Loading...
Minutes-PC 1987/04/20REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The special adjourned meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBurney at 1:20 a. m., April 20, 1987, in the Council Chamber, a quoru^ being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Commissioners: Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Jack Kudron Bob De Sio Ron Evans Dick Mayer Greg Hastings Edith Harris Zoning Administrator Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer Assist. Dir. Rec. Community Secs. Maintenance Operatiuns Manager Assistant Fire Chief Parks Planner Senior Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGSNDA POSTING - A comploi.e copy of the agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m., Friday, April 17, 1987, in the foyer doors and display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber. ITEM N0. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL)_, SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN), SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOP MEN'P STANDARDS AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC HEARING. O«NER: S0. dAC PROPERTIES, INC., 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Pasadena, CA 91101, ATTN: JOHN JAMESON. AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: FRANK ELFEND. Property described as approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon Rim Road, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned Community (Bauer Ranch), east by Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, & southeast by Irvine Company property. Request adoption of a Specific Plan including Zoning and Development Standards, a Public Facilities Plan and a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed Highlands at Anaheim Hills to provide for the development of up to 2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses, 284.7 acres of open space, a 5-acre park site, and a 15.3-acre elementary school site. Continued from March 16 and April 13, 1987. McBurney Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, La Claire, Messe Commissioner Fry arrived at 1:40 and Commissioner Lawicki arrived at 1:3U 87-301 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The special adjourned meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBurney at 1:20 a.m., April 20, 1987, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Herbst, Lawicki, La Clalre, Messe Cammfssloner Fry arrived at 1:40 and Commissioner Lawicki arrived at 1:30 ALSO PRESENT: Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Malcolm Slaughter Jay Titus Paul Singer Jack Kudron Bob De Sio Ron Evans Dick Mayer Greg Hastings Edith Harris 'Coning Administrator Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Office Engineer Traffic Engineer Assist. Dir. Rec. Community Svcs. Maintenance Operations Manager Assistant Fire Chief Parks Planner Senior Planner Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the agenda was posted at 8:30 a.m., Friday, April 17, 1987, in the foyer doors and display case located in the lobby of the Council Chamber. ITEM N0. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 273 (SUPPLEMENTAL) SPECIFIC PL1_N N0. 87-1 (INCLUDING A PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN), SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: S0. PAC PROPERTIES, INC., 2 North i,ake Avenue, Su.L•e 800, Pasadena, CA 91101, ATTN; JOHN JAMESON. AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660, ATTN: FRANK ELFEND. Property described as approximately 816 acres located north of Canyon Rim Road, east of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the north by East Hills Planned Community (Bauer Ranch), east by Wallace Ranch and Oak Hills Ranch, & southeast by Irvine Company property. Request adoption of a Specific Plan including Zoning and Development Standards, a Public Facilities Plan and a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed Highlands at Anaheim Hills to provide for the development of up to 2,147 residential units, 8 acres of commercial uses, 284.7 acres of open space, a 5-acre park site, and a 15.3-acre elementary school site. Continued from March 16 and April 13, 1987. 87-301 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PT~AN ING COMMISSION. APRIL 20, 1987 ___8.7-302 Joel Fick, Planning Director, explained in accordance with discussion from the last meeting, staff scheduled this meeting and sent notices to Southmark, Oak Hills, Wallace Ranch, Irvine Company and the Taubman Company to inform them that the Commission might be considering regional issues in which they might be involved. Eie stated staff has provided an outline of issues Eor Commission to consider and that some pertain to inter-ranch issues, and some are very specific ranch issues, and some have been dealt with or addressed. He stated staff did go back to khe General P_ n in some instances, wi~i;h is the Ci.ty's policy and overall gu?de for development, and also, the Cany~~n Area General Plan. He read the iss~:es as: 1) inter-ranch phasing, 2) General Plan, 3) land use, 4) grading, 5) fiscal impact, 6) fire protection, 7) traffic, 8) street maintenance facility, 9) local park site, and 10) Weir Canyon Regional Park. Mr. Fick stated staff representatives are present to answer any questions. Regarding the Highlands project, he stated staff did pencil in changes discussed to the conditions at the last meeting, and that those have been presented to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Messe stated he would like to apologize for having to leave the April 13th meeting early, but that he has listened to the tapes for the remainder of that meeting, and feels he is sufficiently informed. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Elf end, agent, stated he would like to discuss those issues which were considered at the previous meeting as they relate to the Specific Plan for the Highlands project. He stated there was concern expressed about the amount of grading proposed for the park site at Serrano and Canyon Rim Road, and they agreed to review and consider other alternatives for a park site. He stated they did investigate several other options or possible sites, and attempted to preserve the integrity of the Specific Plan land uses and the nature of the joint use proposal with the Orange Unified School District as well. He stated it has been their understanding not to relocate the pack site in Deer Canyon; however, understanding the particular concerns of the Commission, they did review the grading plan and decided that rather than grading that hill where the park site is shc•wn, to provide an alternative and provide for filling of that area. He passed out an exhibit showing a new proposed park site. He stated the park site as currently proposed, would require a large amount of grading to make it a usable site and that one ridge would require grading at approximately 100 feet, and the other ridge would require grading of approximately 130 feet. He pointed out it was one of. those areas reviewed o-i the field trip by the Commissioners. He stated the proposal to move that park site, in possibly a southern direction, would require grading of about 20 feet of the ridge (about 80 feet less than originally proposed) and to construct "B" Street, they would fill that depression with 90 feet of earth to the ridge and then the ridge on the school site, which was originally proposed to be graded approximately 130 feet, would only be graded 6 feet. Concerning the Eire Department's request, Mr. Elf end stated they are still in the process of reviewing the information provided by the Fire Department and they think there were some contradictions in their presentation. He stated 4/20/87 87-303 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 they feel relocating the station would probably increase the service area rather decreasing it and that the conclusions may be a little different than Ares^nted. He stated they met with Pire Chief Jeff Oowman after the last meeting and he and John Jameson offered several alternatives, and essentially decided this issue would need to be resolved by the City Council and they understand that. He stated, however, they would like to have the condition which calls for the ceimbursemerit eliminated) and that they understood there were some prior discussions between the Anaheim Hills Planned Community owner and the Fire Chief, which indicated the land was not to be given to the Eire Department on the corner of Serrano and Canyon Rim. Mr. Elf end stated there was concern relating to the 1,000 sq. ft. minimum floor aces oL the structures in Areas 3, 4 and 1~ when Code requires 1,250 square feet. f1e presented exhibits showing the number of units permitted by the current General Plan; and explained their proposed Specific Plan attempted to designate product types that are normally associated with those land uses in order ~o achieve L•he density normally associated with the entitlement of use; and that they have included the entire area outside the Specific Plan. Ne pointed out the areas of single-family residences northerly of this ranch along the ridgeline area and some areas of medium and law-medium density and referred to the one very large hill on Canyon Rim, which was shown foc attached or single-Family housing, depending on how the Commission chose to implement it. He stated they attempted to pull development off the ridgeline, and off that one large mountain and consolidated it down in a more central area of the property to preserve the Weir Canyon viewshed. He stated they tried to provide a variety of ].and use mixes and the necessary school and park site and preserve the open space and then looked at the market study prepared for this project which indicates the product should be single-family attached housing. He stated they tried to maintain the single-family nature and preserve the open space areas and are not coming in with a plan heavy with attached housing and attempted to get single-family, detached housing rather than apartments. He stated the City's current zoning foc RM-2400 would permit 550-square foot bachelor units of up to 20$ in the attached housing area and also, one and two-bedroom units of 750 to 925 square feet and they thought it would be better to have the single-family houses of these type. He stated the 1,000-square foot houses constitutes only 58 of the entire development, or about 100 homes. Mr. Elf. end stated regarding the park site and dedication fees, they would like to verify the total obligation is 1,049,699, which they understand is in accordance with the City's existing Code. Mr. Elf end stated staff provided the Commission with their interpretation of the revised conditions and they cannot comment on those, but that- they revised the conditions, as they understood them, and presented a hand-out to the Commission for their review. He stated they had a meeting this morning with all the developers for the purpose of communicating and understanding the ways to permit development to move forward in these areas with a coordinated circulation system and are prepared to answer that ques~ion at the appropriate time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 ___ 87-304 Mr. Fick stated the conditions were amended since the previous report of April 13th and those were given to ttre Commission with penciled changes. Mr. Elfend stated he understands Condition No. 79 which was changed subsequent to the public hearing, teas now been changed back to l•he original proposal and it relates to the "preliminary" grading plan being submitted prior to the approval of final parcel or tentative map, and according to staff tian•was changed back to the original proposal requiring a "final" grading p Mr.. Fick stated that was a condition amended in the Oak Hills conditions, which followed the previous Highlands hearing, and this condition was amended to he consistent with the Oak Hills condition. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, explained the thought was that in the submittal of a final parcel map, the final yradiny plan should be submitted and that should not be a problem for the developer. Mr. Elfend responded the information provided in a preliminary plan would normally be adequate for what staff would need. Jay Titus stated a preliminary grading plan would not provide the necessary detail and information required for approval. Commissioner Messe asked when they could submit the final grading plan. Mr. Elfend responded they would finalize L•he grading at some subsequent time. He stated the type of information they understand the Engineering Department would need is normally provided in a preliminary grading plan which would subsequently be finalized. He stated if it is the desire of the Commission, that is the way the condition would read. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission does not sec final grading plans, and he would rather leave the condition as is. Commissioner Fry asked about the grading of the hills. Mr. Elfend stated they provided twc cross sections to show how the plans ace different. He stated originally they planned to take the hill dawn by about 100 feet from the top of the ridge and the current proposal only takes it down 20 feet from the top and rounds it off for the purpose of contour grading. He explained they will use the fill from the school site to fill the depression; and that this would reduce the grading of the ridge which goes down to Canyon Rim Road. He stated they end up with the 13 acres and this site is more conducive to the grading of the ridge, even though it does require more grading. Joel Fick stated the revised park site plan presented today was not submitted to the Planning Department or the Parks Department Eor review. Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent, stated they have not seen the revised park site plan and certainly would be most anxious to evaluate it. He stated prior to this time, they have not had any actual site plan to review. He stated they would have to look at the topography and pedestrian and vehicular accesses and would coordinate their evaluation with the school district to see if they can have a combined school/pack site. He stated the site looks compatible and it was their assumption, in the original location, that they would have arcess off a secondary road and that could become an issue with the new site. Ete stated they have never had a detailed plan on even the first park site proposed. Commissioner Fry stated from everything he has seen and read, this site appears to be 1008 better than the original proposal. 4/20/87 MINUTEST ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-305 Commissioner La Claire stated approval could be made subject to the Parks p~partment evaluation and approval after review of the park site. Jack Kudron stated he did not know if this proposal would comp back to the planning Commission, but if they do find some concerns after their evaluation of the plan, they would a~zpreciate being able to bring i.t back to the Planning Commission, rather than having to discuss it at City Council level. Commissioner. Fry stated he would not want L•o cause the developer any further delays. Chairman McBurney suggested the developer should ger, together with the Parks Department to work out any problems prior to going to City Council. Commissioner Messe and Chairman t4ceurney indicated they did not think there should be any problems because the acreaye is the same and the park has just been moved. Responding to Commissioner eouas, Brent Barnes, representing the Orange Unified School Distrl.ct, stated they had just received the revised plan today and 'nave not evaluated it and would t,ave the same concerns expressed by the Parks Department, but it looks as if it will work for them. lie stated there has to be a secondary access to the school siL•e, preferably not off Serrano, and noted that access is required by State regulations. Commissioners La Claire and Bouas stated there are a lot of schools existiny which do not gave two different accesses. Mr. Barnes stated the second access could be off Serrano, but there is a minimum distance separation required between the two entrances and that the topography in this area could be a concern. Commissioner Fry stated he had recently read that section of the State regulations pertaining to schools and thought there were exceptions following that regulation. Mc. Barnes stated they would expect to sit down with the engineers and parks representatives to work out details. Commissioner La Claire suggested including that stipulation in the conditions of approval. Paul Singer stated the park and school site access discussions should include Traffic Engineering because those are traffic concerns and his office should be involved in the plans for the access because of traffic safety considerations. Commissioner Fry stated he is still not pleased or satisfied with the Fire Department's recommendations, and basically, objects to the lateness of their proposal and is still of the opinion that this developer should not be involved with the reimbursement of Station 9 because there has always been information available indicating the anticipated relocation of Station 9 and he would suggest to the City Council that the Eire station be located as originally proposed at the top of the hill. Commissioner Messe stated if the Highlands h,:~ to participate in construction of Station 9, it would only be fair that the c~tiser ranches participate; however, the condition indicates that only Highlands would have to participate. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 __ 87-~06 Commissioner La Claire stated this whole issue should be dis ~ssed because it not only pertains to Fire Station ~. She stated the Eire Dep..rtment wants the road through the three ranches from Serr,~ a; and chat she did not think the City Attorney would allow the City Courrrii to approve a project where the City of Anaheim would be liable for anything, and whether it is liked or not, that road has to go through, and she thought that is L•he primary issue. She stated the Fire Chief has said these areas could not be adequately protected unless the road is connected and goes through at Serrano. Ron Evans, Assistr~nt Fire Chief, stated that is their major concern and always has been. He explained the relocation of Fire S*.ation 9 came about as a result of an attempt to negotiate for purchase of the land ~~here the station is currently located and that it was originally proposed Lo be uii L`-c parking lot of the golf course, not far from where it is right now; and that he has been informed that some agreement was made. He stated the decision not to relocate Fice Station 9 was made by the present Fire Chief on the basis that they could still have access to the developments in the back acreage, and they did not have that option befare. Chairman McD~~~ney stated he understood from the Fire Chief's pr.~esentation that ttie reason for not relocating Fire Station No. 9 was because of the paramedics, and the overlap situation with .Fire Station No. 10 being first due in and the paramedics being second. Mr. Evans stated several things have changed in recent years in the Canyon Area, and Station 10 is one of those things, and the developer at that time was required to put in a temporary fire station because the aces could not be serviced within the required time. He stated Station 9 at that time was not a paramedic engine company, but Station 8 at Riverdale was, and they have since relocated that engine company to Station 9 as a paramedic engine company, in order to be able to better service the Anaheim Hills and Canyon Area. He stated they have added two additional paramedic engine companies, and now have eight, but in the Canyon area, there is a time and distance problem and a lack of ability to provide any additional paramedic units. He stated the workload isn't there to add the paramedics, and that would have to be approved by the Emergency Medical Services. He s*_ated based on development in the area, it could possibly be 3 to 5 years before paramedics could be added. He stated the workload of Station 9 was increased because they were converted to a paramedic unit and because they service a large area. Commissioner Herbst stated he was concerned with the Fire chief's recommendation that no units be constructed until Serrano is constructed. Mr. Evans stated that is their position based upon their ability to service not only the Highlands area, but all the canyon and Anaheim Hills area, ^•~~ fire protection is based on access. Commissioner Herbst stated he understands that if Fire Station 9 is out of the area, first in service would be provided by Station 10, and the response time would not be acceptable. Mr. Evans stated the reference i=~ with single-engine companies, and any structure fire draws two engine companies having one truck company and a battalion chief, and most of the calls are medical aid calls, and if they were not able to get to it with Station 9 where it is located now, they would have to go all the way down the hill to Santa Ana Canyon Road, and 4/20/87 MINUTE~1 ANAIlEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION, APRZL 20, 1987 87-307 Shen u~~ by whatever means is provided to get t o any area that gets developed without Serrano going through to Weir Canyon. Commissioner Meese asked how all. the commercial development was allowed on weir Canyon Road. Mc. Evans responded not too much has been developed as } et. Commissioner Herbst there are three rAnches wh ich would be involved in getting Weir Canyon and Serrano through, and the Higtil ands project is currently being consi~9ered for approximately 400 units being built prior to Serrano being constructed, or at least that is their proposa 1, and the Fire Department's recommendation is that no construction bFgin until the area can be serviced. Mr. Evans stated they have not• seen any alternative as yet, which would be acceptable to allow them to stay within the y uidelines. He stated It ie important to note that the reimbursement agreement that is existing in the Weir Canyon area, which is the original reimbursement agreement area, covered 2,255 acres and that they had reyuested K~:ufma n & Broad to holu their reimbursement araa to that area, even though those units out of Station 10 also service Anaheim Hills. He stated they could not figure out a way to come into the Anaheim Hills area because it is larg el.y developed and any reimbursement would be difficult to get and after months of debating that with Kaufman & Broad, they were held to Weir Canyon, and they had put up the front money for Station 10, even though that• station services first due to Highlands with access and second due to all of Anaheim Hills area. He stated for structure fires both engine companies and one truck company would respond, along with the battalion chief and their cone ern is that they cannot get there now. Commissioner Herbst stated at one time, Station 9 was supposed to be on the corner of Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road and that was in all the environmental impact reports done for that area. Mr. Evans stated they talked about it in any enviror.~~ental impact report which they h a d anything to do with, but never made the deal. He stared tha letters written were answering the questions in the environmental impact reports and not the location; and that Station 10 has always been first due service to the Highlands project. Commissioner Herbst asked iE the response time would be satisfactory to the first 400 homes, if that station was larated at Serrano and Nohl Ranch Road. Mr. Evans responded that was the furthest site they would even corrsi~'r when they tried to negotiate foe the purchase of t he land where the station is currently located. Commissioner Bouas stated response time of 5 minutes is acceptable. Mr. Evans stated that is the maximum in their plans and the time is figured based on information provided through computerized programs based on actual driving time and that is based on the streets available. Commissioner Bouas asked if the entire City of Anaheim is covered with fire protection within the 5-minute time limit. Mr. Evans responded over 95$ of the City right now is within the 5-minute t i me limit and that most of the remaining 5s is in the Canyon area. Commissioner La Claire stated if that road i s not put through, Anaheim Hills would be the largest cul-de-sac in the world 4~id the circulation is needed and that road is needed so that Stations 9 and 10 can get to the area. She stated 4/20/87 87-308 MINUTES ANAHEIM C'LTY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1987 _ _ mistakes were made in the past by not sett . ng up reimbursement districts for that area and that should have been done and the money would be available now from all these developments, but now we are at a poi,it where thN road and Eire stations are needed and the City does not have the money and is asking the developer in another reimbursement district to ens inrthis case, the same Mr. Evans stated he understands, but it so happ people were involved in the development of both properties and the developer of Weir Canyon was the Cirst developer req Laired to pay. Commissioner Messe asked how far it is fro rn Station 10 to the poin where Serrano leaves the Highlands project. Mr.. Evans stated from Station 10 to the top of the hill is less than 3 or 4 minute s. Commissioner kierbst stated relocating the fire station back on the golf course property and selling the properly where it is currently located would be one way to raise some money to develop the new station and that there are plans to sell that property anyway and he still fe e=1s, as a land planner, it should be relocated; and that he realized 1F~aving the station where it is would be detrimental to the value of the land. Mr. Evans stated the golf course is an id eal location and originally that was their plan, but because of access preble ms, etc. the decisieodwlocationnot to relocate it, and geographically the present location is a g Commissioner Eierbst stated he did talk to the Fire Chief ~ } ~ '~~~ indicated the golf course site would be satisfactory a s far as he was concer ed. Commissioner Messe stated originally the fire station was planned somewhere near ~he golf course parking lot and the t e is still surplus land an that parking lot and there is room for a station at that locat ion. Commissioner La Claire stated the City owns the golf course property and the parking lot and there were three proposa is for development on the golf course. She suggested to raise money for the new fire station, it should constructed on the parking lot of the g~ if course and the [est of the property e sold for the proposed condominiurrw. Mc. Evans stated he did not know whether or nut that site is still available and whether oc not it is large enough because they do need 7/lOths of an acre in order to have access. Commissioner Messe stated he was sure there is enough land available. Commissioners F r y and La Claire agreed that would be a good alternative. Mr. Evans stated tha t was discussed with Texaco-Anaheim Hills, as well as the site at the top of: the hill. Commissioner Messe asked if a fire road would be acceptable for the Serrano connection. Mr. Evans stated the road Yeas to be able to handle the equipment and apparatus in excess of 64,000 pounds. He stated that size equipment was used during the fire in 1982 and about 130 other units were used throughout Anaheim Hills. He stated another concern is that this is a big residential aces which is encroaching into the wild land and there is a constanr_ fire hazard. 4/20/87 87-309 MI~,~~NArEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN APRIL 20 1987 Commissioner La Claire stated she feels comfortable with the road going through because each developer who is developing in wouldahaveithatiexpenseeed the road anyway for their own development, and they anyway, and the road is needed by ;:he City and there are a lot of good reasons for putting that road through and she thought each developer should construck it. She stared the Commission now needs to get an agreement from each developer as to when they will construct the road. Mr. Evans stated temporary fixes will not resolve the problem and tt~e road has to happen and when it does Happen, the Fire Deparrment can not only provide adequate ppvidetirotect:ion tooall of AnaheimcHillsoandrthattis whatwtheybare able to pc p trying to accompllst~. Commissioner Herbst stated Chief Bowman stated the access road oEf Santa Ana Canyon Road to Serrano, as an addatiaratuscwould havedtoogo allathefway down Mr. Evans stated all the back-up pp to Santa Ana Canyon Road and back up again and it would be too long. Commissioner Herbst stated Station 9 would be the second in for a fire in the Highlands project. Mr. Evans stated as they are manned right now, Station 10 is a regular engine and truck company and Station 9 i£ a paramedic engine company only, and any medical aid calls that would be on the other side of Serrano and Canyon Rim would draw bor_h units from 9 and 10. He stated the first due in are EMT trained and the second due in wo~:ld be paramedics, and a structure Eire would draw both the apparatus and truck company unit from Station 10. Commissioner Herbc•t stated he is trying to evaluate the recommendation that there be no houses constructed in that aria until the road is constructed. Commissioner La Claire stated maybe there would be a way of phasing it so that it is all done simultaneously, not necessarily holding up one particular developer. Mr. Evans stated simultaneously access and development, in general, i.s really what they have always planned. Paul Singer stated he is happy ;:o hear the discussion back to reality and obviously, the first thing needed in that area is circulation and good access and that has been bothering him with the development of these three ranches all along. He stated if that ca-~ be accomplished, a lot of problems can be resolved, but the only thing concerning him is the phasing and what goes first. He stated he believed the connecting road from Weir Canyon and Serrano to Canyon Rim has to be established first and then any framing could take place and grading could start, but he did not believe massive grading, other than fervere heavy frontdmoney fcomethetdevelopersdofsthe~thceetrancheSld requir Y Commissioner Fry asked why they would put in a connecting road without doing the other grading. Paul Singer stated he is talking about grading for the roadway only. Chairman McBurney stated he did not know how extensive the grading would be and Paul Singer stated it will be substantial. He stated that is one matter that should be settled very carefully because there could be some difficult problems with heavy grading equipment along the existing residential streets, which would be impacted by that heavy equipment. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'T`Y PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2U~ 1987 87-310 Commissioner La Claire stated she has been on the '~lanninq Commission for 12 years and never. once has the City Attorney allowed the Commission to go against the wishes of the Fire Chief, and in her opinion, the road needs to go in and stre would like to hear from the various developers in the area to see what they are planning to do about that road. Frank Elf end stated hey would address those issues fur all the developers and then Mr. pennrhy can clarify the Oak dills position, if it is not correct from what was discussed earlier. tie stated the developers in the area are all at different stages of planning, however, it would be reasonable at this time that all t•t'.cee would agree to a right-of-way fur those roads as it relates to Serrano and Canyon Rim Road. ttP stated also they thought it would be reasonable that thN roadway would be built in phases, per conditions of the tentative .~aos, and Eor those areas which are not built but are required as a condition of a tentative map, the developers would use a r.ei-nbursement program, pursuant to reimbursements permitted in the area, and thought the timing issue would purely relate to someone grading someone else's right-of-way, and then if that individual developer did not build it for any particular. reason, the other builder would likely bui.l.d it and then reimbursement would be provided. He stated he thought it is possible a Mello Roos or some other. sort of financing mechanism could be investigated. Mr. F.lfend stated he thought it would be extremely difficult just to draw a line on a map and not do grading in conjunction with the development of the properties, as well in order to create that road. He stated to the extent that would happen is a matter that would come back before the Commission and the Council ultimately. He stated he thought the City is going to get that roadway system, either tlirouyh reimbursement or as far as each individual builder will take it relative to their phases of development; however, their position would be that the commitment be provided for that roadway, and that the first phase of those four hundred units be permitted with the understanding and agreement made as it relates to right-of-way. He stated given the fact that everybody is at a different stage of development, when all the plans ace finalized, the developers would provide the right-of-way. He stated right now that would be difficult because some plans are being changed, but the general right-of-way could be agreed to and phasing provided as a condition on the tentative maps. Chairman McBurney asked if Mr. Elf end is stating that if the first tentative map does abut the roadway, that it will be constructed all the way to Weir Canyon Road under the first tentative map; and reimbursement set up for that portion that goes through Oak Hills and Wallace Ranch. Mr. Elf end stated if that was the first condition on the map, that it is the way it will be, but in their discussions it would be likely that each developer would probably build their link or a portion of their link and then possibly be reimbursed for that area. He said conditions are going to be placed on the maps and then those will be the conditions of approval. Commissioner :ierbst asked if all three developers can get together and build the road all at one time. He stated he felt that is the key and that this developer could be held up and not permitted to start construction if the Fire Department has its say, and that is that the road be brought through so that Fire Station 10 can provide protection. 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20 1987 87-311 Mr. Elf end stated his answer iy not a Yes or no because there may be a developer who may, for one reason or another, decide not to build that road on their property at the appropriate time and in that case, there would be a reimbursement agreement, assuming it would be built by the other party. He stated he can say that every builder is going to do it. Commissioner Herbst stated this is a major problem. Commissioner La Claire stated since all the ranches are represented today they should respond. Amador Gonzalez, Woodcrest Development representing Wallace Ranch, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, stated they feel providing right-of-way would be sufficient because if they are not at a point where they are going to build, it would be a big expense to build a road that they are not going to use for awhile if it happens to be in an area where they are not building. He stated they will provide ttie access for someone else to build it if they want to and go along with the reimbursement agreement and when they do need the toad they will reimburse that builder, whether it is the Highlands or Oak Hills. lie stated they would be willing to enter into and sign a eeimbursement agreement with the builder of the road. Malcolm Slaughter stated when development occurs in tFre flat lands, rights-of-way are normally a deed to build across the property and that care should be taken to make sure that ttte deed is being gr. anted for the right-of-way across the property. He asked if they are discussing a graded right-of-way or a paper street and asked if the agreement would include the grading. Mr. Gonzalez stated the reimbursement agreement would read such that a road could be build. Commissioner I,a Clair.e stated she understands the street is paper and that there would be a reimbursement district. she asked if it is permission, or right-of-way to build it at anytime, and in accordance with whose specifications? Paul Singer responded the road would be constructed to the City's specifications. Chairman McBurney stated there could be a condition on the first tentative map that the roadway be constructed. Mr. Gonzalez stated they would agree that it be done to the specifications of the city, but they would certainly .like to see the plans to check elevations, etc., to make sure they conform to their plans. He added he did not think the alignment is a problem. Jim Dennehy representing Oak Hills, stated he concurs with entering into a reimbursement agreement if, in fact, one of the other two developers yoes first. He stated they did discuss this whole thing happening at one time and he thought all three property owners are receptive to looking into the Mello Roos which mi--'-~ ~nable the road to go all at one time and that that was certainly a ~e way to approve it. Eie stated they are willing to grant the right-o; -:h a reimbursement agreement if another developer constructs tne. d, and they would be reimbursed at the time they are ready to develop. 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAtiCIM CITY PLAIiNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-312 Commissioner F3ouas asked if the Highlands could be allowed to start construction on the first four hundred units Chairman McBurney skated as a condition of the first tentative tract map, the roadway would have to be constructed, per the alignment as established, and r_he rights-of-way would have to be granted by the other two ranches, and the reimburserent agreement would be cet up to reimburse the Highlands developer for their portion of the development. Commissioner Herbst asked Mr. Elf end iE they are prepared to enter into a reimbursement agreement to put Serrano and Weir Canyon through to the connections as a condition of the first tentative tract map. Commissioner La Claire skated she was trying to avoid any one developer having to front all the money. Commissioner Fry stated reimbursement is fine, but there is wording that they be reimbursed when ttie other developers are ready to develop and that could be twenty years from now and that is putting a big burden on one developer. Commissioner La Claire stated she would like for the developers to just agree to build their portion of the road and that it would all be in by a certair- date. Commissioner Fry stated everybody understands now that that road is going go in and that he would like to hear each developer say that they will pay their proportionate share so that it can go in. John Jameson, representing South Mark Pacific Corporation, stated today they discussed one of their biygest concerns, and that is one company preceding the other two developers having to front for some unknown sum for a substantial period of time for the complete costs of the roadway which includes all the yrading, and it is not just the cost of pavement, curb and gutter, but includes the cost of moving the dirt that accommodates the roadway. He added the uncertainty of all that leaves them a little nervous, but they did discuss making a co~~nmitment which seems reasonable that they are all interested in paying their share of the road for their respective links. He stated he did not know thr' timing of that roadway and asked for more opportunity to discuss it and thought they could come to a conclusion. He stated the discussion was left today was that if they could walk out of this meeting with, hopefully, the approval of the Specific Plan, knowing that that road is going to be a condition that falls upon the tentative map, nothing is going to happen until that issue is resolved at the time of approval of the tentative map. He stated they discussed a Mello Roos district, and it certainly seems to be the most logical way to progress with the construction of a major infrastructure like this and it does help all the financing aspects of the roadway and they need more time to meet and discuss the final mechanisms. :ie stated L-hat is a funding mechanism used around California and is certainly usable, and they are interested in pursuing it and can come back to give the city the answer needed in terms of timing for the roadway construction, and it would come at a logical time at approval of the map. Chair. man McBurney clarified with Mr. Jameson that he is in agreement with a 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-313 condition on the tentative tract map that the roadway system will be put in, acceptable to the City Engineer, before the houFes are started to be constructed. Mr. Jameson stated that when the final map came in for recordation, that they would have the financing mechanism in place so that timing and all the answers to the City's satisfaction will give everyone the assurance they need. He added he thought thQ meeting today was a good and they have all agreed and understand they have to pay their proportionate share. Commissioner Herbst stated that road will certainly relieve some of the concerns regarding Serrano, Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont. Commissioner McBurney Mated he thought it could be accomplished with the condition as long as the city was satisfied with the right-of-way and conatrucl•ion of the roadway. Commissioner Bouas stated their participation in the development of Station 9 could be eliminated because the Fire Department's concerns would be resolved with the construction of that road. Paul Singer stated the only thing not clear is whether the road goes in before the first units are built. Chairman McBurney stated Condition No. 111 states the road would be constructed before the 4Ulst unit, but that condition would be amended so that no units would be constructed until the road is in. Commissioner [,a Claire stated that is what the Fire Department wants, but she was not reaJ.ly that concerned. Mr Singer stared it takes awhile to construct a roadway and the timing would obvlously have to be worked out. Commissioner La Claire stated she did not see any problem, if the Commission puts a restriction on the tract that no units be occupied before the roadway is constructed. Commissioner Herbst stated he also does not quite agree with not allowing any grading until road is in, as long as they do not take any heavy equipment down Canyon Rim and as long as the equipment is there to do the grading of the road, it seems reasonable t•o grade for the tract. Mr. Singer asked if there is going to be any dirt imporked on this project. Mr. Elf. end responded there is not. He stated once the heavy grading equipment is on the property, they do not like to remove it. Commissioner La Claire stated grading would also help eliminate some of the fire hazard. Mr. Singer stated he is more concerned about the movement of the heavy equipment on the residential streets and if that can be mitigated in some manner, he did not see a problem. Chairman McBurney stated they have already agreed not to put the equipment on Serrano and Canyon Rim. Mr. Elfend stated a lot of activitiAs they have occurred in that area have been with the constant import and export of dirt. He stated all the dirt will be used on the site. He suggested Condition No. 78 be deleted and Condition No. 69 should be reworded to read, 'prior to the final map" rather than "prior to the tentative map." Chairman McBurney stated that that condi*_ion would also carry the stipulation that the roadway is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4/20/87 ,~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL ;0 1987 87-314 Mc. Elf end stated he would like to discuss how the road can be provided for the first f.ouc hundred units in conjunction with those units rather than prior to their construction. Chairman McBurney stated he would suggest that before any units arR occupied, the roadway must be constructed. Commissioner La C.lair.e agreed because that would allow the developer to begin co~1aetfei~ion and since the road and development would be done at the same time, comfortable, even though the timing is a little aEf; however, it is up to the Fire Department and the City's Attorney Office. She stated there is no way the City Attorney would make the city liable and go against the Fire Chief's recommendation. Ron Evans, Assistant Fice Chief, stated the Fire Department is opposed to any c'~nstruction taking place without access because that is the most hazardous time. Commissioner Fry stated they do }gave access. Mr. Evans responded they do not have access within the required response time, and that it also depends on what type of service road is provided. Commissioner i,a Claire stated when all of Anaheim Hills was dc':elaped optimum fire protection was not available, but when it was all built out in conjunction with all the other developments, it was a fair arrangement. She stated according to the Fire Chief's map, there ace parts of the City right now which are not serviced in that five-minute response time. Commissioner Bouas stated not too ling ago the Eire alarm went off ar. City Hall and it took longer than five minutes for the Fire Department to get Erom the Broadway Fire Station. Chairman McBUrney stated there should be some type of access to the units, but the point of occupancy should be the limit, rather than the point of construction and Commissioner Fry agreed. Commissioner Herbst stated if the Fire Department cannot provide adequate protection, it would be up to the applicant to have the insurance and the ra*_es might be higher fcr awhile until adequate protection is provided; and that they cannot sell the units until the protection is available. Commissioner La Claire stated Fire Station No. 9 is there and their response time is very close and they can respond very quickly. Commissioner Herbst clarified that it is the intent of the Commission that no houses can be sold or occupied until Serrano and Canyon Rim are put all the way through. Mr. Evans stated all the terms being discussed for coverage and protection are based on the utmost protection that can be provided and that is if the fire stations are occupied and not busy elsew!-ere, because then the response times change drastically. He stated the other thing that has to be stressed is that this is an area with great potential for fire, especially during certain times of the year because of its topography and weather conditions and those are major concerns and that is why they hold firm with what they recommend. He stated they do not allow anyone in the City to start any new construction without providing on-site water, and they must be within kheir access area. He stated that is the eastern end of the city which is basically u4~20/87ped. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-315 Chairman McBurney stated this developer will probably construct the widest fire break ever. Commissioner Herbst stated relative to r.he compromise, there has to be give and take and if too much burden is placed on this one developer, as far as the road is concerned, it may not be built and the City needs it. Commissioner. La Claite stated the Commission understands what the Fire Department is saying, but is trying to get the road througt,. Mc. Evans stated the Fire Department is in the position it is in now, because development in that area has not happened very fast and it has left them with the station that could protect that area, but cannot get to it and that that area is just now starting to develop. Comi~ci.ssioner Herbst stated he is concerned with the 1,000 sq. ft. unit, sizes in areas 3, 4, and 10. Greg Hastings explained the minimum size of a single family house in Anaheim is 1225 square feet. Commissiorcar F~erbst stated he does not like this reduction in site and does not think is conducive to this residential area. He added the developer has said that the sizes were reduced to get to this density. Mr. Elf end stated the unit sizes were an overall considerar,ion and part of an effort to maintain certain aspects of the site and reduce grading of the hillside areas and also the desire to cluster and consolidate areas, which is consistent with the General Plan. He added if attached housing was in that area, it could be much mailer than 1000 square feet, and l•hey could put apartments, condominiums, or townhomes there, but thought it would be better to have single-family detached housing. He pointed out those small lots affect only five percent of the development. Commissioner Herbst stated they have reduced all the requirements to minimums and he just could not agree that that is conducive for this area. Mr. Elf end stated it is true there are no units of this size in the Anaheim Hills area, however, there are apartments or condominiums currently existing which ace much smaller. Commissioner Herbst stated they are attempting to develop sixteen units to an acre where there can possibly only be two. He asked how many lots were gained by reducing the 50-foot lots to 45 feet. Mr. Elf end stated there are approximately twenty-nine of those lots. Commissioner McBurney asked if they would be willing to increase the size from 1000 square feet to maybe 1125 square feet. Mr. Elf end stated he would be willing to do that, if that was the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Herbst stated these are standards which have been developed and have been in effect for a long time and this is just too small. Commissioner Bouas stated times have changed. Commissioner Fry stated smaller Lots can be accomplished with zero lot line and he did not see the problem. Commissioner Messe stated this involves one hundred units at one thousand square feet. Commissioner Bouas stated the developer is talking about the demands of the public today and what they want. 4/20/8 7 ... 87-•3 NU'PFS, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL, 20 1987 Commissioner La Claire asked if the udotnotilookolikeithoaeeunitsmand&pointed development. Mr. Elf end stated they out those unilarato this0andstheyeareover.ytattractivetunits~reviewed various projects aimi Mr. ElEend Commissioner La Claire asked what projects were reviewed. responded there were units in Laguna Niguel, Marblehead, Rancho Santa Margarita, etc. and that 3500-square foot lots would be much ricer than apartments of condominiumn• Commissioner La Claire stated she thought there is a market for that type of unit and Chairman McBUrney agreed, but added the units should be more than one thousand square feet. Mr. Elf end responded "fine". Annika Santalahti stated she did not think Anaheim has any detached single-family homes that Size, except one condominium project where they were permitted to have some detached units; and that everything under 1225 sq. Et. would be ronsidcred a condominium which could be a minimum 625 to 850 squar.p feet. She stated there were some projects in the Anaheim Hills area with 1'l 25 square feet units which would be the size of a single-family home with no parking requiremenL•s, and that the parking codes were modiEiarkin require units of .1225 square feet or more to provide single-family p g requirements, which is a minimum of four spaces. Paul Singer pointed out that four spaces are required for any single-family residence. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Elf end explained the standards in this specific plan were to identity only those modifications which were different and the summary in the ssacurrentrCadesvides information only where it is different than the City Joel Fick stated it has been represented that 58 of the homes would deal with a certain standard and 29 lots would be reduced from 50 feet to 45 feet, but there is nothing in the Specific Plan that places that limitation on the proposal and the Specific Plan is really to amend the Zoning ordinances to accommodate that as a permitted standard. He stated it is his understanding that is what Mr. Glfend is indicating will be submitted to the Planning Commission at some pointeioftlimitationsbalongethoseilineslanddCommissionsmay structured, have any typ want to consider whether it would be appropriate to get a stipulation from the applicant for a certain limit that would be appropriate. Commissioner Fry stated as far as he is concerned the applicant has just made that stipulation, but he really did not want it to be included as a condition. Annika Santalahti stated if this is approved, when they come in with the tentative tract maps, that would be the type of item that would be discussed and the Commission would have the opportunity to deny the request at that time and those are the types of things staff will ask them to list as modifications. Mr. Elf end stated when they present tentative tract maps, he feels that item will be identified. Commissioner Herbst stated his concern is that this developer will sell these tracts, with a different developer proposing the projects. Mr. Elf end stated 4/20/87 87-317 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION APRTI~ 20 1987 the intent in going throuyh this process is really to create some control and hopefully, that control runa~ with the land and the tentative maps and the Commission will have an opportunity to review those and can deny them. He stated the only deviations permitted are those noted in the development standards. Commissioner La Claire stated th? Commission will hsve another opportunity to review the tracts and in the meantime, can go out and look at some of these other projects throughout the County which are similar. Malcolm Slaughter stated he understands the Comrr,iasion is being asked to recommend to the City Council that they adopt this Specific Plan and part of that plan will include a zoning ordinance for this property. He stated once that ordinance is in place, as presently structured, it incorporates the provisions of the other zones, such as t2S-5,000, but the Zoning Standards, which the Commission is being asked to adopt as part of the Specific Plan, permit a smaller unit and those would then be permitted by right, which really makes this a separate little town with its own zoning restrictions and, in some cases, the Commission may have some ability to increase those standards, but in most cases, they will be permitted by right under that ordinance. Joel Fick stated Commission discussed that at some length at the last meeting, but the floor plans and elevations are not required to be submitted, as presently structured, until the final tract map approval, so the lot size and configurations would be established, but the house size would rat be presented unL•il a later date. Commissioner Messe stated the control is not there and a percentage for smaller units should b~ stipulated. Joel Fick stated if that is a concern of the Commission, they should examine the floor plans and elevations when they review the tentative maps, or they should accept the stipulation by the applicant and include that as a condition. Mr. Elfend stated he did not think they would have any difficulty providing that information when they submit the tentative map. He stated that condition is consistent with the Planned Co-nmunity condition, which was presented by staff, but if if Commission decides to have that presented at the same time the tentative tracts are submitted, they a[e willing to do it at that tune. Chairman McBurney stated that should be included a3 a condition in order for the Commission to be able to review the floor plans and elevations and unit sizes wit•ti the tentative tract neap. Commissioner La Claire stated in the meantime, the Commission should try to review some of these projects around the County. Commissioner Herbst asked if this action will set the groundwork regarding house size for any Specific Plan that could be adopted any place else in the City. Malcolm Slaughter stated as a legal issue, he did not belibut asla aractical should have any effect on other developments in the City, P issue, the Commission has frequently looked back and said since we have approved something over here, it could be approved in another location, but as 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING r.OMMISSZON, APH?L 2U, 1987 97-319 a legal issue, the City could not be challenged by refusing to adopt a Specific Plan and implementing ordinances on some other site merely because this one was approved for this location. Commissioner i,a Claire stated anyone can request approval of a Specific Plan and each Specific Plar. can be judged on its nwn merits. Malcolm Slaughter stated there has to be special circumstances surrounding the property which authorizes the use of. this procedure and tt-ose Findings are set out in the staff report and it does allow for more flexibility. Annika Santalahti stated Mr. Singer's concern regarding the parking mentioned earlier is that a single-family detached unit always has to have four parking spaces and that the wording of the Code says single-family and then adds tt-e terminology regarding the ~-nit size of 1225 square feet and Mr. Singer feels any detached unit should have four parking spaces per unit. Mr. Singer explainer four spaces are the requirement with two in the garage and two in the driveway. Mr. Elf end indicated that all units would have four packing spaces. Chairman McDurney referred to the information provided regarding the depth of 2U feet to the garage door which would accommodate two vehicles in the garage and two on the driveway and they would have to have roll-up yarage doors. Mr. Elf end stated a memo was submitted to the Commission at the previous meeting regarding the park fees and they wanted to verify that the actual figure was $1,049,699. Chairman McBurney clarified that is correct ar-d that figure is subject to the dedication of a 5-acre park site. Mr. Kudron stated they are in total agreement. He stated that is the fee schedule in effect now, but that is not to say that the fee schedule will not change by the time the actual fees are due. He stated the fees are due as covered in tl~e conditions and implemented by ordinance. Mr. Elf end stated they would like to have that $1.00 per trip end fee eliminated from Condition N~. 99. Commissioner Fry stated that should be eliminated. Paul Singer stated Condition No. 99 is absolutely meaningless and teas very little value and just means that another study will be conducted and another consultant is going to make a few dollars, but it doesn't mean anything to the City of Anaheim and it does not improve transportation. He stated he has discussed this ma~:ter with the City Engineer and they will be asking for an ordinance to get TSM exactions from developers for added vehicular trips and if an ordinance is adopted, upon the issuance of building permits, all developers will pay. He stated it was suggested this is a City-wide issue and that they have taken that attack. Commissioner La Claire stated she would like to discuss that issue at another time with the Planning Commission before one of the regular meetings because she has a lot of ideas about it and instead of producing another study and creating another position, there are some thin~~s that could be done. She suggested the Commission meet early in two weeks, before the regular meeting 4/20/87 87-319 COMMISSION AP1tIG 20 1987 ~ - MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY Pt~ANNiNr., to discuss TSM. Mr. Singer agreed if the Commissillthowould be angoodutime2 hour early, they could discuss the issues and MaY for him. Commissioner Messe Asked if tholicmmissthatsnoudeve.lupmenttbe aiburden~oct and pointed out City Council p Y that is a good existing taxpayers. Commissioner rry stated unfortunately, statement, but is not always the most practical and development would be stopped. Joel Fick stated there are s~vlehat havestakenoplaceike1leostatEafhet~smake sure he understood the discussion staff's recommended conditions to the premising his remarks based on the City Commission and not those presented by Mr. Elfend because those have not been reviewed by City staff: ice spec~fic floor and 1. 2. 3. Condltion No• 5 - would be amended to requ elevation plans in conjunction with the tentative tract. Conditions relating to parks - basically, they are in agreement, witl- vised park site is subject to review and the added provision that artment. approval of the ParV,s Dep Fire Department condition - that Condition timing of combustible materials on the site timing relates to time of occupancy. No, 73, which talks about the should be modified so the q. Condition tao. 69 - relating i,o the reimbursement for 9, and he understood the Commission's recommendation will be to eliminate that condition. Fire Station No. to the City Council 5~ Condition No. 99 - that the 1.00 per trip end fee for the 'PSM coordinator position portion be eliminated. Jay Titus stated Condition No. 68 refers to hydrology and addresses the fact that if there are to be open or osition thatnin thatmcase,nthelmaintenance of Gngineecing Department staff's p the channels should be handgtated MrthElfend haserequestedathatethecCieyable maintenance mechanism. He ~F would spend in contribute maintenance funds equivalent o what they ~ osition maintaining a closed conduit, but it is the Engineerinbecausettheresis much that the City desires to have a closed conduit simply less maintenance involved and if tis acceptablewtotttieoCitye they shoul.dlbeand that can be done in a manner that those o en channels. responsible for maintaining P Chairman McBUrney stated the condition states that if a natural channel system through Deer Canyon is designed and acceptable to the City, that a mechanism be set up, acceptable to the Maintenance Department. Jay Titus stated that is the recommendation and ihatarticipatingcintthat costhe City of Anaheim, without the City direct y p 4!"0/P7 '~ ~~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy APRIL 20, 1987_ 87-3?.0 Commissioner Bouas stated the City would participate in putting in a closed system, but a closed system would destroy more of Deer Canyon. Jay Titus stated a closed system may or may not destroy more of Deer Canyon and i~. dues get to be a rather involved analysis.. He stated he said "natural" channel because once that system is changed in anyway within the drainage basin, with grading, construction of houses, etc., the natural system is going to be changed and the balance that nature has created will be changed and it is not known what could happen and them could be more erosion in that channel and the trees being protected, could be lust. Commissioner Meese agreed and stated he saw what, happened on the Anaheim It ills golf cour•e because there was an open charnel which was very lovely until developm~~~t came in and then it became the G-:and Canyon of Anaheim. Mc. Titus stated it is proposed that a study be done by the City and paid for by the developer and he has agreed to that study and that would address all of tl~e factors involved in upsetting that balance and what can be done to try to restore that balance and mitigate or minimize the disturbance that is going to be caused by an open channel. Commissioner La Claire stated having walked in that area, there is water runoff coming down through tnat channel and there is no reason for it when it is not raining, and it should not be running at that speed. She stated she has tried to trace it to see where it comes from and thought perhaps it is coming from the reservoir and perhaps there is an underground problem or something. She stated for whatever reason, there is a lot of wildlife which comes to D°er Canyon. She stated in the Peralta Hills area, there was a combination desalting basin and natural channel attached to an underground pipe which took the water to its ultimate point of disposal which she was very much against originally, but it did seem to work out. She stated her question is whether or not there is a way if it is determined safe ay the Engineering studies to do something similar and if. there is that she would like to see it allowed. Jay Titus stated the developer took race of that Facility in Peralta Hills and there was no maintenance of the channel because it eroded and became very deep and ultimately a closed pipe was p~~*. in. He stated the City is maintaining that pipe now, but the developer was supposed to be maintaining it. He added Engineering is saying there is no reason for the City to contribute dollars toward the maintenance of an open channel, if that is the desire of the developer. Chairman McBucney stated probably a dual system would be the best way and still let the surface water go through the open channel; and that he understands the City's position, but felt the beauty of the open channel should be left, if there is someway to get the water off or at bast a portion of it. Jay Titus stated that is an alternative and in the Bauer Ranch, it was done within the Weir Canyon channel and a large pipe was put in to take the major flow, with the minor flow to be kept in the open channel itself. Chairman McBurney stated the condition should be left as is and Mr. Elf end can discuss it with the City Council. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION_~ APRIL 20, 1987 87-321 Mc. Elfend referred to Condition No. 2 and stated he was told would be added wording would be added to include that a letter verifying the information contained in the fiscal impact report would be suitable, but it has not been added. Joel Fick stated that was discussed and it was suggested that if there were no changes, then a simple letter would suffice; however, if there are changes, that would have to be addressed and the condition allows for anything that would be changed. Chairman McBurney suggested adding another sentence that would make it subject to the City's approval. Mr. Elfend responded that would be fine. Joel Fick stated the question would be whether a letter would suffice in the event that a significant change was proposed to one of the areas or the mtx that addresses the assumptions in l:he fiscal impact report. He stated he understands the condition would be worded that a letter would suffice, aub~ect to the City's approval, if there are no changes, and if there are changes to the assumed mix, under the Specific Plan, the City would be looking for some type of documentation and certainly the City Council has asked for that when changes have come through. Mr. Elfend stated Condition No. 31 deals with reimbursements and they asked for a rewording and assumed that would be acceptable. Chairman McBurney stated the words "proportionate share" were added in that condition. Mr. Elfend refereed to Condition No. 32 which deals with the street maintenance facility and stated it was indicated by the Maintenance Director that the site would be on the Oak Hills Ranch or somewhere easterly in the City on another property. Joel Fick stated in staff's submitted revised conditions, they are recommending changes to Conditions 31 and 32 which *_hey believe reflect the discussions from the previous meetings. He stated the changes proposed by staff were reviewed with the City Attorney's Office and Mr. Elfend's revisions have not been reviewed. Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 36 and stated they requested that be changed to "prior to the first final map" as apposed to the "tentative tract map". Chairman McBurney and Commissioner Fry agreed. Joel Fick stated that matter was discussed extensively at the previous meeting and it was staff's impression that certainly the Planning Commission would want to know the extent of the maintenance items at the time they considered the tentative and whether it was possible that a funding mechanism could be addressed. Commissioner Fry stated the main thing agreed to was to change tentative to final. Joel Fick stated staff recommended that the Commission would want to know those things when they considered the tentative maps, but the provision for the financing mechanism could be available prior to the final. Commissioner La Claire responded she thought that was the way it was ~ecfded. Mr. Elfend stated he thought it was derided that the information should be provided in the final map stage and if it is to be provided in the tentative map stage, there surely should be some verbage indicating the general nature of that information. Joel Fick stated that would be acceptable to staff. 4/20/87 MINUTEST ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-322 Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 68 and stated ha would like to add something to what Mr. ~Pitua has said far purposes of clarification and in the manner tics City has requested the fiscal impact be pr.epaced, etc., that there would be a savings to the City in conjunction w,th the maintenance of the closed drainage system and they would request that there could be some credit towards the project for that cast. Bob Desio, Maintenance Operations Manager, stated this condition pertains only to Deer Canyon, and it is his understanding that that is County open space and 1E a pipe is installed, they would need authorization from the County. He stated the City has no problem with maintaining the pipe, but that is a riparian area and there could be a lot of ramifications which they do not feel they are capable oL• dealir-g with, and there is no comparative cost analysis between maintaining a closed system or an open channel system, lie stated they have no problem with a dual system with a pipe as well as the open channel, as long as they do not have the responsibility for. maintaining that riparian area. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the developer stated if they provided a pipeline all the way, the City would takes over the maintenance of that pipe and that would be an expense Eor the City end the developer would like for the City to reimburse the project if the channel is left open for just the cost for the pipeline. Mr. Desio stated the cost of maintaining conduit versus an open channel i3 very similar and the City is totally opposed to maintaining an open area. Commissioner Herbst stated the developer is just asking for reimb -sement of the cost the City would have incurred by maintaining the closed system. Mr. Desio stated the cost is not known and for what period of time and under what circumstances. He added once the developer sells the project, there is no cost to them for maintenance. He stated the City does not accept the responsibility for ma int.enance during construction and it would only be accepted after constriction is completecr and when the City is sure there will be no construction debris in the pipe. He stated the cost is not known without a hydrology study determining the pipe size and the area it is going to serve and there is no way to determine the cost without that information and that would be determined after the ~~m struction starts in that area and the tract maps are filed. Co~~missionec Messe stated the developer will be saving a lot of money by leaving the channel open. Mr. Desio stated the developer would spend a lok of money if he had to reconstruct that riparian area and he thought it would behoove the developer to go ahead and have the pipe constructed so the debris and mud would not go into the riparian area because that would involve the Fish and Game Department, etc. He stated is the open channel destroys t}~e riparian area, the ultimate decision would be to restore the area and the costs to restore it would be mote after construction than to put the pipe in at this point. Jay Titus stated to put the pipe in would cost more than leaving the ct.annel open, and the developer would be saving that money ar.d t-e did not think the City should have to contribute money towards maintaining it. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, he stated it is an open space easement owned by the County. 4/20/87 87-323 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 Chairman McBUrney stated that condition was removed in the revised conditions. Joel Fick stated that was stafE'8 understanding tt the last meeting, but the City F~~gineer's Office wanted it left in. Commissioner La Claire asked the cost of a closed storm drain. Mr. EiEend stated they did submit estimates to the City Engineer. done by Wildan, and it was between 10,000 and 25,000, based on the number of inlets that would be provided. Mr. Titus stated those costs were submitted and the City did not accept them and thought they were way out of line. Mr. Elf end asked to move on, He stated they understand Condition No. 78 has been deleted. Joel Fick sL•+~ted the Planning Commissior- recommended thaL• condition be deleted and it pertained to reimbursement Eor Fice Station No. 9. Malcolm Slaughter stated the resolution will reflect the Commission's decisions, but he did not think t he staff report will be changed. Mr. Elf end stated the last item would be Condition No. 114 and the need to cumulatively widen Fairmont. Boulevard. Commissioner Messe staled with Serrano going in, he did not think the wide~-ing of Fairmont would be necessary. Commissioner La Claire stated it may be necessary, but she thought most of the traffic would yo gut th e other way. Commissioner Fry agreed Condition 114 should be eliminated. .Joel Fick clarified that only 114-C is to be eliminated. Paul Singer asked 1E th a entire Condition No. 99 would be eliminated. Commissioner Messe stated the study is a mitigation in the EIR and should be required and just the last sentence should be eliminated. Commissioner La Claire sr_ated she would abstain from voting on this issue even though she does not have a conflict of interest. She left the Council Chamber. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offer~•d a mo~_ion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire abstaining) that after considering Uraft Environmental Impact Report No. 273 Eor the proposed Specific Plan for the Highlan@s at Anahe i m Hills a nd reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplemen t Draft EiR No. 273, the Planning Commission finds that: EIR No. 273 is an compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Stare and City Guid elines;and that EIR No. 273 identifies the following impacts which are considered to be both unavoidable and adverse in nature and not fully mitigated to a le~~el of insignificance: ° Landform and grading: Development will result in the alteration of hillside and canyon t ~pography within Planning Areas IX, X and the northern portion of Area III. ° Biological Resources: Development will result in the removal of vegetation, including oak woodland, and wildlife habitat associated with the construction of underground storm drain systems for Deer Canyon as proposed by the Highlands or the City's Master Plan of Drainage. ° Aesthetics: D evelon meet will result in the removal of approximately 40 oak tree s associated with the provision ~f an underground pipe in the off-sit a drainage area. Removal of additional oak trees on-site (approximately 160) will result if feasibility studies determine 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRiL 20, 1987 87-324 that implementation of City's Master Plan of Drainage is necessary for the project drainage. Fire Service: The developer has requested that the City allow 400 units to be constructed prior to the construction of an off-site road. Unless the toad is constructed prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department has indicated that the response tune to the highlands from Fire Station No. 10 would be unacceptable. And further, that the Planning Commission does I~ereby determine that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and requires that the following Statement of Over.~riding Cons iderations be recommended to the City Council far adoption: c) The benefits of the project have been weighed against the unavoidable environmental impacts and, pursuant to Section 15093 of the Stag CEQA Guidelines, the occurrence o[ the significant environmental effects identified in EIR No. 273 as set forl:h above, may be permitted without further mitigation due to the following overriding considerations: 1) Economic, social and physical considerations make it infeasible to eliminate all of the significant environmental impacts or. project alternatives which have been identified in the final EIR. 2) Such environmental impacts will be reduced by compliance with ^tty codes, policies and procedures. 3) The project will bring substantial benefits to the citizens of Anaheim by providing employment ar~d permitting the development of a variety of high-quality residential densities and unit types to assist in meeting demands for housing. 4) 'The project establishes a land use plan that is consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan for the site. 5) Mitigation treasures have been incorporated into the project to reduce the majority of environmental impacts to an acceptable level. Th a zefore, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council ter tify EIR No. 273 for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills and adopt the Statement of Overriding Ccnsiderations. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-94 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adopt Specific Plan No. 87-01 including the Public Facilities Section, subject to conditions, as amended, for The Highland at Anaheim Hills. Joel Fick suggested any actions on the conditions that are amended will require an amendment to the ~.ecific Plan and Public Facilities Plan that is in accordance with any changes approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herbst stated he will vote no because of his concerns regarding the size of the lots and units which he has already discussed. He added he is only opposed to the lot and house sizes and not the entire Specific Plan. 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIl7N APRIL 20 1987 87-325 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, LAWIGKI, MC BURNF.Y, MESSE NOES: HERBST ABSTAIN: LA CLAIRF. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC87-95 and moved for itz passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving zoning and development standards in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 87-01. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, I,AWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: FIERBST ABSTAIN: LA CLAI{2E Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby requesL• City Council to review the Zoning and Development Standards in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 87-01. Joel Fick :>tated staff assumes all the motions and resolutions are in accordance with the recommendations of the EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations as structured in the staff report and amended by the Planning Commission, Malcolm Slaughter stated there i.s no appeal and the City Council will be hearing this automatically because of Commission's request that they be considered conjunctively. RECESSED: 3:50 p.m. RECONVENED: 4:05 p.m. Cornmi3sioner La Claire left the meeting and did not return. ITEPS N0. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 281 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 223 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-19 AND PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PUBLIC HEARING, OWNERS: DL ENTERPRISES, LTD., 1535 E. Orangewood, X219, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: JIM DENNEHY Property described as approximately 591 acres located 1.1 miles southeast of the Weir Canyon Road and Riverside Freeway intersection and bounded on the north by the Wallace Ranch, west by the Anaheim Hills property, and south and east by the Irvine Company property (Oak Hills Ranch). GPA 'l23 To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan with proposals including but not limited to hillside low density residential, hillside low-medium density residential, hillside medium density residential, general commercial and general open space. RECLASSIFICATION: OS(SC) to PC(SC) or a less intense zone to provide for the 4/20/87 MINUTESR ANAttEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AP_RiL 20, 1987 87-326 development of 2,1'16 residential units, 30 acres of commercial use, 166 acres of open apace, ar- 13-acre park site and a ].0-acre elementary school. public Facilities Plan and h•iscal Impact Analysis for the proposed Oak Hills Ranch. Conkinued from the meetings of February 2, March 2 and April 13, 1987 There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jarod Ikeda, agent representing Oak Hills Developers, stated they discussed a number of conditions at the laR3t meeting and expressed some of their concerns to the Commission, and in the previous hearing regarding the Hiytiland's project, some of the issues have been resolved and they are in agreement with many of them. He Mated the major items of concern are the Weir Canyon Regional Park and the dedication of the 13 acres for a city park and they have no further discussion on those particular issues. He added they are present to answer any questions. Jeff Race, County of Orange, Parks and Recreation, stated they have already discussed the prohlems associated with the developer's encroachment into the established boundaries of Weir Canyon Regional Park; however, last Tuesday on a motion by Supervisor Roth, the Or.anye County Doard of Supervisors adopted tine following resolution: •Whereas, Weir Canyon Regional Park is included in tt~e Orange County General Plan - Recreation talement, Master Plan of Regional Recreation Facilities, and Whereas, this Board adopted the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study by Resolution 84-882 which established the refined boundaries of the park site; and Whereas, these boundaries were precisely drawn to capture the largest Oak woodland in Orange County and some of the County's most significant archaeological resources, commanding views of both inland and coastal areas, richest historical terrain within the County, ar-d wildlife migration corridor; and Whereas, certain areas identified by the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study to be included in Weir Canyon Regional Park lie within the boundaries of the City of Anaheim; and Whereas, the City of Anaheim has received and forwarded to the County for review and comment a development proposal for. the 591.8-acre Oak Hills Ranch property; and Whereas, the development proposal does not provide for the 45 acres of the cresl• of Weir Canyon, identified as Parcel D by the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study; and 4/20/87 87-327 MINUTES, hNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 Whereas, failure to obtain this 45-acre dedication has a potential to adversely affect. the wilderness character of Weir Canyon Regional Park by the proposed elimination of a unique viewpoint and wildlife migration corridor, creation of adverse ~-iewshed impacts and alteration of the natural stresmbed in the headwaters of Weir Canyon] and Whereas, the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study Planning Advisory Group consisted of City and County Ceptheeowncrseof OakiHillscRanchgsoand/ affected land owners (including Whereas, at the time this Doard adopted their refined boundaries, there was no objecL•ion to the inclusion of the 45-acre Parcel D within Weir Canyon Kegional Park. NOW, THER'!~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that if the proposed Oak Hills Ranch development is to be approved by the City of Anaheim, the Orange County Board of Supervisors recommends that the project be conditO3esd the dedicate to the County in fee title for regional park purp 45-acre Parcel D as identified by the Weir Canyon Park-Road Study." Mr. Rare stated he hoped the Commission will recognize and respond to the concerns and recommendations of the County staff, their own city staff and the recommendations of the most well-respected environmental groups in the County and the nation and will r.ecoynize the extensive environmental impacts, including grading of over 80$ of the site, the destruction of rare and endargeced and sensitive species of plant and animals which are not being mitigated to a level of insignificance, but which could be further alleviated through this dedication. He stated he hopes the Commission recognizes the potential recreational value of Weic Canyon Regional Park to the citizens of Anaheim and the value of existing recreational facilities such as Yorba and Featherly Regional Parks and the Santa Ana River Trail which the County Beaches, Harbors and Parks Commission is spending millions of dollars on in County funds. He stated he hoped the Commission would seriously consider this resolution by the Board of Supervisors and the Doard-approved Planning document, the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study, which this resolution supports, by honoring the boundaries of Weir Canyon Regional Park. Mr. Ikeda stated in revising their plan as submitted last week, they tried L-o take ~~ good look at the area and found that there are several factors which have caused them to try to reach a compromise; that one of the conditions is the geotechnical considerations which required them to grade thatwentttonthe the property. He stated it is unconsolidated sandstone and they top and it was quite loose and they feel it would present. a hazardous situation to the public; that the geotechnical conditions require them to buttress it at the bottom of the slope; and alsoeducing theopotentialhpublice of the load in that area be relieved, thereby, hazard of landsliding. Mr. Ikeda stated they looked at an additional consideraL•ion of finding an option to use that particular area to the benefit of the Weir Canyon Regional Park and it was their understanding that that particular area was the critical viewpoint for the park; and that they looked at an alternate site which they call the "South Peak" which provides an exceptional view into Weir Canyon and 4/20/87 87-328 ..S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COIdMISSION APRIL 20 1987 probably a better view than the proposed "Nortsimilar•to thetview from the towards the north from the South Peak is very North Peak; and that the elevation of tt~e South Peak is 30 Eeet lower than the North Peak. He stated in trying to look at the view from the bottom of Weir CCO ose, by Regional Park, look inn ark to the residential development they p p dedicating tF~e South Peak, the view is virtually enclosed and their setbacks from that particular area would enable that viewshed to be protected. Ile stated theyotectionetorthesviewshedoandnprovileseasvisbaepoinprthitei~nlesired provides pr by the County Parks. Jim Dennehy, representing the Oak Hills Ranch, 1535 Orangewood, Anai~eim, presented the slide presentation which were shown on April 13, 1987. One slide showed proposed alignments of Eastern Transportation Corridor through their property, one being right thr.~ugh Parcel D which the County is requesting be dedicated. He explained the Board of Supervisors and County Parks Department did not oppose that alignment and that he had to fight hard to yet those alignments eliminated Erom the proposed Eastern Transportation Corridor, andinateditthis ateaecouldsnotEbehampartroftthetWeir Canyon Regional not been elim r Park. A slide was presented of tine original proposal, and the area where they intend to develop 10,000-square Eoot lots which is probably the highest valued portion of tl-eir project and a slide of their revised plan which provides approximately 15 to 20 acres in that location as a setback from development which would be dedicated to the County. A slide of the North and South Peaks was presented, and he explained the County desires dedication of the North Peak as part of the 45-acres; and a slide of roeoseeto dedicate thetSouth South Peak was shown, and tie explained they p p Peak; a slide looking in the opposite direction from the South Peak directly into Weir Canyon was shown. Mr. Dennehy pointed out the Corridor alignment proposed, and the one which comes closest to this property is on the other side of a ridge and if that one is chosen, right in the area proposed for the park, there would be a highway. A slide taken from the North Peak was presented, showing the view north directly into Santa Ana Canyon, south into Weir Canyon Regional Park, and he explained that view is not quite as good. Chairman McBurney asked what would be seen halfway between the North Feak and South Yeak. Mr. Ikeda staL•ed a person would not be able to see the floor of the canyon because that would be at a substantially lower elevation and the flat area would be blocked. He stated the North Peak is unconsolidated sandstone and is easily crumbled and they did not think iL• would be in best interest of the general public to have that peak available as a vista point; and that it needs to be remedied for development and that is part of their plan. He presented slides taken from the bottom of Weir aCviewnofcthe Southn a norr_heasterly direction towards the Oak Hills Property; Peak, taken at about 50-foot intervals. He explained the South Peak is right at r"e apex of the v-shape of the canyon, and pointed out the South Peak becomes visible at about 50 feet from the property line, and the North Peak becomes visible at the property line, and the flat area to the left of the 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 87-329 North Peak, which is part of the 45-acre dedication, is an area they have indicated as part of their development plan. Commissioner Herbst asked if these slides were shown to the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Ikeda responded they were. Mr. Ikeda stated the item was on the consent calendar last Tuesday and they requested time to show the slides. Mr. Dennehy stated he thought the County staff an~3 County ti arbors, Beaches and Parks Commission had already said they wanted the whole 45 acres and there really wasn't going to be any compromise. Commissioner Bouas asked Jeff Race to respond to Mr. Ikeda and Mr. Dennehy's commentR and asked why it is essential to have the whole 45 acres. Jeff Race, County Parks Department, stated he has already made two presentations explaining why they feel the whole 45 acres is essential; and that the North Peak is only 30 feet higher than the South Peak, but the orientation is vastly different. Responding to Commissioner. Bouas' concern about the peak being unconsolidated sandstone, Mr. Race stated he has been to the top of the hill, but for the general public he would agree at this time it is not safe, but, of course, the park will be developed and safe access would be constructed. Commissioner Messe stated it is to be a wilderness park and should be left alone. Mc. Race stated they construct many things in a wilderness park and the intent is to leave them unchanged, but they construct safe trails, such as at Gaspers Park. Commissioner Messe asked if this peak is more for the viewshed of the Santa Ana Canyon. Mr. Race stated it provides a 32U° view which is essentially a view of a wide area and not just the Santa Ana Canyon. He added the South peak also provides a view of Santa Ana Canyon, but not the same as the North Peak and the South Peak is tucked back into the surrounding hills. He stated in their discussions with the consultant, the North Peak would be taken down approximately 100 feet to relieve the load and although the flat area might not be visible from the bottom of the canyon, they believe the Houses that would be constructed on that peak would be highly visible. Mr. Race stated the 45-acre dedication would not change the views from the South Peak, and it is still included and was meant to be included in the 45 acres to provide those direct views into Weir Canyon and directly into the park. He stated while the views of the park are a bit offset from Weir Canyon itself, that viewpoint is a more spectacular view. He stated the photog-aphs were taken from the very bottom of the Canyon and that is not the place where most of the activities will be in the park; and the trail is not in the V-ditch of the creak, buL• is on the side where homes will be more visible. He stated up to this point L•here has been no viewshed analysis, other than the phokographs taken of what the actual development would look like from areas within the pack, and the mitigation measures in the environmental report proposes that they would be doing that type analysis prior to the final grading, but by then the whole development plan is going to be set and tentative tract maps would have been approved and it is hard to turn back the clock at the time of final grading and say they cannot develop because the homes will be visible. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN APRIL 20 1987 87-330 Mr. Race stated the Fasters Transportation Corridor alignment under consideration which -~ald impact the park is at the very boundary of the park and does not cut the park in half. Chairman McBurney asked why the County did not oppose the Eastern Transportation Corridor alignments in the middle of this area. Mr. Race stated there were a number of alternatives considered and presented and there was a ~~~rk road compatibility study and the Parks Department was in favor of the largest alternative to create thosedgtonthepali•nmentstthrough thisnarea know if the Parks Department was opp g and thought the alternatives were just presented to the Board of Supervisors and ,of course, it is goad park planning not to have a freeway within oaedptok and he thought they approved the alternative that was selected, as opp disapproving any specific alignments. Jim Dennehy stated one reason the alignments were eliminated was that their environmental impact report and development plan were in hhe process when they were reviewing the study and alsr~ because of their lobbying efforts to make it happen. He stated he worked very hard to get the alignment eliminated and then one year later was told by the County that now the alignments are not there, they want to take the pack. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bouas asked Mc. Dennehy if they were discussing his property as part of the park when he was working on the committee discussing the Eastern Transportation Corridor. Mr. Dennehy stated when they were going through the whole study, he kept hearing that they would define the boundaries, and that there was a conceptual Weir Canyon Park study and they were doing general alignments because the boundaries were not set, but he never saw precise engineering plans defining ttre outline of the park. Commissioner.' Herbst referred to the North Peak and asked if the buttress would have to be provided because of the development of this plan. ttr. Dennehy stated the plans show development all around the bottom of the hill and because it is extremely unstable, they would have to fill the canyon to the right and in order that they would not be just. filling the canyon, they offered to keep the whole spine in a semi-natural state and provided the lakes. He stated going from the City park, through the County trail system which runs along the westerly side of the park, and through the County park, which they are proposing to dedicate all the way into Weir Canyon and they tried to keep the whole trail system tied together. Commissioner Herbst asked what the County would have to do to maintain the stability of the North Peak if it is dedicated. Mr. Dennehy stated it depends on what they are going to use it for, and added he did not know how much they would have to take off to relieve that pressure. Commissioner Herbst asked if there would have to be a buttress at the bottom to maintain it for their development of the rest of tl•~e property. Mr. Dennehy stated he thought it would have to be buttressed. Commissioner Herbst asked if the County would be willing to do that. 4/20/67 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 1987 87-331 Mr. Dennehy stated they came before the Planning Commission on February ?.nd and the County came to them before that and said they wanted the 45 scree and they offered a compromise, but the County would not discuss a compromise. Ile stated they tried to consider the County's position and looked at the South Peak and determined ik actually does look into Weir Canyon and is a great starting place right into the canyon. He stated the slides were taken on the side of the hill and not from the "v" and they made a conscious effort to come halfway with the County and hot no response. Commissioner Herbst asked if the North Peak was graded to relieve the pressure and was developed with houses, if the roof tops would be visible from the canyon. Mr. Dennehy stated hp walked up the Canyon and conceptually looked at thak issue with Supervisor Ruth's assistant and L-hought very few houses would be visible. He stated a person would have to get almost to their property line in order to see the hill, but is now 100 feet higher and the houses would not be lOC feet higher. Commissioner Bouas asked to see the slides showing the flat area and the peak and then asked Mr. Dennehy to point. .gut where the houses would be located. Mr.. Dennehy explained the slide was taken looking from the South Peak north to the North Peak and there is the hill which will be graded by about 100 feet and houses wou1~9 be developed around it. Commissioner Meese asked where the Commissioners would have been standing when they were there for their field trip. Mr. Dennehy pointed out the road and trees and pointed out taking the whole 45 acres cuts right through the area. Mr. Ikeda stated the red outline shows the 45 acres and the acre that would be taken up and where the development would be lost if the 45 acres is dedicated. Jeff Race referred to the slides of. the out•.line of the park and explained there is going to be development there and the only areas not developed are on the boundaries. He pointed out the headwater area and the wildlife migration corridor as determined by the biological study done Eor the pack. He pointed out the fencelines on the slide and stated the 45 acres leaves the large open meadow for development and pointed out the area which is generally flat within that 45 acres. Commissioner Bouas referred to the area where the Commissioners were standing on their. field trip and Mr. Race pointed out th~~ area of development and the area of 45-acre dedication. He pointed out the area where the proposed 15 acres would be in relation to the 45 acres. Mr. Dennehy stated he has never seen tracks or signs of any wildlife in that area and he has been there many times. tie stated that whole section would be graded. Mr. Race stated they do not believe the developer's proposal would amount to 15 acres due to modification requirements and pointed out where it would probably start and go to the top of the ridge and just over it, but did not include the area shown. Eie stated with the 15-acre dedication, the views of Central Orange County, Anaheim Hills, etc. would be lost. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, APR_IL_20~ 1987 87-332 Mr. Dennehy asked iF. the people who would be visiting this park would be looking at houses or if it is supposed to be for people interested in nature and looking for Weir Canyon and stated one of the County Parks concerns is khat the people in the park will be looking at the houses. Mr. Race stated they are not concerned about people seeing houses looking from the peak; and that they want o wide variety of uses for all of Orange County and not Gust the park. Commissioner tjerbst stated in looking at the 45-acre dedication, the pol•.ential users would have to go through Hauer Ranch and ott,~~r residential developments to get there and asked who is going to use the park and how they would get there. Mr. Dennehy stated the people who enter the park from the Orange side rather than Anaheim, if the Irvine Company dedicates the other 2000 acres. Commissioner Herbst stated he does not like giving something away which will be used very little and this 45 acres is very valuable property and he did not think there would be very many people using it. He asked how many people would he using this type of pack. tor. Race stated they have millions of. people using the regional park sys*_em and there are thousands of people who ~tse thir, type of park. fie stated they would access to this area through Irvine Regional Park and Weir Canyon would become an extension of ICV1nP. Regional Park. Fie stated Irvine Regional Park is the most heavily-used regional park in Orange County and is also the oldest and they expect thousands of people to oe using thi3 park every year and they would be hiking up to this viewpoinr_. He added there ace staging areas within Anaheim Hills where people can access the trails and added they have an extensive trail system throughout Anaheim Hills, Oak Hills and Wallace Ranch leading up from other regional parks. Commissioner Herbst asked when the Irvine Company might be dedicating their portion. Mr. Race stated he did not have any additional information on that issue. Mr. Dennehy stated that property is in an agricultural preserve right now and he was sure nothing would happen for another 10 years. Commissioner Herbst stated nothing has been heard from the Irvine Company and he realizes they have given a lot of land for dedication, but trey have also gotten something in return and wondered if they would give away 200 acres and if they do, what they would expect from the County taxpayers in return. Mr. Race stated they would expect development rights. Commissioner Herbst stated this property owner has the right to develop his property and that he would not like to make a decision until he hears something from the Irvine Company. Commissioner Fry stated it is highly unlikely that the Irvine Company will be making any commitment and he did not think this project should be held up for that reason. Commissioner Bouas asked if the County staff thought they could get anyone from the Irvine Company to speak. Chairman McBUrney asked if the Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution recommending that the Irvine Company dedicate the acreage for this park as they have done with the City of Anaheim. Mr. Race stated development is taking plar_e which includes this 45 acres now and as long as development does not take place in Weir Canyon, they do not have a vehicle to require the dedication, but as soon as the developer requests to develop the property and when the General Plan Amendment is approved for that area, in compliance with the Resources and Recreation 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 n_7-333_ Element of the General Plan, the County would r.equice the Irvine Company to dedicate. Chairman McBurney stated until the Irvine Company approaal~es tt~e County and says they wank to develop, the Board of Supervisors would not make the resolution regarding the dedication. Malcolm Slaughter stated he thought the Commission and Mr. Race are discussing two different issues and asked if Chairman McBurney is asking whether the board itself has expresRed a desire at this time for a regional park. Chairman McBurney stated his question is whether or not they have recommended that the Irvine Company dedicate their property, as they Dave done with the development of this property. Malcolm Slaughter staked Mr. Race has indicated that until the Irvine Company requests some permit, such as zoning or a variance, the County would not be in a position to impose that condition. He Mated he assumes that this regional park is shown on the County's Master Plan of Parks. Mr, Race stated the County has done that and has indicated khat Weir Canyon Regional Park is on the Master Plan of Regional Parks and in fact, they have gone further and have done the Weir Canyon Road-Park Study, which is a more precise planning document than the General Plan and it does define the boundaries. Commissioner Bouas asked when the road would go in. Mr. Race stated tie is a park planner and does not know when it would be developed, but the County is engaging in alignment skudies for the Eastern Transportation Corridor and that the environmental documentation will be coming along soon and will be reviewed by the City of Anaheim and other jurisdictions involved. Commissioner Bouas stated she was sure that is already in progress because they want to build a jail. Comrissioner Masse stated he would like to see the area again 'ram a different set of eyes because the last time he was there, he did not have all this information and these ideas and would like to have the decision delayed. Commissioner Bouas agreed she would like to see the site again. Mr. Ikeda stated in trying to develop this plan, they have tried to look at the natural resources of the 600 acres and tried to identify those areas that are most sensitive and those areas which are least sensitive. He stated in looking at the geotechnical conditions they have to work with and in coming up with this plan, they have had to make some tough decisions and choices as to where development goes. He stated they have come up with a plan on which an open space corridor extends from the Weir Canyon Regional Park, which is the southwest boundary of their property, up through the central open space corridor directly through the middle of their property and continues inks the Wallace Ranch an~3 into an open space corridor of the Kaufman and Broad Development. He stated this provides a very scenic open space corridor extending from Santa Ana Canyon Road all the way through their property and up to the top of khe hill into Weir Canyon Regional Park; and it does allow for the trail and is a mitigation measure they have discussed with the Department of Fish and Game to offset some of their concerns with respect to the eiparian areas that would be destroyed. He stated the plan allows for some very beautiful oak trees and sycamore trees which they feel F~ave khe highest 4/20/87 MINUTKS, ANAHSIM CITY PLANNTNG COhiMISSION, APRIb 20, .1987 87-334 __-__.-- environmental oensitivity and the greatest environmental value uE the property and he felt, personally, those areas are f.ar more attractive than the v1ewE~oint looking at the top of houses. Ne stated it was their feeling that that opE~n space corridor was probably the most essential and natural environment element of r,heic plan. Mr. Ikeda sated this brings up the discussion of the City park. Cornmisaloner Herbst asked 1E the City nark would be combined with this location. Mc, Ikeda stated it. was their intenr. that the open :;pace corridor being discussed is a central Eeal•ure that links Weir Canyon Regional Park to the City park site and that is one of the prime reasons for the location of Lhe proposed City park its. Chairman Mct3urney asked if the 45•-acre boundary is definitive enough so that something could be' planned nn ttre field trip so the Commission could get a better Idea as to where the boundary line is actually located for the 45 acres, as opposed to the acrHage they are proposing to dedicate. Mr. Ikeda sr-ated he was sure that could be arranged. Chairman McF3urn~y s!:ated h~ Thought the meadow is also a concern and :rhould be considered and the Cornmisslon should take a look at that area. fie added the City park site should be further discussed. Mr. Ikeda stared their site proposed for the 13•-acre dedication for the City park was the location shown on the existing General Plan, and in addition, it was their understanding that the City park. was to be located adjacent to the Wallace Ranch park site. He stated their location was predicated on that. and they nad discussed the location of that park with the Wallace Ranch representatives several months ago and it was their unu_:standing that the two parks could be adjacent. He stated they have tt~icd to re_:pond to the City narks Department's cuncerns with respect to accessibility, the Tour Corners Pipeline easement, the topography arrd the isolation concern. He stated they feel the location does respond to the General Plan and theacklstandardsf He graded area that is less than 58 slope fulfills the City p stated the, had always anticipated relocating the tour r_orrers Pipeline and tna` is part !: !' the development costs they will incur. He stated they feel ttreir location with ttre adjacent Wallace Ranch park site does provide a very key viewpoint from weir Canyon Road into the central open space and the par;: and the visibility from Weir Canyon Road is very good. H? stated they tried to look at alternative sites, but feel the proposed location is very beautiful and would be ideal for the park and it will work. Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent, stated actually since the meeting last Monday, their department. has not had any additional information from the developer, so their position remains unchanged, and they still feel that there are substantial problems with this site relative to maintenance, grade differentials, pedestrian access, vehicular .cress and safety and security. tie stated they do not feel this: site len~~ itself to a City park site and that site was penciled in on the General Plan, but there are other alternatives that would line up with the Wallace park site and they ace more than willing to evaluate those if they are proposed and until then, their position is solid, relative to this park site. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20~ 1987 87-335 Jay Titus stated the Four Corners Pipeline which runs through this property has been mentioned and he was not sure where they propose to relocate it, but the City would not look favorably upon it being relocated within a public street easement) however, it could be put into an easement adjacent to the street. Mr. Ikeda stater] they have not finalized thelr discussions with the coot Corners Pipeline Companys however, they will be working with them in relocatin5 the pipeline and do anticipate it. would be adjacent to the street in some landscape easement. Mc. Ikeda stated some of the conditions discussed previously should be reviewed quickly and as they relate to the previous discussions with the titgh.lands project, they are in agreement with most of them. He referred to Condition No. 22 regarding the Transportation System Management program and stated they hoped that condition would be somewhat similar to .he Eighlands. Chairman McBurney stated the last sentence would be eliminated pertaining .o the $1.00 per trip end fee. Mr. Ikeda ref errer3 t.•o Condition No. 46 regarding the widening cif Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road and stated they `eel if that i.s t a condition imposed on the Highlands project, then it shoula not be imposed on this development. Commissioner Fry stated the reference to Fairmont was eliminated on the Highlands project. Commissioners Fry and McBurney agreed it should be eliminated rn this project. Chairman McBurney stated one fire condition should be eliminated and a condition should be added requiring that Serrano connection to Weir Canyon Road as a condition of any tentative tract map approval. Commissioner Herbst stated that condition should be the same as on the Highlands and pertains to whoever develops first. Commissioner Messe thought Cor;9ition No. 26 would cover that situation. Mc. Ikeda stated with the discussion held earlier, they are in agreement with working with the other three property owners. Chairman McBurney stated he wants it on tl-~e record that Serrano will have to ga through all the way, either by Highlands or Oak Hills, whoever develops First. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 46 and asked that Subsection (a) be eliminated because they do not anticipate their project would generate any significant amount of traffic on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Commissioner Herbst stated that condition will apply to all three properties and should not be eliminated. Mr. Ikeda ref^ered to Condition No. 47 regarding a maintenance site a,id stated they are willing to work with tt~e City and with the Wallace Ranch representatives to determine that particular location and at this time, they do not wish to have it located on their property, but will work with the City. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 61, 63 and 64 and 65 pertaining to the City park and added they are willing to work with the Parks Department and as with Highlands, they feel there should be a single amount they need '-n deal with, rather than having to provide tha dedication of land, in-lieu .. and 4/20/81 MINUTES, ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNiNC COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987__ 87-336 construction of the park improvements and having to do all three is more than they ever anticipated. Chairman McBurney stated that is khe same as the dollar amounts agreed to on the Highlands project. Mr. Ikeda stated they would agree to a single dollar amount and whatever combination thereof, in terms of dedication of pack land, fees, and construction. Commissioner Herbst stated if the park ordinance is changed, those fees could change before they get t.~uilding permits. Mr. Ikeda responded he understood. Mr. Ikeda referred to Conditions 66 and 67 and stated maintaining the ~ub11c trail is still a problem for them and they don't feel they have the capability to maintain and be liable for a public trail with public use occurring on it. Commissioner Herbst stated that has been a condition L•hroughout the City with the homeowner's associations being responsible. Joel Fick stated it is hi~ understanding, based on testimony from the Parks Department staff, that that was the manner in which the conditions were imposed on ttie Bauer Ranch, and based nn the substantial overall deficit of the development as submitted, the Parks Department has recommended the developers assume the maintenance on things like this. Dick Mayer, Park Planner, stated that is the correct information; that many existing subdivision have been approved by the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council, and have had that same requirement, and on~:e the Bauer Ranch trails are accepted by the City, rhey will be maintained by the homeowner's associations. He added there ace sevaral trail systems in the lnaheim Hills area =uch as Hidden Canyon which have that requirement and the trail system that wos developed off Stage Coach Road is being maintained by the homeowner's association. He stated this condition was as the result of staff working together with the City Attorney's Office in about 1983 to come up with that particular requirement, primarily based on the fact that the City has a limit to its resources, as well, as far as maintenance responsibilities are concerned. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Dick Mayer added that :'.hey also have the liability insurance requirement. Mc. Ikeda stated that is their primary concern and Commissioners Bouas and Fry indicated they disagree with that requirement. Commissioner Lawicki stated that is a burden on the individual homeowners and is an open end check. Dick Mayer stated that has to be because there is really no way to insure the level of maintenance from the homeowners associations and if they don't also have the liability insurance to cover any liability due to their neglect, there is no protection at al.l for the City. Commissioner Fry asked what happens if they cannot oet liability insurance which is a very str.any possibility. Mr. Mayer responded the City has not encountered that problem as yet. 4/20/87 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20 19 81 87-337 Malcolm Slaughter stated the other consideration is that if that is a financial cost which is admittedly diEEicult to quantify and he did not think it has been included in any of the fiscal analysis and if it is a shortfall shown per year of a certain amount, even if it is half- million dollars, that amount may be peanuts compared to what a good liai~ility j,:9gment could amount to it it was adverae to the City. Ile stated those risks were not factored into the costa of the development, as presently structured, so i.t is going to be their risk, and it has not been included in the City's costs under the fiscal analysis. Mr. Dennehy stated the cost i3 not the issue, but that it is a public right-of-wa~~ with public aces:, and even though it is included in the ;aufman & Broad Development, he did not know if those homeowners realize what they are liable for and did not know that if there is any liability claim was Eiled whether legally it would be against all th a homeowners , or or.~ of them, the County or whoever r_he tcail.s will be used b yr and that the County and City deal with that daily as part of their public responsib ility. He statecl their question is not the dedicat ion, but is th is reasonable ro give to a homeowner's association and he dial no t think it was. Chairman McBurney asked the City Attorney whether or not the homeowners could post 3 "Pr.oceed at your own risk" sign to relieve themselves of the liability. Malcolm Slaughter responded these are dedicated public trails op.~n to the public, and the Homeowners are required to prow fide insurance. Commissioner Lawicki asked how the homeowners could pc otect themselves. Dick Mayer responded they could -•rotect themselves through proper maintenance. Commissioner Bouas stated a person could soil have an accident that has nott•:ing to do with the maintenance. Mr. Mayer stated that is true but iE they have mainta fined the facility to minimize any negligent act or the possibility of any negligent acts, they should be f2~rly clear. Commissioner "r'ry stated a lot of liability judgments have been awarded i.n the last few years by judges and juries. Malcolm Slaughter stated tnat is precisely the reason the City is concerned that it not be a City responsibility. Commissioner Bouas stated maybe trails should not be a requirement. Mr. Slaughter responded that is a policy deci sion and trails ace shown on the General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Jay Titus stateu this condition does not r Bally say it is going to be turned over to the homeowner's association, but s ays that a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism should be established. Commissioner Messe stated the cost and li ahility wil 1 ultimately come down to the homeowners either way. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIT: PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 87-338 Chairman McBurney stated he would recommend ttie liability responsibility be eliminated and added he did not know what the Cita~ Council will do with it. He added he is very uncomfortable with the homeowner's association having responsibility for the public right of way. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought it has been eliminated in some instances. Dick Mayer stated if that is the case and the condition is eliminated, then the fiscal impact analysis should be revised to include any `,:rail maintenance responsibilities that would become a requirement of the City. Chairman McBurney stated he is not saying the responsibility is back on khe City, but just that tie does not want the liability on the homeowner's association. ll~: stated the sidewalks are public rights-of-way and the homeowners are responsible for maintaining them and have the liability, but he felt the trails are diEf.erent. Malcolm Slaughter stated the City gets sued on a weekly basis because of damaged sidewalks, etc. Chairman McBurney asked how many suits have been filed on these trails. Dick Mayer sta~-• l he was not aware of any claims in the three years tie has been with the .. ity. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition ~~o. 85 and exr~lained that is similar to the one established for Highlands and they would like to have tt~e same wording which deals with maintenance of the open channel. He referred to Condition Nu. 9 regarding m~':~tenance of slopes off site and stated they nave indicated they would like to have: that clarified so that once an off-site development occurs, they would not be responsible for maintaining it in perpetuity and explained the condition requires if they make an off-siL•e improvement end provide access for adjacent property owners, that they would still have to maintain it. Chairman McBurney suggested rewording the condition to reflect that comment. Mr. Slaughter stated he thought it is the City's position that they want someone other than the City to be liable for the slopes and to the extent that this developer might have lh e liability initially of the slopes on somebody else's property because he would be putting in a road to serve his needs, he would not have a legal objection to having the other property owner assume that liability, but one of the property owners should have that liability at all times and nat the City. Chairman McBurney asked if we can require the adjacent developer to accept the responsibility of the slopes. Mr. Slaughter stated it could probably be done by adding wording; "that provided, ho~•~ver, upon acceptance of liability by the underlying property ~~wner from this developer, this developer could be relieved of the ~~bligation". Commissioner Herbst asked ii they would be part of the reimbursement program for the road. Mr. Ikeda suggested changing the wording to read "maintenance mechanism". He stated it is roads they are responsible for maintaining and if they could establish a mechanism whereby those kinds of responsibilities are transferred, *hat would be acceptable. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 87-339 Chairman McBurney stated the developer is responsible for the maintenance of the slopes until such time as the neighboring developer devel.opo their property and then it becomes their responsibility to maintain the slopes. Jay Titus stated the wording proposed by Mr. Ikeda would be acceptable and that wording would be that he is t~:oviding a maintenance mechanism that is acceptable to the City of Anaheim. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 101 and added it is similar to their concern regarding the trails and they would be responsible f:or maintenance of the median In Weir Canyon Road and that is a public right-of-way and they feel it should be maintained by the City. Chair. man McBurney stated this was discussed previously. Joel Fick stated it is his recollection that Mr. Singer commented at the last meeting that the median may be eliminated on Serrano. Mr. Slaughter stated it was his understanding that the condition would apply if and to tt~e extent that the developer wanted niec]ians in Serrano, but if h~ did not want them, they would not be required. Commissioner Messe stated no one has said they want the medians. Mr. Ikeda stated that is Condition No. 102 ar;d they want to state that they do not want a median in Serrano and it was agreed that Condition No. .102 should be deleted. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 121 and they would like to Indic:ate that they would be prepared to participate with the other adjacent land owners in putting together any kind of special assessment district or mechanism by which some of these agreements could be esr_ablished, but would pay only their fair share. Mr. Slaughter stated he has a problem because he is hearing that they are making their participation only for a pro rata share and it is the Cicy's position that the obligation is on the developer to meet tt~e requirements and if he ran convince either of the other owners to cc.,te in and they can demonstrate that they are willing the share the responsibility, the City would be in a position to do that, but to merely impose a pro rata share up front could not be done because if he paid his pro rata share, the City would not know who would come up with thn other owners share up front. He added reimbursement is to pay back for work already done. Chairman McBurney stated that is what the developer is looking for and suggested the wording be changed to reflect. that change. Mr. Ikeda referred to Condition No. 51 dealing with the reintbursemetit to Kaufman and Broad and stated they would be willing to work with Kaufman and Broad as long as they are willing to agree to participate in any public facilities that would benefit them as well. Malcolm Slaughter stated Kaufman & Broad has already developed ti~eir property, and Mr. Ikeda stated Oak Hills is required to provide a school facility which they feel will benefit Kaufman & Broad and that they should participate. 9/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION L APRIL 2U ,_ 1987 87-,340 Jim Dennehy atar_ec: Kaufman & Broad is asking Oak Hills to reimhurse t;:Qm for expenses they have put out for public facilities and c,ll they are asking is that those reimbursement costs be offset for those public facilities Oak Hills will have to put in and referred to the police substation and the library. Malcolm Slaughter stated the City has entered into or is about to enter into a reimbursement agreement with Kaufman & Broad in whir,h then will be entitled to receive from the City and the City will be obligated to collect from other developers which will benefit from Kaufman & Broad's improvements certain amounts of money) and that the Ciry will do that regardless of phis particular condition because th~>y are contt..~tually obligated. Chairman McBurney asked if an agreement will be prepared with this developer to pick up reimbursements from other developers for the public facilities they are putting in.Malcolm Slaughter stated he does not have a problem with doing that other than the very practical problem, and used the library as an example, and explained the City can impose and agree to enter into an assessment benefit district with this developer and agree to collect from all other properties that are to be developed by Kaufman & Broad when they come in Eor building permits and he thought that is an extremely unlikely occurr~nre and the chances of recovering anything are extremely limited and the paperwork involved would far exceed the money collected. Commissioner Lawicki asked about other ranches that are to be developed. Mr. Slaughter responded that is undeveloped parcels and Mr. Dennehy was talking about Kaufman & Broad specifically. Mr. Dennehy stated if the City is, in fact, collecting money or will col?.ect money under reimbursement agreements for Kaufman & Rroad, he would like to know what the problem would be in offsetting tho:~e collections for public far.tlities they are going to participate in. Mr. Slaughter responded they will not participate in them because he understands they have already developed their property and are not there any longer, and secondly, there is nothing to permit the City to offset what it is obligated to collect. He responded he did not know if there is an existing reimbursement agreement with Kaufmar~ 6 Broad. Mr. Dennehy stated he did not think there is arr existing agreement. Nevin Kirk, Kaufman & Broad Home Corporation, 11601 Wilshir~: Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated eight years ago they addressed every one these issues and did pay school fees to mitigate their school impact in Orange; that they have donated a library site; that they have built afire station; that they donated and built a park and have advanced over 6,000,000 to the city to date. He stated he would like to request today that prior to any final map approval on any of the ranches in the canyon area, that they get reimbursed for the money they expended four years ago, prior to *.heir first map being approved on any portion of their ranch. He stated in 1983 they committed 16,000,000 before they could get one building permit in this city, and they are out in excess of 5,000,000 today. 4j20j87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL l0, _1987 87-341 Mr. Slaughter stated he does not have a basic disagreement with Mr. Kirk= however, he believed that. those agreements in the past have nit been tied t~ final map approval, but to issuance of building perrt~its, which can be a bit of difference in timing. Mr. Ikeda stated their only other problem with that condition is that they would rather deal with the City than Kaufman & Broad directly. Commissioner gouas stated that is what the Commission agreed to with the Highland's developer and this should be handled that same way. Kevin Kirk stated because of the proximity of Oak Hills Ranch and the need for Oak Hills to extend improvements across another piece of property, prior to tying into the facilities they have provided on their property; they would request that before any credits are given on fees for the Oak Hills property, that the fees be paid to Kaufman & Broad for their facilities, prior to credits being advanced to the Oak Hills Ranch for the improvements within the Wallace property. He stated they could take full credit far the fees L•hey would be obligated to pay and build the improvements across Wallace Ranch and then it could be another 10 years before Kaufman & Broad would ultimately receive the monies they expended prior to their developmen~. He stated they are asking that it they have improvements which do not exceed the fees that would be collected by tt~e City, that tt~e fees be reimbursed to Kaufman ~ Broad prier to any fees being credited for the improvements off site. He further explained if Gaks Hills Ranch has to pay the fee is Lor a certain amount and only has to build 500,000 worth of storm drain on the Oak Hills Ranch itself, but would have to build ~1,f00,000 on the Wallace Ranch, Kaufman & Broad is requesting that 'they only be ~.~edited for $500,000 on the 2,000,000 drainage fee, and the 1,500,000 he pain F:~ck to Kaufman .+ Broad first, before they get credit for the $1,500,000 on the Wallace Ranch. Jay Titus stated he did not know wY~,t the City Attorney would say from a legal standpoint, but from past policy, tte City has always given the developer credit for total costs of tt~e facilities he has put in whether it is on his property oc not. Mr. Slaughter stated he was not sure :~ could be done. Mr. Kirk stated the City did not lend them any money to go two miles off tract when they started. He added he was just making a request. Jay Titus referred to Condition t7o. 101 and stated the condition as written refers to landscape medians in any arterial street and Weir Canyon Road is a Scenic Expressway and landscaped medians are required and the condition really refers to optional medians in Serrano. He stated Condition No. 102 directly addresses Serrano and 101 says any arterial highway and it should be changed L•o Weir Canyon Road or Serrano, and the city would maintain the medians in Weir Canyon Road. Commissioner Messe stated Condition No. 102 should be deleted and No.rcOerial should remain in a general sense, and Jay Titus stated 101 says "any highway" and that would include Serrano, and rather than any a[teria~, it should read "Weir Canyon", and stated a Scenic Expressway is a classification of an arterial highway. a/2o/a7 .1987 t37-342 NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, Commissioner Bouas asked if the school site has been a rtbonsofdtheMproperty stated the site has heen located on the northeastern p and that it has been accepted by the school district. Frank Barnes, Orange Unified ~;chool District, stated they have worked on the school site and'be.lieve tti~^: a arebu~m~h~e~itesisoacceptableato them. interesting stcsctural pr olems, Commissioner Bouas no'ras beenschanged beeL11ehnotthernvsideeoErWeiraCanyon Road. Mr. Barnes stated it Frank gl.fend, Elf~rd Associates, .1151 Dove StreWOrkingeontbehalf oEctheent on the school site. He stated they are currently articular Wallace t2anch with the School District in ter. ms of citing that p location, and for the Commission's in[nrmation, that school site has moved around on both properties several times; that at one time there was a junior high school site shown on the Wallace Ranch which was subsequently eliminated, and no junior high school site was needed and that turned out to be a site that was then located between the two ranches, and then a site that was s~ipposed to be 20 acres and thereroaosaleand,}suggested thereebeatworsites,yone the district has come up with nape currently working with the district to on each ranch. tie staL•ed they will be coming resolve the location issue on the Wallace Ranch and since they before the Planning schoolssiteoontthe OakjHillsnRatnchfurure, it might affect the location of the Chairman Mct3urney stated he understands the concerns, but this .is not a specific plan and there is room for maneuverability of the school site. Commissioner Bouas stated the Parks Depactment is not satisfied with the park site and asked what should be done there. Commissioner Fry stated he has not heard any specific or concrete reason wiry the proposed site for the city park is not acceptable. He asked why the present site is not acceptable to the Parks Department. Jack Kridron stated they have attempted to outline their concerns several times; that accessibility is a problem and even though the Traffic Engineer has agreed on a right-in/right-out access on Weir Canyon Road, tt•~ey don't feel that that necessarily makes the site accessible to the Oaks Hills development, let alone the entire surrounding area. He stated probably more irr>portank in is pedestrian accessibility; that except for walking down through the trail system in the drainage <~rea, there doesn't seem to be a way to walk to this park; and this is to be a neighborhood park and people should be able to walk to it and we should not expect children who frequent a park to get ~n their bikes and go off onto Weir Canyon Road to get into this park site. a[k siteein one of the prime considerations for any neighborhood or community p this city, is pedestrian accessibility, and this park does not have that except coming through the trail system. He added thef have to be concerned about regulations redaaccessibilidYcaPopthis accessibility there doesn't appear to be handicapp si'-e. He st~ ..;cessibility is just one area where they have a conc rn; and that grade d. :rentials, maintenance considerations, visibility, safety and 4/20/87 MINUTh;S, ANAliEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 _ 87-343 security are also concerns which they feel combined do not present a site that meets the Adopted Local •~ark Site Criteria which the Planning Commission and City Council have approved. He stated he can provide that ~r.iteria to the Commission if desired and adder' he would be more than willing work wit~r the Commission in terms of seeing if the site dues meet the criteria but their evaluation indicates that it does not. Commissioner. Herbst stated in looking at both ranches which abut one another, he would like to know if there is enough ground to have these two park sites combined into one large park which would be mare accessible to the homeowners on both sides of this invisible boundary line. Mr. Kudron responder) they believe there is, and he would be happy to suggest that, and their position ~~ not to propose sites to the developer, but Eor the developer to propose sites to them. He stated if Area t3 in Oak Hills was matched up with Acea 4 of the Wallace Ranch, they Eeel that would probably be an excellent local park site. and added they have not• evaliaatcd the area. Commissioner flerbst stated once these ranches are all developed, there is no boundary and it is all the Cit;~ of Anaheim. Jack Kudron, .agreed an~~ stated they try to look at parks within certain radiuses for serviceability to the community and those radiuses are not drawn by ranch boundaries. Commissioner Herbst asked if it would be better to have two separate park sites or one big park to service the public in the area. Mr. Kudron stated in that location and in view of the fact that they he/e neighborhood parks identified or in the area, a larger site would be better. fie added we have community parks and neighborhood marks and in this area a community park would service ttre needs of the area better and anytime they can maintain one site versus two sites, it is substantially better in terms of cost effectiveness. Mr. Dennc: ~ stated this site has been on the General Plan for over two years and they oriented their development to ccommc,date that and to be consistent with the General Plan. He stated they are willing to work with the Parks Department to provide pedestrian access from r.he residential development in Area B, and when they define Area D, will provide it from that point. He stated in their opinion this is the best place t~ put a park site because, as seen from Wallace's General Plan, they are showing a park sic.e on that site as well, and it will provide a larger park. He stated one week before they came back to the Planning Commission, they met with the Parks Department and at the last meeting they hid after they submitted their revised plan, ttie Parks Department said ey =bought that was an acceptable site and felt they had worked to accommodate their needs, and on the following Mon~9ay, he was informed that that was not the case and Lney would not accept the park, so it did not 'leave them much time to make any accommodations before t,fiey came back t~ the Commission. E1e stated the site is probably one of the prettiest areas of this property and they tried to accommodate all the problems. fie added from an access stan~noint, they do have. constraints, and noted the site is situated right in the middle of t'.ie property and is a pact of the whole open space spine a^d from a visibility standpoint, it will be seen. He added they »ill work with the Parks Department regarding the pedestrian access. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHCIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 20~ 1987 87-344 Chairman McDurney asked if a condition would be acceptable requiring the park site be acceptable to tt•~e PdrK9 Department. Mr. Dennehy stated they have been planning this for over two years and have tried to accommodate all of these things and both the County and City hr~~e made changes at the last minute. He stated if they put the park in Area B, it would affect the fiscal impact report, ttie whole development plan, and the, whole pro~ec•e schedule and could set them back three tc: six months. Commissloner blesse asked if a pedestrian accessway was developed fcorn Area f3 and Area D, would that be enough accessibility for the Parks Department. ;ack Kudron stated there are other problems with that site, and thal• They would be willing to look at that site if, in fact, accessibility patterns for not only ~,edesL•rians, but vehicles can be provided. He stated they have suggested that vehicular access be brought up Oak Htlls Drive and then that site could possibly be workable. He star:•d they have also expressed extreme concern about the site being disjointed, with 8 acres on the eastern side of the drainage spine and 3 acres on the western side. He added there is no doubt that the 3 acres on the west side of the drainage area is a beautiful ~~rea, with Sycamc•e trees and Oak trees, and he thought the Fish and Ganw Department would rEquire that be maintained as open space anyway because of other riparian habitat in ghat area. He added they do not Eeel Erom a maintenance and usability standpoint, that having an 8••acre plateau on one side and 3 acres at a lower level, split by a drainage ditch, even thc,ugh it is not being given credit by the park, is adequate and the site does not provide usability according to what they like to see in a local park site. He stated they have indicated to Mr. Dennehy that if that park site was to work at all, they would want it all east of the drainaye area and that su~taLle access, both vehicular and pedestrian, would have to be provided. Chairman Mct3urney asked if ttre connection between ~h~ east and west could be done by a bridge structure tt;at could be used by maintenance vehicles and also by pedestrians, even thor~gh they ace at a diffe*enr. level. Mr. Kudron resp:ended it could be done, but that would cue quite a bridge structure. He adde9 in the developer's second proposal, whic:lr was the exact. same site, t,~ey proposed to un.:erground the :.:ream t.•hat cor„~s thcacgh the pack and only leave the casual water across the top and they indicated to him when tt,?y met that second time that it appeared to them that he had made a reasonable effort in terms ~f mitigating their concern wit•t~ the hydrology, ~~d at the same meeting, tney indicated to him th=~ they would take his per; proposal under advisement and would give him th answer in a letter which is their standard procedure and which they did. added it rtray be unfocrunate that he left the meeting thinking that they had accepted tt~e site, but that is r.~t their procedure and they follow d their normal procedure of giving t!:e developer written r_sponse to the proposal. He added they have indicated all along for months that they saw some substantial problems ~•rith this site and they have encouraged the developer to make some alternate p~roaosals and they Crave not received any alternate proposals in terms of a different site. Mr. Dennehy stated when they f.ir:st came before the Planning Commission on February 2, that site originally was a combined school/park site and they moved the school si•~e becausr: the School District, after khat February 2 4/20/87 MINUTESr ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, APRiL 20, 1.987 87-345 meeting, said L•hey wanl•ed a site on this property and on Wa.liace's property, so they moved the school sits to the eastern portion of the property and expanded the park site, and it still has to be graded to their requirements and combined with the Wallace site, and with their 8 acrea and the 4 or 5 acres of Wallace, there is almost 15 acres, plus the 3 on the other side. He Stated he thinks that is a reasonable place to put the park and a reasonable layout. He stated they tried to address the drainage issue and when he did sit down with Jack Kudron, he left the meeting thinking the ,^-ire was acceptable because he did not yet any negative re^~ Commissi~~ner Herbst asked if the pipeline is still ~-. red through the park and Mr. Dennehy responded that is the plan. Commi.ssionar Bouas asked if the Wal~are park site is acceptable to the Parks Department. I!r. Kudron stated the Wallace developers have not proposed a specific park site; that there is a park designated on the General Plan, but no site has been proposed; and that they have indicated t~ Frank Elfend all along that they would be very desirous of getting contiguous prope.•.ty with oak Hills. Commissioner Bouis asked Frank Elfend if the Wallace Ranch developers a_e planning their park site adjacent to the Gak dills site. Mr. Elfend responded it has been their intent to provide for the park site as currently shown on the existing General Plan; and that it has been anticipated in that area for sometime; however, in discussions with the Wrodcrest representatives recently, they are evalua.tiny the effe.,t on thnic land plan to place it in the area suggested. He added he hasn't discussed this with Jack Kud[on as yet in great detail,. and that they would like to keep it where it is, but are willing to evaluate the effect of relocating it on the overall land plan for the project. Commissioner Bouas stated they are not as far along in their planning and it does not have to be there and i.t would not change the fiscal impact report, etc.. Mr. Elfend stated he needs to sit down with the Parks Department and discuss it. He explained documents have been prepare' and it is a matter of tying it together and responding to some items of concern as related to the Police Substation, and they are in the process of working that in, in addition to the new school site, and they are moving towards resolving those issues prior to bringing it• before the City. Mr. Dennehy stated the slides showed how they could have three or four ballfields ana a hardcourt on that site, so know that it can work. Jack Kudron stated the 8 acres is a wor.kabl~~ site and in the developer`s second proposal, they expanded into their Area D which is [esidential; and the Parks Department would like to receive a proposal that solves the accessibility, and as long as it is east of the drainage channel, they think the site cap be workable. He added the problLm, quite frankly, is that they Go not think the right-in/righl•-our_ vehicular access off Weir Canyon is acceptable and the Police Department is also very concerned with that access to a public park. He added there is one park in the City right now with that type access and there have been police ambushes in that park and they are not excited about that possibility at all. He added he believed they will take a position on this issue. 4/20/87 MINUmES, ANAHEIM CITX PLANNING_ COMMISSION, APRIL 20, 1987 87-346 Commissioner Bouas Mated Mr. Dennehy indicated they can w~;',, out the accessibility. Mr. Kudron responded he heard him aay he could work out pedestrian accessibility, but there are concerns about vehicular accessibility and there has to be more than one way in and out o[ that park. Commissioner I.awickt asked if having ttie two park sites combined fir Wallace and Oak Hills, would create an acceptable access. Mr. Kudron stated right now there is none proposed according to the way the Wallace bubbles are put on the plan and access through Wallace has been suggested, and the answer to that is they don't know if they ar,e going to develop or not and if the two ranches got together and combined their proposal and show how it could work, together with the Parka Department's concerns, and their concerns have been very straight-forward in terms of what they need, they would be very happy and it would be to their advantage. Commissioner i.awicki stated they could look over the plan closer and adder] there will be no more boundaries when these properties are developed and this will be a permanent fixture, so total accessibility has to be considerec;. Chairman McBurney asked if plans are available which could be presented to the Parks Department before next Monday. Mr. Dennehy skated they do Have a plan they could present. Chairman Mcaurney asked if. the-y would get together with Mr. Elf end to see ttow the park site will work and askew if Mr. Elf end has anything on paper that would be availahle. Frank Elfer.; responded they have some information they can share with Mr. Dennehy. fie stated one of the questions is regarriLng the school site and the suggestion to provide access from a development area, filling a ravine for purposes of circulation to that site, and that was not acceptable to the Wallace Ranch because of costs and other permits necessary to accomplish that and given the fact that the school site is still somewhat open, they can share information, but it is in the state of change. Responding to Mr. Dennehy, Mr. Elf end stated there is an everchanging environment and there has been many changes, and they had prepared a plan which the junior high school site having a park site next to it but since then :^hool Gite was deleted, and where it will be on the site is unclear and it may go back there, and that may be a decision they will tell the District, and putting it right in the middle will not work. He stated they can show what they have for alternatives in that area anri discuss these with Mr. Dennehy and they are at a tentative map level, but because the School District changed their position and now they have agreed to provide the substation, they are trying to make all those land uses work in the area. Jack Kudron stated th~• handicapped accessibility is a concern because there are slopes going into this site and there are federal regulations in terms of ratio and grades for the handicap accessibility and wanted that on the record so if they try to work it out, those federal regulations should be kept in mind. Commissioner Fry stated it would appear they are at a temporary halt on anything further, at least ~~ntil Monday when the park situation can be resolvad. 4/20/87 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRlL 20, 1987 87-347 Chairma~~ Mct3~rrney stated also a couple of Commissioners Have indicated a desire to visit the site with the additional information, and suggested that could be done next Monday beCorc the meeting. Mr. Dennehy asked if that means next Monday those I:wo issues are all they will have to ar~~,:ess. ;~+nmiss: per Herbst asked if Mr. Dennehy knows anyone in the Irvine Company who ran address the park dedication issue. Mr. Dennehy responded they talked to fife Irvine Company and their response was that this is probably the furthest area away from development for them because the area is in an Agricultural Preserve rrow, and also their priorities are more towards their South County locations; and r.hat when they were working on the ;iai.l site, etc., the Irvine Company was not making any commitments. Commissioner Herbst askf~d how much property the Irvine Company would have zdjacent to the existing Weir Canyon that would be developable for home sites. Ele stated he would like to know how much land they would have to develop if they dedicated Weir Canyon. Mr. Dennehy responded he thought they own about 3300 acres, but that is not developable land. He also stated Irvine Company has atate~i it is really unusual because for the first time someone else will be bri~~ging the roads to them, instead of them bringing the roads to their development and lie thought it will be awhile before they develop. Malcolm Slaughter asked if the Commission is planning l•o view the property next Monday as a Commission or just individual members. He added if more than a quorum will be going to the site, the best advice would be to adjourn this meeting to that time for that purpose. Chairman McBurney asked that staff arrange a trip rc the property. Five Commissioners indicated their desire to visit the site, and Commissioner Messe asked L•hat Mr. Race from the ~'ounty Parks staff be invited. Joel Fick stated staff would propose that Conditions 14 and 19 be deleted and explained they were discussed at the previous meetings and address the Parkview pump Station and Twin Peaks Reservoir and the Water Engineering Department has indicated those conditions should be eliminated. He stated based on previous meetings, one issue is the park site and there will be additional work done regarding that; and the street maintenance facility issue needs to be discussed, and the way the conditions are presently structured, it was deleted from the Highlands property because the Maintenance Director indicated that was not the preferable site, and this condition imposes it on the Wallace property; and that other concerns are the fiscal impacL• analysis and Weir Canyon Park, and perhaps a minor issue is the potential land use compatibility on the plan change for the Oak Hills Ranch, because there was a commercial site which had been indicated near the Highlands commercial site, wtrich is now proposed for low density and due to the terrain, that may not be a issue, but there is a low density proposal in the General Flan Amendment which would be adjacent to that commercial site; and that the housing mix was mentioned, but not discussed today at all. I-le staled the staff report indicated that the public facilities plan needs to be substantially revised and that event cannot occur until the park site issue has been resolved, eta. 4/20/87 V EI 20, 1987 87-3 Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that consideration of19h87s at matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 27, 9:00 a.m., in order for the Commission to visit the Oak Hills property. The meeting was adjourned at 6:12 p.m. to the meeting at 9:00 a.m., April 27, 1987 . Respeci.fully submitted, .-- ~~~ ~ ` Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission gLH:lm 2489I 4/20/87