Loading...
1974/05/15F 74-509 · City Hall. Anaheim. Califorml~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - 1%%¥ 15. 1974. 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in Adjourned Regular Session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRE SENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley (entered at 7:40 p.m. and Thom. COUNCIL MEMBER: Sneegas PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Compton, Morley, Johnson, King, Farano and Gauer. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm E. Slaughter DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall UTILITIES DIRECTOR: Gordon W. Hoyt FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Rinser CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George H. Edwards ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT.SERVICES DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don E. McDaniel ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and explained the purpose of the meeting was to have an informal work session with the City Planning Commission. He requested the minutes of this meeting be a synopsis of the topics discussed. He advised that the list of Plamming Commission projects and priorities established as a result of the Commission work session of May 8, 1974, would serve as a guide for this meeting. Planning Commission~hairman Gauer called the Planning Comission to order. $ImNGLE-FAMILY GAKAGE SETBACK: Elimination of the 6- to 10-foot driveway with automatic garage door openers in the RS-5000 Zone was discussed. It was suggested that in other single-family residential zones to give the developer a variable setback and limit him to a percentage of 6-10 foot driveways with automatic garage door openers in his tract, perhaps on Cul-de-sac lots, with no variance being required. ~ABLIS~NT OF P~IO~ITIES: Commissioner Farano suggested that perhaps the best method to use for establishing priorities would be to divide the list resulting from the Planning C~m~ission work session into tw~ categories: o 1) Unrelated items which can be done without any great reliance upon the results of other studies. 2) Those items which depend on other studies. In this manner, the Council, Commission and Staff would not be d~plicating their efforts, citing as an example, revising the hillside grading ordinance, but that prior to that activity the base mapping the Santa Ana Canyon or revision to the Canyon General Plan should be done first. He felt certain criteria should be developed to determine priorities, thus eliminating any duplication of efforts. Reco~tzins the time element involved in establishing the criteria, during the interim, zoning applica- tions could be processed on the philosophy of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that elimination of the 6-10 foot driveways could be accomplished now by repealing that section of the Code ~ad that the parking standard and the service station ordinance have been prepared amd could be adopted immediately. Rewriting the Code c~ld mean a 6-month delay in accomplishing i~ediate objectives. Commissioner Farano stated those are prime examples of unrelated items that can be accomplished without the need of other studies. ~J, II _ II/ III 1~ I [ I III . I . I i II I IIIIII IIII , 74-510 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUfES - May 15, 1974. 7:00 P.M. It was the consensus of Council that dividing the priorities into two categories, those items dependent upon other studies and those items which are not, was a favorable suggestion. FLOOD PLAIN INSURANCE: Meeting the criteria required by the Federal Government for Anaheim citizens to qualify for Flood Plain Insurance was discussed. It would be necessary for Anaheim to determine special flood hazard areas in order to qualify for FHA assistance and to obtain Federal flood plain insurance. July 1, 1975 is the deadline for becoming a part of the program. Assistant City Manager Davis pointed out that the program is more inclusive than just the flood insurance program and FHA assistance. It involves all projects and assistance by Federal Funding. If Anaheim is not a part of the program by 1975, there will be no further Federal Funds available to the City. In previous analysis of the program, Staff was advised that the entire City was considered to be in a flood hazard plain. There are limitations and restrictions set forth by such a program, for example, if a citizen wished to add a small room to his home, he would have to comply with City and State building regulations and additionally whatever Flood Plain Insurance Program regulations were applicable. Qualifying for the program involves the whole city and will be a large task. Deputy City Attorney Slaughter advised one of the reasons for not Joining the program was the fact that anyone who did not subscribe was pre- cluded from receiving Federal disaster relief funds. Certain mud slide insurance features are mandatory in the flood plain insurance program. Public Works Director Yiersall emphasized that subscribing to the program was no longer optional, that it is mandatory if the city and its citizens desire any Federal Funding whether it be for highway projects or for a loan from Federal Reserve Banks. The Intergovernmental Coordinating Council of Orange County has published a synopsis of the program which points out a' number of far-reaching effects. Planning Supervisor McDaniel substantiated the comments made concerning the Flood Plain Insurance Program, however revised legislation does not penalize the remainder of the community who chose not to subscribe to the program. Staff contacted Washington to determine if Anaheim would be considered a part of a flood plain area and was assured it was and that written notice would be sent to the City by June 1, 1974, defining the area covered. In answer to Mayor Thom's question whether or not seismological insurance would be incorporated into the flood plain insurance, Mr. McDaniel stated that in the current legislation there is no relationship between the two. By Council consensus, Staff was directed to pursue and keep abreast of the requirements of the Federal Flood Plain Insurance Program and to prepare whatever is necessary for Council consideration in order to meet the July 1, 1975 deadline. In answer to questions'raised relative to zones affected by this legislation, Assistant City Engineer Devitt advised that all tracts that have been developed in the Canyon area have been designed in a manner meeting the criteria established by the National Flood Insurance Act (100 year flood frequency) and the tracts have been certified by the Flood Control District. City Engineer Maddox interjected that some tracts in the Canyon area developed under County Jurisdiction and later annexed to the City would not necessarily meet the criteria established. ~I~LS~DE GRADING ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had requested a copy of the County's report on hillside grading which they are preparing and to date has not received it. She expressed the opinion that perhaps some of the County's research work could be guidelines for Staff to follow in revising Anaheim's hillside grading ordinance. Planning Supervisor McDaniel advised their review of various ordi~ nantes throughout the County reflect placing a limit on ~he height of a cut or fill slope will have little net effect on the physical appearance of the land after it is ~aded, and that it is difficult to construct roadways into hillside areas With the limit of the 50 feet. Grading in the hillside areas can be more effective by rounding and contouring of the tops and toes of slopes, contouring into side grades, and increasing landscaping standards. The concept of building into the existing hillside with very little gradin~ needed was suggested and favorably received. Mass grading in the canyon area was recognized as being the most economical way for developers to build, however, there are other alternatives which could be employed to protect the natural environment. Councilman Seymour expressed the opinion that if quality develop- ment in the canyon area is to be achieved, adoption of a hillside zone and revision of the hillside grading ordinance are top priorities. This would be beneficial to the City and developers. At the present time, flat land standards are being employed in hillside developments, necessitating many variance applications by developers. He asked for input from Anaheim Hills, Inc., and from Dan Rowland, Architect, as to their views of hillside zones. John Millick, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., concurred with Councilman Seymour and stated that when they submit a project, they have had to ask for as many as 10 variances because of the hillside nature of the area in which they propose,~to build. They have proceeded with development under flat land standards and have had to prove necessity for each variance re- quested. Mr. Millick stated he felt adoption of a hillside ordinance was definitelywarranted. Dan Rowland, Architect, voiced the opinion that the basis for developing in the hill and canyon area was established many years ago through "slope analysis", prepared by Boyle Engineering in the 1960's, which demon- strated what could be feasibly developed in that area. Grading in the hill and canyon area should be accomplished by using a percentage of the slope which already exists. Mr. Rowland stated that since a grading ordinance is, in effect, a zoning ordinance and must be applied uniformly across the City, he suggested establishing site development standards in the hill and canyon area and estab- lishing "trade offs" (a means by which developers can determine costs more scientifically). It is a high priority item for the City, as well as for developers who need definitive direction. Mr. Roland Krueger, speaking for himself and others in the canyon area, stated they are disturbed with the way the area is being developed. They do not favor mass grading which leaves nothing but a series of plateaus and no hills. He stated he felt that gradin$ was most economical to the developer, however, it did not improve the quality of the environment that Anaheim is trying to achieve in the canyon area. Since the canyon area is ~ natural resource, creativity should be encouraged to develop it as close to nature as Possible. Co~issioner Farano suggested that short range priority group I, hillside grading ordinance, and medium range, priority group l, hillside zones, be combined and placed as number one priority. Development Services Director Orsborn stated that since everyone is in 'general accord with the projects listed, he felt Staff could take direction.to the effect of starting to work on the priority items as listed, with the privilege of incorporating those items which would be consistent and complimentary to the initial effort. Staff would report back to Council with a time frame or schedule for accomplishing projects and priorities. Council was in general accord with Hr. Orsborn's suggestion, placing a high priority, however, on hillside development standards. 74-512 City Hall, Anaheim. California - COII~CIL HINU~$ ~. Mmv 15. 1974. 7:00 P.M. COST/BENEFIT STUDY 8.AI~TA ..A~A CANYON: Funding on Phase I of the Cost/Benefit Study will end July 1, 1974; Phase II will be conducted by the University of California, Irvine and Phase III will be accomplished by a private firm (computer). Comple- tion of Phase I which involves costs and revenues only will be July 1, 1974. The benefit portion of the study will be accomplished in Phase II and the total study should be completed in six months. HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPI~NT: Referring to a recent report prepared by Development Services Department, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that R-1 development con- stitutes only 507, of the entire City and expressed the opinion that a more transient population less interested with the concerns of the co~-m~nity is being encouraged through multiple-family residential developments. Development Services Director advised that he feels .the overall ratio of single- family, multiple-family and mobile home developments have remained rather constant; that percentages have not changed substantially over the past two years. He noted that condominiums have changed the percentage orR-1 dwellings in the City. Councilman Pebley stated without condominiums or towmhouses, certain individuals would be unable to own their homes, noting the high cost of land and buildings. If the City doesn't provide moderate income housing, Federal subsidizing will occur. Councilman Seymour stated he felt because of high costs, these same individuals would be able to buy only condominiums because they would have a more reasonable selling price on them and consequently where there is a market for condominiums, that is the type of development which will be submitted by developers. The only other alternative he could suggest in order to supply more single-family units would be an upgrade of the RS-5000 zone. Low-income housing is unrealistic in today's market because of high land and building costs; con- sequently, it is very probable the Federal Government will subsidize through an income subsidization program. Abuse of the RS-5000 zone was discussed, it being noted the concept oehind the zone was to put a smaller house on a smaller lot and sell them at a moderate price; rather, because the property owner knew he could have a higher density, he charged the developer more for the land. The developer, in turn, was forced to sell the smaller homes on the smaller lots for a higher price and the RS-5000 zone concept was not realized. The net effect was increased land values only. Commissioner Herbst voiced the expression he felt standardized building codes throughout the State Would prove helpful for a developer to determine his costs to build. Of course, building materials today, vary from day to day and by the time a developer submits his plans for approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council and actually commences construction, his building materials may cost him 20% more and consequently, he sets his selling price higher than what he expressed at his hearings. Councilman Seymour suggested that the administrative procedure for processing a developers plans could be shortened so as to close the gap some- what between submission of plans and actual construction. Commissioner Farano stated he felt by being consistent in the manner in which land is developed, i.e., discouraging speculation by disapproving developments designed to raise the price of land, might be a partial solution. REVIEW OF RESOLUTI01{S OF INTENT: In an effort to stabilize land values somewhat, Councilman Seymour suggested reviewing resolutions of.intent for possible reversbn to original zone where the applicant has not complied with any of the conditions of approval. He favored implementation of such a program, subject to a time lag. He further would like to see final zoning action con- tingent upon the completion of the project submitted in %onJunction therewith. He pointed out many projects are never constructed and yet the resolution of intent remains active; that an adjacent developer comes in and expects the. same zoning because of that resolution of intent, thereby creating a mushrooming effect in the area and perhaps the zone is inappropriate for that whole area. *** For clarification of intent, see Minutes of June 4, 1974, 1:30 P.M., page 74-558, '~inutes", Paragraph 2. 74-513 City R~ll. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15. 1974. ?:00 P.M. The City Attorney agreed with the concept, however he advised of a recent Sacramento case wherein a resolution of intent to zone was passed, no conditions had been met; and the property was to revert back to the original zoning. The Court held the property could not revert backuntil proper hearings were held. He cautioned Council that if a public hearing was. required for reversion back to original zones, the work load may prove to be very heavy because of the number of resolutions of intent existing. D~nial of extensions of time to reclassifications when requested by the applicant or developer could result in a lawsuit if they wish to pursue it. Recently passed resolutions of intent, Councilman Pebley remarked, will remain so because developemwill not build under the present high interest rate. They will complete prior commitments on the older reclassi- fications where money may have been already secured at a lower interest rate. The City Attorney advised he would suggest holding public hearing on any reversion of a zone. He questioned the means bywhich Council would select or determine the reclassification, variance or conditional use permit as being an inappropriate zone or use in which it currently exists. If possible reversions are to be considered on extensions of time requests in order to meet certain conditions, then by denying the extension of time to a reclassification, the resolution of intent becomes void. Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council ChAmbers (9:20 P.M.) ENVIR(~L IMPACT REPORT REVIEW PROCESS: .Mayor Thom queried as to why Staff could not certify to the Planning Commission that an E.I.I. meets all app~icable Federal, State and City regulations, noting he questions the semantics of Council's certification on these documents. Is it Staff's opinion that the E.I.R. meets all regulations or does it, in fact, meet all regulations? The City Attorney answered it is his understanding that Staff recommends to the Planning Commission that the E.I.R. is a true and complete document, complying with all guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act; that the Commission recommends to the Council, and the Council certifies on the basis of Staff and Commission recommendations. Assistant Development Services Director Ron Thompson explained that a Deputy City Attorney, Staff from Develop~nt Services Department, Engineering, Fire, Police and Utilities compose the E.I.R. Review Committee and are charged with the responsibility of analtzing an E.I.R. Councilwoman Kaywood returned to the Council Chambers. (9:25 P.M.) The City Attorney pointed out that the State Guidelines specifically set the responsibility of certification of an E.I.R. with the legislative body of the City. SIG~ & BILLBOARD ORDIN~C.~.: Chairman Gauer stated the Plannin~ Commission upholds the ordinances pertaining to sigmsand billboards, yet Council tends to ignore the Commission recom~ndation, and requested direction in this regard. Councilman Pebley answered that is why the variance procedure is in effect; that if hardship is proven, Council will grant a'variance from the Code. It is Co~nission's responsibility to adhere to the Code and recommend same to Council, whereby it is a discretionary act on the part of Council to grant a variance. Councilman Pebley and Mayor Thom pointed out the sign situation in downtown Anaheim and expressed the opinion that in order for a new business- man tn that area to compete, he must have a sign similar to the existing ones, many of which are non-conformins signs. If not, the new businessman would suffer economic hardship. 74-514 City Hall. Anaheim, Cal~0rnia - G~I~CIL ~gs - May 15. 1974. 7:00 P.M. Co~ntssioner Farano suggested a sign amortization ordinance which would state that existing non-conforming signs have an amortization period of 5 years and after that time, the signs must conform to Code. If Council is in agreement, the Planning Cormmission would work out an equitable approach to this situation. council determined that a review of the sign ordinance would be in order, however hardship would be considered when a variance from the Code is requested. COMMENTS: Councilman Seymour voiced the opinion he would sincerely appreciate a close working relationship with the Planning Commission on all matters. Councilman Thom concurred and stated that within 60 to 90 days, another work session would be necessary to up date Council on the status of the priorities and projects discussed in this meeting. Mayor Thom thanked everyone for attending the informative and productive meeting. ~: Comnissioner Farano moved to adjourn; Commissioner King seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn; Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:45 P.M. · Deputy City-Clerk City Hall~ Ana.heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.May 21~ 1974~ i:30. P,M. The City Council of the City of Anaheimm~t in regular ~en. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (arrived 1:$5 P.M.), Pebley, Sneegas and Thom COUNCIL NENBERS: None CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts STADIUM-CONVENTION CENTER DIRECTOR: Thoams Lie$1er FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer CITY ENGINEER: James P, Haddox A~SISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald ThOmpson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts Mayor Thoa called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ralph G. Sneegas led the Assesbly in the Pled~e of Allegiance to the Flag. RESOLUTION. OF CONCRATULATIONS AND INTRODUCTION MOTHER OF THE, YEAR~ 1974: Resolution of Congratulations unanimously, ad'opted by the Anahei~ City Council, together with a spray of roses and miniature Anaheim scoreboard, were presented to Mrs. Dorothy Mae Flanagan with Council's congratulations on the occasion of her selection as Anaheim's 1974 Mother of the Year. Nfs. Flanagan was introduced to the Council Nes~bers by ~rs, FranMauek of the Women's Division, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce.