1984/04/10211
City Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt (entered at 10:12 a.m.),
Pickler (entered at 10:10 a.m) and Roth
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Ltnda D. Roberts
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend O. L. Underwood, Foursquare Gospel Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
I love America Day in Anaheim, April 11, 1984.
Councilman Pickler entered the Council Chamber (10:10 a.m.)
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support was unanimously adopted
by the City Council supporting the 1984 Police Bowl to be held April 14, 1984,
the proceeds of which are to go to the Anaheim Police Officers, Widows and
Orphans Benefit Fund which was established in 1979. The Resolution was
presented to Sergeant Ray Welch, Anaheim Police Department, who was also to be
the team's defensive coach.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:12 a.m.)
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,877,057.51, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
409
City Hall~ Anaheim~ ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-135 through 84R-138, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were referred to Risk
Management, as recommended.
a. Claim submitted by Lynda L. Favilla for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of City Meter Reader at 2201 South
Waverly Drive, on or about January 9, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by Oswaldo Vasquez for damages sustained purportedly
due to installation of City tree adjacent to sidewalk at 1134 Lomita Place,
between November 30, 1982 and November 30, 1983.
c. Claim submitted by Kenneth R. Baker for personal property damages to
car sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City in
constructing the roadway on Broadway at Atchison Street, on or about December
29, 1983.
d. Claim submitted by Mark Mills for personal property damages to
windshield of car sustained purportedly due to failure of City to provide
protection at the Dad Miller Golf Course Parking Lot, on or about February 25,
1984.
e. Claim submitted by Richard Barrera for personal property damages to
car sustained purportedly due to being struck from behind by a City-owned
vehicle at Anaheim Stadium parking area 2A, on or about February 6, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Rudy (Shirley) Zitny for personal property
damages refrigerator and loss of food sustained purportedly due to low
electrical voltage at 614 South Chantilly, on or about December 18, 1983.
g. Claim submitted by James S. (or Rose) Pigneri for personal property
damages sustained to refrigerator purportedly due to low voltage at 2074
Janette Lane, on or about January 2, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Alice E. Logan for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City at the Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about January 11, 1984.
i. Claim submitted by Muriel Carr for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to unrepatred sidewalk at or near the corner of Lincoln Avenue
and Westchester, on or about October 12, 1983.
j. Claim submitted by Ruben Dario Williams for personal property damages
sustained purportedly as a result of Anaheim police officer impounding his
vehicle on or about March 15, 1984.
2. 118: The following Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was denied:
410
?..09
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 198.4., 10:00 A.M.
a. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Royal
Insurance Company for damages sustained purportedly due to police striking
tnsured's car at Lincoln Avenue, and Brookhurst Street, on or about August 21,
1983.
3. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of January 25 and
February 22, 1984.
4. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to the agreement with Spencer
Marketing Services, to include the Anaheim Convention Center in the
full-service advertising program.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Van Dell and Associates, Inc., in the
amount of 519,900 for professional services for a residential design study in
the Central City Neighborhood Council area.
6. 123: Authorizing first amendments to agreements with John Cappelletti
Associates and DPCS, Inc., increasing the maximum compensation payable to
amounts not to exceed 5425,000 and 595,000, respectively, for data processing
contracting services for the City's General Systems Effort, for the period
July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984.
7. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR STORM DRAIN
CHANNEL REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329-17280-70810.
(Steve Pandza Constructors, contractor)
8. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-136: 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: 36-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, PHASE I, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 53-610-6329-1701A-34390, 53-610-6329-17060-34340,
53-610-6329-17070-34340, 53-610-6329-17100-34340, 53-610-6329-1701B-34390,
53-610-6329-17080-34340, 53-610-6329-17050-34370 and 53-610-6329-17110-34320.
(Macco Constructors, Inc., contractor,)
9. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-137: 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: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 8 - AREA BOUNDED BY LINCOLN AVENUE, BALL ROAD,
EUCLID STREET AND BROOKHURST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
12-793-6325-E3790. (Damon Construction Company, contractor)
10. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
411
210
City Hall~ Anahgim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
11. 123: Waiving the bidding procedure in Charter Section 1222 and
authorizing an agreement with the Housing Authority conveying properties
located at 1015, 1018, 1022 and 1023 North Patt Street, 225 East La Palma
Avenue, 707 East Wilhelmina Street and 322 and 328 East Julianna Street, to
the Authority for the development of low- and moderate-income housing.
12. 123/106: Accepting Orange County Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of
$5,000 to continue Senior Day Care Center services; authorizing execution of
an agreement therefor with the County of Orange; and appropriating said funds
into Program 01-278, Senior Citizens.
13. 106: Appropriating $4,680 of client fee revenue and $1,707 of
miscellaneous fundraising revenue into Program 01-178, Senior Citizens.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-135 through 84R-138 duly passed and
adopted.
