1979/10/3079 -1237
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 p.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORN~f: William P. Hopkins
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
WATER SUPERINTENDENT: Ray Auerbach
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and Welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dr. Ray Niederer, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations, recognizing
Mr. Amado H. "Bill" Gallardo, for his many years of service for the working man
of Orange County, was unanimously authorized by the City Council to be presented
at a later date.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the minutes of regular meeting held May 8, 1979 were approved subject to typo-
graphical corrections. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,684,471.17, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay all items on the Consent Calendar were acted
upon in accordance with recommendations listed as follows:
a. 160: Bid No. 3576. Purchase of Forty-six Marbelite Street Light Standards
from General Electric Supply Company in the amount of $20,893.66
b..160: Bid No. 3575. Authorized purchase of Forty-thousand feet of 15KV
URD Primary Cable from Qualified Electric,, in an amount not to exceed $31,431.12.
c. 174: Continued the award of Community Development Block Grant Program Areas
2, 3 and 4, Olive Street Storm Drain (Account No. 25-791-6325-1060) to November 13
1979. '
MOTION CARRIED.
79-1238
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Bay offered
Resolution Nos. 79R-634 through 79R-636, both inclusive, for adoption, in
accordance with the recommendations listed on the Consent Calendar as follows:
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-634: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF REDLAN~S FOR THE OCCUPATION AND USE OF CLASSROOM SPACE AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (241 South
Anaheim Boulevard, October 4, 1979 to May 20, 1980)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-635: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL GRANT DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
(ClarenCe M. and Ray Arthur McNees) ~
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-636: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH JHK AND ASSOCIATES AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT. (extending
agreement to November 30, 1979)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-634 through 79R-636, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
150: PEARSON PARK HANDBALL COURTS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT: In accordance with
the recommendation of the City Engineer and Public Works Executive Director,
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 79R-637 and 79R-368 foradoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-637: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE llTH DAY OF
OCTOBER, 1979, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HANDBALL COURTS AT PEARSON PARK.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-638: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CON-
STRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEARSON PARK HANDBALL
COURTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-807-7107; APPROVING THE DESIGNS,
PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC'IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A'NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids
to be opened November 29, 1979, 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: 'Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS:. None
COUNCIL MEMBERS:' None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-637 and 79R-638 duly passed and adopted.
79-1239
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: AGREEMENT - SHAM~'~ ENTERPRISES~. INC.: In accordance with the recommendation
submitted by the Engineering Division of ~the Public Works Department, Councilman
Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-639 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with
Shamma Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $18,700 for preparation of a Needs
Study and Master Plan for the Mechanical and Street Maintenance Facility (Phase
I) and the design and plan preparation for the Mechanical Maintenance Facility
(Phase 2) in an amount based upon 5% of construction cost or City Engineer's
estimate. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-639: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SHAMMA ENTERPRISES, INC.,
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-639 duly passed and adopted.
158: LICENSE AGREEMENT - GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION: In accordance with the
recommendation submitted by the City Engineer and Public Works Executive Director,
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-640, authorizing a license agreement
with General Motors Corporation for the installation and maintenance of a storm
drain, west side of Magnolia Avenue, from the Santa Ana Freeway southerly to
Woodland Drive, including the execution of an easement agreement therefor.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-640: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND'GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-640 duly passed and adopted.
123: 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - STORM DRAIN BETWEEN SEQUOIA
AND CRESCENT AVENUES: In accordance with the Engineering Division and Public
Works Department recommendation dated October 19,' 1979, Councilman Overholt
offered Resolution No. 79R-641 for adoption, authorizing Cooperative Agreement
No. 3490 with the State of California, providing for State Participation in an
amount not to exceed $36,000, to construct a storm drain in Brookhurst Street
between Sequoia and Cr~scent Avenues. Refer to Resolution Book.
79-1240
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-641: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND cITY
CLERK 'TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. 3490: BROOKHURST
STREET STORM DRAIN)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-641 duly passed and adopted.
174/150: SENIOR DAY CENTER SERVICES EXPANSION - ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SNARINC
FUNDS: Report from James D. Ruth, Deputy City Manager, dated October 24, 1979,
recommending acceptance of Orange County Revenue Sharing grants in the amount
of $10,292, to expand the Senior Citizen Day Center services was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-642 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-642: 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR EXPANSION OF THE
SENIOR CITIZEN DAY CENTER, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY cLERK TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:- Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-642 duly passed and adopted.
106: MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
the City Cou'ncil appropriated the funds to Program No. 01-344, Community Services,
and authorized the establishment of a Recreation Specialist position to coordinate
Senior Day Center services. MOTION CARRIED.
180: RENEWAL - WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman KaYWood, the City Council accepted the
offer of renewal for Workers' Compensation excess liability insurance, as submitted
by Employers Reinsurance Corporation through the City's broker, Marsh and McLennan,
by letter dated October 18, 1979, for $2,000,000 coverage excess of $500,000
self insured retention, in accordance with the recommendation of the Risk Manager.
MOTION CAP, RIED.
126: CITY POLICY REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL: By general
consent the City Council continued consideration of this item for an additional
two weeks awaiting final report.
79-1241
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
175: AMENDMENT TO RULE 15B WATER RATES~ RULES AND REGULATIONS: Mr. Ray Auerbach,
Water Manager, summarized the proposed modifications to Rule 15B, relating
to special facilities constructed by developers in the Santa Aha Canyon Area,
as set forth by the Secretary to the Public Utilities Board in a report dated
October 19, 1979.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-643 for adoption, in accorance
with the recommendations of the Public Utilities Board from their October 18,
1979 meeting. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-643: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AS
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-255, 73R-387,
73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 74R-479, 76R-378, 78R-418, 78R-419 AND 78R-459.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-643 duly passed and adopted.
