Loading...
1978/06/1278-724 Main Library - 500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978~ 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION: David, Linn, King, Tolar, Barnes and Herbst PLANNING COMMISSION: Johnson HACMAC: Buffington, Hall, Gowa, Pinson, Rau and Walsh CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Phil Schwartze ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the Council to order at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a joint meeting with the City Planning Commission and the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC). Chairmen Tolar and Buffington called their respective Boards to order, each having sufficient members present to constitute a quorum. Prior to proceeding with the Agenda prepared for the meeting, Mayor Seymour ex- plained for Planning Commissioner Tolar that the role of the Planning Commission in Redevelopment was not inadvertently left off the list of items to be discussed this evening, but rather would be scheduled at a meeting of both the Planning Commission and Community Redevelopment Commission in the near future. Mayor Seymour made a brief introductory statement explaining that this particular joint session and the agenda for discussion came about as a result of meetings between the Council Liaison Committee dealing with land use planning, zoning and HACMAC functions (Councilwoman Kaywood and himself) and the leadership of both the Planning Commission and HACMAC. He stressed that he hoped the dialogue between the three groups would be beneficial in bringing the three closer for the purpose of working together for the benefit of all the citizens of Anaheim. A. APARTMENT HOUSE CONVERSIONS: Mayor Seymour noted that this item was placed on the agenda in response to concerns expressed by Planning Commission Members as to what the basis or standards would be for conversion of apartment houses to condo- miniums. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in the past, there was a unanimous feeling among Council Members that apartments were built to be apartments and that condominums had different standards. Therefore, when apartments applied for conversion to allow ownership as condominium units, they could not meet the condominium criteria because of (1) shortage of parking spaces; (2) lack of permanent storage space for residents; (.3) the lack of soundproofing or insUlation between common walls. She summarized that, in general, apartments were built for transients and not for permanent living. Councilwoman Kaywood noted with the current tight housing market and low vacancy factor in apartments of two to three percent, the availability of low-cost rental units has become even more strained, and, inher oPinion, apartment~house conversions 78-725 Main Librar~ - 500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978, 7:00 P.M. have taken housing away from a segment of the market. She also noted that builders have used the intention of developing housing for senior citizens as a ploy to circumvent parking requirements, and then define seniors as those 50 years of age or older. Councilman Roth stated that his main concern is the continuous problem of how to provide fairly good residential properties for low and medium income families. He noted that there are many people attempting to place their names on lists for purchase of such apartment house conversions to condominiums. He voiced his belief that involvement by ownership in a property will greatly improve the environment for living. He also was of the opinion that the City should not have two standards, one which is good enough for apartment living, but not good enough for condominiums. He concluded that he is very interested in the apartment conversions as possible lower cost residential properties and felt the Council should consider each project on its own merits and not give any blanket approval or disapproval. Councilman Kott was of the opinion that if an apartment owner desires to convert his property to condominiums, then he should have that right unless it is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the building itself. He agreed each should be judged on its own merit. Mayor Seymour stated that most apartment housing currently existing in the community was built more than 10 years ago and the majority of that stock under the old park- ing requirements of 1~:1; therefore, most of these buildings cannot meet the first test applied when considering conversions, that of parking. Mayor Seymour commented further that perhaps the City Planning Commission might consider whether some of the other standards such as density or distances between buildings and allow some flexibility in these areas as trade-offs to insure that the City has a variety of low and middle income housing available. He noted that the only way any new construction will provide such housing opportunities for low and middle income is through a subsidized program. He voiced the opinion that the City has to find a vehicle to make lower income housing opportunities available other than the Federal subsidy programs, and he felt apartment conversions to be an exciting opportunity. During additional discussion, Planning Commissioner Tolar pointed out that according to the recognized standards for new construction today, these older apartment pro- jects would not even qualify for compliance under the current RM-1200 zone and site development standards. He concurred that there is a need for low-cost housing, but in the area of apartment conversion to ownership pointed out that there is a wide disparity between