Loading...
1979/11/2779-1325 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Takuji Tamaru CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Johnny Carlson, West Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 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. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,535,718.52, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 123: DATA PROCESSING OFFICE FACILITY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-684 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 20, 1979 from Data Processing Director Tug Tamaru, authorizing an office building lease with Robert L. Feldman and Robert L. Feldman am Trustee for Sam Feldman in the amount of $8,259 per month, to house the Data Processing Department at 125 East Ball Road. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-684: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ROBERT L. FELDMAN AND ROBERT L. FELDMAN AS TRUSTEE FOR SAM FELDMAN TRUST, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID LEASE. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Tamaru clarified for Councilman Roth that the target date for the completion of the Willdan Building was scheduled for no later than January 1981. The basic building would have all the requirements necessary for a data center, and there was an option that they could choose consisting of approx- imately $150,000 worth of improvements to meet their requirements which would have to be amortized over the lease. 79-1326 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth emphasized that he wanted to be certain that the provisions nec- essary to accommodate the data center were installed during the construction period at the expense of Willdan, rather than the City. City Manager William Talley interjected and stated it would not be fair to have anyone think that whatever Willdan had to put in the building to house the computer facility that they would not expect to recover it in rent; Councilman Roth stated he understood, but he was interested in the cost factors. Mr. Talley stated that the lease terms would be submitted to the Council prior to moving. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-684 duly passed and adopted. 123: JAYCOX DISPOSAL (RESIDENT.IAL) - ANAHEIM DISPOSAL .(.COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL) CHANGE IN RATES - SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND REVISIONS TO SANITATION CHARGES AND RESIDENTIAL SEWER MAINTENANCE: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on three memorandums dated November 16, 1979 from Public Works Executive Director Thornton Piersall relative to the subject (on file in the City Clerk's office). Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-685 through 79R-687, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in the subject memorandums authorizing the following respectively: an amendment to an agreement with Jaycox Disposal Company, Inc., for collection of residential solid waste, increasing the unit price per single- family residential collection from $2.25 to $2.50 per month and multiple-family residential collection using bulk containers from $2 to $2.25 per month; requiring the contractor to establish an Equipment Purchase Fund; and extending the agree- ment to June 30, 1986; an amendment with Anaheim Disposal, Inc., for collection of commercial and industrial solid waste, increasing the unit price per customer- owned container from $1.40 to $1.75 per month; requiring the contractor to establish an Equipment Purchase Fund; increasing the unit prices for contractor- supplied, bulk solid waste container service; and extending the agreement to June 30, 1986; and establishing sanitation charges for residential solid waste collection, commercial and industrial solid waste collection and residential sewer maintenance. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-685: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND JAYCOX DISPOSAL COMpANY, INC. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-686: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ANAHEIM DISPOSAL, INC. 79-1327 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-687: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING SANITATION CHARGES. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked when talking about a seven-year contract, did that not mean they were going to have yearly increases in rates anyway due to inflation. Mr. Talley answered that he would expect to have annual rate increases based on labor agreements and the cost of inflation. Every time there was a new labor agreement, they could expect a larger than average increase at that time. Councilman Bay stated of concern to him was the fact that prior to September 1, 1978, they had a base figure for the services provided. At the time of last negotiations, there was a 14.5% increase in the Jaycox contract and a 19.2% increase in the Anaheim Disposal contract (September 1, 1978 through October 31, 1979). The new contracts were approximately 11.9% for Jaycox, and 8% for Anaheim Disposal. The preSent figures were close to yearly inflation rates expected, but with the increases involved a year ago, he assumed they could have gone longer than a year without additional increases. Mr. Talley explained that the City did not get into the negotiations of either acquisition of equipment or the labor contracts that were signed. The majority of the input was to carefully scrutinize their operating, routing and collection procedures, as well as their cash flow, to insure the Council they were not making an unwarranted rate of return and had accounted for all the funds. However, if Jaycox and Anaheim Disposal signed an excessive labor contract in terms of the Presidential guidelines, the City was bound to recognize those costs and recommend them to the Council. If excessive, they had two choices: (1) accept those charges or, (2) think about securing another contractor. Councilman Bay thereupon stated he was going to support the resolutions, but wanted to know the differences in the percentages and what they could look forward to in the future. Mr. Bill Taormina, President, Anaheim Disposal, stated that he could not accept one statement that was made. He did not want the Council to assume that if they negotiated a bad union contract, which they had not done historically for the last 16 years, and if they paid in excess of inflationary guidelines for a piece of equipment, that they would instantly pass that on to the citizens of Anaheim. It was important to note that relative to their labor contract, they set the precedent in the County for the whole Southern California base as being the lowest--both Jaycox and Anaheim Disposal. It was economically important for them to keep their prices low. Their profit derived from how much they saved and not how much they charged. In his case, it was 4% after everything was paid. They economized through efficiency in different routes and things of that type. Mr. Talley agreed with Mr. Taormina and stated his comment was not made as an indication of inefficiency. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. 79-1328 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 79R-685 through 79R~687, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 175: WATER SERVICE TO 3600 EAST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-688 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated November 19, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board, consenting to the provision of water service by the Southern California Water Company to the property at 3600 Orangethorpe Avenue. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-688: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY TO CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-688 duly passed and adOpted. 108: NEWSRACK IMPOUND HEARING - SOON DISTRIBUTORS: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 21, 1979 from his office recommending an additional expenditure of $1,500 to conduct the subject hearing. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the expenditure of $1,500 to conduct the Soon Distributors hearing relative to the newsrack ordinance, to be appropri- ated from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated it appeared that the attorneys for Soon Distributors must be using some type of harassment by continuing the hearings over a normal length of time, and he was wondering if anything could be done to expedite the hearing. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Hearing Officer had been advised of their feelings that it was a rather lengthy cross-examination and they would continue to protest; however, the Hearing Officer had the final word. The additional day should complete the hearing. He also explained for Councilman Bay that the news- rack owners did not pay any of the hearing costs. It was borne by the City as part of the enforcement of the ordinance. Councilman Bay stated he would like to know what the City's legal out would be on future hearings, so that they could not be had for that much money so easily again. 79-1329 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hopkins stated the answer would be to provide their own in-house Hearing Officer in the future. In the present case, they felt it should be handled by an independent outside Hearing Officer. A vote was then taken on the foreoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: INSTALLATION OF BUS SHELTER FOR THE BRAILLE INSTITUTE: Request of Bruce G. Williams, Convenience & Safety Corporation, for approval of the installation of a non-advertising bus shelter for the Braille Institute. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the installation of a non-advertising bus shelter at 533 North Dale, the Braille Institute site, at no cost to the City. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know whether a warning sign or some type of sign could be posted at the corner of Dale and Crescent, stating "Caution--Bus Stop Ahead" or something similar, because some vehicles did speed down Dale coming from the Buena Park Center. If so, she wanted to incorporate that as part of her motion. Shirley Meredith, Assistant Traffic Engineer, explained that they were bound to the State of California signs, and there were no signs per se that could be installed. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there were signs for crosswalks for children at schools and she suggested a sign indicating "School Ahead" because the Braille Institute was a school. Ms. Meredith stated they would look into that matter to see if such a sign would fall under the guidelines. City Engineer William Devitt stated that they were also pursuing the elimination of the parcels that were jutting out in that area. Ms. Meredith then gave an update on the status of the bus shelter program. Mr. Bruce Williams, President, Convenience & Safety Corporation of Orange County, then briefed the Council on his letter dated November 21, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) also giving a status report on the shelter installation program. He also stated that as of Sunday night, 16 shelters were complete and commissioned. As of tomorrow, there would be 15 shelters on the street and as of next Saturday, December 1, 1979, there would be 21 shelters on the street. On the remaining 5 shelters, one was about to be resolved by the Council, three were under discussion by Disneyland as to whether or not they would allow the install- ation, and there was one other problem site requiring more adjacent property negotiation. The electrification crews would be moving in by next Monday and that process was very custom site to site. They could generally do a site a day. It was their estimate that all shelters would be installed, commissioned, .... cleaned, graphics in place and in operation no later than the 17th of December. Mr. Williams continued that it might be a good time to consider an additional 25 shelters while the crews were present and operations in progress. He believed they would end up in the vicinity of 100 to 125 shelters. He also felt that with 79-1330 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. the completion of 26 shelters, that there should be some kind of dedication ceremony and suggested that it perhaps be the Braille Institute shelter. Mr. Williams explained that they decided to include electric meters on the first 25 shelters. Los Angeles had waived meters and charged them a flat fee. Anaheim wanted meters attached to the shelters themselves. He wanted to see that require- ment as part of the past, but they would conform now and try to make adjustments later. Councilman Roth stated if they went ahead with another 25 shelters, that they should take the existing 25 and calculate a mean average and that would rep- resent the amount of the electric bill in the future. It was important to think about saving and conservation. Mr. Williams stated that they would like to do that and had to discuss the matter with the Public Utilities Board. They always maintained that they would even prefer taking the longest night of the year, December 21, calculating the charges on that night and have the Utilities charge them as though it were for 365 days a year while giving them the worst commercial rate. They would still make more money than it cost them to install meters in the shelters. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if he was going to make that proposal; Mr. Williams answered, "yes". Councilman Roth was under the impression that Mr. William~ was going to pursue that process sometime back, but he had not heard anything further; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she could not see putting in separate meters. She then asked Mr. Williams if he had another 25 locations in mind. Mr. Williams answered "yes" and stated that 50 locations were approved originally. Councilman Roth seconded Councilwoman Kaywood's motion; Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she would like to remove from her motion the portion regarding signs with the understanding that if signs were appropriate, t.hey would be installed. Councilwoman Kaywood preferred to remove the sign request from her motion alto- gether in order to make it a clean motion of approval of the installation of a bus shelter without advertising at the Braille Institute site. She asked that the Assistant Traffic Engineer look into the signing aspect as previously requested. Councilman Roth stated that there be no more electric meters installed in the shelters although he noted that the City Engineer did not seem pleased with that idea. City Engineer William Devitt stated he was pleased and made another suggestion, that the meters be taken off the City's traffic signals. In his 20 years with the City, he had never been able to figure out why they needed meters on traffic signals. It would be cheaper for them to take the biggest and worst traffic signal for billing purposes. City Manager Talley recommended that the City Engineer submit a memorandum to him relative to that suggestion, so that subsequently a report could be submitted to the Council. 79-1331 Qi~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on Councilwoman Kaywood's motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations 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 Margarita and George Pillars for vehicular damages pur- portedly sustained as a result of On-Duty Emergency Vehicle striking parked vehicles in front of 408 West Ball Road, on or about August 25, 1979. Mr. George Pillars addressed the Council stating that he wanted expeditious handling of his claim because they were renting a vehicle and the cost of the claim would be continuing to increase. b. Claim submitted by James A. Lee for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant stepping into chuck hole on Alameda Street, near 2020 W. Alameda, Apt. lOJ, on or about September 4, 1979. 2. CORtLESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of October 31 and · November 7, 1979. b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission - Minutes of September 26, 1979. c. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of September 27 and October 11, 1979. d. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of October 4, 1979. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit, submitted by Lenard Edward C01eby and Michael John Merrill, for pinball video to be located at Rocky's, 951 South Knott Avenue. b. Amusement and Entertainment Premises--Pool Rooms, submitted by Lenard Edward Coleby and Michael John Merrill, to allow eight billiard tables at Rocky's, 951 South Knott Avenue. c. Entertainment Permit, submitted by Lenard Edward Coleby and Michael John Merrill, to allow from one to four entertainers at Rocky's, 951 South Knott Avenue. d. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit, submitted by David Perrin, President, OCSC INC., The Sportsman, 1168 South State College Boulevard. 79 -1332 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 4. 169: RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION - LA PALMA AVENUE~ SEQUOIA AVENUE TO MAGNOLIA: The Right of Way Certification for the La Palma Avenue, Sequoia Avenue to Magnolia Avenue Project, Federal Aid Urban No. M-L073, was approved in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer. (Account No. 13-793-6325-3230) Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-689 and 79R-690, 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. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-689: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Sand Dollar Development, Inc.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-690: 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 COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PROJECT ALPHA OFF-SITE MAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-606-6340-25070-34350. (McGuire Construction Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-689 and 79R-690, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 5, 1979, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-16: Submitted by Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a commercial shopping center on property located on the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-219, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-16, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Jim Christensen was in the Chamber audience. The request was to construct a Levitz and Best facility next to the mobile home park. Since the mobile homes were very expensive and it was a beautiful park, she was concerned as to whether noise was going to be generated from the docking or activity going on at the proposed center. 79-1333 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jim Christensen, representing the Corporation of the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints on the project, answered, "no". He noted a further stip- ulation was made at the Planning Commission meeting that there would be no deliveries made except during operating hours. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to have the operating hours clarified; Mr. Christensen stated he believed the hours were 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.~ Councilwoman KaYwood asked if it was possible to have the operating hours stip- ulated or clarified at this time. Mr. Christensen clarified that normal operating hours of the center would be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., including deliveries. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2029: Submitted by Mohamad A., Masqud, and Saeed Darkhor and Ahmad Gharebaghi, to permit an automobile sales agency on CG zoned property located at 619-631 North Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-218, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2029, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2032: Submitted by Herman H. Flum, to permit a 32-unit motel on CL zoned property located at the northwest corner of Katella Avenue and Walnut Street, with waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-221, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2032, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3101: Submitted by Marion R. and R. Janine Mills, to retain an illegal garage conversion on RS-7200 zoned property located at 906 South Nutwood Street, with waiver of minimum number of enclosed parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-220, granted Variance No. 3101, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10437 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by La Solana Cor- poration, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10437, to establish a 3-lot, 95-unit condominium complex on RM-3000 zoned property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, north of Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10437, to expire December 5, 1980. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1907 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Harold W. Rudnick, requesting approval of revised plans under Conditional Use Permit No. 1907, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CG zoned property located at 1025 West Lincoln Avenue, with waivers of maximum number of free-standing signs and minimum number parking spaces. The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans of Conditional Use Permit No. 1907. 79-1334 city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt noted that plans for a car wash concept had come through recently and he wanted to know if those were mutually exclusive. Councilman Roth noted that not only a car wash but also previous to that, a do- it-yourself used car lot had been proposed for the property. Miss Santalahti stated it was her understanding that the drive-through restaurant (Submarine Alley) was the one that looked most likely to be constructed on the property. Relative to the car wash, there was some kind of development condition that the applicant was not satisfied with regarding a driveway. 7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 2974 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Mercury Savings and Loan, requesting approval of revised plans under Reclassif- ication No. 77-78-22 and Variance No. 2974, proposed CL(SC) zoning, to construct a savings and loan building on property located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, with waivers of maximum structural height and landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans of Reclassification No. 77-78-22 and Variance No. 2974. The City Council took no action on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2033: Submitted by Edward D., Ellen M., Howard D. and Lois M. Anderson, to expand an existing mobile home park on RS-A-43,000 and CL zoned property located at 2770 West Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of minimum setback in special areas. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-222, granted in part Conditonal Use Permit No. 2033, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject item from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on Conditional Use Permit No. 2033. 