Loading...
1974/11/04City Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1974~ 7:00 P.M. The CltTM Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom (left 8:20 P.M.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas PLANNINC COMMISSION: King, Farano, Herbst, Gauer, Tolar and Morley (arrived 7:40 P.M.) PLANNING COMMISSION: Johnson CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CiTY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr. CITY CLERK: Aloha M. Hougard CITY fNCINEER: James P. Maddox ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt OFFICE ENGINEER: Jay Titus DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Alan G. Orsborn ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don E. McDaniel Planning Commission Chairman Herbst called the Planning Commission to to order. Mayor Thom called the adjourned regular Council meeting to order, indicating that this work session was called to discuss the proposed revisions to Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Land Development and Resources, Chapter [~7.O6 grading, excavations and fills in hillside areas. I. OBJECTIVES OF BOTH COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE GRADING ORDINANCE AS STATED AT THIS SESSION: Mayor Thom noted that one of the objectives which both Council and Planning Commission were moving'towards was a less massive movement of earth in the grading process~ i.e., to implement development in the hill and canyon area without tearing the hills apart and rebuilding. In this connection, he noted that one of the reasons which the proposed amendment to the grading ordinance has been heard and reheard is that it begins to appear from an engineering standpoint that what occurs with this type of ordinance is that the groundwork or preparation is laid for even more massive movements of earth, and he requested comments from the Planning Commission on this subject. II. EVALUATION OF THE AMENDED GRADING ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED TO DATE: Commissioner Herbst gave a brief synopsis of the Planning Commission's activities in regard to the grading ordinance since it was last referred to them for review. He indicated that the Planning Commission in general feels this to be a well written technical document having the main emphasis on engineering implications. If grading is going to occur, this document will certainly set the framework as to how it will be done. The only point about which there seems to be some contention and problems is the determination whether or not this ordinance will require the 1½:1 or 2:1 slope ratio, and where. In this connection, Anaheim Hills has suggested a compromise solution that the ordinance require 1½:1 slope ratio below 25 feet and 2:1 for slopes greater than 25 feet. However, the problem remains the Council and/or Commission must make the determination regarding slope ratios. It was felt the size of required safety benches should be left to the engineers to determine. Other concerns which were registered during Planning Commision work sessions were relative to the perpetual maintenance requirements for the slopes; specifically whether,or no~ the CC&R's will be sufficient to implement the necessar~ maintenance in the long run; the problems involved with smaller devel- opers or, individual lot owners and whether they will be required to form Home- owners Associations for perpetual maintenance as well; the problems which may be created by having a gardener in rear yards for professional slope maintenance purposes without the permission of the property owner. Mr. Herbst summarized that in the r~eview, the Planning Commission was looking for a "handle" which could be placed in this ordinance and would allow controls on grading. However, in retrospect, he suggested that perhaps this is not the proper place for such regulation because of the technical and engineering orientation of the document. 74-1069 Anaheim City Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1974~ 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Farano added to this evaluation the observation that the proposed ordinance does not devise or create any criteria whereby decisions relative to grading, i.e., how much grading if any, should be performed, can be based. He felt this situation is unfair to all parties concerned, particularly the developers since they do not know where they stand. He commented that the ordinance as written is well stated, however, the .Planning Commission thinks that the mechanics are available to make the decision as to whether or not any grading should in fact be undertaken and to what extent. III. SUGGgSTIONS FOR REVISION: Commissioners Farano and Herbst both felt it would be advisable that the City Planning Commission consider the grading plan at the same time that the E.I.R. for a project is submitted. They noted that the E.I.R. is the first clue which the Planning Commission receives as to whether or not the grading to be performed will be relatively minimal or massive, and they feel that the grading plan at this time would assist them further in the consideration of the entire project by giving them a better picture of what is proposed. Commissioner Farano