123/152: SELECTION OF DEPOSITORY BANK: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
84R-139 for adoption designating First Interstate Bank as the bank depository
for certain City funds; authorizing the City Treasurer to establish accounts
with said depository and deposit public funds for the City therein;
authorizing the Mayor, Finance Director and City Treasurer to sign all
authorized warrants, demands, drafts and checks drawn against any accounts
established with the depository by the City; authorizing execution of a Bank
Depository Agreement with First Interstate Bank of California in the annual
amount of $75,002.04, with a one-time approximate transition cost of $10,000,
and a monthly cost of ~6,250.17, for the term July 1, 1984 through June 30,
1987 as recommended in memorandum dated March 28, 1984 from the City
Treasurer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (i) DESIGNATING A BANK DEPOSITORY FOR CERTAIN CITY FUNDS, (II)
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TREASURER TO ESTABLISH ACCOUNTS WITH SAID DEPOSITORY AND
DEPOSIT PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE CITY THEREIN, (III) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, FINANCE
DIRECTOR AND CITY TREASURER TO SIGN ALL AUTHORIZED WARRANTS, DEMANDS, DRAFTS
AND CHECKS DRAWN AGAINST ANY ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED WITH THE DEPOSITORY BY THE
CITY, AND (iv) APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A BANK DEPOSITORY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
412
207
City Hall~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-139 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the City Treasurer to enter
into a contract for deposit of moneys. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Appointment to the Community
Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. (Hayes)
Councilman Roth nominated Mr. Wilfred E. Lirette; Councilwoman Kaywood
nominated Steven Staveley; Councilman Pickler nominated Michael Ambrost.
Councilman Bay moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth called for a roll call vote on the nominations in the order in
which they were nominated: Wilfred E. Lirette
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
Mr. Wilfred E. Lirette was thereupon appointed to the Community Services Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved for a unanimous vote for Mr. Lirette as an
appointee to the Community Services Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
Mayor Roth remarked how pleased he was to see such a fine selection of
outstanding individuals from which to choose and who were interested in
serving their community, making the Council's decision very difficult. He
asked the City Clerk to send a letter to those people who sent current
applications explaining that their names would be kept on file to be
considered again when any other vacancies occurred on the Community Services
Board.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held March 19, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
2. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2544: Submitted by Ella White
Youngblood, to expand a state licensed residential facility providing care and
supervision for a maximum of 13 adults on RS-7200 zoned property located at
1249 North Minteer Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-47, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2544, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2545: Submitted by Santa Barbara Savings
& Loan Association, to permit a take-out sandwich shop with off-sale beer and
wine on ML zoned property located at 1200 "K" North Jefferson Street.
413
208
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim.,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES. - April 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-48, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2545, and granted a negative declaration.
4. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2546: Submitted by Burnett-Ehline
Properties, to permit a 12-story, 190-foot high commercial office complex
including a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages on
CO(FP) zoned property located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and
State College Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
structural height, (b) minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-49, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2546, and certified EIR No. 250 on
November 30, 1981.
5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2548: Submitted by Mahmoud R. E. L.
Kanawey, to permit a motorcycle sales agency and lot on ML zoned property
located at 1175 No. East Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum
number of parking spaces, (b) minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-50, and granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2548, and granted a negative declaration.
6. 179: VARIANCE NO. 3382: Submitted by Myung-Shik Yun and Kum Ok Yun,
(Quality Inn Anaheim West), to retain a freestanding sign and an entrance
canopy on CL zoned property located at 727 South Beach Boulevard, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum sign height, (b) minimum structural
setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-51, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3382, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination. (Class 11)
7. 179: VARIANCE NO. 2680 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Herman and Dorothy
Gallardo, requesting termination of Variance No. 2680, to establish an
automobile body and paint repair facility on CG zoned property located at 777 ~
North Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of permitted uses, as a condition of
approval of Variance No. 2908.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-52, terminated
Variance No. 2680.
8. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10980 AND 10981 - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING
ORDINANCE: Submitted by James E. Crosby Engineers, Inc., requesting waiver of
the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to lot line
adjustment within Tract Nos. 10980 and 10981 located south of Santa Aha Canyon
Road, west of Weir Canyon Road, within the Bauer Ranch area.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the waiver.
414
205
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Public hearing on the requested waiver of the Hillside Grading Oridnance
relating to Tentative Tract Nos. 10980 and 10981 was set for Tuesday, May 1,
1984, at 1:30 p.m.
9. 179: MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPED SLOPES: Submitted by Engineering
Division, requesting policy direction regarding maintenance of a portion of a
slope falling within a single lot by either (a) an association or (b) an
individual lot owner if the C.C.& R.'s are set up in a manner whereby the
association is ultimately responsible for the slope maintenance.