156: ORDINANCE NO. 4081 - DISPLAY OF ADULT READING MATERIAL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4081 for final reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4081: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.96, TITLE 4, TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DISPLAY OF ADULT READING MATERIAL. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4081 duly passed and adopted. 79-1335 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 108: ORDINANCE NO. 4082 - FOOD HANDLING BUSINESSES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4082 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4082: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.64, SECTION 6.64.010 AND ADDING SECTION 6.64.125 AND SECTION 6.64.126 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FOOD HANDLING BUSINESSES. Councilman Roth referred to memorandum dated November 16, 1979 from Frank Lowry, Senior Assistant City Attorney, indicating that the "hot truck" industry had fully endorsed the standards of the County ordinance. It further stated that the City's food sanitation ordinance was more strict than the County's, but it did not say anything about the "hot truck" industry also endorsing a more stringent ordinance. He wanted to know if the proposed City ordinance had been endorsed, supported or shown to the "hot truck" industry. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the original Anaheim ordinance had been in effect for some time. They received a letter from the Orange County Human Services Agency on October 16, 1979, which recommended that certain additional safety pro- visions be included. What the City had done was basically add to its ordinance safety factors that were considered essential, and he believed approved by the truck people. Councilman Roth stated that, in fact, the City Attorney was confirming that the City's ordinance was no more strict than the County's ordinance; Mr. Hopkins answered that was correct. Councilman Roth wanted to be certain that the industry was aware of the ordinance so that it would not be necessary to hold a subsequent public hearing relative to the change; Mr. Hopkins stated he would clarify that to make certain there was no objection on the part of the industry. 114: REPORT ON OREGON TRIP: Councilman Roth reported on his recent trip to Oregon where he found that the average household paid $200 a month for heating bills and also additionally, had to pay utility bills. Before he left on his trip, he had received several irate calls from his constituents relative to utility bills and could not help but equate the situation in Oregon with the situation in Anaheim. 114: ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION (.APA) VARIETY SHOW: Councilman Bay reported on his attendance at the APA variety show held at the Convention Center, Sunday, November 25, 1979 for the benefit of the various good works provided by the APA. 150: JOHN MARSHALL PARK - PHASE I DEVELOPMENT: Councilman Bay asked that con- sideration of allocating $55,000 from Unappropriated Capital Funds be placed on the Council agenda for the week of December 4, 1979 so that the Council could vote to move that amount into the Phase I development of John Marshall Park. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a report from Deputy City Manager James Ruth be submitted relative to the matter. 79-1336 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 114: COMMENDATION - UTILITIES, FIRE AND POLICE: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt commended the various City services--Utilities, Fire and Police--in their response to and control of an emergency involving downed power lines on Westmont and Lancer, Saturday night, November 24, 1979, a holiday weekend. He personally observed their professional handling of the situation. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10~mintues. (2:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Mayor Seymour. (3:00 P.M.) 176: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-8A: Submitted 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. Mr. Keith Murdoch, representing Kaufman and Broad, stated as he indicated last week (see minutes of November 20, 1979) they did have the meeting with the two utilities. Southern California Edison did not want to appear inasmuch as the City would probably be acquiring the line. As a result, they analyzed the type of easement that would be involved and the method of advertising for the hearing, and they were now requesting that the Council terminate the present hearing and activities and readvertise the proposed abandonment without the reservation of the easements on what would become private property. The utility lines would be maintained in the future right-of-way. The abandonment would not take place until after the improvements had been relocated and completed in the new align- ment of the street. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to handle those items at one time. He requested that the matter be advertised for a public hearing without the easement, and the C~ty Attorney had a proposed resolution prepared for such action. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the proposed abandonment. Mr. Robert Castlebury, law firm of Ruston and Nance, appearing on behalf of Howell Companies, stated they would be opposing the abandonment, but would try to work out some kind of arrangements. However, he had no objection to ter- minating the public hearing. Councilman Overholt thereupon offered Resolution-No. 79R-691 and 79R-692 for adoption, the first rescinding Resolution No. 79R-582 and the second setting January 8, 1980 at 3:00 p.m., as the date and time for a public hearing on the abandonment. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-691: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-582. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-692: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. 79-1337 City Hall~ Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 79R-691 and 79R-692 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-9A: In accordance with application filed by Laberbel-Anaheim, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a road and public utility easement over a portion of Woodland Drive from ap- aproximately the easterly line of Electric Way to its present terminus, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-658, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated October 12, 1979 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone wished to address the Council; Mr. Don Loin, representing Laberbel, announced his presence to answer any questions. There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor'or in oppo- sition, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determin- ation of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file and EIR. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution NOo 79R-693 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-9A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO~ 79R-693: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF WOODLAND DRIVE EASTERLY OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-6~3 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 61-62-76: Application by Dr. Gary K. Grossbard, to delete Condition Nos. 5 and 6 of Resolution No. 62R-223, granting Reclassification No. 61-62-76, CL zoned property located at 930 South Euclid Street. 79-1338 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 19797 1:30 P.M. Staff requested a continuance of the public hearing to December 18, 1979 at 3:00 pom. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt noted that Dr. Grossbard was in the Chamber audience and he asked if there was any objection to the continuance; Dr. Grossbard indicated there was no objection. The Mayor Pro Tem asked ~f anyone else was present to speak to the matter; no one was present. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood~ seconded by Councilman Bay, request by staff for a continuance of the public hearing to December 18, 1979 at 3:00 p.m., was approved. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, cancellation of Condition No. 6 of the Declaration of Deed Restrictions was approved, as requested by Dr. Grossbard in his letter dated October 31, 1979. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED° PUBLIC HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872: Elizabeth Schafer, Order to Show Cause why Conditional Use Permit No. 1872, permitting the keeping of nine beehives on RS-A-43,000 and RS-5000 zoned property located at 1500 West Broadway, should not be terminated on the grounds said permit is being exercised as to be detrimental to the public health and safety or so as to constitute a nuisance - Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.092.050. Report from the Zoning Division dated November 21, 1979 relative to the subject CUP stated that on September 10, 1979 the City Planning Commission granted a one-year extension of time to August 14, 1980 allowing the petitioner to retain nine beehives. At their meeting of October 30, 1979, the Council denied the extension of time and directed that CUP No. 1872 be set for a public hearing to consider revocation (see minutes of October 30, 1979 where extensive testi- mony was given). After explaining the hearing procedures, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked first to hear from those in favor of revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 1872. The following people spoke in favor of revocation for the below listed reasons and explanations, tha latter in answer to Council questioning: Mr~ Keith Reitz, 450 South Gilbuck--they did not want Mrs. Schafer to lose her right to sell honey or fruit, but they wanted her to move her hives. They were also aware of a few illegal hives in the area. Mrs. Schafer invited the change from field to residential property by selling to Pace~etter Homes. The Council should be more in favor of keeping their children healthy and safe as opposed to letting the bees stay in the City. His children had not been stung as yet, since he and his wife were very cautious not to let them outside. His wife was extremely allergic to bee stings and there was no guaranteed inoculation. March through September were the months they experienced an excess number of bees. 79-1339 City Ha. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Reitz, 450 South Gilbuck, explained the severe reaction she suffered from bee stings and the inoculation process she had to go through to counteract the problem which was ongoing. She was not against bees, honey or fruit, but she did not think that beehives or bees should be allowed within City limits. Bee- keeping in her family was a tradition but the bees were raised out on farms away from the City. They did not have problems with the bees at this time in the neighborhood. They were not flying in abundance and a survey taken now would not be of assistance. They were asking that the bees not remain on Mrs. Schafer's property so that they would not inflict any danger upon anyone in the neighborhood. Fewer people would be stung and that was her main concern. She kept her children in the house and felt confined to her home. There was a possibility that bees could come from other than Mrs. Schafer's property, but there was a greater possibility that they would since her property was only one-tenth of a mile away and considering that there were half-million bees. Mrs~ Pam Brown, 1509 West Tedmar--when they moved into the tract, they were not aware of beehives in the neighborhood. The following summer after they moved in, she was stung for the first time and her son and daughter were stung many times. She checked with her neighbors and it was then she found out that there were bees on Mrs. Schafer's property and her neighbors were having the same problem. The closer people lived to Mrs. Schafer's home, the more bee stings occurred. She had come to the conclusion they must be Mrs. Schafer's bees. Mrs. Linda Tietjen, 1504 Tedmar--they were aware that the request was to extend the CUP until August 14, 1980. They did not feel they wanted to go through another summer of bee stings. They had watched the flight patterns of the bees going towards Mrs. Schafer's property. They purchased their home because it was a child oriented area. It was particularly bad in the summertime, especially when they could not fee] safe when children were outside playing. They had asked people from the City to come and observe the bees in the summer and now when they did come out, the bees were not as active. Her 18-month old daughter had been stung once, but her 5-year old child had not been stung. Mrs~ Lindsay Brown, 420 South Gilbuck, stated she lived closer to the bees than many of the neighbors speaking today. The main reason she was present was relative to the safety of their children who were being stung by the bees. She did not fee]. it was any life for a small child, especially in the summer, to keep them confined to the house. Mrs~ Virginia Vasilou (mother of Mrs. Reitz) explained that a bee stinger could sting whether or not connected to the bee or if the bee was dead. She under- stood there was an extracting house on Mrs. Schafer's property and when this process was performed, it annoyed the bees because their honey was being taken away. Otherwise, bees were docile. It seemed a shame to have bees so close to people. She then explained for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt the processes involved in caring for bees since they previously owned a beekeeping company, and thus were involved with commercial beehives for 20 years, all the way from preparation in the hive to the product in the jar. 79-1340 C_ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. She also explained that if the bees were provided with water, they would drink it, but if not, would go elsewhere. They usually flew in a pattern of three miles and if thirsty, would get water wherever they could before flying back. She had seen bees go back to Mrs. Schafer's property. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then asked to hear from those in support of CUP No. 1872. June Mackey, 8652 Lahoma, Cypress, briefed the Council on the many years she had known Mrs. Schafer since she was a youngster. Mrs. Schafer had been willing to offer her help freely to anyone interested in bees and beekeeping. She also briefed the Council on her experience with bees and their habits since she had a swarm located on the roof of her house. In conclusion, Mrs. Mackey stated that the City Attorney could solve the whole situation. She asked--if it were true that there was a pre-existing condition w~.th Mrs. Schafer having been a resident at the subject location for the past 58 years and having had bees on her property, that it was not necessary to have a hearing and that she had a right to keep her bees. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that was not correct and it was appropriate at this time that the matter come before the Council because of the various provisions of the City ordinances. He also briefed the historical background of those ordinances, the first having been initiated in 1973, relative to the keeping of bees up to the present time. He also explained that if the CUP was approved by the Council, the extension of the use would be to August 14, 1980. If not, the CUP would be terminated as of this date and the use would become illegal tomorrow. Mrs. Mackey then noted that in January 1980, Mrs. Schafer would be 93 years old. Her personal knowledge of older people removed from those situations that kept them vital, soon passed on. Mr. William Schafer, 1114 West Chestnut, son of Mrs. Schafer, stated that years ago he had helped his father with the beem and they were very important in the pollination process. Within the area of his mother's bees, there were a number of hives which he knew of for a fact. It was not possible to prove that his mother's bees were the ones that were doing the stinging. He felt that considering her age, she should be entitled to keep her bees. He then submitted letters written in favor of his mother retaining the bees on her property (made a part of the record). He was also in favor of the bees and they were a help in the ecological cycle. Councilman Bay asked if Mr. Schafer could be more specific as to where the other bees were in the area. Mr. Schafer stated that he was not going to say, as it may cause problems for his neighbors. In answer to a line of questioning posed by Mayor Pro Tem Overholt, Mr. Schafer relayed the following: he was not in the honey business but he helped other people in the business~ There were nine hives on his mother's property, eight belonged to his mother and one belonged to him. Mr. Robert Edwards, his mother's brother, was with her on the ~ives, and he shared in the income derived. 79-1341 ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Lester Biggs, 150 West Elm, stated he was probably the closest neighbor (the first lot west immediately adjacent to the subject property). He disagreed with the statement that the closer one moved to Mrs. Schafer's pro2erty, the more bee stings occurred. He did not find that to be true at this residence. Nobody had been stung at his house or anywhere near his house. He had lived there during one summer and owned the house since it was new. He had two different renters in the house and each had two small children and there were no complaints about being stung by bees.' Marie Landers, 1822 West Tedmar (on the other side of Euclid Street), stated she had been buying honey at Mrs. Schafer's for many years. Her husband had severe asthma and her boys had many allergies. She had read that taking honey from bees that had pollinated the honey within five miles was immunity against allergies. She purchased the honey at Mrs. Schafer's for health reasons. Mrs. John Bledgood, 1426 Damon, stated that bees did not sting unless molested. When swarming, they could be frightening but Mrs. Schafer's bees did not swarm because she took good care of them. She knew there were other hives in the neighborhood which did not get the care Mrs. Schafer gave her bees. The bees were needed for pollination. She then read a letter submitted by Mrs. Houtz, a resident of Anaheim since 1909 who had lived next to Mrs. Schafer from 1921 to 1944, during which time they were never attacked by bees. Their ranch was approximately 20 feet from the Schafer's ranch at the time. Bees did not attack but protected themselves as anyone would do. She (Mrs. Bledgood)° also had a sister extremely allergic to bee stings who was desensitized and the nurses had told her they never heard of anyone dying who took that precaution. She concluded that to put Mrs. Schafer out of business would not only be uncon- stitutional, but also whatever few years she had left to live would be shorter as a result o~ such action. Mrs. Bledgood also stated, in answer to Councilman Bay, that she knew where the other hives were in the area, but chose not to tell · where they were located. Councilman Bay stated if the theory were true that well kept bees did not cause the problems as articulated and they could find out where they were not being taken care of, that might solve the problem. If no one wanted to tell where they were, however, he did not know how they were going to find them without issuing mass search warrants. Mrs° Bledgood stated that she would talk to Councilman Bay. In answer to Councilman Roth, Mrs. Bledgood stated that she had been caring for bees since the spring of 1970. Well cared for bees were not as aggressive. Guard bees were aggressive. Lola Jane Bowman, Fountain Valley, stated she had known Mrs. Schafer for the last 10 years and had observed her bees and the way she managed them. She felt it was a matter of mistaken identity, and the bees that were stinging the neighbors were coming from somewhere else. Bees could come from everywhere. If Mrs. Schafer moved her bees, it was not to say that the problem would be solved because the bees would come from some place else. She favored Mrs. Schafer keeping her bees for the rest of her life, and it was a small thing to ask. 79-1342 .City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -November 27~ 1979~.1:30 P.M. Mr. David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, stated that he owned the Peppertree Faire across the railroad tracks from Mrs. Schafer. A lot of people frequented that establishment including people sitting outside who were patrons of the restaurant. He asked the management of the restaurant about the situation and found that no one had ever been bothered by bees. Mr. Harold Dixon, 7140 Norwalk Boulevard, Whittier, stated that he helped his wife who owned beese He did know from first-hand experience that unless the bees were disturbed they did not sting or fight and that was a proven fact. A person would have to fight with them or go into their hives before they would sting. He was in favor of Mrs. Schafer keeping her bees. He then confirmed for Councilman Bay that well kept bees did not sting under any circumstances if given plenty of food and if they were not provoked. Mr. L. Frank Kellogg, 530 North West Street, Anaheim resident for 52 years, stated he felt it was a mistake to pass the 1973 ordinance relative to beekeeping, considering all the flowers and trees that were in Anaheim. The City had a vested interest in bees and owed a great deal to Mrs. Schafer. He supported Mrs. Schafer and would discourage anyone who would exterminate the bees in their neighborhood. Reverend Robert Edwards, 943 South David Street (brother of Mrs. Schafer), stated that Mrs. Schafer and her grandaughter last Saturday canvassed the neighborhood and the Council had the results of the people who signed their petition from adjoining properties. Some stated they signed the original petition not being concerned about what they signed and if Mrs. Schafer had been there first, they would have signed her petition. He took exception to the newspaper article stating that Mrs. Schafer and he did not regard the lives of the people. At the first Planning Commission hearing, they stated if it could be proven that the bees came from her property, they would be glad to get rid of the bees. He also explained that he had talked with Mrs. Schafer the previous evening and asked if she thought she should get rid of the bees. She again stated if they were causing the problem, they should do so. However, she did not have any access to property on which to relocate the bees. He felt they were showing her a gross misfavor in asking her to give up her bees. He became interested in bees approximately four or five years ago and beekeeping was now his hobby. He had hives in his backyard which were viewed by the heli- copter and a subsequent report made. His neighbors pleaded with him to keep his bees for (1) pollination and (2) medicinal purposes. Some people bought the honey within 20 to 30 minutes after the capping process because it was known to relieve allergies. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated last time (see minutes October 30, 1979) he asked Mr. Edwards as to his interest in the hives on the Schafer property. Today, Mr. Schafer reported that he (Edwards) and Mrs. Schafer were 50-50 owners or partners of the hives on that property and he wanted to know if that was accurate. Mr. Edwards explained that Mrs. Schafer had all the honey she wanted to sell. When the CUP came up, in order to meet the requirements of having only nine hives on the property, he moved his hives to his backyard. Up to that time 79-1343 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2.7, .1.979, 1:30 P.M. he only had two hives. Mr. Edwards further stated that they were partners but did not share 50-50. He helped Mrs. Schafer when they extracted the honey just as her son, and she then had all the honey she wanted to sell. When they extracted all three shared alike. He did not take one-third from Mrs. Schafer's hive but they left all the honey there and would take it as they needed it. They did not divide it but put it in the honey house. He could not say he was selling her honey because he was also contributing honey from the five hives in his backyard and all that honey was kept together. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he believed Mr. Edwards had a half interest in the eight hives on Mrs. Schafer's property and that was different from what he stated the last time. He maintained that 200,000 plus bees on her property were Mr. Edward's bees; Mr. Edwards stated that was not the way they planned it. William Schafer stated that they extracted the honey and his honey was there too. They did not keep track of the honey as far as designating what was his, his mother's or Mr. Edwards. In answer to questions by Mayor Pro Tem Overholt and Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Edwards explained that his neighbors had not been stung; there had been no complaints from them and there were many children in his area; he had two hives on his property four years ago and when Mrs. Schafer was cited for having more than nine hives, he moved the excess to his backyard as was revealed by the helicopter; he did not have hives at other locations; the money he derived from the sale of the honey for the last couple of months was used for church purposes to contribute to poor people. Councilman Roth asked for a report from Mr. Gerald Bushore. Mr. Gerald Bushore, 704 West Lincoln, City Planning Commissioner, reported on his findings as a result of the survey he had made in the area. He felt that part of the problem was the result of other bees not being properly cared for. At the time of the Planning Commission hearing, he stated if he had an opportunity to investigate the situation and found that Mrs. Schafer's bees were causing a problem, he would personally ask for revocation of her permit. He also confirmed that Mrs~ Schafer had made the statement that if it were found to be true that her bees were causing the problem, she would get rid of them. He contended that by eliminating the other hives in the area that had been located, would reduce the main portion of the problem while maintaining a lookout for more. He then referred to Mrs. Schafer's age and it was his belief that she kept very active by her beekeeping~ If the CUP were revoked, they were going to be taking a part of her life away. He offered the following solution--that Mrs. Schafer be allowed to keep the nine stacks of hives, no more than four stacks high or 36 square tiers and that they gradually eliminate those over the next four years with a yearly review eliminating nine tiers per year, at the end of which time Mrs. Schafer would be 98 years old. He felt that would satisfy her needs, as well as the neighborhood problem. Councilman Bay again reiterated that he was looking for specific locations of other bees; Mr. Bushore referred to the November 21, 1979 staff report listing addresses. He had located two separate properties with the possibility of two 79-1344 ~i.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P..M. more. If the addresses in the report were correct, 1441 and 1435 West Crone, there were, in fact, bees on those properties and those were the bees he observed. He did not go onto the property, but he looked over the fence. Councilman Bay stated the way he interpreted the staff report, they were talking about Reverend Edwards' two locations on West Crone, and two possibly on South Loara. Number four indicated that the two Crone addresses and 620 South Loara were re- investigated and no bees were found. The second Loara address at 610 could not be inspected because of a dog on the premises. He was trying to ascertain if they had established if there were any illegal bees anywhere and the only place he could see any, and he did not know whether they were illegal or not, was at 943 South David~ He wanted to know if there was any location~that they could verify that there were bee hives. Mr. Bushore confirmed that he had seen bees at the rear of 1441 and 1435 West Crone. Mr. Bushore then explained for Mayor Pro Tem Overholt that he had not talked with all the people who spoke in opposition° In his judgment, a solution to the problem would be to reduce the number of bees over a period of time. Mrs. Keith Reitz stated that Mr. Bushore would have obtained a more accurate report if he had investigated the area in September or had gone to one of their homes. The petition they circulated were the neighbors closest to Mrs. Schafer's home in the very far corner. The whole tract was not affected by the bees. Mr. Biggs was not living there at the time and there was also another new neighbor adjacent to the fence who moved in November 1 and thus they were brand new neighbors. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth restated his original position given at the meeting of October 30, 1979. He was very sympathetic to those allergic to bee stings, but if he were allergic and was moving into an area, he would have double-checked regarding bees. He could not support revoking Mrs. Schafer's CUP and had to respect the rights o£ a 92-year old lady since her bees represented her property rights. It was interesting to note that Mr. Collins' establishment (Peppertree Faire) including the eating area outside which was frequented by adults and children, had received no complaints relative to bees. If there were any problems, it would appear that they would occur with Mr. Collins' establishment because his was in such close proximity. As well, the neighbor directly to the west, even though he had only lived there since June, would have joined in the request for revocation if he had cause to do so. He also felt that Mr. Bushore's opinion was an unbiased one as he was not on City staff. He agreed with the "happy bee" theory and felt that Mrs. Schafer's bees were well cared for, and he was going to support Mrs. Schafer being allowed to keep her CUP as requested until August of 1980. During that time, they should establish if there were illegal hives in the area, as well as wild hives, and not punish Mrs. Schafer for having well kept bees. 79-1345 Citji_Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ ~.9.79~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a great deal of sympathy and empathy for everyone involved. She pointed out that Mrs. Schafer sold her property approx- imately 20 years ago at $5,000 or $6,000 an acre. With 8 lots to an acre each lot that many of the neighbors lived on now was worth much more than that. Thus, Mrs. Schafer did not make a bonanza on the sale of