112/108: EMPLOYMENT OF HEARING OFFICER - NEWSRACK ORDINANCE - SOON DISTRIBUTOR:
The City Attorney submitted a request that the City Council authorize employment
of an outside hearing officer for a fee of $1,000 to conduct the hearings requested
by the attorney for Soon Distributor, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
4.82.100,
Mr. Hopkins explained that the City's ordinance provides that persons whose
newsracks are impounded may request and have a hearing. In this instance the
distributor has had 50 newsracks impounded and the Planning Director has requested
an outside, independent hearing officer be hired and his office would continue
to provide legal counsel. An officer may be employed through the American
Arbitration Association for the sum of $400 per day. They estimate it will cost
$1,000 for this particular hearing and request that funds come from Council
Contingency Fund.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman R, th, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council authorized employment of an outside hearing officer for a fee of
$1,000 to conduct a hearing requested by the attorney for Soon Distributor on
the Newsrack Ordinance enforcement, and further authorized that said $1,000 be
appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION CARRIED.
156: SHIELDING OF COVERS OF ADULT MAGAZINES: Mayor Seymour requested the
City Attorney to prepare for consideration by Council an ordinance providing
for the required shielding of covers of "Playboy" or other adult-type magazines
when on display where minors might view them.
156: SALES OF DRUG-RELATED PARAPHERNALIA: Councilwoman Kaywood requested that
the City Attorney prepare for Council consideration an ordinance similar to
the one recently adopted in the City of Garden Grove, relating to sales of
paraphernalia generally used in connection with controlled substances.
79-1242
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
175: DISPUTED UTILITY BILL - WILLIS A. SMITH: Request of Mr. Willis A. Smith,
to discuss final determination of a disputed utility bill for the period of
service from July 12 to September 11, 1978, was submitted for Council consi-
deration at this time.
Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Willis was present and received no response. The
matter was held over to later in the meeting to allow Mr. Smith to appear and
be represented during the discussion.
Later in the meeting, Councilman Roth brought this item up once again, noting
that four staff people from the Utilities Department had been present in the
Council Chamber since 1:30 p.m. to respond to Mr. Smith's challenges on the
billing. He remarked that he felt Mr. Smith's problem had already incurred
additional expenses for the City and did not see the sense of having theSe
employees continue to wait for the gentleman to appear.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented from her review of the material submitted, that
it appeared Mr. Smith wanted the matter rescheduled from October 9 to this date
for the purpose of having his air conditioner tested. She voiced her opinion
that if he is indeed running his air conditioner, as stated in his letter, there
would be little doubt that the billing would be correct and the findings of
the Utilities Department in this matter would be substantiated.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not wish to vote nor make any decision of the
issue until he had heard Mr. Smith's side of it.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the Utilities Department personnel present
to 'reply to Mr. Smith's challenge be dismissed and should Mr. Smith appear
later during the meeting, they could be called back and the matter discussed
then. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT- WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS: On motion by
Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the application for a Public Fire-
works Display Permit, submitted by Walt Disney Productions, to discharge fire-
works on December 31, 1979, at 12:00 midnight, at Disneyland Park, 1313 Harbor
Boulevard, with a request for an exception to the 10:00 p.m. Code tim~ limit,
was approved as recommended by the Fire Marshal. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth pointed out that again there are personnel in the Council Chamber
from the Fire Department to respond to the City Council on the Fireworks Permit.
S~nce the Council always has a recommendation from the Fire Department and is
able to make a decision based upon same, he voiced the opinion that the manpower
from the Fire Department could be put to more productive uses by not having repre-
sentation at the Council meeting for Fireworks Permit applications.
Mayor Seymour concurred, noting that should the Council have questions on any
one of them, they can always pgstpone consideration to later in the meeting and
call for a Fire D'epartment representative.
79-1243
City. Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, !979, 1:30 P.M.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT - ASTRO PYROTECHNICS: On motion by Council-
man Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the application for a Public Fireworks
Display Permit, submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics, on behalf of Fountain Valley
High School, to display fireworks on November 2, 1979 at Anaheim Stadium, was
approved, as recommended by the Fire Marshal. MOTION CARRIED.
181: ANAHEIM COMMUNITY ENTERTAINERS REQUEST: Request of John Yench, President,
Anaheim Community Entertainers, for reimbursement of fees paid for the use of
Pearson Park Theatre and requesting the use of the former Anaheim Bulletin
building located at 224 and 232 South Lemon Street, was submitted for Counci1
consideration, together with a report from the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department.
Mayor Seymour stated that since this organization was attempting to provide
cultural experiences within the Anaheim community, he thought the Council should
do all they could to sustain the group. He further noted that the Anaheim
Bulletin building is currently sitting vacant, tantamount to surplus property.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that Mr. Norm Priest, Executive
Director of Community Development be directed, with the assistance of the City
Attorney, to come up with a leasing proposal for the Anaheim Community Enter-
tainers to use the former Anaheim Bulletin building on a temporary basis for
a very minimal cost. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
In response to Council questions regarding the possibility of having to make
relocation payments to this group, once the agency needs to demolish or other-
wise use the property in question, Mr. Priest advised a clause could be written
into the lease indicating the group would not take relocation payments. He added
that the Community Development Department could not enter into such an agreement
with this group, but suggested that they could develop an agreement with the City
and then the City might lease to the organization.
CoUncilman Overholt recalled the frustration and disappointment experienced by
Ana-Modjeska Players over the Zion Lutheran Church building and suggested that
prior to entering into any agreement with this organization, the City cover all
bases and determine whether or not the group wishes to have audiences and can
give performances in the building, and whether or not the building is suitable
and safe for these purposes.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that in addition to the use of the-former
Anaheim Bulletin building, Mr. Yench has also requested that the City taxpaYers
~absorb a deficit of some $3,000 through reimbursement of fees partially paid to
~the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department for use of the Pearson
Park Theatre. She remarked they are making this request after the fact, i.e.,
after the debt has been incurred, and she did not think it appropriate that the
City taxpayers should absorb this deficit.