Concurrence was recommended by the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to concur with a policy regarding the formation
of the mandatory Homeowners Association to maintain landscaped slopes greater
than five-feet in height within tract boundaries, as recommended by the City
Planning Commission. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
181: PATRONS OF THE ARTS~ FULLERTON COLLEGE: Faye Mullins, President,
requesting appointment of a City representative for a two-year term, and
suggesting City.payment of the ~15 1984-85 membership dues for both
representatives (new appointee and Mrs. Vickte Thompson) as outlined in letter
dated March 10, 1984.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the subject appointment be continued for one
week. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no problem with
moving on Vickie Thompson as alternate at this time.
It was determined that both appointments would be continued one week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 254 AND VARIANCE NO. 2434 - TERMINATION: Request
submitted by Mc Clellan, Cruz, Gaylord and Associates, requesting termination
of Conditional Use Permit No. 254, to establish a service station, and
Variance No. 2434, to permit two price signs and self-service signs in
addition to a freestanding sign, on property located at the southwest corner
of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 84R-140 and 84R-141, terminating
Conditional Use Permit No. 254 and Variance No. 2434, in accordance with the
recommendation of the Zoning Division. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2434 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-457 NULL AND VOID.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 254 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 62R-788 NULL AND VOID.
415
206
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overho!t, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mmyor declared Resolution No. 84R-140 and 84R-141 duly passed and adopted.
179: DISCUSSION - BILLBOARDS: Proposed ordinances amending Chapters 4.08,
18.05 and 3.20, pertaining to billboard regulations and annual business
license tax therefor. This issue was continued from the meetings of May 24,
July 19, October 18 and November 15, 1983 (see minutes those dates). Staff
recommended that the City Council by motion approve an EIR negative
declaration in conjunction with the draft ordinances.
The Planning Commission at their meeting of April 2, 1984 recommended that the
Council deny the proposed draft ordinances and direct the staff to modify the
draft ordinance pertaining to Chapter 3.20 establishing an annual business
license tax based to the square footage of billboard signage.
City Clerk, Linda Roberts, stated that they had received four requests for a
continuation of the subject discussion ranging from 3 to 4 weeks.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the discussion on billboards to
Tuesday, May 15, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the discussion could be
scheduled at 1:30 p.m. on that date, so that the public could be present as
well to speak to the issue.
After Council discussion relative to the time the issue would be discussed,
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to speak against the continuance at
all. The item went before the Planning Commission on April 2, 1984, and the
staff report was ready before that time. The industry had sufficient time to
look at the report but since the Planning Commission unanimously denied the
proposal~ they wanted more time. She reiterated she was opposed to any
continuance.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt the people were already making their
thoughts known by the many letters that he had seen. The public should be
encouraged if they could not be present to write letters. The Council was
receptive and sensitive to such communication. He felt to have the public
wait until the end of a congested public hearing calender was more of an
imposition.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she meant that the hearing on billboards should
start at 1:30 p.m.; Councilman Overholt stated he did not have a feeling one
way or the other and would support a 1:30 p.m. starting time. He, thereupon,
withdrew his second to the foregoing motion.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt then moved to continue the discussion on
billboards and the proposed ordinances to Tuesday, May 15, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.,
and to schedule the matter first. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
416
2O3
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Roth stated that from his standpoint it was
going to be the last continuance. Further, although it was not a public
hearing as such, the public would be given an opportunity to speak, and he
encouraged citizens to continue to write letters'.
Councilwoman Kaywood acknowledged Mrs. Keeter who was again present in the
Council Chambers as she had been when the issue was discussed at previous
meetings and when there were requests for continuances.
Mrs. Joyce Keeter stated she had attended all the meetings since April of 1983
on the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many more were present in the Chambers audience
with regard to billboards; Mrs. Keeter was the only person present at this
time.
Councilman Pickler stated that was all they had seen and the situation had
changed considerably since they originally discussed the matter.
A vote was then-taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
179: ORDINANACE NO. 4492: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4492 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4492: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(63-64-62 (28), RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4492 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4493: Councilman Roth offered first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4493: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-16, CL)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss current litigation, labor relations and a personnel matter with
possible action to follow; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:45 a.m.)
417
2O4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apr~.l 10, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called a meeting to order all Council Members being
present (1:44 p.m.).
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit Pickler and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Charlene La Claire, (entered at 3:11 p.m.)
Paul King, Lewis Herbst, Gerald Bushore,
Glenn Fry and Mary Bouas
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONER: E. Chuck McBurney
PRESENT: SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS: John F. Shanahan, Herman Siegmund,
Estella Nichols, Irving Willing,
George Collins, Edward Stringer,
Frances Scherman
ABSENT: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING AIDE: Lisa Vtrata
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION: to
consider development standards for Senior Citizen Apartment Projects.
Mary Bouas, Chairman of the Planning Commission, called the Planning
Commission to order, all Commissioners being present with the exception of
Commissioners La Claire and Mc Burney.
Edward Stringer, Chairman of the Senior Citizen Commission, called the Senior
Citizen Commission to order, all Commissioners being present.
Mayor Roth then set the ground rules for the work session, asking first for
comments from both the Planning and Senior Citizen Commission.
Submitted was an extensive joint ll-page report with attachments from the
Planning Department and the Community Development Department entitled Joint
Work Session to consider development standards for Senior Citizen Apartment
Projects (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Planning Commissioner, Lew Herbst, stated one of the main concerns of the
Commission was with regard to the age limit for a senior citizen project which
was addressed in the subject staff report. His question was whether in
considering an age limit perhaps of 62, would all the residents have to be the
same age. Sometimes a senior had a younger wife which might have to be a
consideration. Also, affordability and density of a project were important
issues and those were the three that were of concern to the Commission.
Mr. John Shanahan, Housing Representative on the Senior Citizen Commission,
explained that the Commission had discussed the age issue and agreed that it
should be 60 years old. Relative to affordability, he did not believe they
had any control over that since there was a HUD regulation pertaining to it
and
418
201
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
their minimum age was 62. Also, the Commission was pleased with the helpful
report they received from staff, but most of them had not had an opportunity
to digest its contents. He suggested and recommended that the Commission be
allowed to discuss the report at their regular meeting to be held
April 12, 1984, when they could get all of the opinions and come to a
consensus relative to the unit size, parking, densities, etc.
Frances Scherman, Senior Citizen Commissioner, pointed out that 11 percent of
the population living in Anaheim were seniors and 60 percent of the population
in Anaheim earned less than $8,000 a year. Although that did not encompass.
all seniors, it represented a great many of them. The average housing in
Orange County costs $400 a month and the average Social Security check was
$400 a month. She then reported on the length of wait for senior housing in
Anaheim and surrounding cities ranging from two years to seven years. In
concluding, she stated she was pleased with everything she read in the report
except that she did not agree with the parking recommendation which she would
bring up later in the meeting.
Mayor Roth then asked staff their position.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, then briefed the subject
report (April 3, 1984) relaying the background leading to the joint work
session today.
Lisa Virata, Associate Planner, then briefed each section of the report
starting on Page 1, Site Development Standards, consisting of Design Issues, A
- Locational Criteria, B - Density, C - Minimum Unit Floor Area and Lot
Coverage, D - Recreational - Leisure Space, E - Building and Neigborhood
Security, F - Architectural Details, G - Parking, H - Quality of Life, (pages
1 through 7 of the report).
After certain sections, questions were raised by Council Members and/or
Commissioners for purposes of clarification or discussion, the main points
being as follows:
AGE LIMIT: The question of age was discussed, whether or not after the age
limit was set, be it 60, 62 or 65, if a younger spouse would be permitted to
live in the development under that age limit or if grandchildren would be
permitted to live with their grandparents. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her
feelings that the reason for lowering the standards for senior housing was due
to the assumption that most seniors did not drive and thus the need for fewer
parking spaces. If there were younger people, it would follow that there
would be more cars thus creating problems for the City. That would not make
it a desirable place to live. She felt that a project should be 100 percent
senior citizen and that the age be 62.
Planning Commissioner Herbst favored the age of 62 but felt that they had to
allow for some age difference, perhaps a spread of five years; Chairman Bouas
felt that 100 percent senior citizen should be the criteria at the specified
age. Anything other than one set standard would make it difficult to
administer.
419
202
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.~.
Relative to locational criteria (Page 1), Commissioner Herbst felt that a
bank, post office and library should be deleted from the facilities listed
because it was possible to mail to a bank and there were only a few libraries
and post offices in the city.
HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENTS: Commissioner Fry stated it seemed to him at this
particular stage, the recommendations would preclude high-rise.
Miss Santalahti explained that the type of development Anaheim had been seeing
was most typically no higher than three-stories. Even with three-stories,
there were requirements for additional staircases and when over that, there
was a cut-off point where perhaps three-stories was one level of cost of
construction and then developers wanted to go to six or higher. They never
had a developer talk about that type of proposal except as a congregate care
issue. In view of what they had seen recently, that standard would be
appropriate. If they received developer inquiries relative to higher density,
they would then look at modification to any of the Code standards that might
be adopted. They had no inquiries at all for high-rise housing.
Chairman Bouas Stated they had to consider units that were ground level and
second-story level and if the seniors were going to be able to climb the
stairs. If they were going to go to three-stories necessitating elevators,
those kinds of things would have to be considered, because that would make a
difference in senior citizen housing. If they could encourage high-rise, they
would be better off because elevator service would be required and available
for all floors.
Councilman Bay felt they should give encouragement for some high-rise senior
developments in the City. They should consider twelve-stories or
fifteen-stories or whatever something should be worked in that would show they
were looking at that possibility.
SIZE - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF UNITS: Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern
over any projects including three-bedroom units and questioned the reason for
three bedrooms in the first place; Miss Santalahti stated she did not know the
reason or if there was an interest; however, if three bedrooms, more parking -
spaces would be required and that might serve to discourage anything more then
one or two bedrooms.
Commissioner Willing commented that he would like serious consideration to be
given to studying what affect 'high-rise would have on immediate surrounding
neigborhoods; Mayor Roth explained that high-rise dwellings would have to be
in an area that was complimentary to such developments such as in downtown
Anaheim.
The Mayor then asked for further comments relative to unit size.
Commissioner Frances Scherman stated she investigated senior housing in other
cities, as well as Anaheim, and she was only speaking about a widow living by
herself. In Buena Park and Fullerton, they were satisfied with 540-544 square
feet. She emphasized there were a great many widows living by themselves and
420
!99
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10,.. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
that was the population in which she was interested. She was not interested
in efficiency units because she did not feel a widowed senior had any business
raising or rolling out a bed.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern over a 400-square foot unit which
a developer had recently proposed and which, in her opinion, was much too
small.
Councilman Bay stated, as the developer had indicated, at 400 square feet
there was a necessity to build more walls. They needed architectual advice on
where the dollar break-point came into play on a minimum size for an
efficiency unit. Four hundred or 500 square feet might be that break-point
and he felt that would ultimately determine the minimum size.
Commissioner Herbst stated he had seen some rooms down to 350 square feet in
high-rise and they were quite comfortable. When talking about the size of the
unit, they were going to be talking about density and what the mix would be.
If 90 percent of the units were efficiency, the density would be much higher.
Therefore, they would need to know what kind of mixture they were going to
need, to arrive~at a certain density per acre. Commissioner Estella Nichols
stated from twelve years of experience in finding units for seniors to live
in, any time she had a single apartment to rent, it was gone immediately and
some were less than 400 square feet. She had many requests for two-bedroom
units as well, but not for three bedrooms.
Planning Commissioner Glenn Fry left the Council Chambers (2:45 p.m.).
Miss Santalahti explained relative to distribution of unit types within a
project, in a regular apartment project they had a loose standard of around
forty percent efficiency units. She did not believe that any developer had
asked for 100 percent. Typically, the mixture was 50 percent one bedroom, 30
percent efficiency and the remainder three bedrooms.
After further discussion, Mayor Roth asked for a show of hands of Commission
and Council Members favoring the elimination of three bedrooms from any future
senior projects; a majority of both the Council and Commissions were in favor _
of eliminating three bedrooms.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would not like to see the option eliminated
entirely; Mayor Roth stated perhaps a developer should have the right to come
in and ask for a variance for one or two three bedroom units for a manager or
a groundskeeper.
Councilman Bay stated if they did not set some outside guidelines, they were
going to have that many more variables to deal with. He personally felt the
tighter the outside boundaries, the easier it would be to get down to the
economics, i.e., dollars per month for a certain size apartment. He suggested
that they treat a three-bedroom unit as total exception to be justified by the
developer, but not included in the guidelines.
Councilman Overholt noted that staff suggested a percentage of 30, 50 and 20
percent mix. He wanted to know if there was a way they could back that up to
36 units per acre and then take a look at their affordable policy because he
felt that was the way they were headed.
421
gO0
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April lO, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahtf confirmed that the feeling of distribution of unit types was
that that was not a significant number in terms of density. The projects that
they saw of higher density did not do that because they were providing a lot
of efficiency units. They simply wanted a certain density and they had a
certain unit distribution in terms of ease of renting and rental price, they
discussed density a great deal in connection with affordability with Community
Development. She felt in terms of surrounding development, if they went to an
RM-1200 zone, a senior citizen project or any project should be compatible in
both height and density. In the commercial zones, on the other hand, it could
be quite different because the heights were much less restrictive, up to 75
feet. Although they did not address heights specifically, they had some ideas
on what they might do with the ordinance on that. She did not think that unit
distribution type had a serious impact at all on the density that might be
allowable on a piece of property. It was a selling point that the owner was
going to want in order to rent certain types of units and that was his
criteria.
RECREATIONAL - LEISURE SPACE: Mayor Roth spoke to the issue stating that
although they needed such space in senior citizen housing, he questioned if it
would be required in a four-plex development. They needed to hold costs down
and they were not going to do it by providing a recreational-leisure area in
all developments.
Commissioner Bouas felt they should, perhaps, indicate a certain number which
would require such space, perhaps 10; Councilwoman Kaywood felt that would
also depend upon location. If directly across from a senior citizen club,
they would not have to have that area, but in a large complex, it would
require recreational leisure space in-house.
Commissioner Herbst felt there had to be a certain amount of
recreational-leisure area and a certain amount of open space for any senior
citizen complex no matter where it was located perhaps only deviating if it
was located right next to a park. He felt it was necessary to be included in
the ordinance.
BUILDING AND NEIGBORHOOD SECURITY: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if the
Council had been giving away the kinds of densities some people were looking
for and simply calling it senior to get away with waivers, that if seniors
moved in and it was an undesirable place to live, they would move out as
quickly as they could. Subsequently, anybody else that the developer could
rent the units to he would do so, and soon there would be another area that
had deteriorated completely and it would be very unsafe. This was the reason
they were looking for minimum standards and guidelines. As the Planning
Commission was aware, anything established as a minimum guideline, many
developers came in to immediately make that the maximum and then look for
waivers even from those standards. If they set guidelines and standards
clearly, there should not be deviation from the minimum.
Commissioner Shanahan felt that in a high-rise complex, many seniors had a
fear of elevators and it would be necessary to have adequate security for
protection. He felt, however, that high density was going to be a way of
life; Commissioner Willing wanted to see as a requirement in all projects
422
] 97
City Hall., An~heim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 1984~ 1.0..:.00 A.M.
controlled doorways so that people coming to visit would have to ring a buzzer
to be allowed in.
Mayor Roth felt that to require some type of a control on small units would be
difficult and sometimes impossible, but it would be more feasible on larger
projects. He felt it should be left to the prerogative of the developer.
Planning Commissioner Charlene La Claire entered the Council Chambers
(3:11 p.m.).
ARCHICTECTURAL DETAILS: Ms. Varata, after briefing the Special Design
Recommendations stated that all of the features listed could be s,,mmarized by
three underlined demands as follows: (1) to provide a safe and comfortable
environment; (2) all designs should encourage social interaction and
participation in group activities among the elderly while providing spaces for
those who wanted complete privacy or more intimate socializing in smaller
groups; (3) that the design provide as many options as possible.
Commissioner Shanahan asked if there were any specific projects for the
handicapped and; relative to the density bonus, if there would be a percentage
set aside for handicapped people; Miss Santalahti answered that the project
would have to meet the regular handicapped standards minimally. As under
certain HUD projects, they had special standards of their own. Staff did not
specifically address any such requirements assuming other standards would come
into play. She also confirmed that under the handicapped, there was no age
limitation.
Councilman Bay stated they were talking about ambulatory seniors and if they
wanted to start working into wheelchair and handicapped, they were talking
about a whole different ballgame.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not certain of that because there could be
temporarily handicapped seniors and if facilities were not sufficient to take
care of that person, it would not be serving the purpose.. He asked if they
meant permanently handicapped or provisions to take care of some that were
temporarily handicapped.
Miss Santalahti answered that normal terminology meant it was someone
permanently handicapped and there would be a number of units that would have
handicapped provisions in the unit or access for the handicapped.
PARKING: Miss Santalahti stated that relative to parking, there were
basically two questions, the appropriate number of spaces and the design of
those spaces in order to enhance maneuverability.
Commissioner Herbst felt that a parking stall size of 8 1/2 X 18 feet would be
perfectly adequate for many seniors. The cost of ground per square foot was
quite high and it was something to be considered. The average cost of one
parking space, dependent on the cost of the ground, was $1,600.
Miss Santalahti clarified that staff's recommendation was a space 10 X 20 feet.
423
198
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10~ 198.4~ 10:00 A.M.
Commissioner Scherman felt there should be one parking space for every unit
and she was not interested in covered parking spaces.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained for Mrs. Scherma~ that covered spaces generally
provided storage space and there would be a roof and three walls; Miss
Santalahti explained that currently covered parking spaces had partial walls
on three sides only, those walls amounting to at least 50 percent of the
wall. Typically there were no doors but hanging storage within the space at
the far end. Prior to the new requirements, it was three solid walls.
Councilman Bay asked if they had heard the police talking about the security
of three solid walls in a lot of garages behind apartments. The most secure
parking in a project was wide open with no roof or walls. In discussing
costs, he felt it was time to stop talking about covered garages, three walls
or two walls. He did not think parking coverage was an economic necessity in
such projects.
Commissioner Herbst felt that .8 spaces per unit was sufficient. Many seniors
were living on Social Security and minimum living dollars where they could not
afford a car or.the insurance.
Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against lowering the size of the parking space.
Sometimes with age and even without, there was a depth perception problem,
thereby making it difficult to park and sometimes two spaces were taken up
instead of one. She was also concerned about not differentiating between the
permanent residents and guests. She felt the residents 'must have a specific
space.
AFFORDABILITY: Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, briefed this portion of the
report (see Page 7). She also noted that an additional report had been
submitted by the Housing Commission (see report dated April 6, 1984 subject:
Senior Citizen Housing) indicating their support for the second alternative
(see Page 8 of the Staff Report-II-square foot approach).
Miss Santalahtt, in answer to Councilman Overholt, explained the current
methodology they used on affordable projects established 25 percent as the
maximum number of bonus units given with 25 percent set aside for affordable.
The calculation was based on the Code required number of units. Alternate I
used the terminology which the City Attorney's office was pleased with for the
25 percent. They were hoping they could simply say the density bonus would
equal the number of affordable units to be built. State law, however, stated
if 25 percent of the units allowed under Code were affordable, they were
permitted an additional 25 percent more units. The City Attorney stated if 25
percent was being sought, that should be the basis for the calculation.
However, if anyone was seeking more than a 25 percent bonus, they could then
apply the terminology that the percentage of affordable units shall equal the
density bonus.
Councilman Bay asked if that meant if the project was 100 percent affordable
they would get a 100 percent density bonus; Miss Santalahti answered that the
Planning Commission would have the option of granting or not granting that.
424
195
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
She anticipated if the ordinance was drafted, it would set aside the base
density, plus 25 percent, meaning they would have to provide affordable. A
project that came in at the density of the Zone could still be a senior
citizen project without affordable because they would only have the Zone
density and then the smaller unit sizes and a few other types of design
standards they talked about. There could be 45 units providing affordable and
36 without affordable, but then they could have smaller unit sizes.
Councilman Overholt asked for clarification that the issue of Alternative II
was to require a larger number of affordable units; Mrs. Stipkovich answered
"yes".
Miss Santalahti, in answer to Commissioner Herbst, explained there was
currently a Council policy consistent with State law that with a 25 percent
affordable project, they were allowed another 25 percent bonus. She
anticipated an ordinance that would state, with a CUP you may build a senior
citizen project which would meet certain minimum standards for square footage
and parking, while meeting the underlying zone requirements or the RM-1200
and/or an additional bonus of 25 percent or 45 units. They would always have
to have a CUP. .They may or may not be requesting bonus units but if so, they
would have to have affordable.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that with Alternate II they were talking about 56
units to the acre; Miss Santalahti answered, "no". It would still be 45 to
the acre. It was just addressing what the percentage affordable would be. In
that case if they calculated 25 percent of the total project which, in the
example, would be 45 units in both cases, they would then have 11 affordable
units in Alternate II and 9 affordable units in Alternate I.
Mrs. Stipkovich then briefed Alternate I, the Income Approach, and how they
arrived at the figures listed. She also stated that they did discuss with the
Housing Commission whether all three alternatives might be offered a developer.
Commissioner Jerry Bushore stated the projects by themselves should work out
to be reasonably affordable but they used the RM-iO00 zone and worked it
backwards to give even a 10 or 12 percent return on investments and it worked
out to be $35 a square foot. If they took efficiency units from $3.75 to
$4.25 a square foot, the market rent and fair rent that would justify a return
on investment would be ~325 per month, two bedrooms at 700 square feet at ~525
per month, one bedroom at 550 square feet at 3520 per month. He presumed when
Mrs. Stipkovich calculated the figures, she was talking about average figures
which were larger units. He felt the senior would like to see them lower, but
when marketing new construction, the figures were going to be higher.
AGE DETERMINATION - SENIOR CITIZEN PROJECTS: Senior Citizen Commissioner
Shanahan stated he thought he had the support of the Commission that age 60
would be the minimum age. He favored 60; Commissioner Nichols favored age 65
because at age 62, people were still working and 65 was the age limit where
she had to find places far more often than age 62; Commissioner Willing stated
that he favored 62 or 65 depending on the numbers on the waiting list for
senior housing; Commissioner Stringer favored age 62 as well as Commissioners
Scherman and Collins.
425
196
City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984~ 10:~p A.~.
Commissioner Herbst felt that the age should be 62 with perhaps a deviation
down to 60 for a spouse; Councilman Pickler favored 62; Councilwoman Kaywood
felt if they allowed one of the people to be 60, then the minimum age would
have to be 60 and there were not enough units to go around. They should be
certain they were aiming for the market that needed the housing the most, and
age 62 should be set, otherwise it would be difficult to police.
Mrs. Stipkovtch explained for Councilman Bay that referring only to Anaheim
residents, she could not tell exactly the age, except that they were not
making applications unless the people were 62 years of age or older, and that
was the cut-off for all HUD programs as well.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the minimum age of residents in senior
citizen projects be 62 years of age for all residents (100 percent).
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
At this point, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 South Bruce, stated that the need for senior citizen low
cost housing was critical and he felt they were all in agreement as to that
dire need. He felt that the material presented was complex and was certain
that changes could make it easier for builders so they could build some decent
acceptable units. He favored one-and two-bedroom projects, with no three
bedrooms at this time, and an age of 65.
Mr. Anthony Giagnocavo, 322 North Olive, gave his experience living in a
high-rise complex in Brownsville, Texas and its positive aspects. He then
stated that he favored age 62.
Mr. George Hansen, Director of Planning Development, Senior Inns of America,
stated he was not representing the development community, but his own company
which was involved in ambulatory senior housing. He then gave his views and
suggestions relative to senior housing and, upon questioning by Councilwoman
Kaywood, outlined some of the aspects of the program offered by his company
for senior citizen housing. In concluding, he stated he hoped to have the
opportunity to respond to staff's comments in writing.
The Mayor encouraged Mr. Hansen to do so.
Planning Commissioner Charlene La Claire, stated they were talking about two
different things--senior citizen apartments and a health care facility. She
did not believe they had any guidelines for the latter and suggested while
they were looking at the situation, they could also look at the health care
facility aspect broached by Mr. Hansen.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that they eliminate covered parking spaces
from senior citizen projects. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated that there had been
many suggestions and staff had listened carefully to those. He felt that it
should go back to staff, the Senior Citizen Commission and the Planning
426
193
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Commission and then back to the Council. He was certain by that time, those
things that they wanted removed would be eliminated. They were making a
decision that was permanent if they acted today,, and he was not certain he was
ready to do so.
Councilman Bay, in speaking to staff, noted that going through the report by
the various sections, he felt there had been an assumption that listening to
all the ideas expressed was giving staff specific ideas on what the Council
wanted and he was not sure that was true. He asked staff if they felt they
had received specific instruction from the Council on what they should go back
and do right now or not. Miss Santalahti stated she felt she knew the points
about which the Council was concerned. On the issues that were not discussed
a great deal, she was assuming there was concurrence with their
recommendation. There were between five and eight points where they did not
concur and they would make changes in a proposed ordinance or in a Council
policy, especially relative to the affordable issue.
Mayor Roth stated he would support the motion but after looking at the new
proposed ordinance, it might change.
Councilman Overholt clarified the intent of the motion was to give staff clear
direction from the Council at this point without prejudice to reviewing again
based upon further review by the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that nobody was reluctant to speak up and there
seemed to be concurrence on the open parking not just for low cost, but for
the safety aspect.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion relative to uncovered parking
spaces. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that there be a maximum of two bedrooms,
a'nd with two bedrooms, a maximum of four people. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the three alternative methods for
calculating rent on affordable units be offered to developers: Alternate I,
Income Approach, Alternate II, Square Foot Approach, Alternate III, Cost
Analysis (see April 3, 1984 staff report from the Planning and Community
Development Department Pages 7 through 9). Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted Page 10 of the Subject Report Item C, Management
Companies (under section III, Implementation) and felt that the criteria noted
was very important in the selection of such companies.
MOTION: After a brief discussion relative to parking space size, Councilman
Pickler moved that the parking space size be 8 1/2 X 19 feet. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the space be
at least 10 feet wide where the parking space abutted fence or wall. However,
she then spoke against the proposed reduction in space size. In removing
427
194
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 10.~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
covered parking, they were cutting the cost considerably and with open parking
they were only talking about striping. If 10 X 20 feet was the size and that
size was found to be not necessary, it would be a simple matter to restripe to
make smaller spaces.
Councilman Overholt stated he would abstain on the motion because this was an
item he would like to see go back through the process; Councilman Bay stated
he was going to oppose it because he wanted it to go back to the Planning
Commission and he wanted staff and Commission to work down to a minimum.
Councilman Roth withdrew his second. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Councilman Bay then questioned if they were in agreement relative to the
200-square foot requirement for recreational space for over a certain number
of units or for all.
Miss Santalahti stated one thing not addressed in the staff report was when
there was an area set aside specifically, not just the general open space but
a project of 10 units or more had to have at least "X" square feet in a given
recreational area, whether a barbeque area or a recreation room. It sounded
like that was where the Council wanted some figure although numbers were not
discussed.
Councilman Bay felt that was an area that had to be discussed further as well.
Councilman Overholt stated he had a personal concern regarding the percentage
of affordable. For some reason, he had a feeling.that the percentage of
affordable equaling the density bonus had some negative aspects to it. They
might find themselves in a trap and he would hope that staff would take a look
at that and set some parameters.
Miss Santalahti stated that would be an area of Council policy and not a part
of the ordinance.
Commissioner Herbst stated one of the most important things was the size of
the unit. He wanted to know if staff understood the size; Mayor Roth stated,
tn his opinion, they were going to formulate the ordinance with the proposed
square footage according to recommendations.
Councilman Overholt stated although it was indicated that high-rise was not
precluded, he felt there was a strong sense they wanted to encourage high-rise
if it was going to bring lower cost senior housing. It should not be
construed to oppose high-rise.
Miss Santalahti stated she anticipated in commercial zones particularly they
would try to design something into the Code that would specifically encourage
or allow it to happen without being called a variance.
Before closing, Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were talking about projects
intended for people active and ambulatory and if they should become disabled
after living in the development, they needed to address whether they were
going to have to move; Miss Santalahti stated that would be a management issue.
428
191
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April .10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
In addition to the foregoing motions setting the minimum age at 62,
eliminating covered parking spaces, maximum of two bedrooms, with a maximum of
four people, and that the three alternative methods for calculating rent on
affordable units be offered to developers, the following Items were to be
referred to the Planning Department Staff and the Planning Commission for
further consideration and recommendations:
The the size of parking spaces be 8 1/2 X 19' but that spaces be 10' wide
where a parking space abuts a fence or wall; that 200 square feet of
recreational-leisure area be provided for all units or over a certain
number.
ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: By general consent the Planning Commission
adjourned. (5:00 p.m.)
ADJOURMENT - SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION: By general consent the Senior Citizen
Commission adjourned. (5:00 p.m.)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(5:00
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:37 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:37 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
429