noted that the Commission, after much discussion among itself and staff, has discovered that the machinery by which a decision as to whether grading should be undertaken at all, and if so the extent of same, is available in the form of a recommendation made by the Commission pursuant to what is reported in the environmental impact report. At present, whenever the developer proposes to move more than 100 cubic yards of dirt, whether it is in connection with a tract map or otherwise, an E.I.R. is required to be filed with the Planning Commission. He indicated that he has some question as to what the net sffect of the Planning Commission and/or Council action is in these cases sincs the only action to be taken by these bodies is to recommend an action on whether or not the E.I.R. as submitted conforms to the guidelines set up pursuant to the California Environmental Act. However, according the the City Attorney's Office, even if the E.I.R. does comply with the California Environ-mental Quality Act, the City Planning Commission can make recommendations to the City Council that permission to do that amount of grading as set forth be denied, based on the anticipated effect on the environment as set forth in the E.I.R. Commissioner Farano stated that they feel this is an effective means of handling this question. He further stated it would be the Planning Commission recommendation that certain changes in the requirements for preparation and filing of tract maps be studied and possibly adopted by the City Council, to perhaps have the developers submit a grading map or three-dimensional topographic of the project at the time that the E.I.R. is considered. Commissioner Tolar stated that the most effective tool he has seen so far for evaluation of a project is the grading map itself. He felt this should be submitted prior to the tentative map and early enough in the project planning so that the developer has not yet expended a great deal of money. He stated that he was of the opinion that a requirement for a grading map should be incor- porated in the ordinance. In regard to concerns expressed by Planning Commissioners relative to slope maintenance, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to an article given her by Mr. Roland Krueger describing the observation made by an engineer from the City of Los Angeles staff that when 1½:1 slopes are properly compacted to 95% density it is very difficult to obtain good plant growth and erosion becomes a problem. Councilman Seymour stated that he did not agree that the vehicle or control tool is the E.I.R.; that this is not what the E.I.R. was intended to do and such use would constitute a bastardization of the E.I.R. process. He stated that he personally felt it imperative that some standards be set up, as the present situation of dealing with grading decisions without any concrete' criteria is unfair to the Plannin~ Commission, City Council, developer and homeowner. He referred to a concept originally su$$ested by Dan Rowland, that the amount of grading permitted be tied to the degree of natural, slope which exists. In this manner, if the slope is of zero to 101 the developer may move "X" amount of dirt; if the slope is zero to 20% then "X-i" may be moved, etc., so that as the slope becomes greater, a lesser amount of grading would be permitted. Commissioner Herbst pointed out that the City Planning Commission realized there was a SaP somewhere in the process 'When they recently considered a development in the canyon area (Tract No. 8783) a~d the actual maps of what 74-1070 Anaheim City Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1974~ 7:00 P.M. was propoaed were submitted which included the placement of 90-foot mounds of dirt adjacent to existing rear yards and called for massive amounts of grading. Discussion between Council and Commission ensued relative to this particular project, and Commissioner Farano explained the reasons which he offered the motion for denial of said project. He stated that the developer was proposing, via a massive grading operation (500,O00-cubic yards of dirt) to change the elevations of the property, lowering some and building others up, in order to create view lots and thereby increase the economic yield. As a result of this grading operation, existing barancas would have been sealed off and the size of slopes adjacent to existing developments increased considerably. Further he advised that this plan was the only one which the developer considered. During discussion Commissioner Gauer explained his view on Tract No. 8783, this being that since the property was zoned R-H-10,000 for some time and the developer had lived up to the conditions set forth, and further since the property surrounding it on all sides is in the R-H-10,000 Zone, that this devel- oper should have been permitted to proceed. At the conclusion of this discussion, Commissioner Farano agreed with commmnts made earlier by JOhn Millick of Anaheim Hills, Inc., (see Section IV) that the gradin$ plan and the density of the project are two different subjects and should be considered separately. City Attorney Watts advised that the grading ordinance has never addressed itself to the question of how much dirt may be moved but simply to the tech~ical requirements of either fill or compaction and how this is to be done from an ll~ineering standpoint. He noted that what occurs to him in considering this problem is that the grading permit procedure contained within the ordinance basically authorizes the City Engineer, under certain conditions, to either grant or deny grading permits. He suggested that Council may wish to define certain instances where massive grading or changes in the current surface elevation are proposed, and to require that in those stated instances the approval or denial of the grading permit must be given by the City Planning Commissio~ and/or City Council. He stated that one of the problems.inherent with the Ilthod of setting up a sliding scale ratio, permitting a developer to move "X" yards of dirt per acre, is that this is an arbitrary decision and the developer will continually then be seeking relief from this requirement. He a~vieed that staff would be more comfortable with the technique of establishing what is to be considered massive, tra,,m, tic grading and then requiring these calma to be reviewed on an individual basis by the Planning Commission or Council ae opposed to the City Engineer. In the interest of time, and to eliminate further encumbering the approval process with additional red tape, Mr. Watts £al~ perhmps it could be set up so that the grading permit can be reviewed by Council a~d/or Planning Commission in conjunction with some other requirement. Since, ms he recalls, there is no authority in the Subdivision Map Act to review this type of thing, it could not be done as a part of the tentative map approval. It would more properly be done under the grading ordinance as an exercise of the City's general police powers. In response to discussion relative to establishing the criteria upon ~hich the Planning Commission and/or City Council would base their Judgements as regards grading, Mr. Watts stated that since these standpoints have never been considered before, in order to establish same perhaps the Planning Commission and Council will have to just try some of these cases, developing criteria as they go. He cited as an example the massive fill proposed adjacent to an exist- ing residence in the tract recently considered and denied by the Planning COmmission and stated that this appears to be an appropriate criterion to con- ~ider. It was also sugsested by Mr. Murdoch that parameters as to what might'be considered too much grading and what is not should be established. Mayor Thom suggested that perhaps what is needed is a mathematical factor which will determine where the breaking point is and what are the reasonable limits for grading. 74-107.1 Anaheim ~:ity Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4, 1974~ 7:00 P.M. Mr. Jay Titus of the City Engineering staff advised that the grading permit at present is requested fairly late in the process of development approvals, after the improvement plans and tentative map have been approved, and after the developer has spent a considerable sum of money. He would concur that the grading permit be considered if possible at the time the E.I.R. is reviewed or some other point early in the process. Further discussion reflected the fact that Planning Commission had recommended that the grading map be tied in some way to the E.I.R. and considered along with it. Councilman Thom left the meeting and Councilman Seymour assumed Chair- manship. (8:20 P.M.) IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION: Mr. John Millick, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated that they have been reviewing various alternatives to grading with particu- lar emphasis on the suggestion made at the last Council/Planning Commission work session, i.e., utilizing the open flat areas by condensing development on them and leaving the slopes and hills in their natural state. With reference to Councilman Seymour's suggestion that a sliding scale be established to determine how much grading would be permitted, based on the slope analysis, in his experi- ence he did not feel this would work.' Mr. Millick was of the opinion that the stated objective of the Planning Commission and Council is in conflict with the proposed amendment to the grading ordinance, in that it is an engineering fact that in most cases there will be a 20% increase in cubic yardage when grading is necessitated by the 2:1 slope requirement as opposed to 1½:1. Another important consideration was the economic impact of this requirement. He reported that Anaheim Hills, Inc., took an existing project and figured out the grading it would take to generate the same pad area with the 2:1 slope requirement and it was ascertained that it cost an additional $7,000 to $8,000 per unit to generate the pad areas under the 2:1 requirement. He pointed out that this additional sum of money is purely infla- tionary and goes toward no improvement in the quality of the home or size of the pad or rear yard. He voiced the opinion that this requirement takes the soils engineer out of the picture since his recommendation becomes arbitrary. In his experience, when it is necessary to lay back a slope at the 2:1 slope ratio, the soils engineering consultant can be depended upon to notify the developer of this fact. Additionally, Mr. Millick noted that the 2:1 slope requirement, by virtue of the fact that more slope area is created, adds to the monthly mainte- nance costs of the slopes. He stated that a poll of professional landscape gardeners disclosed that they charge homeowner's associations on a straight square footage basis no matter what the slope ratio might be. He concluded that the grading ordinance as revised is a good technical document, with the exception of the 2:1 slope ratio problem. He pointed out that he felt the grading ordinance was not the proper mechanism for control of density, that this should be approached through zoning and the General Plan. Mr. Roland F. Krueger, Peralta Hills Improvement Association, indicated he was bothered by Mr. Millick's position that the 2:1 slope area would require more dirt to be moved, and pointed out that Mr. Millick's statements in this regard are all based on the same pad areas being developed. He stated that according to his calculations, with minimal sacrifice in pad areas, less dirt can be moved with a 2:1 slope ratio and still have slopes which are easier to handle and appear less formidable. In reply to Mr. Krueger, Mr. Millick used a line drawing to illustrate the amount of space lost as a result of a 2:1 slope grade versus 1½:1, which at the 25-foot level would be 20 feet. Mr. Millick pointed out that 20 feet lost from a rear yard is considerable and can make the difference between the home- owner being able to have a swimming pool, deck, etc. This space in the rear yard is an important amenity which the developer tries to provide and which he did not think the trade-off of having instead a 2:1 slope would justify. Mr. Horst Schor, Anaheim Hills, Inc., advised that if appearances are the major concern, then it should be considered that most people would not be able to distinguish by appearance a 2:1 slope from a 1½:1. He stated that 75% of the slope banks in Anaheim Hills wq%e graded at 2:1 and some at 3:1, because the soils engineering consultants recommended this be done. 7&-1072 Anaheim City Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, CalifO~ia COUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1974~ 7:00 P.M Mrs. Jean Morris, homeowner in the Westridge tract, indicated that their development has had many problems with slope maintenance, So~e because of the fact that the CC&R's did not require a homeowners association for slope maintenance at the beginning and that she felt this should work to everyone's advantage in the future. Further, she pointed out that it has been necessary to spend monumental amounts of money for retaining walls and extra pla~ts on slopes. She did not feel that the City should permit 1½:1 slopes if these create an unsafe condition. She clarified that she felt the 1½:1 ratio may be Safe on a five-foot slope but pointed out that basically they are having a serious p~oblem with the existing slopes even up to 25 feet; that there is a great deal df sloughing which then falls into the gunite water ways. She noted that although the homeowners are attempting to maintain these slopes, this is a difficult prospect. Mrs. Jan Hall felt that the ordinance should contain some kind of con- trol to assure that the necessary steps are taken and that the City sees to it that these are accomplished. Another problem which Mrs. Morris wished to discuss was that it is difficult getting drainage from these slopes out of the side yards with five- foot side yard setbacks. In her opinion these are not of sufficient size to assure proper draimage for the amount of water coming from the slopes. Mr. Devitt, Assistant City Engineer, assured Mrs. Morris that hydraulic studies are performed so that the Engineering Division has knowledge as to whether Or not the drainage courses will be sufficient. He advised that he has personally viewed instances where homeowners, by building tennis courts, swiping pools, etc., have diverted the water and this contributes to the problems men- tioned by Mrs. Morris. Mr. Millick pointed out that those safeguards mentioned are already provided in this amended ordinance; that the problems which Mrs. Morris outlined occurred prior to this time and the appropriate steps have been taken to insure they would not happen with future tracts. He pointed out the changes in landscap- ing requirements and in the requirement that a maintenance district be estab- lished. He noted that there is a legal problem insofar as the homeowner's associations are concerned in that no one can guarantee that a community associa- tion will remain solvent forever, but he pointed out that in other areas where these have been used for come,n maintenance this method has proven successful. Commissioner Herbst clarified for Mrs. Morris that his concern was not to remove the requirement for maintenance districts from the ordinance, but rather was directed at how this would affect the remainder of the property owners in the City of Anaheim and particularly those small or individual lot developments. Commissioner Farano pointed out that homeowners who elect to live in hill and canyon areas must accept the fact that there are certain inconveniences which they will have to endure because of slopes. There are inconveniences which present themselves wherever one lives and if unwilling to accept these, then that individual should move to an environment which is more acceptable. F~. Erueser stated that he has learned from the Engineering Department of the City of Los Angeles that they have experienced a greater maintenance cost with l~:l slopes because of small sloughs. They have experienced 2% or less sloughing with 2:1 slope ratios. In answer to Councilman Seymour's request for coment as to why the proposed developman~ by the McCarthy Company on the Del Giorgio property, which will require only 25,000 cubic yards of grading on 62~ acres, can be accomplished with this relatively minimal amount of grading, it was noted by Mr. Millick that this project is ba~ed on the concept of custom-desigmed h~mes, by which each ho~ is desired to fit the terrain of the particular lot, which is an expensive ~t~d of developing. He advised ~hat ~aheim ~ills, Inc. is planning this ty~ of develop~nt in ~heir estate prosr~. Mr. Schor also pointed out that the yardage to be graded for extension of Fairmont Boulevard has been excluded from the totals for this project, whereas on AnaheimHills yardase for secondary highways-was incorporated in the grading totals. '74-I(]73 ,\naheim City Personnel Department Conference Room, Anaheim, California [:OUNCIL MINUTES - November 4~ 1974~ 7:00 P.M. I~ ].ine with the theory of building to the terrain, Councilwoman Kas~ood also noted that a number of very innovative stilt-type houses have been constructed ;~.nd suggested that this concept might also be explored. Mr. Thomas Lake advised he was speaking as a soils engineer represent- ing several ~Jf the soils engineering groups, and stated that he did not care to see a technical ordinance used for the purpose of controlling density or amounts of grading; that these considerations have no place in such ordinances. In re~erence to the suggestion made that the slope ratios be utilized as a basis of determining the amount of earthmoving, he advised that this has been attempted and has been found to be unsatisfactory under close scrutiny. He advised that his organization would be happy to provide some input and Councilman Seymour urged that he attend the next Planning Commission work session. V. SUMMARY: Councilman Seymour summarized that the following factors appear to require further consideration and study: 1. The Commismion and Council have yet to resolve whether the amendment to the gradfng ordinance will require all 1½:1 slopes or all 2:1 slopes or a combination of both as suggested with 1½:1 permitted under 25 feet and 2:1 required over this elevation. 2. As regards maintenance of slopes created, will CC&R's be required and if so, how will these affect property owners who develop their individual lote. 3. The establishment of standards and/or criteria upon which decisions ragarding grading can be based, possibly by using a scale of cubic yards of dirt to be moved per acre plus considerations of change in elevation, etc. Councilwoman Kaywood added a further consideration, that there is also a need to develop standards and criteria to determine which slopes are to be coneidered too steep and therefore undevelopable. Mr. Don McDaniel, Planning Supervisor, for staff clarification purposes, lnquired whether the Council desired to have staff study the establishment of some maximum cubic yardage per acre of dirt to be moved and some elevation cha~ge level~, to which Councilman Seymour replied affirmatively. Mr. McDaniel then stated he must register his concern over the fact that each piece of property in the canyon area is in no way whatsoever like the adjacent parcel and to establish an arbitrary minimum or maximum amount of grading per acre, is a gamble at best. He replied to Councilman Seymour that the alternative he would suggest is to face the issue of having to make a subjec- tive judgment on each individual case on its own merits. Councilman Seymour felt that it should be possible to develop some standards so that the bulk, or a percentage, of the cases can proceed unencum- bered by another layer of red tape. Commissioner Farano voiced his conviction that there has to be some- where in this approval process an opportunity for the Planning Commission and Council to determine whether the amount of grading proposed is consistent with the life style and the way the canyon is developed, and that this review take place before any dirt is moved. Councilman Seymour, having ascertained that no further discussion was forthcoming and that the Planning Commission had sufficient direction to proceed, suggested that they follow through with additional work sessions to incorporate some of these discussed revisions into the amended grading ordinance. ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner King moved to adjourn. Commissioner Tolar seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:05 P.M.) ADJOURN~T: Councilman Seymour thanked all those present for their attendance and declared the meeting adjourned. Adjourned: 9:05 P.M. Signed - Ci~.y Clerk~