the criteria for new construction and what exists in these older apartment units. Using a recent apartment conversion project as an example, he noted that the Planning Commission felt it was so far removed from the City's standards and criteria that they voted 7-0 to deny it, and then the developers made some changes to clean it up somewhat before they brought it before the City Council. He voiced the opinion that the Council and Planning Commission need better communication in relationship to conversions, specifically in the form of better guidelines if they are both of the same philosophical approach to the con- versions. Mayor Seymour concurred with Commissioner Tolar and noted that the Council will most likely continue to approve such projects after denial by the Planning Commis- 78-726 Main Library - 500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978~ 7:00 P.M. sion because of the stringent standards the Planning Commission is dealing with, and that is why these standards should now be reviewed and some guidelines or criteria developed for apartment to condominium conversions which are more con- sistent in actual practice. Commissioner Herbst noted that the developers are conscious of the fact that apartment house conversions are very lucrative and he felt it important that the City review its standards and in particular that a conversion project be reviewed as to whether or not the developer would be allowed to build it today under present condominium standards. He also felt the developer should know, at staff level, before he gets to the Planning Commission and City Council, that he has certain criteria to meet. At the conclusion of Planning Commission discussion, Mayor Seymour summarized that the Council is seeking the help of the Planning Commission to review the situation and determine whether or not there is an area of reasonableness some- where between what current criteria and standards are and what exi'sts in these older apartment house projects, to develop more reasonable apartment houses to condominium conversion standards. In response to concerns raised by Planning Commissioners David and Linn regarding what will occur to those low-income rental families who may be ultimately displaced by such conversions, Mayor Seymour stated that he is satisfied that the City of Anaheim has met its responsibilities as far as providing a percentage of its housing stock in apartment units; and secondly, he noted that even with a lessening of standards, new construction could not come in with condominium units at less than $65,000 each, which would not address the need for low-income housing. He reiterated that the only alternative he could see at this time to provide for low- income housing is through a subsidized program. Commissioner David stated that he is anxiously awaiting the results of a study being prepared by one of the Community Development Department offices which should generate some kind of action on the identification of land available for low-cost housing. He voiced the opinion that the Planning Commission should take a leader- ship position in this area. At the conclusion of discussion on apartment house condominium conversions, Mayor Seymour summarized that he would construe the Council's input to the Planning Commission to indicate that in this review of the criteria for conversions, they hold tight onto the parking standards, but perhaps be more flexible in the area of density or in the 6 to 8 other technical types of variances which usually need to be requested. Councilman Kott interjected that to his thinking, the Council and' Planning Commis- sion are intermixing social kinds of problems in their discussion of land use plan- ning and commented that when you raise the price of a piece of real estate, you wiii eliminate the ability of certain people from a given economic category to live, but this is not a resolution of the basic social problem which creates the slums. B. LOT FRONTAGES IN HILL AND CANYON AREA: Mr. Lynn Buffington stated that he felt the Planning Commission recommendations on these matters were very consistent. There was only one major area in which probably the HACMAC recommendation was very conserva- tive and that was in regard to percentages of flag lots. In general he summarized 78-727 Main Library -500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978~ 7:00 P.M. that the HACMAC Members feel good about the situation and the results of discus- sions. He reported there is one item yet to be resolved and that pertained to RS-HS-10,000 and sideyard set back. Mrs. Hall concurred that the discussions between HACMAC and Planning Commission have been good; that the Planning Commission Members have listened to the HACMAC input, and compromises have been worked out. She noted also that there are some very large tracts now being submitted for approval which she felt were obviously being timed to beat the new ordinance. A brief discussion was held with Miss Santalahti reporting which tracts were recently submitted for approval in the Hill and Canyon area. Mayor Seymour concluded that the problem lies in the fact that many developers can achieve greater densities by using flag lots. He felt that the study and discussions held between the Planning Commission and HACMAC had worked out these problem areas. Commissioner Barnes interjected that there are some Planning Commission Members who are in agreement with the use of flag lots to create more frontages on the street. C. HACMAC PURPOSE, FUNCTION AND TIMING: Mayor Seymour reviewed the history of HACMAC noting that it came into being after the Hill and Canyon Task Force had accomplished their goals, primarily because the City Council recognized that this form for both developers and homeowner representatives provides an effective sounding board at which each might air their complaints. He noted that there has been some concern expressed that there be a reclarification of HACMAC, its duties and how it functions and its relationship with the Planning Commission. He con- cluded that he believed the City Council wishes to continue this Board as a vehicle of communication with the Hill and Canyon area and questioned how HACMAC Members might envision their role, as well as how they feel they might do a more effective and more efficient job. Mr. Buffington recalled that initially when HACMAC was formed, they took the approach of being an advance planning group whose function was to work with developers in advance; that they picked up the pulse of the community and attempted to eliminate potential problems before the project got to Planning Commission or City Council. He added that a major function of HACMAC, in his opinion, would be to implement the amended General Plan for the Hill and Canyon area; to concern itself with the day-to-day problems of the Canyon residents and homeowners associations. He recalled that although HACMAC is an advisory group and has taken that approach, some comments they have made have been confusing to others. Therefore, they have adopted a more formal approach to their recommendations and comments to the Planning Commission, to make these more definitive in the hopes of reducing this confusion. Councilman Roth stated that he would like to hear comments from the Planning Commissioners on this matter because of his personal concern that there might be a duplication of efforts. He noted that with the number of people it takes to support this advisory group and the attendant cost, it is important to determine whether or not the City is requiring the same people who have met with HACMAC to go through the same exercise before the Planning Commission. He added that if the HACMAC approach is a valid one, then why should there not be a municipal advisory committee established for other areas of the City? 78-7~ Main Library - 500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978~ 7:00 P.M. Planning Commissioner Tolar stated that he does see some duplication in HACMAC efforts and noted that developers have voiced concerns to him that review by HACMAC of their project adds another level of bureacracy through which they have to negotiate prior to getting their development approved. In addition he noted that the media have in the past misconstrued HACMAC recommendations and supported the projects as approved or disapproved, which certain developers accepted as the bottom line. Commissioner Tolar concluded that basically, while he feels the dialogue coming out of HACMAC does some good, it still puts the developers in the position of presenting their project to HACMAC and then to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Barnes pointed out that the Planning Commission has been asked to delay consideration of a project until HACMAC has had time to review it. She stressed that Planning Commission Members receive their agendas and packets on Friday and have only the weekend in which to study them before making decisions on Monday. She felt it unfair to keep a developer waiting a month or so for HACMAC to review his project. She also referred to certain map~ which are provided HACMAC, but not to Planning Commission. She was of the opinion that many of the decisions the Planning Commission has made would have been made exactly the same had they had no input at all from HACMAC. Commissioner Linn expressed the views that HACMAC does have a function and purpose and perhaps the amount of money it takes to support that group is the price of peace in the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Although he concurred the Planning Commission might have reached the same decision without input from HACMAC, he nevertheless felt there is value in having a place where people in the area can go to express their opinions. Commissioner Herbst stated that within the past 30 days, HACMAC had given the Planning Commission input which they would not otherwise have had because these people live in the area, know the problem, and can assist the Planning Commission in seeing that there is no duplication of errors made in the past. He voiced the opinion that the HACMAC should, however, review only new development planning and not variances and conditional use permits. He remarked that he did not think it is fair to the applicant that HACMAC could review and make recommen- dations without benefit of a public hearing and that there is no way to know if both sides have been heard. He added that he felt it is advantageous to continue HACMAC review and input on new project planning. At the conclusion of comments from the Planning Commission, Mayor Seymour stated that he strongly felt that whatever the cost which is attached to HACMAC is well worth it, even five-fold. He stated that perhaps the Planning Commission and Council are too soon forgetting the numbers of irate Hill and Canyon residents in the Chambers and the laborious, lengthy and continued hearings which were necessary before some Planning Commission items could be resolved. Commission Tolar concurred with the earlier comment that the HACMAC input and relationship to new development is invaluable, however he felt that their review of variances and conditional use permits is a duplication and is not necessary to accomplish Council's goals. In response to this comment, Mayor Seymour pointed out a recent conditional use permit pertaining to a liquor store over which there was great concern of the people living nearby. It was also pointed out that the need for a municipal advisory commission is much greater in the Hill and Canyon area 78-7f9 Main Library - 500 West Broadway - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 19.78~ 7:00 P.M. because that property is only 15 percent developed, whereas other areas of the City are 85 percent developed° In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mrs. Hall explained that the maps earlier referred to are prQvided by developers at no cost to the City. She explained that prior to HACMAC, each homeowner group was obtaining copies of maps and EIRs from developers and each homeowner group, acting as individual agents for their area, would take staff time asking questions. The developers are happy to provide these maps and EIRs because they wish the public to accept their projects. She concluded that the same work is now being done as a group which used to be done individually by 10 or 12 people as homeowner group representatives. Speaking as a developer, Mr. Buffington felt HACMAC has, in most cases, helped to eliminate the need for a developer to seek acceptance of his project from various community groups and has therefore, shortened the time it takes for approval. HACMAC Member John Rau pointed out that the area represented by HACMAC is a growth area; that the study undertaken by the Council some time ago indicated a potential impact of a $57 million loss to the City in terms of costs of municipal services to support the area if developed in certain ways. He felt the Council has a moral obligation to look closely at these considerations. Mr. Rau reported that HACMAC has taken a look at how they best represent them- selves and instituted some positive steps toward providing a more specific and accurate reflection of their thinking by showing the numbers of favorable and unfavorable votes on issues. In addition, they will be sending reports with detailed documentation on the subject of EIRs, the Anaheim Hills study of consumer demands and preferences and on what they feel the major issues will be with regard to development of the Bauer Ranch. With relation to timing, Mr. Rau explained HACMAC has been very concerned that they not hold up the developers as they do not want to increase red tape. Mrs. Hall added that HACMAC also performs the function of letting the people in the area know what is happening, which the legal process would otherwise have excluded. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that because of their meetings being held at night and because they are held out in the Hill and Canyon area, the HACMAC is much more accessible to the people. She felt however, that any comment from HACMAC on a project should be strictly in a recommendation form and not something worded as "denied" or "approved", which the media could pick up as a decision having been made. She felt that as an advance planning tool, HACMAC is essential and there appears to be no disagreement in this area. Councilman Overholt questioned whether some or any part of the $20,000 necessary to support this advisory board could not be borne by someone other than the City, to which Mr. Buffington replied that they were only recently made aware of the costs involved and have held, prior to this meeting, some discussions as to ways of cutting expenses. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour summarized that it appeared from a majority of the comments made by the Planning Commission and Council that they wished to see ILACMAC continue and that the input and recommendations received 78-730 Main Library - 500 West Broadw. ay - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 12~ 1978~ 7:00 P.M. from them are necessary. However, it would make it easier for the Planning Commission if recommendations were more definitive and press reporting of projects being approved or disapproved by HACMAC could be avoided. In addition, he felt HACMAC should remain alert and sensitive to the timing constraints faced by the developers, and if necessary to pass something along with an incomplete recommendation, making it known by going forward at the Planning Commission or City Council hearings. D. COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: Commissioner Tolar reported that the Planning Commission has requested from staff the development of some type of master plan for the northeast industrial area, i.e., some criteria for a master plan of industrial development. The other question to be considered in conjunc- tion with this master plan is the relationship of commercial to industrial development which historically 15 to 20 percent commercially related enterprises were permitted in the industrial zone, whereas recently large commercial enterprises such as Wickes Furniture Store, have caused the Planning Commission to come to grips with this question. E. MOBILE HOME PARK/CONDOMINIUMS: Commissioner Tolar stated that this is also a report item and noted that the City Planning Commission intends to instruct staff to prepare some type of mobile home park/condominium development standards which they would review and forward to Council. ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Barnes moved to adjourn. Commis- sioner King seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - HACMAC: Mr. Buffington moved to adjourn. Mrs. Hall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:25 P.M. ~OBER~