Mayor Seymour cited that the City has in the past given financial assistance to
other cultural groups through co-sponsorship of the event, and he could see no
difference in this proposal.
The foregoing motion was restated and voted upon. To this motion Councilwoman
Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
79-1244
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL~MiNUTES _ October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
At Council's request, Mr. Kudron of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Department, explained that the City charged the Anaheim Community Entertainers
$60 per use. The group used the Pearson Park facility 50 times for a total co~t
of .$3,000. Of this amount, they have already paid $2,640 and have a balance
due of $360. The request from Mr. Yench, however, is that the enti~e $3,000 be
waived, and the partial payment be refunded them.
Mayor Seymour stated that the request for reimbursement and waiver of the fee
could be held in abeyance and considered together with the report from Mr. Priest
on the use of the former Bulletin building.
CounCilman Bay moved that the request from Anaheim Community Entertainers for
reimbursement of fees be denied. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Prior to voting on this motion, Councilman Bay explained that it was not his
intent to shut the door on an opportunity for this group, but there are other
organizatiOns which have achieved sponsorship with financial assistance fro~
the City through regular channels. He was of the opinion that this group i
Should go through the regular channels and work through Parks and Recreati6n
to acquire the assistance they desire.
Councilman Overholt offered a substitute motion to postpone consideration of the
fee reimbursement request.until the report is received on the possibilities of
leasing the building. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. To this motion
Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and rec-
ommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda:
1. 118: ~CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Lavone K. Prahl for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
July 4, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Juan R. Barrera for damages to appliance purportedly i
sustained as a result of power loss and restoration to less than full capacity,
on or about August 18, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Jeanette T. Janson for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Convention Center, on
or about August 12, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Phyllis G. Fender for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident on Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot, on or about
September 8, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Charles Henry Hatfield for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of false arrest and imprisonment by Anaheim Police on or about
August 1.1, 1979. '
79-1245
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Jeffrey Frank Bruce and Joan Bruce for damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police in arresting Claimant
Jeffrey F. Bruce on or about July 9, 1979.
g. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damage to underground cables at
the corner of Harbor BouleVard and Chartres sustained as a result of work by
citY, on or about September 7, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of October 15, 1979.
b. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of October 18, 1979..
c. 17'5: Public Utilties Department, Utilities Field Division--Monthly Report
for September 1979.
105: Community Services Board, Resolution No. CSB79-1, establishing the
~cond and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m., in the Project Area Eom-
mittee office, 132 East Lincoln Avenue, as the time and place of regular meetings.
3. 175: CONVERSION OF 4 KV TO 12 KV DISTRIBUTION LINES, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1:
In accordance with recommendationS of the City Engineer, authorization for
Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $4,540, was approved, increasing the original
contract price to $49,497..38; A. S. Schulman Electric Company, contractor
(Account No. 25-671-6328-74410/74420-36500).
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman KaywOod offered Resolution Nos. 79R-644
through'79R-646, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-644: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED LAKEVIEW - ORANGETHORPE NO. 5 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, approxi-
mately 10.1975 acres located on the east side of Lakeview Avenue, south of Orange-
%hrope Avenue)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-645: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85b
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 66R-490 NULL AND VOID.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-646: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
~RM!NATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2182 AND DECLARING
~SOLUTION NO. 70R-373 NULL :
AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
'COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-644 through 79R-646, both inclusive duly
passed and.adopted. '
79-1246
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CITY pLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held October 8, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information..
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2024: Submitted by Emkay Development and Realty
Co., to permit an office complex on ML zoned property located on the east side
of Santa Cruz Street, north of Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-204, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2024,.and granted a negative declaration statu's.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3118: Submitted by Vincent C. Brewer, to retain an existing
free-standing sign on CO zoned property located at 308 West Ball Road, with a
waiver_of maximum sign area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-203, denied
Variance No. 3118, and ratified the Planning Director!s categorical exemption
determination.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-54, AND VARIANCE NO. 3005 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Lyndy Properties, Inc., requesting approval of
revised plans for Reclassification No. 77-78-54 and Variance No. 3005, to con-
struct a 26-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located
at 119 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, approved the revised plans for Reclassification
No. 77-78-54 and Variance No. 3005.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1742 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Sub-
mitted by James T. Abe, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1742, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property
located on the south side of Orange Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commissio~ approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1742, to expire October 10, 1980.
5. VARIANCE NO. 1942 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: -Submitted by Jim Turner,
Calcomp, requesting to terminate Variance No. 1942, to permit two temporary
s{gns on ML zoned property located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue,
east Of Gilbert Street.
The City Planning COmmission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-205, terminated
Variance No. 1942.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2849 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by ~ic
?eloquin, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2849, to Permit the
retail sales of sandwiches on ML zoned property located at 3445 "C" East La
Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2849,
to expire September 27, 1980.
79-1247
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
No action was taken by the Council on the foregoing items, therefore the actions
of the City Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-13~ VARIANCE NO. 3115~ EIR NO. 197~ ADDENDUM NO. 1~
(TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10800): Submitted by Birch Ridge Estates, for a change in
zone from RS-HS-10,000 to RM-3000, to establish a A6-1ot, 44-unit condominium
subdivision on property located on the northwest and southeast side of Silverspur
Trail, east of Covered Wagon Trail, with waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Remolution No. PC79-200 and 201 granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-13, Variance No. 3115, and certified EIR No. 197
Addendum No. 1.
Review of the City Planning Commission action was requested by Council~zoman
Kaywood.
VARIANCE NO. 3119 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807): Submitted by Pacific Terrace
Apartments, to establish a 348-1ot, 347-unit mobile home park subdivision on
RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East La Palma Avenue, with a waiver
of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-202, denied Variance
No. 3119 (Tentative Tract No. 10807), and a negative declaration had previously
been approved.
Review of the City Planning Commission action was requested by Councilman Bay.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of
C. M. McNees, for a retroactive extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No.
1063, to establish a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc.,
with on-sale of liquor in an existing structure on C-R zoned property located at
1721 South Manchester Avenue, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, recommended approval of the requested
extension of time, to expire October 7, 1980.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that there have been eleven prior extensions
of time granted to this Conditional Use Permit. She inquired whether the
conditions had been met and was advised that one of the reasons this time
extension was scheduled on today's agenda is that a necessary dedication had
been submitted.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti advised that the Planning
Commlssion had no objections to another one-year extension of time.
On m~',t~cn t~y Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, a one-year
extension of time, retroactive to October 7, 1979 and expiring October 7, 1980,
wag appro,~-~d~ as recommended by the City Planning Commission to Conditional
Use Perrait No. 1063. MOTION CARRIED.
142/102: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 6 - BEEKEEPING: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Ordinance No. 4076 for first reading.
79-1248
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4076: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 6.28.010
OF CHAPTER 6.28, TITLE 6, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BEEKEEPING.
142/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4070: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4070 for
adoption.. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4070: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
15.04.303.010 TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO THE BUILDING CODE. (swimming pool construction)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4070 duly passed and adopte~.
142/107: ORDINANCE NO, 4071: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4071
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4071: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 15.04.1716
TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 1716
OF THE 1976 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING~OFFICIALS' UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE, VOLUME I. (guardrail spacing requirements)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The MayOr declared Ordinance No. 4071 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4072: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4072
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4072: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
14.32.178 TO CHAPTER 14.32, TITLE 14, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO PARKING. (permit or employee parking on City parking lots)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor.declared Ordinance No. 4072 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4073: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4073 for adoption.
Refer to ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4073: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(.80), CR)
79-1249
City Hall~ Anaheim,, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4073 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4074 AND 4075: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4074 and
4075 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book
ORDINANCE NO. 4074: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(94), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 4075: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-4, RM-3000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4074 and 4075 duly passed and adopted.
111: HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL: Council Members Overholt and Kaywood both 6ommended
the members of the Halloween Festival Commaittee on the outstanding 'festival events
conducted last weekend. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested a letter of thanks and
congratulations be sent to Bill Taormina for the fine coordination of both the
Youth and Festival parades.
114: ENDORSEMENT FOR THOROUGHBRED RACING AT LOS ALAMITOS: Councilman Roth
referred to the correspondence from the City of' Cypress for endorsement of the
request before the State of California Racing BOard to hold 14 days of thorough-
bred racing at the Los Alamitos racetrack.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council
requested that the City Attorney prepare a resolution 'of endorsement for 14 days
of thoroughbred racing at Los Alamitos as requested by the City of CypressJ MOTION
CARRIED.
114: 'PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE: Councilman Bay reported that he had requested
permission to leave the state and announced he no longer intends to leave for the
trip to Detroit as originally planned.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Mayor was
granted permission to leave the State. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - EXECUTI.VE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. ~Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:55 P.M.)
79-1250
City Hatl~ Aqaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Elizabeth Schafer,
to retain 9 beehives on RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zoned property located at 1500
West Broadway~Street was submitted.
The City P~anning Commission, by motion, approved an extension of time to expire
August 14, 1980, and review of this Planning Commission action was requested by
Councilwoman Kaywood at the October 2, 1979 Council meeting.
The Mayor asked if Mrs. Schafer or her representative wished to address the
Council and Reverend Robert L. Edwards, 943 South David Street, stated that he
is not the property owner, but does assist Mrs. Schafer in the keeping of her
bees and would answer questions.
Reverend Edwards explained that Mrs. Schafer has lived on this property since
1921, for some 58 years, and had at one time 250 hives. At the time she was
granted the latest extension of time, she reduced her hives from 35 to 9 and
moved them closer to her'home and now wishes to continue to maintain 9-beehives
on her three acres of property. He responded, in answer to Council, that Mrs.
Schafer did sell some of her property for the adjacent single-family residen-
tial subdivision built by Pacesetter Homes.
In response to Councilman 0verholt's question as to the 'numbers of white boxes
piled on top of the hives, Reverend Edwards explained that these are supras ~o
accommodate the hive and the number of them depends upon the strength and activity
of the hive.
Reverend Edwards related that at the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner
Bushore, having had some beekeeping experience, volunteered to make sure the
bees were taken care of. He emphasized that Mrs. Schafer does need the bees
for pollination of her fruit trees and for honey, as she still continues to
sell both fruit and honey produced on her property.
It was further determined, in response to Councilman Bay, 'that each hive supports
approximately 40 to 60 thousand bees, which would amount to one-half million
in 9 hives.
The Mayor called for those in opposition who wished to address the Council.
Mr. Keith Reitz, 450 South Gilbuck, explained that when he purchased the house
in which he currently lives, he was not aware of the beehives and that the
builder, rather than the homeowners, received the notice sent out in August of
1978 describing a hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the
retention of the 9 beehives. He added that prior to the purchase of this home,
he and his family backed out of a home purchase in Riverside because it was
located near acres of orange groves and they knew a number of beehives would be
needed to pollinate the trees. However, this particular property, being in an
urban and not an agricultural area, they did not investigate and did not become
aware of the bees until after they had purchased the home.
Mr. Reitz reported that in past discussion of this matter, th~ere had been some
problem in distinguishing between a "swarm" of bees and an "abundance" ofbees,
in that the applicant maintains that her bees do not swarm. Regardless, he
contended there is an abundance of bees in the neighborhood and that is what the
area residents oppose. He advised that in his estimation, these bees are a
79-1251
City .H.all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
public nuisance because of the numbers of adults and children in the area which
have been stung. He emphasized that his wife is extremely allergic to bee stings
and without proper medical attention within five to ten minutes of a sting, that
sting could be fatal. He acknowledged that the neighborhood would continue to
have bees no matter what, but doubted they would experience them in the multitudes
they have now if the hives were removed.
Mr. Reitz stated that he felt some of the Planning Commissioners were swayed in
their voting for approval by Mr. Bushore's statement that he was an experienced
beekeeper and that since his parents lived in the'area, he could monitor the
situation. He advised that the area in which Mr. Bushore's father lives is
southwest and people in that direction seemed to be less aware'of the bees.
In addition, Mr. Reitz pointed out that Mrs. Bledgood, who appeared on behalf of
Mrs. Schafer at the last discussion, made reference to other beehives in the
neighborhood.. He stated that he would like to know whether Reverend Edwards
has beehives on his property, as bees will travel in a three mile radius, and in
addition, whether or not some or any portion of the money Mrs. Schafer receives
as a result of honey and fruit sales goes to Reverend Edwards' church. He
submitted a copy of a petition in opposition which he indicated was signed by
42 out of 46 people who were asked.
In response to Councilman Overholt's query as to what were some of the circum-
stances under which men, women and children were stung, Mr. Reitz explained
that in one family the children were stung while playing in the front yard,
the woman had a bee fly up her pants leg and sting her leg, and the husband
was stung on the ear just leaving the house. In addition, he stated that other
children have been stung by bees that fall in the grass and die, but the stinger
remains potent.
When asked by Councilman Overholt had he ever observed the "honey for sale" sign
in front of Mrs. Schafer's residence, Mr. Reitz replied negatively, as he has
never had reason to travel that far down Broadway and generally drives in the
direction of Loara Street towards Ball Road. He further explained that he did
not investigate for bees at this location because he assumed, the property being
located in the city, this would not be a problem.
Mrs. Pam Brown, 1509 West Tedmar, stated that her family moved into their home
in this area in December and that the following May, June and July, her son~ was
stung five to six times, her daughter two times, herself once. She stated that
the bees seem to be attracted to anywhere there is water, such as plastic pools,
slip and slides, and sprinkler heads. She observed that the homes are fairly
new and a lot of landscaping is not in and that when the homeowners complete
their yards this additional vegetation will probably attract even more bees.
Mrs. Virginia Vasilou (Mrs. Reitz's mother) stated that the more supras there are
located on top of the hives, the more bees, and that it is the bees which determine
hQw many they need. She related her past experiences as a beekeeper and ex-
plained that although bees do not bother her if she is stung, i.e., she gets no
reaction, there are those, like her daughter, who are extremely sensitive and
atlergic to bee stings. She voiced the opinion that Reverend Edwards and Mrs.
Schafer are showing no consideration for human life and contributing to undue
mental stress of the people living in the adjacent area, and in addition leaving
79-1252
City Ha!l, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
themselves open to the liability of a wrongful death suit should a bee sting her
daughter. Mrs. Vasilou also explained that Reverend Edwards and Mrs. Sqhafer
have been extracting from the bee hives and this makes the bees angry.
Mrs. Pat Currier, 1547 West Tedmar, stated that she has also noted any time there
is any water around her home the bees are attracted. She related that she
moved in September and was stung eight days later and that every time she goes
out of her home there are at least a dozen bees. She has observed that the
bees fly towards Mrs. Schafer's property.
Mrs. Linda Tietjen, 1504 Tedmar, advised that in her experience the bees are
very aggressive and their behavior is not what she would call normal. She
stated that even her dog has been stung by bees, and her children too.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, Reverend Edwards
was offered an opportunity for rebuttal.
Reverend Edwards responded to Council Members that he would attribute the report-
edly aggressive and abnormal behavior of bees as mentioned to the fact tha~ these
are bees which are not receiving proper care, that there is no way of knowihg
that the bees in question are Mrs. Schafer's, but that her bees are well cared
for. Further he explained that he has no financial interest in the bees, any
money Mrs. Schafer makes is hers, that the bees and the hives belong to Mrs.
Schafer.
Speaking in favor of the retention of the beehives, Mrs. Bledgood, who lives on
Damon Avenue, just one-quarter of a mile from the hives, stated she would like
6o See them remain as they assist in pollination of her fruit trees. She
advised that she does have neighbors with hives who are not experienced beekeepers
and do not properly take care of the bees. These bees do swarm in the spring,
and she has observed they always seem to go towards the subdivision of single-
family homes.
Indicating that he felt the Council had received sufficient input, Mayor Seymour
closed the public discussion.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's question regarding whether or not it has
been determined that there are other beehives in the immediate area, a lady
from the audience advised that they have thoroughly checked the Pacesetter
tract of homes and there are no hives located there. Mr. Thompson advised
that a survey and report as to the potential location of other beehives was not
undertaken by the Planning Department staff.
At Council's request, the City Attorney explained that the decision before Council
at this time is to either approve or deny an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1872, and/or set the item for hearing on an Order to Show Cause for
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
During Council discussion, Councilman Bay pointed out that this is not a sing-
ular problem and that in his opinion the Council does not really have sufficient
facts as to legal vs. illegal beehives within a two-to-three mile radius of
Mrs. Schafer's property. Nevertheless, he still felt the residents are exper-
iencing a bee problem which falls under the definition of public nuisance.
79-1253
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt voiced the opinion, from his personal observation that the
size of Mrs; Schafer's property appears to be closer to one acre than three.
The problem, as he sees it, is that this neighborhood has changed and is no longer
an ~gricultural area, but has become truly an urban neighborhood. He observed
quite a lot of bee activity on his field trip and stated that if he lived there,
he would also be extremely concerned about the safety of the situation. Further
he noted that Mrs. Schafer participated in the change of the area from agricultural
to urban by selling part of her property to Pacesetter Homes for construction of
homes.