the land. Bees are necessary whether we like it or not. She had to agree with everything Council- man Roth said~ If they were to deprive Mrs. Schafer of the bees and subsequently find no change in the neighborhood, they would be depriving her of something that had been her entire life. If they were able to successfully find the wild or illegal hives, she hoped that would be the answer and wanted to be sure that they continued in that vein. If there were no changes in August of 1980, they would have to decide what to do at that time, but she could not vote for denial at this time. Councilman Bay stated, in his opinion, there was no question that bees, under the conditions the neighbors were living, were a public nuisance. He could not possibly consider the testimony he heard and regard it as proof as to what bees were causing the problem. He asked the Planning Director if staff had determined any specific addresses where there were illegal bees at this time; Planning Director Ron Thompson answered "no". Councilman Bay continued that he was looking for some way to determine the location of the illegal or wild bees. From the standpoint of taking a legal action against Mrs. Schafer on the basis that the bees might be hers, and looking at the possibilities of all other places the problem bees might be coming from, it would be impossible for him to revoke her CUP. There was no doubt there was a problem in that neighborhood but there was nothing that convinced him the problem was coming from well kept bees. He felt they were coming from those not well kept--either illegal, kept by amateurs, or wild bees. He did not know what the City could do to solve the problem, other than to note where there were illegal bees and have those come in for a CUP when found and also to find out where more were being kept. In the meantime, he could not vote to take away Mrs~ Schafer's conditional use permit. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he felt the speakers to this point.were concerned with emotions of Mrs. Schafer~ He also had great admiration for her but perhaps had more empathy for the people living in the Pacesetter tract who had to worry whether or not their children could play in their yards. To him, half a million bees on one acre of property, although someone indicated last time it was three acres, right next to a heavily populated new tract of expensive homes in a City seemed untenable. His main concern was that they were not really all Mrs. Schafer's bees but that Reverend Edwards also held one-half interest in eight of those hives as according to William $chafer and he (Schafer) had a hive on that property as well. If they took action today to have Reverend Edwards and Mr. Schafer take their hives off the property, they could reduce the number of bees to 200,000 and by next summer they could take another look at the situation. He also felt that Mr. Bushore should have been out to the neighborhood in June or July and spoken to the affected neighbors. He reiterated, he wanted to see the Council do something to encourage Reverend Edwards and William Schafer to move their hives elsewhere by perhaps March 1, 1980 and allow the conditional use permit to remain on the four hives til August of 1980. It would not reduce Mrs. Schafer's 79-1346 ~ity. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 27~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. income and she could still continue to keep bees, while effectively reducing the population of the bees on that acre parcel. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Conditional Use Permit was for Elizabeth Schafer and the other gentlemen apparently had illegal bees in the area. As far as they were concerned (Schafer and Edwards) the Council could give them a rea- sonable period of time to get rid of their interest in the matter and leave Mrs. Schafer~s for her own property. Councilman Overholt asked if there was any testimony at the Planning Commission hearing to the effect that Reverend Edwards and William Schafer had any interest in those hives; Mr. Bushore answered "no". Councilman Bay stated that he understood Mayor Pro Tem Overholt's logic, but reiterated if they eliminated all the known bees in the area and the problem was still apparent, he questioned what that then would have accomplished by taking those people's bees away from them. From all he had heard from the experts, they all agreed on one thing--when bees were well kept, watered and fed properly, they did not cause problems. This led him to believe the bees causing the problems had nothing to do with the well kept bees. Councilman Roth did not agree with Mayor Pro Tem Overholt. He contended their first action should be to let Mrs. Schafer continue with her nine hives. If there was a partnership involved, that was her business. Reverend Edwards would have to eliminate the hives on his property and staff was going to look for more illegal hives, thereby possibly reducing hives by one-half by that action alone. They would then look at the situation again in August of 1980. They should get rid of the illegal bees and leave the happy bees. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked Reverend Edwards if he would be willing to move his four hives from Mrs. Schafer's property. Reverend Edwards stated he thought he made it clear that when Mrs. Schafer had 13 or 14 hives and the conditional use permit allowed only nine, he moved the remaining hives to his house° They extracted all the honey together, but the bees on Mrs~ Schafer's property were her bees; Councilman Overholt stated, however, that he derived income from them. Reverend Edwards countered that he did not say that--they decided that they would extract the honey together and each then took what they needed. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was in return for the labor Reverend Edwards was giving, but he was not keeping his hives on the property. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-694 for adoption, granting the extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 1872, to expire August 14, 1980, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-694: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1872. 79-1347 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 277 1979~. 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification if he was asking in his resolution that Reverend Edwards remove hives from Mrs. Schafer's property; Councilman Roth answered "no". Reverend Edwards had hives on his own property. Due to the fact that he did not have a CUP to retain those hives, he would have to get rid of the bees or get a conditional use permit. He was asking staff to pay attention to Mr. Bushore's testimony and abate the illegal hives. City Attorney Hopkins suggested that the proposed resolution merely grant an extension to Conditional Use Permit Noo 1872 and that a motion follow directing staff or the appropriate authority to abate the illegal beehives in the area where there were no conditional use permits. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-694 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that staff continue to abate illegal beehives in the surrounding area and request assistance from appropriate agencies if necessary; Reverend Edwards be required to remove beehives from his personal residence; and Conditional Use Permit No. 1872 be reviewed in August of 1980 to determine status of the bee situation at that time. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 P.M.) ~TER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour. (6:15 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:15 P.M~ LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK