1981/03/0581R-324
City Hall~ Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
regular session.
P RES ENT:
ABSENT:
PRES ENT:
ABSENT:
PRES ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Fry, King, Barnes and Bushore
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tolar, Herbst, Bouas
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norm Priest
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Seymour called the adjourned regular meeting to order
for the purpose of conducting a joint work session with the
City Planning Commission.
Acting Chairman of the Planning Commission Gerald Bushore called
the Planning Commission to order with a quorum present.
The Mayor announced that prior to the work session, there was one item that first
had to be acted upon by the Council..
156: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ANAHEIM POLICE FACILITY LOBBY ADDITION: Account No.
24-988-6325. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-85 for adoption,
awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated February 25, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POW-ER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM POLICE FACILITY LOBBY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 24-988-6325. (Robert W. Smith, $29,900)
Roll Call Vote:
AY ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-85 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Seymour then recapped what had transpired at the previous work session
held Wednesday, February 18, 1981 (~ee mintues that date). He then deferred
to staff relative to their recommendations as outlined in report dated
February 13, 1981 which was discussed at the previous session.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, reviewed the three basic recommendations
by staff (see 2.A., B., and C. of the subject report). Subsequent to those
recommendations, an addendum was submitted dated February 25, 1981, subject to:
81R-325
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 57 I981~ 7:00 P.M.
recommended performance standard for determining condominium height (RM-3000)
adjacent to single-family residential (on file in the City Clerk's office).
The 150 feet was not an arbitrary setback but based on trying to preserve the
integrity and privacy in the environment between higher density and single-
family. If the Council and the Planning Commission were of the opinion that
the existing 150-foot standard should be modified, they might wish to direct
staff to prepare an ordinance based on performance standards that would not
visually intrude on single-family residences (see Page 2 of the subject report,
second paragraph). In concluding, Mr, Thompson stated that they felt there
was considerable merit if the 150-foot setback were modified by going to a
performance standard.
M_r~ Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, first summarized
the discussion and recommendations he had presented at the meeting of February 18
1~81 (.see minutes that date--also see recommendation 1.A. and B. in staff report
dated February 13, 1981). While they were not fixed on any given percentage
of density bonus, they were aware there had been a very wide variance in terms
of the amount of density bonus given. It was their belief that a workable per-
centage would be that, at such time as the developer provided 25% affordable
housing, that he should be entitled to a 25% density bonus. Their further rec- ~.
ommendation, although not a part of the law, was relative to a breakdown as to
whether 10% could be medium density housing at 100% of the median and 15%
affordable at 120% of median. He had spoken to the City Attorney relative to
that and he pointed out correctly that was not part of the law and if they
were to go into something like that, it would be a specific local policy. Their
thought .in that respect was that in achieving ~he 25% density bonus, the developer
should not be in a position to provide all that at the upper end of the scale.
Given the fact that the developer would be providing moderate income housing,
a portion should be in the middle of the range.
Tme second recommendation would be ~hat when the affordable units were provided
and they would receive such density bonus or other variances or bonuses, not
including a direct financial contribution, that a resale control in the form
of a sliding scale be provided so that a forgiveable second trust deed could be
placed on the proper:y, forgiveable in equal amounts per year over a specified
time period. He then refer=~d to a scale provided the Council and Planning
Commission (.see fact sheets 1 through 7--United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development and also covering sheets Section 245 (a) Graduated
Mortgage Payment and Section 245 (b) Alternate Graduated Mortgage Payment--
on file ±n the City Clerk's office) showing that when the amount of differ-
ence between the market rate and the affordable price on the affordable units
was below $1,000, the time period for such a control would be one year. When
the amount of difference between the market rate and affordable prices was as
high as $50,000 per unit, the resale control would be in the form of a forgive-
able second trust deed over a 22-year period.
Councilman. Roth noted that, relative to bonuses, when the developer came in
with 25% affordable, they talked about density, in lieu parking fees, donation
of City funds and improvements, etc. He asked for clarification that Mr. Priest
was saying it was not the City's choice, but that of the developer to accept
which bonuses he wanted from that list.
81R-326
City Hall~ Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Priest stated the City could not offer the developer variances or bonuses
that would be unsuitable. They could not offer the developer two things which
would not be of any value or unacceptable to him. The Council had considerable
choices in what was ultimately worked out. He also emphasized that they were
not talking about those cases where there would be a direct financial contri-
bution since that was a different issue entirely. Their recommendations were
dealing only with those cases involving densities and other variances, not a
direct contribution.
Councilman Bay asked if he were a developer and presented a development which
met the 25% affordable, under State law, could he demand a 25% bonus or not;
Mr. Priest answered that if he were to say the 25% density bonus was all that
would be acceptable to him, he could probably do that.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the law did not require that a
density bonus be granted. The City or County may provide at least two bonus
incentives if they chose not to grant the 25% density bonus. The State law
provided that other acceptable types of incentives may be granted and there
was a list of such incentives including, waiver of park and recreation fees;
improvements of streets or sewers; use of funds; exemption from certain local
ordinances; waiver of the SP201 School Impact fee; waiver of the filing or
processing fees; exempt the development from utility connection charges and
sewer hook up charges; waiver of certain subdivision fees or reduction of
local building or housing zoning s~andards, and expediting the process of
local permits. The law did say that no developer shall be required to enter
into a non-acceptable agreemen~ as a prerequisite to approval of a housing
development, but specifically he could not demand the 25% density bonus. They
could give him some of the other things in lieu of that.
Councilman Bay asked them if that was the City.'s choice;
was the City's provided they did not try to force the develop~g into a non-
acceptable agreemen~ leaving it somewhat open to negotiation. They did not
have to grant the density bonus.
Councilman Overholt asked, acceptable to whom, acceptable under that statu~e,
or acceptable to the developer?
Mr. Hopkins stated he interpreted the law to mean unacceptable to the developer.
They were talking about a negotiating process and if the developer decided it
was something he did nog want to get into, he could back off and ~ha~ would be
the end of the matter.
Councilman Bay stated that he was interested in the minimum the developer had
the right to have under the law; Mr. Hopkins reiterated that his interpretation
was that the two items the City would offer to him could be offered in lieu of
the density bonus. 14e then clarified further for Councilman Overholt that he
did not think the acceptable part enabled the City to say that they would not
approve the project unless the developer accepted =he two items. He had a
right to say he did not want those and back off. If the City had given a
bonafida offer and mad.e a reasonable offer in the two other items, the developer
could not compel the City to grant him something else.
81R-327
City Ha. ll, Anaheim~ C~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated his understanding of the intent of the law in a rather
loosely worded context was to provide an incentive to a developer whereby if
he was willing to build a certain percentage of his project to affordable
standards, the City would not unreasonably withhold the delivery of one or
more bonuses to the developer.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a possibility of any developer forcing
the City to do something; both Mayor Seymour and Councilman Bay answered, in
their opinion, yes.
The City Attorney stated the reasonable test was one that a court would apply,
i.e., if they were unreasonable and offered a very minor incentive as opposed
to the 25%. If they gave a combination of other incentives that were reason-
able, had a value, and could be shown they considered the economics and the
density bonus was not appropriate but the others were, that would be reason-
able. The court would have to weigh the reasonableness and if they were rea-
sonable, they would be on safe ground as a general rule.
Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Thompson to carry a hypothetical case through
the planning process relative to the question of height limitation where staff's
recommendation wa~ that a performance ~tandard be established. What would that
be in terms of how a developer would process his project through the City.
Mr. Thompson answered, if a height performance standard were adopted by the
Council, the developer, when he came in to file his building plans, iwould have
to indicate that, from a visibility standpoint, there were no windows where,
for example, a 6-foot man could look out directly into the rear yard or part
of an adjoining single-family or into the yard of adjoining single-family. If
there was a carport or a single-story dwelling unit between the two story and
the single-family homes high enough to visibly block anybody on a balcony or
looking out a window, thereby blocking the visibility into the adjoining single-
family residential zone, that would be processed like any other normal building
permit.~ The hillside areas might be a more graphic example because of the
differences in terrain. Performance standards required a great deal of common
sense. If, when plans were submitted to the Building Department or to the
Planning Commission and City Council while the developer was submitting for a
zone change, there was any question at that time, the developer would then
have to do a cross-section through the development to scale. Staff did not feel
that there would be a problem in implementing that process but they would have
to give closer scrutiny when projects were presented to the Planning Commission
or processed through the Building Department.
Councilman Roth recalled that at the last work session (February 18, 1981)
Commissioner King suggested that condominiums should be considered different
from apartments because they were homes, and two-story homes or zero lot lines
were permitted next to single-family. However, they did not permit condominiums
to be built within the 150-foot setback. He asked Mr. Thompson if they researched
that aspect.
Mr. Thompson answered "yes". They felt if the density'were increased, with the
many new condominiums they could anticipate throughout the City, they would be
of such a density to where a great number of people would experience visual
intrusion where they might be adjacent to single family. The density would
probably be more typical of some of the low-medium density apartments in the City.
81R-328
City Hall, Anaheim,_ Q~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Councilman Roth surmised then that they were not going to make any differential
between apartment buildings and a condominium but they would want to hold those
standards.
Mr. Thompson answered that would be staff's recommendation. They felt by using
a performance standard they could substantially reduce the 150-foot setback.
There might be cases because of the size and shape of the lot where it would
not work well, but there were also many others where they felt it would be very
suitable and still retain the type of environment that had been built up in
Anaheim over the years. There were a great number of apartments and relatively
high density areas adjacent to single family, but they got along very well and
a very desirable envimonment was maintained.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked with the performance standard, would there be any
minimum setback such as 50 or 35 feet. Mr. Thompson answered they were thinking
of using the commercial-office or commercial zone where they could go up one
foot in height for every two-foot setback.
Commissioner Glenn Fry stated that he did not have any great problems with
staff's recommendations. Relative to the density bonus, he had no problem
with that at all. He did have a problem with resale controls and had not
reconciled himself to such controls. He wanted to be able to provide the
housing and yet keep the speculator out, but the speculator was part of the
American way. He felt that there probably would have to be some sort of
control, but he was not very encouraged about hearing 20- or 30-year controls.
He was thinking more along the lines of a five-year sliding scale forgiveable
second trust deed or something of that nature.
Relative to the RM-3000 standards, he would be in favor of increasing the maxi-
mum density based upon the gross land situation. He felt that would be a great
help. With regard to the bachelor or studio apartments, if they were going to
have those, he maintained they should be more realistic in their square footage
for those units. There were many very nice one-bedroom apartments in the City
and adjoining community that had between 500 and 525 square f~et and staff was
recommending 550 square feet for a bachelor unit. He considered that minimum
to be too high and suggested perhaps considering 450 to 475 square feet.
Relative to decreasing the parking standard to a minimum of 2.5 spaces per unit
provided, however, that bachelor/studio units, if permitted, may have a minimum
of 2.0, he would be in favor of that.
With regard to condominium conversions, he was starting to take a very dim view
of such conversions because it appeared to him what was happening, although it
may be too soon to make a judgment, that there were going to be apartments
built as apartments with the Specific intent of converting to the condominium
type of unit at a subsequent date for many reasons. With such conversions,
they would lose either way. When an apartment was converted, it appeared that
at least ~0% of the tenants were going to be out looking for apartments some-
where else. He did not know the answer, but he reiterated at this point in time
he was becoming very negative on conversions unless they could come in with
the normal standards for the RM-3000. When they had a request for seven, eight
or nine variances to convert from apartments to condominium type living, that
was too much.
81R-329
City H.all, Anaheim, Calif..ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5: 1981, 7:00 .P.M.
Commissioner Paul King stated he hoped the Council was considering the suggestion
he made at the meeting of February 18, 1981 when he asked them to classify con-
dominiums as homes so that two-story condominiums could be built within the
150-foot setback. That would provide additional housing so badly needed. Land
was scarce and expensive and it should be used to the utmost.
Commissioner Charlene Barnes stated they needed some reforms and she was in favor
of all the reforms talked about tonight. Perhaps the 550 square feet was too
high for a bachelor unit, having seen in other cities some as low as 450 feet that
were quite nice. What she did not hear discussed was the possibility of a revision
of open space by including patios in the open space, thereby giving a little more
flexibility and giving the developer a better break on the affordable units.
Mr. Thompson stated if the minimum dimensions reached ten feet, then that was
taken into account. The way the Code was presently written did provide for
that.
The Mayor stated that if the enclosed or fenced patio was a minimum of ten feet
in width, it Would qualify as part of the open space; Mr. Thompson clarified
that was correct.
Commissioner Gerald Bushore stated he could not see the difference in people
living in apartments that were much denser than condominiums with a smaller
space than condominiums. The only difference he saw between condominiums and
apartments was whether they were owned or rented. In 1978 they had the RM-4000
zoning which was changed to RM-3000. He was not aware of any problems by
lessening that by one-quarter percent. They did increase the parking at that
time for specific reasons, but unfortunately the entire City was included in
that change which perhaps should not have been done. They had the opportunity
now to change that.
He looked at the flatlands where there was limited land left to create housing
in spotty locations throughout the City. Knowing what they did do on apartments,
as compared to condominiums, he had no problem with reducing ~the zone and calling
it RM-2400 for condominiums or whatever. He could not see where it could harm
the City for the little bit of land that was left in the flatlands, and he could
only see it doing good and giving more people a chance for ownership. He would
have no problem with reducing the RM-3000 to even as low as an RM-2250 or some-
thing like that, but no lower this time.
He felt they should maintain the 3.5 parking spaces out in the canyon since it
was a different area and different portion of the City. He was very comfortable
with somewhere between 2.6 and 2.75 parking spaces per unit and they needed to
take a closer look as to whether they were building one-bedroom, two-bedrooms
or three-bedrooms, since that would have an effect. If they went to a higher
density by raising the number of units allowed, he would hope that they would
not have to allow anymore variances above the 25% for density, so the variances
that would then be given would be very reasonable variances where they would be
very cautious to include parking in future variances they might grant. He
hoped also this would possibly eliminate some of the requests they received
for condominium conversions. He was still in favor of handling those on a
case-by-case basis. What "scared" him about condominium conversions was that
they depleted the rental stock and there were definitely people who desired to
live in apartments. They were not being built today because of the price of
land and the price of financing.
81R-330
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
He had a big problem with resale controls especially when talking about 20
to 30 years. He did not want to see anyone profit by what they did here, but
he felt it could be worked out so that they would hurt no one. Another facet
they had not looked at in terms of creating housing in the City, in Huntington
Beach they had what was called New World where a person would actually live
above their commercial business. Some thought should be given to the possibility
of allowing a store keeper to live right above his unit as they did in the old
day~ It had a lot of benefits for everybody and created more housing.
In concluding, Mr. Bushore referred to Page 2 of memorandum dated March 5, 1981
to the City Council from Mary Miller, League of Women Voters--subject: Afford-
able Housing (pn file in the City Clerk's office) and read the last three state-
ments ending with--"...-is building more housing something we can afford not to
do." Those closing statements by Mrs. Miller were some very good points and
they would only learn by attempting to change things.
Councilman Overholt stated, relative to resale controls, one justification for
such controls was to discourage speculation and another to provide a pool of
affordable housing. He questioned if the only reason for controls was to dis-
courage the speculators and by having resale controls for five years the spec-
ulator would not be involved, what would happen to the pool at the end of five
years. He was of the opinion that affordable housing would-be gone. The
Council had gone on record unanimously as being opposed to adhering to 30-
year restraints on alienation if required on projects on which they made a
direct financial contribution. Even in situations where there was no direct
financial contribution, were they intervening to create a pool of affordable
housing. If they were, then were they meeting their responsibility to the
public by saying all they were interested in was avoiding a windfall to spec-
ulators but after that it w~s anybody's "ballgame". He did not have the answer
to the question.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it seemed to her the only two figures she heard
were five years and 30 years. Commissioner Fry mentioned that if he were a
speculator, he would be looking for something where the control was lifted in
three or four years. She felt the same way about five years. That would be
a typical investment for a lot of people. To her, five years was an open
invitation to speculators but, on the other hand, 30 years was ridiculous.
She felt that 10 years would be a minimum and in that way they would be getting
rid of the speculator. She also felt where there was a dire housing shortage
and people were very concerned about that situation, they had to think about
it differently from a typical investment. It obviously had to be profit-
making or it was not going to happen and it should be profit-making, but there
had to be a difference between profits and greed.
Councilman Overholt stated he would gather from Councilwoman Kaywood's position
that at the end of ten years, she would be willing to give up the pool of afford-
able housing created by government intervention.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered she did not say to give up. She was concerned
just as he was and felt if they were giving density bonuses or other bonuses,
while they might not be a direct financial contribution, it was a financial
contribution as far as she could see. She also believed that housing stock
81R-331
~ity Hall, Anaheim~ Cal. ifornia.- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
should continue to be available for people who could not afford it otherwise. Also, if
smaller units were built, as some of hhem would be, on smaller land parcels, smaller
dimensions, fewer amenities of one kind or another, that was different from
the normal housing stock and it should not be in the same price category.
Mayor Seymour stated there were two problems involved, (1) the speculation
problem and, (2) the longer term situation of achieving affordable housing
and insuring that it remained affordable without making it public housing.
Heretofore, he had been more concerned about the speculator than in what
happened ten years hence. Somewhere, the free market was going to take over.
If they were concerned about the long term aspects of affordable housing and
trying to do whatever possible without imposing public housing control over
all affordable housing, they might consider a technique that had been used
historically with certain types of loans that were available in one form or
another. The Mayor then proposed that they restrict with financial tools, rather
than price tools as he had explained at the meeting of February 24, 1981 (see
minutes that date--File Ref. 177: Resale Controls--Government Code Section
659.16~. For example, if the affordable housing was set up to be bought by
people in the 80 to 100% median income, it would subsequently have to be sold
to people in the same category. There would be market forces at work as far
as the price that would have to be paid as that market force worked against
the median income of the County and, therefore, the particular buyers that
would qualify. The other flexibility that would be inherent would be the
futuristic financing concepts that were on the horizon that they had not dealt
with as yet, i.e., the Shared Appreciation Market.
Councilman Roth stated the audience should be aware they were talking about
affordable housing where the developer did not have the choice to sell those,
but that the Housing Department screened for those who should have that par-
ticular unit to insure that the first time buyer was in the affordable cate-
gory. He felt they were treading on dangerous ground when talking about 25-
and 30-year controls on the free use of real property.
Councilman Bay stated he agreed in principle with what the Mayor had said about
controlling the resale by who the unit was resold to. To retain it as affordable,
he felt one of the best controls or a portion of that control should be controlling
that resale to a percentage of low and moderate income it was intended for in the
first place. That would place an automatic control on it and at the same time
allow, assuming inflation continued, some equity build up by the owner. The
problem with straight resale controls, whether five, ten or 20 years, was it
made it difficult for the owner to gain some equity. He felt they were headed
in the right direction when talking about some middle ground as the Mayor
stated vs. the extreme of the one that was edicted on them where there was
true financial contribution or 30 years. He felt resale controls were going
to take a great deal more work before they could come up with the best way to go.
Councilman Bay then stated he wanted to give his opinions on the staff recommen-
dations. He prefaced his remarks noting that the changes in State law that had
occurred in the past few months made certain things mandatory from the standpoint
of giving bonuses. Since the laws were in place and they did not know when the
next ones would be coming down from the State or the Federal government telling
them what they were going to do, he would argue that any reduction in the City's
81R-332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Zoning Ordinances would be a serious mistake by the City at this time. No
matter what they did to reduce the Ordinances in an attempt to simplify the
method by which they allowed a developer to start his job and come up with some-
thing affordable, the impact by other lawmaking bodies, Sacramento particularly,
would further impact the City's ordinances. It did not make sense to start
increasing the density in their ordinances when they knew even after they did ~o,
as of right now and as discussed earlier, they were-in a legal position where
they would have to give up 25% of that and, therefore, they would be starting
to change the base they were working from.
Relative to what they had previously approved as indicated by Table 4 (see staff
report of February 13, 1981) he would prefer that they set a control on those
and state a policy that both the Planning Commission and Council could agree
upon, i.e., set up a policy rather than changing the rules--set up a percentage
of what they were going to give. If a developer stated 50% or 100% of his whole
development was going to be affordable, were they going to give him a 50% or
100% density bonus or offer him the 25%. He did not think the question was in
starting to change their ordinances and reducing those controls which had a
great deal to do with the quality of life in Anaheim for many years. They
should be looking at how far they were going to go with the current ordinances
and setting policies that when they did take variances to the ordinances, that
there was such a rule telling the Planning Commission their limits. They knew
what the minimum was, but the problem was that they did not know the maximum
and that had been varying a great deal. He did not agree that they needed
affordable housing--all of Southern California needed that. However, it was
also interesting to discover in the debates with the Legal Aid Society on
February 24, 1981 (see minutes that date) that Anaheim was quite a number of
percentage points ahead of other cities relative to who was doing their fair
share and how that was measured. He simply did not know, where Anaheim stood
vs. Garden Grove, Fullerton and surrounding cities on who was giving away what.
He reiterated the question was not reducing or changing the ordinances volun-
tarily when they were already being pressured by State law to change them
mandatorily.
Mayor Seymour stated for a year now they had been operating without standards
and by policy and on a project by project basis which they agreed to do when
they could not agree how they could or should change the 150-foot setback. He
did not know what they would achieve by doing nothing to their standards based
upon the logic that if they did nothing, then they would just wait until the
State mandated something and adjust to that. He believed that was how Anaheim
as well as all the other cities in California facing the same problem got them-
selves into the mess. He agreed that they must agree on the maximum and what-
ever standard adjustment they would make, he would support those as being the
maximum. In that way, they would get back to some reasonableness and parameters
in which developers coming to the City asking for variances would only be granted
variances when there were technical and not economic conditions that justified
those variances. They had to try to find the balance between some reasonable
standards that would permit a percentage of affordable housing and at the same
time one that would assure that they did not give away the environment. If one
agreed that they had a need for affordable housing, to not move the standards at
all would literally guarantee that they would not have any affordable housing.
81R-333
City Hall~ Anaheim, Calif.ornia..- COUNCIL MINUTES..- March 5~ 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Table 5--Affordable Housing Comparison--
Primarily Southern California--(see staff report of February 13, 1981). She
agreed with everything Councilman Bay stated regarding changing the Code. If
they were to change the Code and allow a 25% loosening of it, at present, the
State required 25%; therefore, they would be "smacked" with 50% immediately.
If the State decided to go to 50%, that meant they would be giving 75%. There
was no way to ignore that kind of fear. She then briefed Table 5 and upon con-
clud±ng stated that it was very clear that Anaheim had been and was doing its
fair share even though they might be having "doubts" handling projects on a
case by case basis and probably were ahead of everybody in Orange County as
far am the amount of affordable being granted. They did not want to give away
the whole store and the City in the process. Setbacks and the kinds of things
that had been set up over the years for a good living environment in Anaheim
were not something that should be thrown away now.
Mayor Seymour stated if, in fact, they were giving away the store or throwing
away their environment by accepting the recommendations of staff, how would she
square that with their current General Plan--would she suggest that they amend
the current Plan to increase the density shown upon that plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that they had amended the Plan many times in the
past to increase or to change it to show the increase they had given. She was
not suggesting that they amend the General Plan.
Discussion the followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kay-wood revolving
around the Mayor's contention that relative to the General Plan, what they had
developed over a period of time were standards that were out of sync with the
General Plan (See minutes February 24, 1981 under evening public hearing--
Reclassification No. 80-81-13, Conditional Use Permit No. 2119). He continued
that with their current standards, it was highly unlikely that any developer
could deliver affordable housing with the 25% density bonus.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned why that was true only in Anaheim. Was the
price of the land too high and also if they could not do it with a 25% density
bonus and it would require instead a 100% or 150% bonus, perhaps that was un-
acceptable to the community.
Mayor Seymour stated what they had been talking about this evening was not 100%
or 150% but what was contained in the staff report. He asked that staff answer
the economic questions raised by he and Councilwoman Kaywood (1) with the
current site development standards was it likely that they could get affordable
housing in the community with the typical 25% bonus in exchange for 25% afford-
able, and (~) if the answer to the first question was no, how come--was it
because of the price of land or what.
Mr. Priest answered that in their discussions with developers, their comments
to staff and staff's 'analysis of those comments, with the 25% density bonus
solely, it was very difficult to build affordable housing in the community.
Basically it came down to lot penciling out. There was not enough value in
the 25% unless they could make other savings as well. It was based on the
cost of the land to some degree. Councilwoman Kaywood had asked a question
earlier in the meeting relative Co Orange County. To the best of his understanding,
there were some units where direct contribution from bond proceeds were involved,
something which they had not utilized in Anaheim at all.
81R-334
City ~al~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Thompson-stated that the economic factors were very complex today. Land
in Anaheim had a very high value and generally land sold for whatever could be
done with it. The fact that they had granted so many variances and deviated
from the zero percentage to 144% perhaps encouraged a great number of people to
put a very high value on the land hoping they were going to get the 250% when
they came in. He could not honestly answer the question and did not know if
anybody could do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood again referred to Table 5 listing the densities approved
on affordable with Anaheim showing 18 to 35 units to the acre and yet the price
was $51,000 to $77,000. The highest of any of the other cities was 20 units
to the acre. If they were doing it at 20 to the acre and Anaheim had gone to
35 to the acre and that was still not enough, where would it have to go. Would
it mean that Anaheim had to go to 50 units to the acre.
Mr. Thompson stated he was not sure that they ever really would have affordable
housing. They might have for one split second in time but the second individual
to sell the property may put an asking price on the land that would drive up
the price; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was another thing that should be
looked at. If the 35 to the acre which was the City's apartment maximum was
still not going to get affordable, she questioned what was the answer for
Anaheim. She felt it was that basic.
Councilman Bay stated if they opened up wide enough on their ordinances or in
setting a policy, in his opinion, they were going to get the same technology
and unimaginative developments over and over again. If they did not put
pressure on the builders to go to different and better techniques and later
technologies to build, it would never happen before the 5% remaining land in
the flatlands was gone. He was not saying they should shut the door, but what
they had done in the immediate past was too much. He was also not saying the
staff recommendations were too much but how they implemented them with the
effective outside laws coming in on top of those recommendations was also
important to consider.
Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from the public asking them to confine their
remarks both pro and con to the recommendations in the staff report. The fol-
lowing people spoke to the issues with summaries of their comments listed below:
Mr. Fred Missell, 969 Cedarwood, questioned if they were giving a rebate to
the developer of certain fees, what were the fees to be used for. Were they
designed originally a~ Proposition 13 ~rade-offs. Relative ~o condominiums
aRd condominium conversion parking standards, he was not in agreement with
changing the standard of 3.5 parking spaces per unit to 2.5. If the standards
were reduced t0 2.5, would they then be eliminating one of the factors keeping
people away from conversions. He also questioned when the last vacancy factor
was calibrated upon the Housing Element or the General Plan. He referred to a
February 18, 1981 article in The Register indicating that a number of apartment
houses that had been converted to condominiums were converting back to apartment
houses because there was no marketplace. People could not qualify for the loans
since the first time buyer was not one who bought into a Condominium conversion
and the vacancy factor today in most of the conversions was very high. Therefore,
the argument of converting to a condominium to increase the affordable housing
stock in today's economy was not a valid argument because the owner could not
sell them.
81R-335
City Hal!~' Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Jack Winnick, 2052 June Place, (member of the Board of Directors of Sher-
wood Village) felt it was important that developers know going in what they
could expect for a piece of property. He was very much against granting
variances and having developers assume that they would get a variance upon
purchasing a piece of property to construct a development project. Relative
to parking, being on the Board of Directors of Sherwood Village, 50% or more
of their time at monthly board meetings revolved around parking problems even
though their complex had adequate parking, having been built before any parking
variances were granted. With bachelor apartments, even though they were
designed for one person, he maintained that at least two adults would occupy
those units. Relative to the Mayor's concern about where the City's young
people would live, most of the people present tonight were not living where
they grew up and that condition was not unusual. It was difficult for them to
continue to think that everybody presently living in Anaheim would ultimately
settle in the area or would expect to. They did not have to keep everybody in
Anaheim and in trying to do that, they would reduce the quality of life. He
saw no advantage to creating excessively crowded areas in the City.
The following six people (Mr. Atchinson to Mrs. Ray) also spoke at the prior
work session held February 18, 1981 (see minutes that date). Included are
additional comments to those made previously.
Mr. Ross Acheson, 923 West Lincoln, stated they all had to be innovative in the
ways of providing housing for people. The responsibility should not lie with
only the builders and manufacturers. He agreed with Councilman Bay that they
should try to have futuristic planning techniques and be able to have a new
product come into being. There seemed to be some difference between apartments
and condominiums even though they were both housing people. There did not seem
to be consistency in the City relative to providing for housing. He pointed to
a case of two-story homes backing up against other two-story homes. It was
possible to see into the back yards and yet an apartment complex with no win-
dows along the rear or with limited or no visibility into those backyards
still had to have a 150-foot setback. He believed those situations should
be looked at on a individual basis. ,~
Councilwoman Kaywood coranented that it was also a matter of people density.
She also expressed her concern that with all the density bonuses and other
variances given, sometimes seven and eight in one application, for some reason,
the cost had not gone down. She would like an answer to that.
Mr. Augie Lopez, 481Paseo Strea, spoke relative to the Housing Incentives Program
which had been used effectively in Santa Maria. The idea of the program was a
value recapture and not a subsidy program. He then explained the technicalities
and procedures involved in such a program. In concluding, Mr. Lopez stated
what the program accomplished, it allowed a person or family to purchase a home
and defer a large portion of their payments until home inflation would assist
in paying off the obligation or until their own income was such that larger
amounts could be more easily handled. One good thing about the program was
that no resale controls were involved and he felt it was one of the best methods
of taking people out of a rental subsidy program and putting them into home own-
ership, which, in turn, would add to the value of the community.
81R-336
City Hall~ Anaheim, Calif.ornia - COUNCIL .MINUTES - March 5~ 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
Mr. John Ingalls, 1242 West Lincoln, Director of the State of California Man-
ufactured Housing Association, stated he wanted to reinforce the idea of man-
ufactured housing. They had the ability to build and perform according to
staff's requirements, even two-story units. He thereupon submitted additional
photos showing examples of manufactured housing, as he had done at the meeting
of February 18, 1981.
Mr. Walt Forsythe, 2731 West Bridgeport, stated he was very much opposed to
controls of any kind, but real life indicated that sometimes they had to com-
promise. Statistics prepared by both the California Association of Realtors
and the National Association of Realtors showed that the average family moved
approximately every 3.5 years. To consider controls with much longer time
constraints would be ludicrous because they would be penalizing the people they
were trying to help. Perhaps controls in line with the statistics might be
acceptable. He concurred with the staff's recommendations and he was pleased
that they made some revisions in their proposals relative to the 150-foot set-
back. As a City, they must have ordinances that would attract developers and
adopted in a manner that would allow the developers to realize the profit from
the funds invested. In concluding, he stated he would like to see Anaheim
remain as it was years ago; however, it was time for a change. For the Council
not to do anything to solve the problem would be abdication of their public
responsibilities.
Mr. Leonard Lawicki, realtor, 1676 Ord Way, stated that they should address
the problem and decide the question once and for all--was Anaheim ready for
housing they were attempting to set up or not. The down zoning or the changes
discussed earlier by the implication of the State law or the policy of the City
itself did not seem to be in major conflict with the master plan or with staff.
He did not think they would be impacting the area beyond its capacity.
Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 West Chateau, first commented that relative to the proposed
Cerritos-Euclid condominium project, it deserved to have an EIR prepared for it.
Speaking to staff's recommendations, she was against changing the Code with re-
gard to density and parking and she was "so-so" about the set~acks. Relative to
ABll51 which was referred to quite frequently at the February 24, 1981 meeting,
she thought it was a law that had been in effect long before they started
approving all the affordable housing, but she found, in reading the minutes of
the Council meeting of October 14, 1980 (see minutes that date) the law did not
go into effect until January 1, 1981. Even though that was the effective date,
they had projects with 144% density, 100% density, etc. The law mandated that
a 25% density bonus be given to developers coming in with 25% affordable. Most of
the people at the February 24, 1981 meeting stated that they would concede
that density bonus, but they would not concede 50%, 100% etc. with waivers of
over 200 parking spaces. In concluding her presentation, Mrs. Ray stated if
they were going to change the Code, downgrade them, increase the density, etc.,
one of her neighbors indicated to her if he could convert his garage, he would
have a nice apartment that he could rent out. She questioned the changes that
would take place in the City if they were going to make the proposed changes.
Mr. Arthur Burke, 1418 Donacy Way, stated they were faced with two questions,
density and affordability. More and more, they were seeing two families to a
house or more individuals to a particular structure. He was concerned that the
81R-337
City Hall, A.n~heim, Ca!if.o.rnia' - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
statistics used to project into the future did not allow for the fact that that
would be an increasing trend. He did not feel that Anaheim could ever keep
ahead of the density question and the pressures on affordability. Regardless
of what they did with the few parcels of land left to create affordable housing,
in five to ten years they would h~ve a substantial shift in the number of people
per dwelling unit. With that in mind, he tended to be opposed to any greater
density than necessary currently. Looking at the proposals made by staff, he
was very much in favor of modifying the 150-foot setback, but relative to the
question of parking, they were going to need more parking spaces in the future
considering higher density per unit than at present. He would strongly reject
any plan to increase density above and beyond the 25% which the State already
mandated. He was not a developer but a contractor and he felt that 20 units
per acre, a median which was workable in Orange County, would be an acceptable
standard. The 35 which they had now was perhaps workable economically from the
point of view of the developer but ten years hence when there would be twice as
many people living in each one of the apartments, it would create a tremendous
density problem.
After staff clarified some questions posed by Mr. Burke, he concluded that he
would tend to prefer that more things be spelled out in black and white even
though he would perhaps dislike the way it would be set up--he would rather
know as a contractor or developer going in exactly what the standards were,
rather than wondering about the possibility of a variance or how much flexibility
there was going to be in the policies set.
Councilman Roth asked the number of parking spaces he (Burke) would prefer to
have for bachelor units; Mr. Burke answered since those units would be occupied
by young people, primarily college oriented, and thus having a high level of
density, he would like to see 2, 2.5 or possibly 3 parking spaces for each
bachelor unit. That was one of the reasons he would support the recommendation
of 550 square feet for bachelor/studio units. With a one-bedroom condominium
unit, he would be comfortable with 2 or 2.5 parking spaces.
Mayor Seymour noted that in Mr. Burke's presentation when tal-king about density,
he mentioned 20 and 35 units per acre. He asked Mr. Burke if he was aware that
what staff was recommending was less than 20 units per acre.
Mr. Burke answered that he was aware of that, but he was looking at the City's
past performance under the "flexible" policy now in operation. He agreed with
the staff recommendation that the density be less.
~ayor Seymour asked for confirmation that he was opposed to the types of vari-
ances that had been granted; Mr. Burke answered "yes" and that was one of the
reasons he was opposed to setting a policy because the more flexible, the more
likely it was to be bent.
Mr. Dennis Catrin, Vice President, Lindborg-Dahl, stated they were builders of
condominiums and apartments. There were some people who did want to continue
living in the neighborhood they were brought up in. The problem they were
faced with was affordable housing or, building a home that people could afford
to buy. The present condominium code permitted 14 units per acre under ideal
conditions. Market demand and cost factors were forcing the builders to build
8iR-338
Cit.y H.a.!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5,. 1981, 7:00 P.M.
condominium units that were $100,000 plus. Mr. Catrin then expanded upon the
many problems builders were faced with in trying to provide affordable housing.
There was a great amount of risk to a low cost housing builder and that was
the reason why there were only a handful of such builders trying to get into
the affordable field. The City's present Code had a "Catch 22". It gave
builders extra units for affordable, but they were also counted against their
marketing units and that was the reason why they had to come in and ask for
variances. He reiterated the present ordinance was not designed for afford-
able housing but for the $100,000 plus condominium units. A question was
asked relative to overcrowding--overcrowding was simply poor planning. The
density was dependent upon how good the developer planned the living space of
his units. At the outset he stated that the City's present ordinance was a
"money guzzler". As an example, 18 units to the acre could use the same pool
as 14 units to the acre. The difference lay in the fact that the cost was
being split between 18 families vs 14 families. The same was true relative
to the cost of landscaping, maintenance and other recreatiom facilities. If
they wanted to provide affordable housing, that is for someone making $27,000
a year, they were going to have to change the present ordinance because it
could not be done under that ordinance.
Mr. Dick Darbo, Executive Director, Anaheim Economic Development Corporation,
first explained the purpose of the Corporatio~ after which he stated that there
was a land crunch in Anaheim. Land in the La Palma industrial area cost approx-
imately $450,000 an acre and closer in on housing acreage, one-third could be
added to that price per acre. They visited with firms on a daily basis and
there were very strong concerns in the high technology industries in the City
about being able to attract people. They were competing with cities to the
east. In Banning and the surrounding area, for a $1,000 down payment, it was
possible to buy a home for approximately $65,000. Industry was forced to go
where the labor could afford to live. Anaheim's employment growth was less
than one-half the County's employment growth over the past decade.
Councilman Roth noted in the AEDC report July to December 1950 it was indicated
that retention of industry in Anaheim was their main goal, but the problems
maintaining that goal were as follows: non-existence of available land for
plant expansion, too expensive housing, costs for employees, too great a dis-
tance for commuting, labor shortage or similar related problems; Mr. Darbo
confirmed that those were the same problems with which they were faced today.
Councilman Overholt asked if they had a profile of where the work force in
Anaheim lives; Mr. Darbo answered, they asked that question of each of the firms
they visited with, and it appeared that the bulk of the employees still live
within eight to ten miles of the plant.
Councilman Bay asked his opinion about constructing housing closer to the
industrial development; Mr. Darbo stated that they expressed that philosophy
to the firms they visited and to the builders and developers, the consensus
being for the price of land, it would not pencil out.
Mr. Bob Messe, 1523 South Bayless, stated Councilman Roth indicted earlier
that there were too many government controls and there should be fewer; he
agreed. However, at the meeting of February 24, 1981 (see minutes that date)
when they were discussing the Cerritos-Euciid condominium project, it was
81R-339
City Hall, Ana. h. eim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
stated that a one-bedroom unit in the affordable area was going to sell for
$34,000 less than the market unit selling for $68,000. If they did not put
a control on that, somebody was going to walk off with $34,000 and affordable
housing within five years. If they could not legislate the price of land, and
he did not think they could do so, perhaps Anaheim was not the place for
affordable housing. He also noted that Commissioner Bushore mentioned the
possibility of creating 2.5 parking spaces per unit in one area of the City
and 3.5 in another. He presumed he (Bushore) was not serious in making such
a suggestion.
At the conclusion of public input, Mayor Seymour stated, a subject that had
not been touched on and the reason why he was glad to hear from Mr. Darbo, was
the long-term economic impact to the City if they did not create housing. What
he heard from Mr. Darbo was that Orange County now had the number one priced
median home, the economy was threatened, corporations were moving out and high
technology could not attract people. Industry must go where the labor market
existed and lived. Anaheim's employment growth was less than the remainder of
the County. In speaking to Councilman Bay, since he was the Council's Liaison
representative to the AEDC, he asked what his recommendation was going to be
relative to the economy of the City on housing. He also wanted to hear from
the rest of the Council as to how they felt about the long-term affects of
the economy on the City.
Councilman Bay answered that he did not think they were going to solve the
need for housing for additional industry in Anaheim with the 3% of the property
left in the "flatland" area. He also did not say that he had the total solution
to that total economic problem. It was not as simple as that and there were
many other things involved, such as industrial land disappearing for any expan-
sion or development as well which was occurring in the Northeast Industrial
Area. He did not know that housing was the total solution. From the stand-
point of industrial growth and expansion, he hoped there were some new ideas
on how to accomplish that, perhaps by taking underdeveloped land in the City
now, even in industrial areas, and possibly revitalizing it f~r further develop-
ment of industry. They should also look toward the Riverside Freeway around the
Weir Canyon area and for more industrial development. He was hoping that some
of those ideas would help because he felt strongly the City should keep growing
in job base as well, if at all possible.
Relative to trying to solve the cost of housing in keeping or bringing industry
to the City, a great many people with whom he worked in the Northeast Industrial
Area were leaving Anaheim and commuting from gl~inore, Corona, etc., and driving
that 20 or 25 miles because they chose to sell their home in the City, take the
big profit, and buy a home for $30,000 or $40,000 less in those more distant
areas. The growth toward that area would furnish some of the housing regardless
of gasoline escalating in price.
He personally felt in some cases they needed to encourage density by going up
in the right places. For example, they were talking about condominiums in
the Redevelopment area and one within the Brashear's plan downtown. He also
mentioned areas near the industrial development in the northeast part of the
City and in the canyon area where they now had height restrictions of 35 feet
on structures in the canyon and Scenic Corridor area. If they were going to
81R-340
qity Hall, .Aq.~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
look at the broad span of the whole problem, they were g~ing to have to look at
all of those things. He was not against looking at them, but he did not think
they were going to solve the whole problem with the 3% left in the flatlands
where they were starting to get strong resistance from the public.
He did not feel that the 150-foot setback per se could not be reduced and con-
trolled some better way to make it more flexible to build something. Somewhere
in between the no growth pattern and no change pattern there was a middle road
for them to reach, and he felt that was what they were trying to do. His pre-
vious comments were only a warning to the fact if they started changing the
basic rule and then had more edicts placed upon them, they could reach a point
of no return. As some of the speakers stated tonight, ten years from now, they
were going to be living with the mistakes made doing that. He did not know the
whole solution--he was present ready to negotiate and to give and take, but he
maintained they should be very careful as to how they were going to do so from
a legal standpoint, because they were going to be looking at more legal edicts
every year unless State government changed the way he hoped the Federal govern-
ment was going to start changing.
Councilwoman Kaywood also referred to the possiblity of condominiums in the
downtown Redevelopment area, and it was her intent in that area that possibly
the density could be enlarged where it would make sense, as well as provide a
great many jobs. If people lived and worked in that area, it would be an
ideal situation eliminating the possibility of the necessity for a car. If
public transportation were available, parking standards could possibly be cut,
but she did not want to cut parking standards first and then hope for a miracle
thereafter. The main problems they had throughout the City involved a lack of
parking where streets were crowded with cars parked bumper to bumper. This
also caused an inability to clean the streets and that had to be taken into
account under the Street Sweeping Program. People must not park on the street
during the cleaning period. Another item not touched upon and which had caused
a significant change because of Proposition 13 was the fact that people who had
owned their homes for a long time did not move because they were paying very
little in monthly payments. She felt they should also look ftr~ther into a
program where younger couples might move in with older people, widows living
alone, in a house that was too much for the older person(s) to maintain. The
work could be shared or whatever was necessary to help out in that regard. She
also noted that there were now more youngsters living in her neighborhood but
several school properties now vacated were being sold off. If housing was going
to be provided on those vacant school properties, they should consider that they
might be needing schools again. She wanted to be able to look ahead and solve
some of the problems. While they were concerned with the shortage of housing,
they should keep in mind it was not something new. Her concern was still for
the overall City and that concern Would not change. The future belonged to the
City and whatever decisions they made that were going to impact the City would
be around for 50 or 100 years. She was not in favor of increasing density
and decreasing parking. It was a very poor package.
Councilman Roth stated he was concerned about the economic well-being of the
community. They had to consider not only existing Jobs and expansion of
existing plants, but also the possibility of wooing new industry. He referred
to a consultant's report done for a large Orange County firm, the recommendation
81R-341
City Hall~ An~h~im~..C.ali~ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
being that they should not expand in Orange County because of the problem of
housing. Some of the large corporations were so deeply concerned relative to
housing they were involved in the purchase of homes and condominiums to retain
and gain new employees. They could not expect to say to people that they
should move out to Corona or Lake Elsinore, etc. In the past, some of the
cities to the east had placed moratoriums on sewers which was a no growth
policy. As well, prices were escalating in those cities as well. He was also
deeply concerned over the fact that FHA today at 13% or 14% interest under
the 245 Program was telling the seller that he had between 7½ and 8~ points
to put the deal together. That was going to shut off FHA and VA housing in
the community. He was trying to come up with a happy medium to insure the
economic well-being of the community and industry and devise some compromise
that would provide some type of affordable housing in the City.
Councilman Overholt stated his concern was to have some guidelines that citizens
and developers could rely on. His personal feelings were that the recommenda-
tions from staff by and large were well taken. In viewing what the Planning
Commission and Council had done in specific cases on an ad hoc basis, it spanned
a wide range. What they had done in each individual case had been well thought
out, but if he were a developer it would be a "gamble" to know what he could
count on when he started dealing with City government. He felt consistency was
the important factor. What they did tonight was not going to solve the housing
problem that they faced. They had a housing problem because everybody wanted
to live and work in the City. The Mayor pointed out earlier that .004% of the
housing was now affordable in the City and thus what they did tonight was not
going to have a tremendous impact, but it would have some impact in providing
more housing for people who wanted to live in Anaheim. He reiterated they
should give some consistency to the way they handled the processes to give some
predictability to the citizens and developers to know what they could do in
Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour stated, relative to the economic question and long-term impact
on the economy of Anaheim, without an economy, without a job, nothing else
would happen. If the economy failed, there would be no jobs ~nd no incomes.
Relative to future' economic growth. He cited the example of what had occurred
in Santa Clara County where they priced themselves out of the housing market
and as a result could not find a labor market to fill the jobs of the high
technology industries based in that area and which today were suffering
miserably. He also felt the price Anaheim would pay in the long term would
be a failing economy. They were not going to solve the housing problem for
the world or the County. At best they could begin to solve some of the housing
problems in Anaheim. He did not think there was a Council Member that would
vote for anything that was likely to cause some of the disastrous circumstances
he had heard about in the public hearings. What they had been talking about
and what staff was recommending were some changes that would permit the City
to develop within a master plan that they all agreed upon. He reiterated, as
he had done many times, that if they accepted every standard being recommended
to be changed, they would at very best begin to approach what they had already
allowed for in the infrastructure, in the planning process and in the General
Plan everybody had a hand in approving. The perception of what would happen
if the standards were changed and what truly would happen were two different
81R-342
C.~ty Hall~ ~naheim~ ..Californ~ .- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 57 1981,. 7:00 P.M.
things entirely. He did not think they should continue to have variances.
Those who would trade off at this point for a continuation of no policies and
more variances in the long term were going to head for trouble. It was time
that they dealt with the question. If they did not want affordable housing,
then the majority of the leadership of the Council should say so and amend
the General Plan.
In concluding, the Mayor stated he knew they were not going to please everyone
in the community but he, for one, was prepared to move ahead with the rather con-
servative "recommendations" relative to the change in standards staff was
recommending. He did not see that those were going to damage anybody's environ-
ment.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct staff to prepare appro-
priate amendments to the "RM-3000" standards as follows: (see staff recommen-
dations in report dated February 13, 1981):
A. Increase the maximum density by allowing gross land area instead of net
land area to be the basis for the density calculations.
B. Allow bachelor/studio units not to exceed 20% of the overall project and to
have minimum floor areas of 550 square feet.
C. Decrease the parking standard to a minimum of 2.5 parking spaces per unit,
provided, however, that bachelor/studio units, if permitted, may have a minimum
of 2.0 parking spaces.
D. To permit setback performance standards to be developed for further con-
sideration and possible refinement by the Planning Commission and City Council.
E. Relative to condominium conversions, to postpone any actions on changing
condominium conversion standards until some future time when that aspect can
be more deliberately dealt with.
F. Relative to density bonus, to consider a continuation of a density bonus
of 25%.
G. Relative to resale price controls, to continue consideration of such
controls until some future time when that aspect can be more deliberately
dealt with. ~-
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor, speaking to his motion, stated he felt it
represented a reasonable, middle ground step forward. If the Council could
get its act together on the motion before them, they could say to the develop-
ment community there will be no variances or changing of development standards
on a case-by-case basis. He felt they could hold the line. If the Council
would accept that or refine it to some minor degree in the future, they again
would have a unified Planning Cormnission and unified City Council so that the
neighborhoods could have some peace of mind as well. It was critical that
standards of the type staff had recommended be adopted to bring a rational
approach to development in the City in the future.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned how he could say that the neighborhoods would
have peace of mind when the Council would be doubling the density allowed.
Mayor Seymour stated that the Council would not be doubling the density and
that was a misstatement of fact. Condominium development at present permitted
14 units to the acre. Her statement would mean 28 units to the acre. Under
81R-343
City Hall, Anah~n,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981~ 7:00 P.M.
the site development standards proposed, it would be impossible to develop 28
units to the acre unless variances were granted. He was suggesting that they
come up with new rules and not grant variances.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that people had been coming in with multiple variances
and getting them in many cases for the ten years she had been on the Planning
Commission and the Council. She wanted to know why human nature was suddenly
going to change.
The Mayor stated they did not have a difference on the City Council and differ-
ences of opinion on the Planning Commission until approximately one year ago
when they began groping as to how they were going to adopt standards. Prior
to that time, at least between 1974 and up to a year ago, there were not a
rash of variances given particularly for economic reasons. The only variances
given for the most part were true hardship cases.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation from staff relative to the following:
the present method of calculating density allowed under RM-3000 was roughly
14 dwelling units per acre. Switching to gross would roughly take it to 18
dwelling units per acre. With a 25% density bonus added to that, he asked
how many dwelling units that would allow.
Mr. Ron Thompson answered, approximately 22.5 net which would calculate to
approximately 18 on a gross basis. Based on the General Plan as it was, that
would calculate density going from a net density to a gross density. Thus, on
a gross density, there would be up to 18 units per acre which would be the way
they used to look at units approximately 22.5 on a net acre. If the General
Plan did not talk about gross or net, it would still fall within the General
Plan category of low-medium.
Councilman Bay stated, in effect, they would be increasing the dwelling units
from 14 to 18 by changing the Code on RM-3000 whether affordable or not. A
minimum 25% density bonus would take the project up to 22 to 23 dwelling units
per acre. He liked the talk of no variances and preferred that to be written
into the motion because, not only in the past year but also perhaps the past
three or four years, many developments had gone over the density being proposed
considering the many variances given. If they could lock down the policy of
no variances, they might, in effect, be reducing what had been done in the past
overall. The 25% density bonus was the maximum under the law and he asked the
Mayor's feeling on the maximum density bonus from a policy standpoint.
The Mayor answered that included in his motion was 25% maximum. Relative to the
other point he (~ay~ had made, in looking at Table 4 of the February 13, 1981
staff report, if the motion were carried through and they did not offer variances
for economic reasons, six of the eleven projects listed would not have been
approved.
Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood upon Council-
woman Kaywood's question as to why they had been approved. At the conclusion of
discussion, Commissioner Charlene Barnes stated the real reason they approved a
number of the projects was because approximately a year ago when there was com-
munication between the Planning Commission and the Council (see minutes September 2,
81R-344
City Hal.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU. TES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
1980), they were almost directed by the Council to do anything they could do
to increase housing in Anaheim. In a good faith effort, that was what they
attempted to do. Relative to variances before that time, most of the variances
in Anaheim were technical ones and not density bonuses, and there were very few
variances. After that time, variances were granted and it was at the direction
of the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what would happen if the State said that a 25% bonus
was not enough and they had to give 50%; Mayor Seymour answered, he supposed at
that point they would address the matter and if a majority of the Council felt
the standards should be revised the other way, he would think they would revise
them.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could revise the standards downward legally
at this point; Mayor Seymour stated if they could demonstrate it was within
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, "yes". There was a law that was
passed within the last couple of years stating that they could not unreasonably
restrict growth in the community in consideration of a fair share allocation of
housing unless it threatened the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. If
that were so, they did not have to consider their fair share of housing as de-
fined.
Commissioner Gerald Bushore noted that the average density bonus granted in the
11 projects approved (~ee Table 4), not counting Cypress Village because no
decision had been made on that issue yet, there was an average 66% density
bonus granted. That worked out to be 24.4 units or 10.4 per acre above current
Code. Of all the 369 units approved, they would probably never see Brookhurst
Gardens, Brookhurst Village, the Matlock development and the Sunset Realty pro-
ject. Twenty-one units were now built at Cinnamon Hollow and 30 units were
being built on Webster Street. He did not see where a great impact was going
to be created or the great fear.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the big problem was precedent. 'She continued that
she could not go along with increasing density and decreasings-parking at the
same time. When they were requiring off-street parking for street sweeping,
it was not the time to have more density and less parking.
After further Council discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood asked how the proposed
motion would affect the condominium project at Cerritos and Euclid; Planning
Director Thompson answered that he would anticipate that it would be very close
to meeting the proposed standards with the 25% density bonus.
Mayor Seymour stated he would hope that they would not design any ordinance
around one project.
Councilman Overholt stated that he had some personal feelings as to whether or
not they were required to grant the density bonus based on his understanding of
the section they had talked about time and time again.
Mayor Seymour stated if that be so, he could understand that and if there was
a way around it, he had no problem.
81 -345
City ~all,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1981, 7:00 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he was prepared to vote on and support the Mayor's motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if part of the motion was no variances; the Mayor
answered, legally he did not know how they could say that, but that would be
his personal intent.
A vote was the taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood and Council-
man Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not know that they could restrict them-
selves from considering an application for variances and he did not know if they
would want to vote to restrict considering those applications. The whole pur-
pose of the deliberation was to try to establish standards so that they could
adhere to those standards without having to consider applications for variances.
His policy was going to be to adhere to the standards without being concerned
about variances.
Mayor Seymour asked that staff draw the ordinances to be brought back to the
Council and Planning Commission for one more work session.
After a brief discussion relative to the date for that next session, it was
the consensus that the work session be held Tuesday, March 24, 1981, at 7:00
P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Tuesday, March 10, 1981 at
11:30 A.M. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00
Midnight)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK