development ad- jacent to the Gemco Store. He felt that since the developers have agreed to increase the parking to 1.5, this would be a better development than what possibly might be realized under County zoning. Councilman Clark, prior to voting, stated he bad nothing against the project, but felt it would be better suited in a C-R zone, rather than in subject location. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-253: 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. (68-69-71 - R-3). Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley Krein and Clark None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-253 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2057. R011 Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley Krein and Clark None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-254 duly passed and adopted. 69-268 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 29~ 1969~ 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN, AMENDMENT NO. 112: Initiated by the City Planning Staff, to consider a land use change from Low-density, Single-Family, to Medium-density, Multiple-Family use~ property briefly described as bounded on the north by Lincoln Avenue, on the east by Brookhurst Street, on the south by Orange Avenue, and on the west by Gilbert Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69- 31, recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 112, Exhibit "A". Mr. RoW. Johnson, 9372 Hillview Road, speaking on behalf of his neighbors regarding the statement that the General Plan Amendment is bound- ed on the south by Orange Avenue, advised that their concern is of the possibility of R-3 zoning in their area, of which they strongly disapprove. Mr. Charles Roberts reported that the Amendment proposed on any of the four exhibits would not affect any area south of Broadway. The boundaries of a larger area are established in order that a larger area can be studied statistically to determine the effect that any changes in land use designation upon this property would nave upon the total facili- ties serving the entire area; that the only area designated for actual change, would be that area north of Broadway. Mr. Johnson advised that this was their only concern, and felt it had been satisfactorily answered° The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no response, declared the hearing closed~ Discussion was held by the City Council, and it was noted by Coun- cilman Clark that he favored Exhibit "D", however, realized Exhibit "A" would conform to the previous zoning action just taken. RESOLUTION NO. 69R-255: Councilman Schutte offered Resolution No. 69R-255 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 112, Exhibit "A", in ac- cordance with the recommendations of 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 A~NDMENT NO. 112, EXHIBIT Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Schutte and Pebley Krein and Clark None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 69R-255 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Dutton moved to adjourns. Councilman Krein seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:30 P.M.). City Clerk 69-269 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 6, 1969, 1~30 PoMo The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCILMEN: Krein, Schutte, Pebley and Clark COUNCIIaMEN: Dutton ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST: John Harding ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John H. Dawson CITY CLERK: Dene Mo Williams CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Clark called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Schutte led the Assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATIONS: The following Proclamations were issued by Mayor Clark and unanimously approved by the City Council: "Hire A Veteran Week" - May 11 - 17, 1969. "Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month" - May 11 - June 15, 1969. "Women's Army Corps Day" - May 14, 1969. "Fire Service Recognition Day" - May 10, 1969o INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEES: Lee Sale, of the City Personnel Department, introduced new employees attending the Council meeting as part of the City's Orientation Program° Mayor Clark welcome~ the new employees to the City Family° WAIVER CF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pebley moved to waive the reading in full of ail ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen, unless after read- ing of the title, ~pec~f~c request is made by a Councilman for the reading of such ordinance or resoiution~ Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION I~ANIMOUSLY CARRIED~ REPORT FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY: Demands against the City,in the amount of $817,297~ 1[, ir~ accordapce with the 1968-69 Budget, were approved. PUBLIC HEARING - RECiASSIFiCATIO~ NO. 68-69-51 AND VARIANCE NO. 2030: Request for rehearing submitted by Duayne Co Prescott, requesting a change in zone from R-A, on Parcel A, and R-3, with deed restrictions, on Parcel B, to R-3 on Parcels A and B~ and ai!~o requesting waivers of maximum building height, minimum building setback~ and maximum permitted number of main buildings per site, to permit a 30-unit, one and two-story apartment complex. Pro- perty generally located on the east side of Loara Street, south of Orange Avenue~ On recommendation of the City Clerk, Co~ncilman Pebley moved to continue public hearing to May ]3, 1969, at 1~30 PoM~, for republication of the legal notice° Councilman Schutte seconded the motion. MOTION CAR- RIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERM-iT NOo 1102~ Submitted by Robert J. Marshall~ to establish a 157-space mobile home park, with waiver of required setbacks on R-A zoned property, generally locsted northeast of the intersection of Jefferson Street a~d the Riverside Freeway~ The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC69-58, denied s~id conditional use permit~ Appeal from action taken by the City Planning Commission was filed by Rutan and T~cker, Attorneys representing the Applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.