Councilwoman~Kaywood stated that she has a very real problem with this decision
since she has the greatest sympathy and empathy for the residents, but also for
Mrs. Schafer who has lived on this property for some 58 years, and that the Council
might take action to remove all of Mrs. Schafer's hives and find there is still
a bee problem in the neighborhood. Therefore it would be her inclination that the
City conduct an investigation, and in this way the illegal hives could be documented
and controlled.
Mr~ThQmpson responded to this suggestion that unless the City receives permission
to enter upon each parcel of private property, such an investigation would not be
possible.
Mayor Seymour commented that despite any survey taken to identify illegal ~ives
in the neighborhood, this will still not identify which bees are stinging people.
He stated his conclusion that this area is now urbanized, and it is the resPonsi-
bility of the City Council to insure the protection of the lives of the citizens
living in that neighborhood. He also found this to be a difficult decision
because of Mrs. Schafer's length of residence on the property, however he noted
sh~ did participate in bringing the condition of urbanization on herself from
the sale of her property
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the extension of time to
C0dhitional Use Permit No. 1872 and further to direct that said Conditional Use
Permit be set for public hearing to consider revocation. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth explained his "no" vote, stating that although he is sympathetic
particularly to those who are allergic to bee stings, he could not vote to deny
this 94-year old woman, who has resided on the property for 58 years, from con-
tinuing to gain part of her livelihood from the sales of fruit and honey. He
equated the situation with those who move next to an air station and then demand
it be closed.
178: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - PRIVATE WATER
WELL -BAN'YON COURT AND SUNKIST WAY: To hear and consider testimony relating
to i~ private water well owned by the Citrus Water Company on property located
at ~he southwest corner of Banyon Court and Sunkist Way,~determined to be a
public nuisance by the Public Utilities General Manager, pursuant to Chapter
10.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
The City Clerk advised that one letter was received regarding this matter dated
October 18, 1979, from Mr. James M. Ward.
79-1254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ray Auerbach summarized the situation as reported in the General Manager's
memo dated October 24, 1979.
Councilman Roth commented that after reading all the correspondence on this
issue, it appears to him the question is who was going to remove the block
wall building surrounding the well. There seems to be no controversy or ob-
jection to the backfill operation to cap the well.
Mr. Thompson noted that a portion of this well and block wall structure is
located in the public right of way and a portion on the adjacent'private property
at 2501Banyon Court.
Mr. Jim Ward, 2501Banyon Court, Anaheim, was recognized by the Mayor and advised
he is not the property owner but lives on this particular street. He advised
that he applauds the recommendation of the Utilities General Manager that his
well be abated and the cost for such work borne by the Council Contingency Fund.
In connection w£th the block wall structure, Mr. Ward was of the opinion that
the most logical solution would have been to require the builder who developed
the four homes on that particular street to remove the structure and put in side-
walks in front of all four homes, instead, sidewalks were installed in front of
only three homes and this wall and structure remain intact. Now according to
Mr. Ward, the City had no way to get the builder to perform this work and there-
fore he suggested that the Council extend the funds necessary to tear down the
building, as well as backfill the well. He concluded that this is now an urban
area and the pump, as well as the building, are no longer needed. He also called
attention to the traffic island on Sunkist Street which he considered to be an
eyesore and requested that the Council also consider finding some manner in
which this might be landscaped or improved as the local church group was required
to do on the traffic island adjacent to their property.
Mrs. Barbara Ward, 2501Banyon Court, Anaheim, advised that there is a bus stop
one block beyond this well and pump building on Sandalwood, and the children
must Consequently walk in the street beyond the well, and there is no sidewalk
at this point.
Mr. Orrin Nordin stated that he lives in the house on the subject property and
reported that the' gate around the well house has been opened and there are
broken bottles and~old metal containers and other debris. He did not'think
it a safe situation for the neighborhood children.
The public hearing was closed.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Auerbach explained that the cost to abate
the well is estimated at $2,500 and another $500 would most likely cover the cost
for removal of the block wall structure.
During discussion, Mr. Devitt advised that the developer of the four homes on
Banyan Court had requested a sidewalk waiver for the property with a well and
pumphouse, but that waiver was denied.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-647 for adoption, making the
following findings; (1) The Council determines the water well located at the
southwest corner of Banyon Court and Sunkist Way is considered a public nuisance.
(2) That the'Public Utilities General Manager be directed to take action to
79-1255
City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
abate said condition by backfilling the well in accordance with Water Engineering
Standard W-168; said activity to be initiated on or before November 15, 1979 and
that the cost of said abatement, as well as removal of the block wall structure
in the approximate amount of $3,000 be expended from the Council Contingency
Fund. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-647: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-647 duly passed and adopted.
Regarding Mr. Ward's fourth point in the letter dated October 18, 1979, improve-
ment of the appearance of the traffic island along Sunkist directing traffic
towards Miraloma Avenue, Mayor Seymour commented that this is not a clear cut
iskue of abatement of a condition which would be construed a public nuisance as
th~ well and pumphouse, which clearly need to be abated so that sidewalks can be
installed for safety purposes. Therefore he stated that he did not feel the
Council could take action on that situation. He suggested that this problem
be referred to local volunteer groups, such as Anaheim Beautiful.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Submitted by Elden W. Bainbridge, to permit a wholesale and retail appliance facility
on ML zoned property located at 1006-1016 Tustin Avenue.
Th% City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No, PC79-186, approved a
negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2021.
Appeal from the action taken by the Planning Commission was filed by E1 Dean
Wilson, and public hearing was scheduled and continued from October 23, 1979
to this date.
Miss Santalahti briefed the Council on the staff report submitted to the City
Flanning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent wished to address the
Council. ~
Mr. Jim Austerhopt, owner of the Phil & Jim's TV, advised that this firm had
three retail stores located in South gate, Cerritos and Huntington Beach, and
that these have been operating for 26 years. The proposed new use for subject
property is totally different, it is to be a builders supply division. Because
of the purchasing power, they now have some 50 retail dealers to whom they
supply-merchandise on a resale basis, as well as 90 small contractors who will
purchase two to eight pieces at a time. They would like to remove this kind of
business from their retail stores and consolidate it into a wholesale division
79-1256
City Ha%l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
on the subject property. This is the location they have selected for their builders
supply division, and they would not try to use it for retail customers. They do
not intend to have more than 10 people in the store at any one time. There will
be only four employees at this location, two sales people, one office worker
and one warehouseman. Basically the intent is that this will be a warehouse
with some small amount of retail sales anticipated. He cited that there are
facilities which are operated in similar fashion already located in the City of
Anaheim on industrially zoned property, a lumber company and hardware store.
In response to Mayor Seymour, Mr. Austerhopt advised that he would be willing to
stipulate that retail sales would not exceed 25%. He remarked that this would
be quite a liberal percentage and doubted their retail sales would ever reach
that amount.
Mayor Seymour stated that it was his intent to place a condition on the approval
of the conditional use permit indicating that in the event retail sales did
exceed 25%, then the permit would be revoked. Mayor Seymour further asked
whether Mr. Austerhopt would be willing to substantiate the amount of retail
vs. wholesale activity by providing the City with an annual audit from his
computer sales printouts. He stressed that he did not want to create an
additional burden of paperwork either for Mr. Austerhopt or the City and re-
quested suggestions for any simple way to how the substantiation might be
accomplished.
Mr. E1 Dean Wilson, Oranco Industrial Properties and Oranco Construction, sug-
gested the State Contractors License sales number with quantities purchased be
used.
Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Wilson was active in the Chamber of Commerce and
had often expressed his concerns for the integrity of the industrial area and
was supportive of the recent ML Zone Ordinance adopted by the City Council. He
questioned whether Mr. Wilson had changed his philosophy and was now supportive
of this Conditional Use Permit application.
Mr. Wilson stated that his philosophy was basically the same, he objected to
the theater proposal and to the miniature golf course, but Mr. Austerhopt's
proposal is a wholesale operation with a minor bit of retail and would be very
similar to the Ganahl Lumber Company and American Hardware Store.
Councilman Roth stated that he was also supportive of a mixed business use as
was under discussion, depending upon the area, since in his opinion marketing
concepts of furniture and other items have changed. He remarked that what he
is trying to do is substantiate that what the applicant requires is a location
where he might run a wholesale operation with some amount of retail, as what he
primarily needs is the space for warehousing, and it would be impossible for him
to take th%s entire operation into a commercial space because the cost would be
prohibitive.
Mr. Wilson totally agreed with Councilman Roth's comments and added that the kind
of thing he would not want to see in the northeast Anaheim industrial area would
be trailer sales or automobile lots. Mr. Wilson added he has done business with
79-1257
C__ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ i:30~P.M.
Mr. Austerhopt's firm for some years and has been looking for a location for him
in Anaheim for quite some time. He commented that a firm nearby has a retail
sales limitation of 30%, but Austerhopt has volunteered to accept a 25% limita-
tion.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Seymour stated that he did not feel the approval of this Conditional
Use Permit, subject to the stipulations on retail sales to be agreed upon and
further subject to some annual audit process to substantiate the retail sales
percentage, would be in conflict with Ordinance No. 4050 adopted October 2,
1979o He stated that his interpretation of the re~;trictions on retail sales
in industrial areas was that these must primarily serve industry or wholesale
businesses and if, in fact, the retail operation is a secondary activity, this
might be permitted on a case-by-case basis. He explained that Conditional Use
Permit No. 2021 in his opinion clearly falls into this category.
Further Council discussion was prompted by Councilwoman Kaywood's question to
the City Attorney as to whether or not Ordinance No. 4050 would preclude this
kind of sales activity within which Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood the~
ordinance, this type of primarily wholesale activity would be permitted under a
conditional use permit.
Councilman Bay voiced his very strong opinion that the basic understanding on
adoption of Ordinance No. 4050 was that it would preven~ future retail and
wholesale operations in industrial zones where these were not directly supportive
of industry. He further stressed that this Conditional Use Permit went through
the Planning Commission, and they voted 7 to 0 to deny it. He reiterated that
the intent of the Ordinance is to preserve industrial land for use by industry.
In his opinion, granting this Conditional Use Permit would be tantamount to
rescinding the ordinance as it would certainly confuse the Planning Department
and Planning Commission on the Council's previous direction. Councilman Bay
further stated that it also the opinion of the entire Planning Commission that
this partial use is in direct violation of the Ordinance. Councilman Bay read
the rationale on which the Planning Commission based their denial (as set forth
in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC79-186). Further he noted that in the
Planning Commission public hearing on this subject the Traffic Engineer stated
he was very concerned with the vehicular access and parking, which although
would be adequate to serve an industrial use, would not be adequate for' com-
mercial.
Councilman Bay also pointed out that although this particular applicant came in
and offered to reduce 100 lineal feet of show window, it was his personal opinion
there should have been no show window allowed in the first place. He recalled
that the conditional use permit for the Gold Key Furniture Store was sold on
the basis that this also would be used for warehousing and display primarily.
He cited the Gold Key Store as a prime example of what happens when the Council
al±ows a foot in the door by granting a percentage of retail business. Council-
man Bay concluded that approval of this would redirect the Planning Commission
to take a new look at interpretation of the ordinance just adopted.
79-1258
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour disagreed with Councilman Bay's statement on one particular point,
that being under Section .605 of Ordinance No. 4050, where various uses are set
forth which would be allowed through the conditional use permit process, one of
these is commercial sales which primarily serve and are compatible with industrial
customers. Mayor Seymour stated that in his mind the building industry is a
customer of the organization proposing this use and this makes it compatible,
so long as 75% of the customers are wholesale or industrial customers. If the
ordinance as written does not permit this particular type of use in the industrial
zone, Mayor Seymour stated that he feels it should be amended to so allow. He
requested a ruling from the City Attorney as to whether or not the proposed use
with limitations of retail sales to 25% of total volume, would be allowed under
a conditional use permit process, advising that if it is not, he would like to
know whether or.not a majority of the Council would be willing to amend the
ordinance.
In response to the Mayor, Mr. Hopkins advised that his interpretation of Section
.605 of Ordinance No. 4050 would be that it is restrictive and would rely on the
definition of what is a commercial sale vs. what is an industrial customer. He
is of the opinion that sale to primarily manufacturing operations are considered
industrial, as opposed to some wholesale operations, and he believed this. is the
intent of the ordinance.
(It was mentioned earlier in the discussion that Ordinance No. 4050 adopted on
October 2, 1979 would become effecttive on November 2, 1979.)
Mayor Seymour stated that he would not be supportive of this conditional use
permit application in order to bring it in under the wire, but to his mind
this exemplifies the kind of activity he expected to see come in under the
conditional use permit process and be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas
he is now being told that the revised ML zone ordinance, when finalized, would
preclude this very thing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in her opinion an action to approve this Condi-
tional Use Permit would be a complete reversal of the direction which the Council
took in revising the ML ordinance. She referred to the blatant disregard for all
rules displayed by some of the firms who are located in the industrial zone
which are primarily commercially oriented. She also recalled that the Chamber of
Commerce had made it clear the City's supply of industrial land is dwindling°
In response to Councilman Roth, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she could support
the gymnastics academy recently approved in an industrial zone, as they would be
providing a cardio-vascular fitness program which would not otherwise have been
available to the individuals employed in this industrial zone, whereas there is
an overabundance of the kind of operation proposed under Conditional Use Permit
No. 2021 in the industrial zone.
Councilman Roth commented however that the gymnasium will undoubtedly utilize
75% of its time training gymnasts and 25% providing cardio-vascular fitness
service.
Councilman Overholt stated that he also takes exception to the interpretation
of Ordinance No. 4050 as given by'the City Attorney. He ventured that if the
25% retail sales were all water valves or some other such item, there would be
no problem, but the fact that the products involved here are those which are
79-1259
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
generally sold at retail, gives Council additional concern. He advised that
he personally feels this would be a purely wholesale operation which primarily
serves and is compatible with its industrial customers which would be the
building industry.
Councilman Bay cautioned that approval of this Conditional Use Permit and amend-
ment to the ordinance will confuse the Planning Commission which has been warning
al! along that the Council would begin receiving applications for partial retail
businesses and these will be used in the future as cases of precedent for more
retail business encroachment into the industrial zones. He noted that in a
re~ent Anaheim Economic Development Corporation meeting, the fact was ~rought out
that an industrial concern has been looking for six acres on which to expand
thin, ir manufacturing operation and has not been able to find vacant industrial
land in Anaheim. Further he explained it is his contention that industrial land
is being held off the market for the primary purpose that it might be developed
commercially at a higher value.
Mayor Seymour interjected that the alernative to what Councilman Bay has set
forth would be Council taking some course of action to depress land values and
in his opinion that~action goes beyond what he feels government should do.
Councilman Bay concluded that the Council is making a landmark decision, that
if they will not stay concerned with job production (i.e. this proposal will
provide employment for four individuals only), then there will be no job base
wo~,king in the industrial zone.
E~zIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Se?~our, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare
an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this
Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse envi-
ronmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-648 for adoption, reversing the
findings of the City Planning Commission and granting Conditional Use Permit
No~ 2021, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations,
and further subject to the stipulations made by the applicant regarding signing
and annual audit satisfactory to City staff to a~ure that retail sales do not
exceed 25% of business; this conditional use per~it to be revoked within 90
days should the 25% retail limitation be exceeded.
1. That the proposed wholesale and retail appliance facility shall comply with
ali signing requirements of the ML zoning.
2~ That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the difference between the
in6~strial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896)
in an amount as determined by the City Council, prior to the issuance of a
building perm%t.
79-1260
C.ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 5.
4. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections°
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-648: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhoit, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-648 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
a clarification to the ML Zone Ordinance No. 4050 allowing commercial sales
operations which primarily serve the industrial community under the conditional
use permit process. Councilman Roth seconded the motion° Councilwoman Kaywood
and Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-7A: In accordance with legal notice
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices posted by law, public hearing was
held on request to abandon a storm drain easement located on the northeast corner
of Tustin Avenue and Riverdale Avenue, consisting of a ten-foot wide strip of
land approximately 199 feet long; application submitted by R. G. Garland Corpor-
ation.
The City Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of said abandonment
at their meeting of October 22, 1979 and environmental review indicates that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Class 5 of categorical exemption
from the requirement to prepare an EIR and is therefore categorically exempt
from the requirement to prepare an EIRo
Joint report from the Zoning and Engineering Divisions was submitted recommending
Abandonment No. 79-7A be unconditionally approved.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council relative to the abandon-
ment; there being no response, he declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-649 for adoption, approving Abandonment
No. 79-7A in accordance with the recommendations of Planning Commission, Engin-
eering and Planning staff. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-649: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (79-7A)
79-1261
~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 30~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolutio No. 79R-649 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDO.i:MENT NO. 79-8A: S~mitted by Bruce B. Bowman,
United California Bank, Trustees, to abandon and quitclaim a portion of the
north side of City-owned fee title to right-of-way of Santa Ana Canyon Road,
approximately 1,500 feet east and west of Weir Canyon Road, together with
related slope easements.
In accordance with the request submitted by Engineering Division dated October 24,
!979, on motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
City Council continued the public hearing on Abandonment No. 79-8A to the meeting
of November 21, 1979, at 3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:25 P.M.
~BERTS~