Minutes-PC 1988/04/11MINUTES
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 11, 1988
The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order aL•
9:00 A.M. April 11, 1988, by the Chairman in the Council Chambers, a quorum being
present, in order for the Planning Commissioners to tour senior citizen and
affordable housing projects sponsored by tl~e Housing Department and to review plans
of the items on today's agenda.
RECESS: 11:30 a.m.
RECONVENED: 1:37 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CHAIRMAN MESSE
BOUAS, BO}'DSTUN, CARUSILI,O, FELDF{AUS, HERBST, NC BURNEY
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick
Annika Santalahti
Malcolm Slaughter
Gary Johnson
Arthur L. Daw
Paul Singer
Debbie Vagts
Greg Hastings
Linda Rios
Edith Harris
Planning Director
Zoning Administrator
Deputy City Attorney
City Engineer
Deputy City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Housing Operations Coordinator
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Planning Commission Secretary
AGENDA POSTING - A copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:15 a.m.,
April 8, 1988, inside ttie display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers
and in the outside display kiosk.
Fublislied: Anaheim Bulletin - April 1, 1988
PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained that at the end of ttie scheduled public
I~earings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which
are within tl~e jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items.
ITEM N0. 1. PROGRAM ENVIRONMEP:TAL IMPACT REPORT N0. Z85, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 210
- CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND RECOMMENDED CODE AMENDMENT.
PUBLIC HEARItJG. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD,
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805. To designate certain intersections as Critical
Intersections to enhance them by up to 12 feet for a distance of 600 feet from the
corner right-of-way line. The intenC is that prior to issuance of Luilding permits,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances or other related zoning and building actions on
the adjacent properties, the property owners make an irrevocable offer to
dedicate such additional right-of-uay as required. Tlie cost of widening will be
borne by the City or other responsible parties.
There were approximately 59 persons indicating their presence in opposition to
subject request, and although the staff report was not• read at the public Bearing,
it is referred to and made a part of the minutes.
88-393 4/]1/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-394
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, stated studies have been done city-wide regarding
traffic circulation and show that the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan
is not compatible and the arterial street system is not capable of handling ttie
traffic. He stated one alternative is being presented in this general plan amendment
to increase capacity at key intersections city-wide. He stated also citizen surveys
are done on an annual basis and the number one citizen question is "SJhat are we
going to do about traffic?" He added one of the key strategies of tite recently
adopted Vision 2000 is a plan to improve critical intersections to reduce traffic
congestion city-wide. He explained they held a public input meeting on December 10,
1987, and sent notices to all property owners affected and about 10% turned out.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated this is a long-term effort to put together a
proposal to amend the General Plan to provide for critical intersections at critical
arterial locations to help alleviate the traffic problems in the City and to become
more compatible with land uses. He stated this GPA will add critical intersection
designations to file Circulation Element of the City's General Plan; that t}~e
critical intersection designation indicates right-of-r•a}' limits at each of the
critical intersections and determines t}te extent of the dedication to be sought
during rezoning and oilier regulatory hearings and actions.
Mr. Singer stated out of tl~e original proposed 33 locations and after detailed
studies of eac}i location, 26 intersections have been cltesen t~• be presented today as
the number one criteria and Clie highest demand profile to reliave traffic congestion
since each of these intersections exceeds capacity at this time. He stated critical
intersections have higher traffic volumes and turning movements than normally
anticipated at the standard intersection and diagrams show where the critical
intersection widening will Lake place.
Mr. Singer stated without this General Plan Amendment, rite cit}' will be faced in a
short time with a serious deficienc}' in its ability to move traffic along the city
streets and that includes affecting residences, businesses, the tourist industr}• and
every restaurant because the trip to and [rpm work is going to be seriously impaired
and it will continue to be impaired at a far greater extent than it is today. He
stated over the past 10 Lo 15 years, but more during the last 5 years, the traffic
at many of Lltese critical intersections leas come to a stand still.
Mr. Singer stated there is also a program to coordinate traffic signals and this
coordination is certainly going to improve traffic flow, but during extremely
congested periods of the da}~, this system of traffic signal interconnection is not
going Lo be effective without Che critical intersection capacity.
Sylvia Selenez, PSD Technologies, staged the overall intent of this particular
program was to make the Circulation Element compatible wit}t the Land Use Element of
the General. Plan as required by state law. Slte added of the 28 intersections that
are covered in the document, 22 are currently experiencing a Level of Service F so
there is much congestion now, even without a buildout of the land uses of the
General Plan. Slie stated there is a concern that even though arterial widths that
are designated in the current General Plan may be of sufficient width to carry the
straight line volume of the traffic, once the vehicle gets tltrouglt the intersection,
there is insufficient roo¢~ to add a turning lane. Siie stated the plan for the
critical intersection as outlined in their document included tl~e widening of the
major arterial designation at the intersection from 120 feet to 144 feet wliicli is 12
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION,_April 11, 1988 88-395
feet on either side, and of the primary arterial designation from 105 feet to 120
feet. She stated that allows for six through lanes, two left turns lanes and a free
right turn lane which could accommodate a bus stop area around tl:e corner wl:icl:
would not impede the traffic flow.
Ms. Selenez stated they evaluated this critical intersection designation at ea c1: of
the locations proposed and their analysis determined that there would be impacts;
however, because of tl:e way tl:e critical intersection is implemented, those impacts
would not be overl}~ adverse; that it is very important to understand that this is a
general plan amendment and not a taking of property, and that tl:e City is not going
to immediately go out and purchase properties. Sl:e stated the General Plan widtl: of
the intersection would be wider than it is now and this amendment means that any
project proposed or for any impruve ment an individual owner wishes to make on their
property at tl:e intersection, the new General Plan width for Clie critical
intersection would be taken into consideration, and at that time tl~e property owner
would be asked to make a dedication of tl:e land to tl:e City in return for obtaining
the permit or approval. wi:icl: tl:e Cit}~ will be providing.
Ms. Selenez stated they did an anal}psis of a full range of impact categories, and
identified impacts including air quality, noise, land use and even per}:aps
disruption of underground tanks. Sl:e stated as a result of tt:e intersection
widening, there is a potential for noise impacts where sensitive residential uses
abut; and by moviny traffic 12 feet closer, when the traffic volume is very high,
tl:e noises levels inside tl:e building could not be mitigated to an acceptable level.
She added also there are residential uses that encroacl: witt:in tl:e right of way at 9
of the 24 intersections and there would be approximately 128 displaced households,
but this is only when the critical intersection is implemented, and the General Plan
designation does not do anything, but wt:en anyone wisi:es to change tl:e use of tl:e
property or modify construction on tl:e site, in exchange for tl:e approval, tl:e
dedication of tl:e additional. IZ feet would be made.
She explained a residence ti:at is going to stay and not be changed over time would
not be impacted unless tl:e City, as part of an important traffic improvement,
decided to improve tl:e intersection, and if tl:e City undertakes a projer,t to
improve the intersection, they would have to yo through a full environmental process
and at tl:at time property acquisitions would I:ave to be identified in full detail.
Ms. Selenez stated there is a concern that because of tl:e requirement for dedication
if a property improvement is made, individuals would defer any improvements since it
would require them to dedicate that 12 feet and that is an impact that is really
difficult to avoid and one that l:as to be accepted in any Circulation Element that
designates tl:e width of a street. Sl:e stated there may be cases of inconsistencies
witl: site development standards which arise from tl:e dedications, ar.d there may be
cases where a dedication would remove parking and there would be no wa}~ to provide
sufficient parking on tl:e site and t}:en the Commission and City Council would have
to determine wl:etl:er or not to grant a variance or den} tl:e permit.
Sl:e stated L•l:ose are tl:e major concerns identified; I:owever, Cl:ey did evaluate tl:e
possibility of relocation of underground gasoline tanks because in many of these
locations there are underground tanks; however, there are regulations either a
property owner or the City would I:ave to comply witl: if changes were made.
4/11/88
88-396
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COt.QIISSION, A ril 11, 1988
Ms. Selenez stated in several locations of the City, there are deep setback
requirements and where there is a critical intersection designation, some of that•
depth could be lost. She stated they would anticipate that in any site plan
reviews, certain landscaping would be required in those areas.
She stated they evaluated each intersection on its own and a summary is provided for
each intersection.
Dale Lewis, 511 N. Brookhurst, representing S}iell Oil, stated trey leave several
locations which would be affected by this designation. He stated there are three
problems associated with this proposed amendment and lie would like tl~e Commission L•o
seriously consider: 1) t}ie matter of taking property without: just compensation; 2)
the choice of intersections and 3) ;.he negative effects the amendment will nave at
key intersections in flee City.
He explained lie knows L11e rationale for the forced dedication that would be done for
the "public good", but the magnitude of the forced dedication involves thousands of
square feet taken and will result in flee trampling of an individual property owner's
right in the name of the "public good"; that one of the primary aspects of our
government which distinguishes itself from ot}~er governments is that of individual
rights and to take any amount of private property without compensation is always a
threat to the individual property owner's right, but to do it on the scale of this
proposed amendment is a very serious and dangerous step which lie did not believe
should be taken.
He stated if flee acquisition of property is absolutely necessary, and added lie was
not convinced that it is absolutely necessary, tl~e owner should receive just
compensation and that lie did not thin}: flee granting of a conditional use permit is
just compensation.
Concerning tiie choice of intersections, he stated there leave been many intersections
under consideration on this list and there should be concern over the final makeup
of tl;e list, noting Orangethorpe and Kraemer is cn Llie list while other
intersections wiiicli arc more lieaviil' traveled are not included. He asked what
Happens to the traffic once it gets tltrougli ttie critical intersections because the
traffic volume doesn't change, and flows on to flee next intersection and asked if
that wouldn't create a critical intersection there.
He stated flee negative effects at key intersections are not just to flee property
owners but to flee City of Anaheim, and that a typical corner parcel would require a
dedication or a loss of approximately 16 to 20% of existing land area, and with all
other development requirements in place such as parking, landscaping, setbacks and
Llie internal circuiat.ion needs for specific development and reduction of property of
this magnitude would be, at least, very damaging and possibly totally destructive.
He stated when tl~e amendment was introduced several. years ago, the intersection of
Lincoln and Anaheim was on tine list, but the Redevelopment Agency was working on L•ize
northeast corner and expressed concern that flee site could not be developed with the
dedication requirement and that location was ultimately deleted from the list. He
stated private property owners are going to be faced with the same situation as
flee Redevelopment Agency and their developments will be severely affected ar
possibly prevented. He stated to rationalize that the dedication
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA*INING COMMISSION April I1, 1988 86-397
requirement is justified because down the road tl~e property owner is going to
receive compensation L•ltrough the granting of a conditional use permit, is just no Y.
so with the magnitude involved with this amendment. He staL•ed the impact of the
amendment goes beyond the owners and negativel}~ affects the City, and that a modern
City must encourage a modern, progressive business communit}~ and encourage
modernization and improvement of its efficiencies and its appearance in an
atmosphere that: will encourage property owners to move to the best uses; and that
the proposed amendment will encourage the opposite at key intersections within fife
Cit}•. He added the dedication requirement will discourage new investments and stop
needed modernizations and the City will have outdated facilities and businesses at
lligli visibilit}~ locations.
He stated that situation is already occurring at their La Palma/Kraemer location in
that they would like to modernize tlteic facility but cannot justify the investment
under t}te terms imposed xitli this proposed amendment and that same situation will
repeat itself at oilier locations if this amendment is adopted, and over time virtual
eyesores will develop at these key intersections. He stated despite the good
intentions behind file proposed amendment, and with all the negative aspects of the
proposal by taking away individual propert}~ rights, file question of inclusion and
exclusion of a particular intersection and Che great harm that will be done in the
area of progressive commercial development, lie would urge file Commission to
disapprove this amendment.
Howard Sachar, 1732 W. Ball Road, stsated the CIU plan comes at a time of frustration
of fife public with traffic congestion and overcrowding with resultant lower
densities and slow growth initiatives b}' various groups in the County. He stated
the CID, in response, proposes to solve the problem by increasing traffic fiox
tltrougli major intersections and assures that it will ncC result in increased
traffic, and only an increased flow of traffic wltic}t at best is a contradiction of
terms; that Llie traffic addressed is that wl~icii originates outside Anaheim and seems
to be bound for areas other then Anaheim b}~ people seeking a route that is faster
than that found on the freexa}•s; that the plan is expensive, drastic and a piecemeal
approach to address a widespread difficult prota em and is presented in a way to open
t}~e question to much of its assumptions and the public is requested to think of this
as only a plan and that it will not cost anything because the land xi11 only be
condemned when the owners ask for permits to do something and besides the City
Council has to pass on each project.
He stated the CID plan will probably increase traffic floe at Llie same time when
inr•,reased traffic, noise and pollution are a problem and it is expensive and will
cost over three quarters of a million dollars per intersection, yet in ]0 years, the
intersection level of service would be right back to where it was before but at a
tremendousl}• heavier level of traffic. He stated fife plan does not propose an
overall solution, only a random patchwork of intersections, totally dependent upon
the speed with xhiclr land can be seized. fie stated cith this plan, the cure is
xorse Lltan the disease and if this plan is an obvious solution Lo file traffic
problem, then we should examine how it will. benefit those areas where it has been
applied. He stated he was not aware cf a similar plan anywhere else in Orange
County, Los A~:geles, San Diego, San Bernardino or Riverside Counties, and if there
was a plan, what was iL-s cost and what were its benefits.
He stated Ile would suggest exploration of cost effective alternatives such as
coordinated signal synchronization with adjoining state, county and city traffic
agencies which he did not thinY. has been adequate l.7 explored.
4/11/88
MIA'DTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11 1988 _ 88-393
He stated actions of the South Coast. Quality Management District to increase
industria]. carpooling and potentially reduce traffic by 25% is about to become
effective; and that cars are getting smaller and lanes can be narrower. He stated
he made these suggestions to the Traffic Department and they were rejected for
reasons relating to trucks on roads at peak hours. He stated the Ventura freeway is
being widened to five la:.~:s partly by narroring each lane by 2 feet and they seem to
have an adequate supply of trucks during peak hours. He stated the comments ~;eems
to deal on the fact that this is only a plan and good or bad it should be approved
because it is just a plan and he thought that is a mistake. He added there is no
question that overcrowding and traffic congestion are major problems and something
needs to be dune to mitigate those problems, but only after an adequate job has been
done of investigating the problems. He stated this particular plan seems to be a
conclusion that went in search of an outside consultant to make a case for it, a
practice not uncommon in industry and government; and that time is on the City's
side if they decide to wait and see what Happens with the many initiatives underway
in Orange County that can potentially provide relief for the problem; that
implementation of this plan benefits no one and takes away valuable resources to the
City which could be put to better use elsewhere; and that it has every promise of
harming the environme[it unless you truly believe that increased traffic floe will
never result in increased traffic.
He stated a number of comments have been made here relative to congestion and that
many intersections arc at levels F and worse and that is only 4.2% of the time and
that is only during peak hours and that is from freeway traffic and asked if it is
worth spending up to X30 million just to taY.e care of A.2% oY' the time and also a
paint is made that the impact is not adverse, net unless it Happens to you.
Dave Bailey, 792 Claudina, Anaheim, stated he has trouble dealing with tY,is proposal
because it contradicts itself and on one hand they say that there are some advezse
effects but that they are negligible and not important and then later say that there
are adverse effects; that at the present time in Anaheim, the noise levels from the
main arteries through the city are intolerable, especially in the evening hours and
if this is approved and these intersections are opened to more traffic, people will
use the street that is most expedient and traffic will be increased because these
would an alternate to the freeway and the proposal does not really consider the
people who live here and have to exist with the traffic conditions; that the
proposal may ]lave good intentions, but if the people who are promoting it had to
undergo the adverse effects, He did not think they would do iL in the?. .>~'
community.
Joe Feinberg, representing Frank Cozza, owner of property just off the corner of
Brookhurst and Ball, stated there are some basic questions which the Commission
should ask itself. He stated this will not be enacted until somebody makes an
application for a permit to do some improvement on property; that Mr. Cozza owns a
little strip center where 12 feet will. eliminate 10 pazking spaces and asked if one
of his tenants happen to want to make some improvements and zequest a permit, would
he have to give up 12 feet of his property and 10 parking spaces at that time and if
he does, will he be allowed to have an]~ work done without adequate parking for the
customers of his tenants; that the 600 feet being discussed covers a lot of evils
and ills and he did not think it has been totally and thoroughly thought out and
particularly as to the effect and the problems it will create for this Commission
and the City in making decisions and issuing permits without adequate parking, once
parking has been eliminated for this 12 feet.
4/11/88
MINTJTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-399
Mr. Feinberg asked if a property owner makes an application for a permit, would that
permit be held up until lie completes leis negotiation to sell leis 12 feet to the City
and will there be a real measure of damages beyond leis loss of rent? He pointed out
lie is talking about a man who owns a small strip center which is partially occupied
by leis own business; and added that could be a critical problem to that owner and
added lie was sure there are many other owners similarly situated.
Mr. Feinberg stated lie leas never seen coordinated signals ease traffic congestion in
heavy traffic; and that there is alwa}'s tl~e slow driver wlto would drive below file
speed of Lhe coordinated signal or tl~e fast driver wlic is going to drive too fast
for tine coordinated signals and quite often the fast driver is behind the slow
driver. He stated another problem is where the traffic at the intersection of
Broolchurst and Ball would go and if the street is widened for 600 feet, he tl3ought•
it would create a traffic hazard 600 feet from the intersection when tl~e lane
reduces t•o the size it was before file implementation of this plan and asked if that
isn't a greater safety ]iazard with the merging and reduction of lanes.
He stated there will be a liigi~er accident rate and tfle City will be exposed t~ a
greater liability with reduced lanes at the end of this so-called 600 feet, if 600
feet is even necessar}'. He stated tine 29 additional feet that would be created by
taking the 12 on each side of tl~e streeL• will just create more traffic at a
standstill at each signal.
He stated Ise has Beard that there will be three right turn or three left turn lanes
at these intersections and C}iairman Messe stated there will be twe left turn lanes
and one right turr, lane. Mr. Feinberg continued !ie stil] did not know where tl~e two
left turn lanes are going to go particularly coming from Ball onto Brookl~~rst going
south or north. He stated when the vehicle gets to the end of the turn lane, it has
to Dave some place to go and there has Co be coordinated timing. He stated lte Beard
Llie comment that this is a future impact and if it is for future impact, lie did not
know wl~y it must be considered today, particularl}' when the damage is not being
considered to the many small businesses located throughout the city.
Oscar Grebner, representing the majority of property owners in the condominium
project at 134 South Magnolia Street, stated they are residents and not business
people which is a little different. He stated tie spoke on April 15, 1986, Lo Mr.
Dan Scliiada and was told the intersection of Lincoln and Magnolia where their
condominiums are located +'~ one of the least troublesome intersections among the
whole list being considered. He stated since then many of the residents have
observed what is Happening at that intersection and particularly left turns, and
even at the worst times of traffic impaction, there are not many left turns being
made from Magnolia either east or west onto Lincoln. He stated tl~e bulk of the
traffic on Magnolia is going straight through the intersection and is either coming
off one of tl>> freeways or going to the freeway and is not making any left turns in
either direction. He stated in this case, the left turn proposal doesn't make any
sense.
He stated lie teas measured tl~e proposed effect in tl~e taking awa}T of property and the
first property would loss about 10 feet from its front yard and t•he sidewalk would
be within five feet of the front window. He asked what tl~e result of that would be
when that owner sells her property and as)ced liow the City would reimburse that
property owner for the loss of resale value by narrowing that property.
4/11/88
i
88-400
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril I1, 1986
Mr. Grebner stated it isn't fair to take the property without adequate compensation
and taking away Lhe parking in front of their units would affect the people on the
other side cf the street because they are the ones who park there most of the time.
Rob Richard, representing owners of property at the southeast corner of Lincoln and
Euclid, stated that is a small strip center and leas frontage on both streets, and
pointed cut they do not own Llie gasoline station. He stated flee widening of this
intersection will leave an extremely negative impact on their property; that
retailers rely on parking in order to do business and their site is occupied b)'
retailers on both Lincoln and Euclid and the widening will destroy a lot of their
parking wiiicil will cause fete tenants and flee property owner to suffer. He stated
they are adamently opposed to the widening and }loped fete Commission would consider
flee part:ing problems.
David Chavez, owner of property at the corner of Lakeview and La Palma, stated he is
for the proposal but has suggested other alternatives to no avail; that he has
suggested the right turn lane have an arrow with the traffic continuing to the
right, and explained right now people do stop and ma}:e a left turn, but fie leas not
had any success in getting the Traffic Engineer to listen, and explained he is
referring to eastbound traffic. lee stated traffic could keep making a right turn
with an arrow. He stated lie realized there is a need for more alleviation of the
traffic, but this would help for tfie present Lime. He stated lie leas already made
the required dedication when he had to apply for a permit. He stated when it is
widened, it will be within 7-1/2 feet of Iris front door, and doped in the future
something could be done about the residents, and added he has been there f.~ 28
years, and asked if the douse would L•e relocated. He stated one part of tine house
is elevated on a foundation, but flee other part is on a slab and he did not know if
it could be relocated. }ie stated again lie is for flee proposal, but would like some
answers wliy iris suggestions cannot be tried on that corner. He presented
photographs showing how close it will be, etc.
Clarence Froli, owner of property at 9922 and 9952 Ball Road, stated some years ago
a 10-foot strip was dedicated and there is a block wall wliiclt blocks the view and
another 12 feet would create a worse condition. He stated he is not in favor for
that reason and also because it s u ms the property ovners are hosta9ro ertthesoltley
of Anaheim because they cannot get a permit without dedicating the p p Y~
will have to live with what they have.
Rosemary Farks, representing o~rners of property on Llie southeast corner of Tustin
and La Palma, on file southeast corner, with frontage on t~otl~ Tustin and La Palma,
stated they I1ave tenants currently wlio are under construction and none of leer units
are under 2000 square feet and any improvements would leave to come before flee
Planning Commission and subjected to flee loss of frontage. She stated American
Commerce National IIank fronts La Palma and that would mean 12 feet on both sides of
that corner causing a loss of parking and file}~ leave just recently undergone a study
to restripe the property to permit a new tenant and that would be a considerable
loss of parking.
She stated slie leas made requests to Mr. Singer and brought concerns to tlYe
Transportation Management Commission regarding flee signal problems they leave since
they are right at the off-ramp at Tustin and the P.iverside Freeway and there is a
constant free right tu!n lane going north on Tustin ulticli allows a continuous flow
of traffic constantly aggrevating the traffic problems for their tenants either
entering or leaving the property. Slie stated this proposed amendment would
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY~'rLANNING COMMISSION Apzil 11 19tl8 88-901
discriminate against those property owners who leave improved property to facilitate
the use by companies wlto do not leave prime property at- these locations. Sete stated
sere would request denial of this proposed plan.
Robert Boyd, representing leis sister wlto owns property at 1591 W. La Palma, stated
lie agrees with the gentleman wlto spoke from Sitell Oil Company. He pointed out alien
property is taken for a purpose like L•ltis, the value of the property is lost for Llte
actual square footage that is taken and for the diminished use of the property
after the taking and the property will not be as valuable. He stated putting
somet}ing over the Beads of the property owners really deters progress and rite
people who might have wanted to put their land to the highest and best use would
stave to L•ltinit twice about doing that because the price to do it is too high and it•
means having to give too much without being compensated for it.
He stated it is important for ever}~bod}~ here to realize that today is Cite important
day in this proceeding and the property owners are tieing Given L•he choice right now
to give up their rights and if they let ':ltis proposal go Cltrouglt, tlte}~ have given up
their right for just compensation. He stated what=ver happens in the future will no
longer matter because their ability to receive compensation will go out the windox
today. He added he feels very strongly that everytime something happens far the
public good, all fire public should }telp pay fur it and not just a portion of the
public and he did not believe the Commission could just make some of them pay for
something to benefit everybody.
He stated another principle here is what fete United States reall}~ stands for and
that is really at stake: that the United States was based on a premise on individual
rights and individual rights reside in fete right to own property and do whit it what
you chose within certain bounds. He added the property owners are now being asked
if they should have the right to continue to have their property rights or whether
they should give those up to the government for free, without compensation, and
diminish what; they have the right to do now.
Ruth Kroll, owner of property near the intersection of Hall and BrookhursC, stated
this will benefit ale tite r•itizens and she thought all Lhe citizens should pay for
the current and future damage which they expert a few to provide. She stated since
time is of the essence, she would nr.t repeat some of Lhe things others have said
wlticlt site certainly agrees with, brit to demand an exchange of land for a building
permit is pure and simple ransom.
Mr. Patel., 631 W. Katella, stated !te owns the property aL fete corner of Harhor and
Katella and on June 15t1t ire purchased the property with no knowledge that he }tad to
dedicate fete land when lte constructed. He stated !te paid a substantial amount of
mone}~ for the land and applied for the building permit and was told at tl~e last
minute that lte would ]rave L•o dedicate 12 feet of land in order to get fete building
permit and everything was already done and !te had no cktoice but to give fete
dedication. He added noC only that but fete City Engineer initally asked for between
$:35,000 to $40,000 w}ticlt ire ktad to pay for ttte improvement of that area. He stated
at that time ire resisted paying that mone}~ and asked wet}~ ire ltad to pay when the City
did not know when fete improvement would take place. He sL•ated finall}~ after a lot•
of discussion, ire got a letter from Jay Titus of the Engineering Department saying
lte did not stave to pay any cash right now and that- ire etas a copy of that letter. He
sta!:ed }te felt somebody ltad put a gun to iris head and forced item to sign fete
dedication otherwise, lte could not get a building permit, and that lte just learned
today that this designation ]tas not yet been passed and that ire was not even
informed of this meeting today. He stated he would like to know where he stands
since he has already dedicated the land.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-902
Mr. Goodman, owner of property at; corners of Lincoln and Euclid and Lincoln and
Magnolia, stated lie ltas freestanding signs that will leave to be moved and asked wlto
will pay for the signs to be moved and will lte he allowed a permit to move them. He
stated also some of ttis par)cing will be lost and explained he asked Mr. Singer if lie
could get a conditional use pecmiC or a variance so he can keep rite property and
improve it; and that Mr. Singer iiad responded that when he decided to improve the
property, lie xould leave to conform to Codes and that means lie cannot improve the
property and cannc,t get a new tenant and !liar: means death to leis property.
ScotC Ense}~, 2.170 5. Harbor, stated fie represents Togg Enterprises wlticlt owns a
motel at the intersection of Hasten and Katel.la, and with the widening L•hey would
loss two units and it would involve major reconstruction and asked if the City
intends to compensate the property owner wlto will lose income from tltcse units for
several years to come.
Dorothy O'Dell, 134 S. *lagnolia, stated slte is from Clte condominiums mentioned
earlier, and that t:ltere was a remark made that tlti~ proposal will ease the traffic;
however, these condominiums are for senior citizens over 50 and since they purchased
them the law was changed, and now the speed limit is 45 miles per hour and that
increased their traffic tremendously and then thr_ bonage was increased for the
trucks and by widening the street:, fife traffic will be more. She stated now they
are getting smog and trucks traveling 45 mplt wl~iclt even rattles the windows and this
widening would bring the street within a few feet of their bedrooms, dining rooms
and living rooms and she did not think there is a problem with left tarns at that
intersection. She stated the exhaust fumes xill affect all the units and the noise
will be even further back and it will bring more traffic which they don't need.
Ms. J. E. Hoffman, 134 S. Magnolia, stated it seems t}ie only person present today
wlto is in favor of fire amendment was only in favor as it did not affect leis own
propert}~.
STAFF RESPONSE
Paul Singer s+ated in general terms, the proposal as it stands now is that subject
to proposed ~ lopment by private parties, titcy will be requested to give an
irrevocable ofrer of dedication and t}taC does not change any existing improvements
and does not require the owner to make any cl~~anges and does not affect the parking
on tl:e site and the ~nly time it is actually affected is when !tie actual widening of
that particular intersection takes place. He stated aC that time determinations
would be made on an individual basis whether or not relocation costs of signs and
things such as that would be paid For, whether a variance for par)cing would be
granted and wlietlier a conditional use permit would be granted, but unless they are
part of the environmental impact mitigation for that particular location, those
costs would not be that of the property owners, and things such as the signs
mentioned would be .relocated aC flee City's expense, and tine cost to install curb,
gutters, sidewalY.s, or utilities to be relocated, etc., would not l:e borne :~y the
property owner, unless that property owner I~a9 an improvement of sue}: scale as to
require off-site improvements as a mitigation measure for leis development and added
that is a rare situation.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CODL`SISSION, April 11, ].988 88-403
Mr. Singer stated the gentleman from Shell Oil mentioned that is is impractital to
develop a service station with the 12-foot dedication, but. as the Commission has
seen, many of the service station sites have already been dedicated and the owner
has managed to develop the service station in an orderly manner because the
developer of the service station is not required to make any improvements on site.
Mr. Singer continued that the parY.ing can be waived, and perhaps some setbacks care
be waived at the time the actual impact takes place. lle stated regarding the
condominiums on Magnolia, those lanes are not really going to bring the traffit
closer to those condos because they are located away from the intersection
sufficiently so that there will be a transition lane for the right turn lane and
they would be minimally impacted, no more as far as noise and pallution are
concerned than nox.
He stated he has had s~vEral meetings with Ms. Parks regarding 'the property at
Tustin and La Palma and has explained how traffic will be handled, with or without
this general. plan amendment because that intersection under all circumstances is a
critical intersection and she is yell aware that this is a very heavily traveled
location during peak hours and at certain times cnly right turns are possible and
they are difficult at bes*, during peak times and that will not change, and the CID
will affect the property in the future as far as parking is concerned, at which
point, certainly a parking waiver request would De in order to be considered by the
Planning Commission.
Chairmar. Mu se asked Mr. Singer. to explain in response to Mr. Levis what happens at
the next intersection after the automobiles pass through the critical intersection.
Paul Singer stated obviously the interjection downstream must have adequate capacity
to handle the traffic and it is only at the critical intersection where everything
bogs down, and in fact the major intersections adjacent to the critical intersection
are being impacted by the critical intersections because inadequate amounts of
traffic can be freed and go out of the street and it is the in-bound stream to these
critical intersection that has the problem and not the out-bound lanes. He further
explained traffic going toward that critical intersection is impacting the area and
those that are leaving have capacity to leave and it is at that intersection that
they are being bogged up and mid-block capacity is available.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, stated ve have adequate mid-block capacity and have
enough lanes on the ar~terialo streets to handle the capacity mid-block, but we don't
have intersection capacity because we loss lanes for vehicles cueing to make right
turns, insufficient number of left turn pockets, or turn pockets that. az~a not long
enough, and to increase capacity in the arterial system, either through lanes have
to be added all the way througn citywide or increase capacity at the intersections.
He stated the best use of public funds is to increase thuse intersection capacities
and that is exactly what this proposal rill do.
Respo~ditrg to Chairman Messe, Ms. Selenez stated ncise was an issue and they did
evaluate it and do see it as a problem in a number of locations as identified in the
EIR document; and those are locations where noise is a problem now as well; that the
critical intersection widening would move the noise somewhat closer, but typically
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88-404
with noise, it does not significantly increase until traffic volume is actually
doubled. and moving it 12 feet. closer will not have that much of a noise increas so
as to be noticable on a day by day basis. Slze stated it may actually Help the noise
s~.tuation by reducing the number of Hours of congestion. Slie explained doubling the
traffic would increase the noise by 2 to 3 decibels.
Chairman Afesse stated Mr. Chavez teas already made the dedication at Tustin and La
Palma and t•he widening of La Palma would put that intersection a few feet from lzis
front door and asked if bhe City would relocate his home further back on his
property?
Gary Johnson responded that is probably a legal. question and explained Mr. Chavez
leas made an irrevocable offer to file City and it leas not been accepted most likely
and it would not be accepted unless flee City intended to do a project in flee area
and if he made flee offer as a condition of some development and not in the
anticipation of this general plan amendment, it would make a difference.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated he noticed when Mr. Chavez walked up
to flee podium that lie has his boat stored on his storage lot and tli~t lie would not
wish to participate in flee discussion, but would get an answer from someone else in
the City Attorney's Office.
C1airman Messe stated Cite Commission will address flee question as to wlio will
ultimatel}~ pay for the projects.
Responding to Ms. O'Dell, Mr.Singer stated flee speed on Magnolia Ilas been 45 mph for
many years and flee tonage is 6000 pounds and that is file same tliroughouC the City,
and if trucks are using it, t}~at is an enforcement problem.
Chairman Messe asked what Happens to the loss of income on a commercial. property,
such as flee reduction of a motel by two units. Mr. Slaughter stated if flee City was
going to acquire the property by either a negotiated purchase or by eminent domain,
generally the}~ pa}' for the value of flee property taken, plus any severance damages
to the remainder and flee value of the property taken is frequently calculated on the
earning value of the property. He stated regarding flee costs for the improvements
of flee critical intersection, the audience should be aware that there is a draft
ordinance which fife Commission is considering and wl~icli is not really a part of the
general plan amendment, but a recommended ordinance which would change the present
requirement whereb•. flee owner is now required to put in flee improvements at ltis
expense and if this ordinance ~; adopted, the City vould not impose that cost on the
property owner.
Commissioner Bouas asked if the City would only leave to pay for the loss of income
in a eminent domair, proceeding, and clarified that if th~~ owner willingly dedicates,
then there is no compensation.
Max Warren, President of flee Board of Directors of flee Pines Condominiums, at
Magnolia and Lincoln, stated taking 12 feet of dedication does have an impact on
their condominiums; that Lhey have a block wall there and electronic gates which
will leave to be replaced and they will leave a street four feet from the windows.
4/11j88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN9ING COMMISSIUN April 11 1988 88-405
Commissioner McBurney explained the 12 feet only goes for the first 300 feet of the
intersection and then transitions to 0 feet. Mr. Warren responded they did some
measuring and some of the units will be affected.
Paul Singer stated there is a 10-foot wide bicycle lane in front of those particular
condominiums which has been deleted from ttte General Plan, and any setback can take
place in that 10-foot setback.
Chairman Messe stated a question was as)ced as t;o wily these particular intersections
were selected and is there an}+ other place where this type of CID proposal ltas been
implemented.
Mr. Singer stated the intersections were selected en the criteria that currently all
of these intersections exceed capacity, either at: Service Level E or F, and that
unless something is done there are going Co be serious envizonmental impacts to the
adjacent properties as a result of inordinate traffic congestion. He stated tite
City of Irvine leas a critical intersection standard for all of their new
development.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Responding to Commissioner Feldliaus, City Engineer Johnson stated he thought the
County of Orange uses the CID designation in a lot of the unincorporated areas; and
that the Orange County Transportation Commission is now undergoing a study of tite
County Master Plan of Arterial ltigliways and they are surveying all the cities and he
believed t}iat when that study is concluded, one of the findings will be that they
will recommend that all L•he cities in Orange County use this designation, and that
cities will begin to do L•hat because there is no other way to increase capacity on
arterial highways.
Mr. Singer stated t;tie City of Anaheim currently leas nine intersections approved for
the CID standards in the stadium area.
Commissioner McBurney stated he noticed the report said "no project" as an alternate
to the CID designation and asked if the City has investigated the possibility of any
other t}•oes of transportation systems or some other relief of the traffic situation
in the City such as a Metrorail, etc., as opposed to tr}'ing to widen the
intersections.
Mr. Johnson stated in looking at the year 2005 or 2010 which in transportation is
"nr_ar term", tite County with the currert financing will not be able to widen
freewa}'s for 10 to 15 years, and Interstate 5 through Anaheim probably won't be
widened for 10 to 15 }'ears, and meanwhile traffic continues to increase and uses the
arterial s}'stems. He stated the money the County can get from Sacramento is
primarily going for freeway improvements and that trend will continue. He stated
the Transit District has a transitway plan that will go down Interstate 5 and that
project is far underfinanced at this point. He stated there have been some
discussions about a people mover s}'stem in the Disneyland/Convention Center area and
those are all part of the strategic plan, but far from being implemented.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN; COMMISSION ,_ April 11, 1988 88-406
Mr. Johnson stated fire Cit•}~'s abilit}~ to finance transportation means in the
City and our local resources must be considered; and that there are two
plans in the Vision 2000 Strategic Plan, and one i~ to improve traffic
signal coordination w}tictt will help, but not that much, and unless capacity
at fire intersections is increased, L•lte Cit}~'s Traffic Engineering Department
does not see any relief. He stated as fire citizen surveys are being done
year after }year, the citizens want some relief and want something to be done
about the traffic and they feel this is a reasonable approac:, He stated
there are some poiic}~ considerations here clearly, over and above some of
fife technical considerations, and Llte cost benefit: of spending money on new
construction is an excellent way to increase capacity citywide, and the
question as to wlto pays for fire general public good and benefit, and for
the dedication, or should fire property owners all be compensated are polic}~
decisions and pertain more to the ordinance that would implement rite General
Plan. He added this General Plan Amendment consid?ration should be wltetlter
xe need this designation to put the Circulation Element in concert with the
Land L'se Element of the General Plan, and somehow t}tat• Itas to be reconciled,
or else the i.ntensi*,y of development in this city is far exceeding the
ability to ]candle the traffic and fife two Elements are out of balance at
this point. He added they feel this is a good aoproaclt and one tlte}~ feel is
affordable.
Commissioner llerbst stated Lo improve these corners will. cost millions and
asked the timing for t;he improvement of these intersections. He slated it
is recognized there is an immediate problem, hut: the City Council had a hard
time balancing the budget this year and asked where the money will come
from, Itow soon it will be available and when these property owners will be
impacted, recognizing iC could go on fur years.
Mr. Johnson responded t}tat is an excellent question, and probably would
require a cr}•stal ball to answer, but will; lift Cit}•'s existing resources, it
would frankly take a long period of Cim~ to implement: this plan, probably 10
to 20 years. He stated it will happen quite rapidly in some areas, such as
in the stadium area where that designation has been adopted and where there
are some major developments and the properties have alread}• dedicated and
Lltere is a fee program in place and there is funding, so there will be some
rapid improvements in that area. He stated citywide, the City don't have
rite funding capacit}~ and still maintain t}te facilities we have. He added,
however, there are some opportunities to qeC that funding and one is a
ballot measure in June called the Governor's Transportation Plan which will
provide significant revenues to local agencies and that would be a new
source of revenue for the City and the City Council could decide how they
want to spend it, either by increasing capacity or improving maintenance
levels and another opportunity perhaps is first there itas been renexed
interest in a sales tax initiative in Orange County t~tat would most likely
go to freeway improvements, but some would probably go to arterial street
improvements. fie stated fife General Plan designation gives them rite ability
to implement this and make t)te improvements, and if funding is available,
they will have rite opportunity to do something about traffic congestion, but
without it, they will simply be u=~^; the funds for maintena ~ and will not
be increasing capacity. He stated he thought the General F iiscussion
and the implementation methodology are really two diff~•rent ects.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-907
Commissioner Herbst stated i+; bothers liim considerably that ue are asking
the property owners to subsidize tl~e rest of t}ie citizens in Anaheim to
improve the traffic flow. He stated lie did not like tiie wording of the
environmental impact report or the proposed ordinance; and that actually
these property owners would be subordinating their property for the next 20
years and not be able to develop it in a manner that the}• could if this was
not imposed. He stated on a 150' x 150' corner lot, with t}~e property owner
dedicating 12 feet on two sides of t:lie corner, at a figure of $20 sq. ft.,
it would amount to $72,000, and that owner would be dedicating $72,000 worth
of leis propert•}• for the benefit of tiie people xlio pass through Clie cit}•. He
stated he was on tl~e Vision 2000 Committee and realizes there is a terrific
problem throualiout the city with traffic, but did not feel. it should be
handled in this manner and the ordinance should be reworded so that the City
of Anaheim pay., for the property if they are going to take the corners so
that the property owner is compensated for the loss, and not just because of
approval of a conditional use permit. He stated the propert}' owners, except
for those maybe in the canyon area where there are large parcels t:o he
developed, s'.iould not be required to make these dedications uitliout
compensation. He stated t;lie stadium area is also a different situation
because those are large developments being planned for that area, but his
concern is tiie individual property owner wl~o will possibly be damaged wit11
this plan for maybe 20 years.
Malcolm Slaughter stated he would concur that the Planning Commission's
authority in this mabter is simply one of land use in considering whether
they ti~ink the General Plan Amendment is a good idea for Lhe city, but the
question of the implementation cf how that is done is a separate issue. He
stated lie teas no objection whatsoever if the Planning Commission determines
that this plan is a good idea and makes recommendations of policy
considerations Co the City Council, but t?sought it would be easier to
address the policy issue after the determination has been made if they think
it is a good plan.
Chairman Hesse stated he thought the General Plan Amendment is good, but the
Program Environmental Impact P.eport and the proposed ordinance address some
of Lhe things lie felt the Commission needs more time to review. He stated
he thought the City Engineer had said there would be an ordinance adopted
that would implement the Gnereal Plan and he thought the Commission needed
to know more about that ordinance now before making a decision.
Commissiorer Carusillo stated he shares Commissioner Herhst's vie•.• on
compensation, but tl+at ]ie is also concerned that even if the property owner
is compensated, low could the property owner wlio needs parking spaces he
compensated for that loss. He added he thought the p]an is well intended,
but that he is not satisfied with the answer given as to where the traffic
goes once it passes tiirougli the critical intersection, and tliougl~t that was
supposition only and was not convinced that it could flow freely from that
point on. He stated he would personally li}ce to see what some of these slow
growth initiatives might bring as far as relief, if any. He stated lie feels
the ramifications involved far outweigh any possible good.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIh1 CITY PLANYINC COK*1ISSION April 11 1988, _ 88-408
Chairman Messe stated a driver stopped on the street because there is a cue
of cars that: want to turn left would appreciate the fact that if there were
two left turn lanes for those cars to emply into, that driver would he able
to proceed straight on and he thought that is what the Traffic Engineer is
trying to sa}• when they indicated the mid-block capability is there and it
is at these critics] intersection where the cars are making turns which is
creating the problems.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought that is contradicted at IIall and
Narbor going east on IIall approaching Harbor chore there arc too lanes, and
cars wishing to proceed straighC cannot do so because cf the cars stacked
waiting to get into the Curn lanes. He added he agrees with Commissioner
Herbst and Carusillo and did not agree that just because a property owner
wants Co improve his property and needs a conditional usr_ permit, that he
should be required to irrevocably dedicate Liia1: footage in ordez to get that
permit.
Gar}• Johnson stated there are exceptions in t:he present ordinance for minor
permiCs, depending on the extent of Lhe improvement: and Cho square footage.
He asked the Commission to separate the benefit or need for the general plan
amendment from the uay it could he implemented. He added if thr- Commission
feels Lhe City should pay all the costs, there is nothing to preclude them
from recommending ghat to the City Council, and if the Commission does not
feel the general plan amendmenC i~ a good idea, the}• can also ma he that
recommendation but how to implement it. can be a sr:paraCe issue.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he understands, but fell it the Commission goes
along with Chis Genera] Plan Amendment, right behind the door is the method
to begin implementing it. He staged he is also concerned about the 128
residents Lo be displaced as a result of this amendment and he could like to
see a report regarding the fr_•asibility of a one uay street method which
migL•t alleviate some of this congestion; and also wh}• not usr eminent domain
proceedi.rgs and purchase the property where there arc presently critical
inter>e::t?ons, paying the owner the fair market value. He stated if the
City doesn't presently have t.hc resources to implement this system, this is
premature coming to the Commission without investigaCing some other
altr_rnabives. He stated it is important for everyone to understand that
there is a terrible gridlock sit:uaCion in the city and it has to be
addressed somehow. lie asked about the service station corners. He added he
is uncomfortable with approving this request a:' this time.
Paul Singer stated it seemed there used to be a service station on every
corner and Lltcn there were drive-in banlts and now there is a convenience
market on every corner and Lhe use does change from time to time.
Malcolm Slaughter stated the City has required dedication as a condition of
the issuance of a t~uilding permit, with some exceptions and those exceptions
are for interior modifications of buildings and structures, minor additions
to an existing structure or buildiny and a minor addition includr_s any
expansion of a single-family residence, so a homeowner. would net face the
problem, or any commercial, multi-family or industrial trse Wltere the square
footage is not being expanded by 10% or 1,00 square feet, whichever is
less, within an' one year period.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO*SMISSION April 11, 1988 88-909
Commissioner Feldltaus stated ]te understood from previous discussions that
has nothing to do with Lliis particular situation and Commissioner Bouas
stated slie understood that would be a separate ordinance. Mr. Slaughter
stated lie is just tall:ing about• the requirement for dedication and there is
a separate ordinance wliicli is included with the Commission's packet toda}~
which would delete an}' requirement, as well, for ary improvement costs of
right of wa}' related to the critical intersection, and the ordinance ttr.
Johnson referred to earlier and wtticii the Chairman alluded to is the one
included in t:he paG;et, to exempt the property owner from those burdens
which would otherwise be his if this is not passed.
Mr. Slaughter explained file reason for amending the General Plan now since
the City etas the right of eminent domain, is that unless the Plan is
amended, eminent domain proceedings could net be used t:o acquirr_ additional
right of way for these critical intersect;ions
Commissioner Feldltaus stated if the General Plan is amended, it would
subject 128 residential property owners to the power of eminent domain.
Air.Slaught:er stated that is not correct, t;hat the City has the general.
authority to widen its street, and as far as t;he actual exercise of the
power of eminent domain, thr_ City Council would have t;o hold a hearing for
each property and by a 4/S vote, by resolution, would !lave to authorize
eminent domain, so C!iis is the first step in an extremely long process.
Chairman !•tessc asked about the 128 residential property owners. Ms. Selenez
stated the bulk of those relocations arc associated with t11r. development of
tl:e Hasler/Convention Way intersection because the Convention tiny leg does
not currently exist and would have to go through an apartment co,aplex, and
most of the oilier intersections leas no residential impact in terms of
dedication. She added therr_ arc some scattered ones that could be affected,
but if the propert}• remains as is without a request for a change of any use,
Chore would be r,o effect: unless the City decided to implement Cho critical
intersection process.
Commissioner Bouas stated her concern is the designations on particular
intersections with one being eliminated when the intr_rsectiUns on both sides
leave Lhe designation.
Mr. Singer stated it relates to capaciC}' at a particular intersection and
those not shown are not at capacity at this time, with the excepCion of
Convention Wa}• and Halter. He stated some intersections could leave alread}~
been done, and that would be a direct result of file Redevelopment Alpha
Project because Redevelopment is responsible for improving those
intersections in total with rig]it of wa}~ acquisition, widening, and pa}~ing
all tine costs, so there was no need to include those intersections in this
amendment.
Commissioner Bouas stated one concern o:as mentioned Chat the Redevelopment
Agency was given a priority and she wanted to clear up L•hat
misunderstanding. Mr.Singer pointed the Redevelopment Agency also has a
separate authority.
4/11/98
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Anril_11, 1988 88-410
Mr. Patel asked if he could have an answer to his question about the
intersection of Harbor and Katella in that he }tas alread}' made the
dedication. Paul Singer stated Mr. Patel ltas a motel across the street from
the Jolly Roger and that ite is quite familar with that location and Mr.
Patel's propert}• is located r;it}tin the tapered portion of the intersection
and tltougltt the thickest portion is approximatel}• 6 or 8 feet wide and that
is within ttis landscaping setltacl: and tte itas made the irrevocable offer to
dedicate.
Mr. Patel stated he had been told the only way he could get: a building
permit was to sign the offer and that lte did not want to dedicate it, but
]tad no choice and now that lte ltas spent mone}• for the plans, lte wanted to
find out what could be done about it. He stated he did not asi: for a
variance and Itad to make the offer to get Llte building permit.
Malcolm Slaughter staged a motel. is a permitted use in t}te CR Zone. Greg
Hastings stated that request was heard by the Zoning Administrator and there
was a parking waiver necessary, and the use is permitted in the CR zone.
Commissioner IIouas pointed out the waiver was necessary for the parking and
that is the reason for the requirement. Mr. Pat:e1 stated he had 80% parking
and that is the City's recui.rement, and it was pointed out that 100% parking
is required without a waiver. Chairman Messe stated that is an individual
matter, and asked Mr. Patel to speak with the Traffic Department. after the
meeting.
Mr. Patel stated wants to apply for a permit for a freestanding sign and he
%,nl}' ]tad a 20-foot frontage and ater the 12-foot dedication, lte only ltas 8
feet left for the placement of the sign. He asked if this general plan
amendment is not approved, would he he relieved of the obligation. It was
pointed out that the offer has beer. made, but not accepted by the City as
yet, but t}taL lte would not be relieved of that obligation.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out that Mr. Patel could have develope~ less
units and would not have needed the parking waiver and then would not have
had to make the irrevocable offer of dedication.
Mr. Patel stated Ito Itad no choice but to make that decision al the time; and
that Ito ltas 100 rooms and 80 parkins; spaces.
Mr. Slaughter stated generally speaking the lau requires that if the owner
is expanding or otherwise taking out a permit for wltic}t the dedication is
required, they are required to either dedicate or not develop and that is
the choice he had to make.
Commissioner Herbst stated that is exactly what is a concern Co him; that
the way this reads, that is exactly what: would happen and that the
Commission only got a small portion of the ordinance and is being asked to
approve it regarding the payment of the improvements, but not for the
property itself and tltougltt there needs to be more consideration. He stated
Ito realizes something needs to be done about the streets and that we are
close to gridlock and it will get worse. He stated ite tltougltt Lhe City
should compensate the property owners for the taking. He added he knows the
traffic will keep getting worse, and referred to the 57 freeway where it
narroxs and traffic was backed up for several miles, and that is something
he feels could happen here, with a third lane being dropped.
4/11/88
MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN*II~G COMMISSION, April 11, 198E 88-411
Mr. Singer stated there will not be any lanes dropped; that the right turn
lane will be to store buses out of the travel lane. He explained after
making a right turn, there xill be a merge situation where the right turr.
situation doesn't get clobbered, but it is primarily for use as a bus
storage lane in order to increase ridership, but is not really a travel
lane. He pointed out that same condition exists on northbound Euclid at
Lincoln.
Commissioner Herbst referred to Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road and asi;ed
if these intersections will have that same situation. Mr. Singer responded
that lane is not intended as a signal b}•pass and is a normal right turn lane
which is signalized and file vehicle has to stop before making a right turn.
Malcolm Slaughter responded bo Chairman Messe that under the present
ordinance, if a property owner applies for a building permit, he is required
Co dedicate and pay for or cause Co he made the widening improvements to the
street and Che proposed ordinance amends the present law Co say that when
talking about the critical intersection designat:ion, the property owner will
not have to make those improvements, but if the proposed ordinance is net
adopted, the present ordinance does require !.hat payment.
Commissioner Herbst asked if the City would have to acquire the property if
they wanted to increase the capacity at one of these intersections if this
amendment is not approved? Mr. Slaughter responded that the City would have
to negotiate to pur diase the property or if that failed, they would have to
authorize condemnation procedures to get the judge to sell it to t:he City,
pa}~ing ttte propert}~ owner, of course.
Commissioner Boydstun stated if a property owner wanted Co develop his
property under the current designation and ordinance, he would have to
dedicate the property and pay for the improvements in addition. Mr•
Slauohter clarified he would have to pay for the cost of the relocation of
the iml~rovementc. back to tl:cir ultimate location. Commissioner Boydstun
clarified that under the proposed ordinance, the respcnsibility for paying
for the improvements would be eliminated.
Cormmissioner Herbst stated some of these locations do not cure^nt}y have the
critical intersection designation and asked if this amendment was not
approved and a property owner wanted to improve his property. could the city
require him to dedicate to the critical intersection standards. Mr.
Slaughter, stated the Planning Commission and City Council Have required the
irrevocable offer to file critical intersection standards in the past. He
stated the City does not Have an adopted critical intersection designation
on the General Plan at this time.
Commissioner Feldltaus staged the City under its police powers can take the
property under eminent domain and right naw there is a situation that if a
property owner wants to get a building permit, the City forces tl~e owner to
irrevocabl.}' offer the dedication or lie cannot get Llte permit. Commissioner
Ao}'dstun stated not only that, but now the owner is required to pay for the
improvements and the proposed ordinance. mould eliminate t]tat requirement.
4/}1/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIDI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ap:ril_11, 1988 88-412
Ralph Kazarian, Jr., owner of the business at 1747 S. Harbor Boulevard,
stated he is in the midst of building a motel on that propert}~; and that lie
has orned the property for 31 years. He stated he agrees there are a lot of
traffic problems in this city and agreed with finding other alternatives,
but when he wanted to upgrade leis property and applied for a permit, which
was stamped for approval last June by the City, and explained he requested
no waivers and spent 3-1/2 million dollars on the property and then tlr~ City
sent Itim a letter stating that if lie did not irrevocably dedicate tine 12
feet, they would not give liim an occupanc}~ permit to open business. Y.e
stated ire consulted leis aLtorne}• and that San Francisco has already tried
this and has lost two cases. He stated he had to tear out his sidewalks and
put• them back exactly where tlre}~ are nou at ]ris own cost. lle stated the
Cit}• could not give any dates for the need of the other ]2 feet. He
explained in t:wo days his sign wiriclr costs $50,000 will he there on the
property and no one could tell him when that property would be taken and he
did not think this is right. He stated lie is tr}•ing to better the
Disneyland area and f:hat they do generate a lot of income to that area, but
the City cannot dust hold people at bay and do things uit'.:ouL the proper
procedures.
Chairman Messe asked who could pay for the relocation of a sign that is
alread}~ in place. Mr.Slaughl:er responded he believed that could be at the
City's expense as part of the relocation. Chairman Hesse states if the sign
is in place, whin the dedication is taker., +:he CiCy has to move ttie sign at
its expense.
Mr. Kazarian st,ited there is only 600 feet, on each corner and asked where
the signs will be for those businesses oa the corners since they will set
back 12 feet because no one would be able to see ':heir signs.
Courmissioner Feldhaus asked for the volume required Co reach service level
F. h!r.Siraer responded the service level is the product of the n~ml:er o:
lanes, ti:e number of vehicles in each lane and what the deductible time is
while opposing critical lanes are moving through. He further explained if ;~
critical intersection reaches a point whereby 40N of the capacity of t,:c
intersection leas been taken and it takes more than tuo signal cycles for a
vehicle to gen. througL•, it has reached the service level F. He added the
figures sho~•n are daily and the service levels are based on peak hour
volumes and the turn movements involved.
Cosmissioner Herbst stated ?ie would like to see t}rese issues specifically
spelled out in the ordinance and added all he sees in this ordinance is that
Lhe Cit}• is going Co pay fen Lice improvements and if this is not going Lo be
implemented for 10 to 15 years, he wanted it all. spelled out because none of
the peop.lA involy?d today will be around to see that it is properly
implemented. He added the environmental impact report says 1:here are some
significant problems to solve and lie did trot think they Dave been solved.
Gary Johnson stated the environmental impact report on the General Plan
level is somewhat cursor} and the specific environmental documentation is
done on a project by project basis and would take into consideration the
sign relocation, noise level increase with the street rncving closer, etc.;
however, the environmental impact report does say that the <mpacts can be
mit•igai:ed with the implementation of this general plan amendment. He
suggested if tine Commission chooses to as Y. staff to structure another
implementation ordinance t1iaC addresses the impleme:tation in a different
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-41s
manner, staff can bring tl?at ordinance back for Commission review. He
stated t1?e important thing is reall}~ tl?e general plan designation and
whetl?er or not it is something we want to do and if it is not something we_
want to do, alien t}?e implementat•ion ordinance is of no value.
Chairman Messe stated this ordir,arce does relieve the property owner ^f the
requirement to pay for tl?e improvements t]?at are in t]?e critical
intersection right of wa}•, and 1?e tl?ougl?t L1?e ordinance sl?ould ;~e acted on
toda}•.
Commissioner Herbst stated he did not sec the need to hurry. Commissioner
Feldhaus stated there are a few intersections listed which he would like to
review furtl?er.
Mr.Slaughter stated if the Commission wants to adopt some or all of these as
critical intersection, they could further recommend to the City Council
that Chey adopt those intersections, and further that the City Council adopt
this ordinance to relieve the property o«ner of the costs of the
improvements and tt~e Commission could also recommend to tl?e City Council
tl?at the property owner sl?ould not be required to dedicate as a condition of
building permits or other improvements, and the City Council can consider
that as a policy issue and he did not i:now that: it needs to co^A bacl; ho tl?a
Commission.
Commissioner Herbst stated he wants to see the ordinance spell out who is
going to pay for the dedication and Lhe improvements and added he is not
satisfied wit}? tl?e information lie leas today. Iie stated he did not tl?ink
tl?ese property o«ners should subsidize all tl?e citieens of Ana1?eim.
Commissioner Carusillo stated lte world like some ans«ers :., ti?e c}iestions
regarding the loss of parking spaces and the loss cf income day !o a
reduction in the number of motel unit, etc.
Mr. Slaughter stated if the property owners are compensated, presumably, tiie
loss of income will be calculated. He stated the Commission could recomoend
clanging the 7.oning ordinance to say tl?at for purposes of parking, a use
that has lost parking as a result of the city acquisition of property shall
be deemed to have the same number of parking spaces as they would have had
before the take.
Chairman Messe stated apparently the Commission is not prepared to act on
Ll?is amendment today and possibly a continuance could be in order so tl?ep
can get further information or some cl?anges could be made in the ordinance.
Commissioner Feldltau~ stated lie would like more information about t}?e
rat'_onale used to reach tl?e conclusion on some of t}?ese intersections that
tl?e}• are considered as critical intersections.
Mr. Singer e:cplained tl?e calculaL•ions for service level E; and L•1?at is
determined to be wl?en there is more tl?an 90% capacity when a ve]?icle cannot
go tl?rougl? witl?out waiting two signal cycles.
9/11/88
I
MINUTES, ANAHEIM C1: Y :CANNING i:oMMISSION, Agri 1 _1 i~ 988 88-414
Mr. Johnson stated the mplementation is a si.gniti~.r,+nt public
policy, and there has been some good input from ".lie people wlto have come to
the meeting today, and if the Commission would give staff some ge.^.eral
guideJ.ines, tl:e}• would bring back a dif`f'erent iml+lem~ntation ordinance so
the Commission could compare rile two and perhaps staff could give more
background on the benefits and disarlvr nt3ges c" redo!: and, l:unefully, if tl:e
Commission finds one of the ordinance; is acceF;table, they could make the
recommendation to ~it}• Council; an.i that City Council would leave 'rtre option
of looking at both.
Chairman Messe stated he did not thin'a a i:r:ilding permit f.or a remodel o!
something of that nature :mould kick nff :+ irr.~evocable dedlCatlOn
requirement.
Commission:-r Roads stated t:he Commission Teems to feel that everybody should
be paying for the improvements and dcd'^al:ions and that the property owner
who just happens to own L•he property at c.ne of these locations should not be
penalized.
Mr. Slaughter stated he thought all !hat is ne:~sr.a.•, is to draft. an
ordinance whicl: says that the City :na}• not requir~_ as a condition of a
building permit, additional widening or pa}•ment c costs of impro~+emE•rria for
the incremental area of ti:e critical intersection; and, therefore, if the
City cannot :en•,;ire it to be dedicated nothing vill be done, or the ^i Cy
will '.lave to buy the right of way.
Commiss.oner H rbe.t st°Led he •aould. :.eke t, r.ee the ordinance and nave
adequaCe time ~.Ioate :t and l:e +r:.+uld suc3est a four week cont:noari!-t.
Mr. Slaughter i.catud Lamorzow he woa.ld mail the Commissioners a c^py of the
present ordinance which governs exactions undo-r Title 18.04 concerning vi:at
the Cit}• can do with L'oilding permits; and that the Commission t+as the
current proposed ordinance, and then he will provide a revised ordinance to
incorporate the revrseo language discussed.
Respurdi~rg to Chairman Messe, Gary Johnson atat:ed they have proposed some
language Lo amend t:he Municipal Code to oral. with critical intersections
differently that: ti:•~ o;:her L'irculaLion. Element provisions and that is L'h~
ordinance the Commissi.or, has before them now. He stated the only policy
issue is that some of` t:he Cr+mmissionci•s would like to see some alternatives
and would like to see same la~guagr• includeZ that would allow the City Lo
compensate the owner for the lard and for t1:e City to pa, for Lhe costa of
t1:e i.iproveme. .... and that, is ,}efferent than what they have proposed. He
stated he will be 31 ad to come back with the;,e cha.•aes and let the
Comri+ission decide what t:. v~ t!:ink is in the 2~est public-, interest and,
hopeful~y, give some recommendation Lo Lhe City c:,uncil.
Conurissior.er Herbst stated ire wants Lhe Ci*_y Council. to know that the
Tlann: ng Commission did not :a}re this lightl}• anti needs to a+ake them a
recommendation after they h:•/e gone +hrough this :~~tl: a fine-tocth?d comb
and if that ~^kes twa ordinances to give them Lhe prerogative, that is what.
should b~ done.
4/11/88
MINUTf.S; ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-415
Gary John:;on stated that is very appropriate since the Citr Council has to
deal with ilia ;cal issues of wltetlter the Cit}~ can afford to compensate for
the rig}tt of t, and pay for tTte improvements.
Mr. Slaughter stated if the Commission continues their consideration cf this
mater, it will not need to be readvertised, and everybody here would have
notice from xltat is announced.
Comsis~l~ner Carusillo stated he would like to see a supplement to what the
Coma,i._;sion already Itas regarding those major five or six concerns discussed,
rather c1,~n another Iona report to read and decipher.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
co~c~.nued to the regular sche9uled meeting of May 9. 1988.
RECP.SS: 4:20 p.m.
RECON:'EY.':D: ,:35 p.m.
ITEM N0. 2. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-45.
PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATi.ll BY ANAHEIM CIT1' PLANNING COMMISSION. 200 Soutlt
A.aneir.~ Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. PROPERTY LOCATION: Area generally
bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the ':+est, Cypress Street to the south, the
Union Pacific Railway to the cast and La Palr..a Avenue to the north,
excluding the area bounded by hilhelmina Street to the north, Sabina Street
to the west. °ycamore Street to the south and the Union Pacific Railway to
the east; als~~ excluding Portion A described as 3 properties comprising
apnroximatel+~ C.87 acre located at the northwest corner of Claudina Street
and Wilhelmina Street; Portion (b), 7 proper'ies comprising approximately
1.29 acres located at the southwest corner of Adele Street ar.a Emily Street;
portion (C), l2 properties consisting of :,pproximdtcl}~ 2.U'3 acres located on
the north side of North Street from i:he allr_y nest of Cl.,udira Street to
Olive Street.
Reclassi`.ica*ion from P,M-120U, CL, ML, P.S-'.200 and CG to RM-2400 ar a ss
intenso zone.
":here were approximately 10 persons indicating their prcaence in favor of
;abject request a.:d approximately 3 people present is apposition to subject
request; and although the staff report to the Planning Commission was not
read at the public bearing, it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 86-416
Keith Pepper, 817 N. Lemon Street, member of the Hoard of the Central City
Neighborhood Council., stated there has been some confusion regarding the
zoning; ]towever, the issue is the density and this proposal will reduce the
number of units that would be allowed and Lice Central City Neighborhood
Council fully supports this proposal in order Lr, mai:[tain tl~e integrity of
the area. lle stated in their survey, they only cor.t:acted property owners
who were on the record at; the time and everyone was [sailed notices twice and
the overall response rate was 34%; However, they have since made physical
contact with others and have raised that figure to 46% and of those 85% were
in favor of the change. He stated that numt[er is very significant and they
are very confident xitl: the results of tike survey. He stated there is a
great pride of ownership in that area and this reclassification will Help
prevent another Chevy Cl:ase or Lynne Jeffry area from occurring downtown.
Vivian Engelbrecht, 218 S. Floret, owner property at 311 Mills Drive,
stated she has owned that property for 20 y..ars as an investment for her
retirement income. She stated she plans to build units on that property and
that she is not an outside developer and is an average Anaheim citizen who
cares ver}~ much about the city. She stated slte listened to the previous
discus_ion for three Hours and iL was very interesting, but that Luis change
is not taking 12 feet of her property, but iL will be taking 50% of the
value from her property. She stated the properties in the one bloc'r, area
between Mills Drive and La Palma Avenue are being upgraded with new
construction of attractive units replacing older structures, and the house
on leer property is 65 to 70 years old and it should be demolished and in tl~e
proper sequence of an expanding city, it should be redeveloped as RM-2400.
Sl:e stated man} of the single-family Homes }lave more than one family living
in them and some leave as many as 10 and also many of the garages are being
used illegally. She stated the units Lhat are going up are not
overdeveloping the propert}• and are quite charming 'end that is what sl:e
intended to do. She stated this rezoning will cut her property value in
Half. She asked about tt:e properties wlticl; are exempted from this rezoning.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the properties on North Street are
presently zoned for single-family residences and are currently developed
that way and at the last meeting, the Commission requested that those
properties be omitted from this reclassification. lle stated this is the
only block of single-family zoning in the area and the other two areas are
Parking District-Commercial •l:iclt will he addressed in tl:e near future with
a Code Amendment. IL was explained that zoning allows parking for the
commercial properties along Anaheim Boulevard.
Ms. Ergelbreclit stated s}ie really t}tougttt t:ltis is unfair to those wlto have
owned the property for some time. She responded to Chc~irmar. Messe that.
there is a 65 year old single-family house on her property which has beer.
LenanL-occupied for 20 years.
Tim Hsiao, 310 N. Heach Boulevard, staled on March 12th he purchased the
property at 370 N. Philadelphia and the I:ouse is 110 years old and is not
suitable for anyone Lo live in. He stated lea talked to tl:e Planning
Department and way '.old by one planner that he could construct four units
and then when !te wanted to submit plans for a nice apartment project, after
lie found t}:at there is a lot of unhealthy houses in the area with 20 or more
x/11/88
I
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-917
people living in one single-family house. He stated this whole situation
should be reconsidered and the rules regarding the number of people living
in a unit should be enforced and these people should be forced to move out
and the number of people should be reduced rather than reducing property
values by downzoning the properties. He stated he leas talked to other
investors who have stopped investing in tl~e area because ~f this proposed
change.
Ellen Evans, Acacia Ranch Realty, Cypress, stated the last speaker is trying
to purchase a Home from an elderly couple who want Lo leave the area ar_d
they will not be able to if flee zoning is changed Uecause the sale will not
go tlirouolt and it is not economically feasible for anyone to purchase that
property and tear down the house and puc in two units. He stated investors
who want to do something nice in the area will not be able Lo do it.
P.on Eiickman stated he lives at 1743 N. Olive and leas lived in Anaheim for 28
years and is proud to live in d~r•ntcwn Anai~eim and that lie has nothing
against• new complexes but wants to keep the population dovn and control the
number of people living in one home; ho.;ever. t1iaL• is another issue and
shoulJ be discussed at a different time.
Larry King stated regarding the Property c• Mils Drive, the representatives
from the Neighborhood Council kept referri to other areas such as Chevy
Chase and Lynne Jeffry and that those area vere not developed like this
area is developing and those areas were v~:.~:nL• lots and there is no
comparison whatsoever, but if this property is downzoned, Mrs. Engelbreclit
will be faced with the option of. retaining the 65-year old house and putting
up a modest duplex in the rear anz renting to the very low income people and
fze did not think that is the type of people flee neighbors wart in the area.
He stated she was planning to put in a nice apartment complex that would he
an improvement similar to the one on the second lot over at the corner of
Philadelphia and Mills. He stated downzoning will bring in cheap triplexes.
Ray Damerall stated he lives next door t4 Ron Hickman and bought his house
37 years ago and intends to stay there and xould like to have some of thz
riff raff cleaned out: of the neighborhood and the Police leave indicated a
lot of problems are caused by flee number of people living there. He stated
they need to clean people out rather than alloying more to come in. He
stated he wants to stay and also that his neighbor has been there for 30
years and wants to stay and they Dope this is approved.
Mts. Erickson, 301 E. North Street, stated she has been working on this
proposzl for L•hree yeazs and then they got the help of the younger people;
tliat• she does have property in the area and *_liat they do have wild parties
in the area an3 it is because t-liere are just too many people in the area,
and the area is just over populated. She stated they call the new 4-plex
"Motel Six" because it looks just like a motel and that it still looks nice
because it is only ono year old buY, that it• does not fit in the area at all.
Slte st-at•ed they do not mind two units as long as there are ranch style and
fit in with all the single-story bunyalovs. She stated when she did her
part of the survey, most of the people xanted to request single- family
zoning to keep the population down. She stated allowing the 2partments is
downgrading flee area.
4/11/88
~_~ i.,~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP: April 11, 1988 BB-418
Erma Damerall, 734 N. Olive, stated she has not heard the traffic problem
addressed and that she is for low density because more people will bring in
more vehicles and there is not enough room on L•he streets for the
automobiles that are in the area now. She stated they like to live in
Anaheim and leave been here for 37 years and would lice to continue living
here and if they have the low density, it is less likely they will have so
many automobiles ::td less likely tlt~T will have more Nroblems with wild
parties like they lead on Friday night and that Lhey would like to have the
Commission consider the lower density.
Judy Oelson, 321 N. Philadelphia, stated she moved into the neighborhood
because they like L•lle older homes and her home is 83 years old and is in
very good condition and that a lot of young people are moving into the area.
She stated she is familiar with the property at 310 N. Philadelphia referred
to earlier and it is very deteriorated and sloe L•hougllt the current zoning
situation uhicll is predominately single-family zoned for RM-1200 encourages
deterioration and on that street, ''here are very well-maintained homes,
except for the one and now its owner is expecting to make a big profit
because of the zoning situation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Cisairman Messe stated he did receive a letter from Mr. J. M. Moore opposing
tl~e reclassifi~aL•ion.
Commissioner r(erbst stated lie would like to explain what has happened in the
past and L•hat when the Commission looked at that area man; years ago, it was
thought that area would go into a redevelopment area r•ith apartments; and
L•l~at the apartments being built in those days lead more restrictions and were
only permitted 3 or 4 units, and because of the codes, they were very well
constru.ted and parking would not have heen allowed undezreath the building,
and i;he zoning was a lot more tough in those days. He stated he thought an
owner could build the same number of units under the RM-2400 zone today, as
they could have built under flee RM-1200 zone 20 ,years ago. He stated that
area had to be reviewed because people have been purchasing the homes and
rehabilitating them and retaining them as single-family homes and instead of
downzoning it to RS 5000, the Commissioners decided to go to RM-2400 which
would still permit apartments and he really did not think it will farm
anyone. He stated he has known Ms. Engelbrecht for many years and she knows
his thinking, but that the area leas changed and that all of Anaheim has to
be reviewed where it 11as been zoned RM-1200 for years. He pointed out if
all the areas were redeveloped to RM-1200 standards, no one would be able to
move on the streets and t!.ie Commission has had to review tl~e overall density
prob2.ems and what will ]iappen by the year 2000 in Anaheim. He added he is
very pleased to see the rehabilitation that is taking place by the younger
generation.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April I1, 1988 88-919
ACT10N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bouas, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ltas
reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-1200
(Residential., Multiple-Family), CL (Commercial, Limited), ML (Industrial,
Limited), and CG (Commercial, General) Zones L•o the RM-2400 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone on property consisting of approximately 91.3 acres
generally bounded by Anaheim Boulevard to the west, Cypress Street to Llie
south, the Union Pacific Railway to the east and La Palma Avenue to the
north; excluding the area bounded by hilltelmina Street L•o the north, Sabina
Street• to the west, Sycamore Street to the south and the Union Pacific
Railway to the east: and also excluding those properties fronting on Anaheim
Boulevard and La Palma Avenue, also excluding portions A, B and C described
as Portion A, 3 properties comprised of approximately 0.87 acres located at
the northwest corner ^f Claudina Street and t9illrelmina Street; Portion B, 7
properties comprised of approximately 1.29 acres located at the southwest
corner of Adele Street and Emily Street; Portion C, 15 properties consisting
of approximately 2.13 acres located on the north side of North Street from
Olive Street to the alley immediately east cf Anaheim Boulevard; subject
property also excludes those properties presently zoned RM-2400; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaration on Lhe basis that it has considered
the proposed Negative Declaration Together with an}' comments received during
the public review process and further finding on L•lre basis of tite Initial
Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that•
the project will ]lave a significant effect on tine environment.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC BB-95 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Reclassification No. 87-88-45, unconditionally, contingent upon the
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 227 by the City Council.
On roll call Lhe foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MESSE, MC HCiRNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated this action by the Planning
Commission becomes final unless appealed to L•he City Council within 22 days.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIF9 ilITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April I1, 1988 _ 88-421
Mr. Riley states there would be one vehicle there between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m.
and from 5 to 8 p.m. there xould be a few more, and then after 9 p.a., there
would only b= one, and 2 on weekends. He explained the vehicles are out most
of the time making deliveries.
Commissioner Carusillo stated there is a parking problem there now and L•hey
leave initiated a valet service to help alleviate some of the concerns but• the
problem lies with the approval given a few years ago and even tiiougti he
sympathizes with the concerns, he did not want to penalize this applicant.
Commissioner Herbst stated when this remodeling was considered in the past,
the parking on old Santa Ana Canyon Road was considered and it is not
recognized as Code parking.
Mr. Singer stated Santa Ana Canyon Road is parked solid. He explained there
was a very successful Chinese restaurant in the center which has brought other
businesses to the area and Lhat is something which had not been anticipated.
He stated he did not think this use would impact the center in any way and
would probably be lighter than any other commercial use.
ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
McBurney, and MOTION CARRIED that flee Anaheim City Plauning Commission I~as
reviewed tiie proposal to permit a Domino's Pizza store with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 5 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road
and Imperial Highway, and further described as 5595 East Santa Ana Canyon
Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it
leas considered tl~e proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of
the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will leave a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Feldhaus offered Resolution No. PC88-96 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Variance No. 3774 on the basis that the parking variance will not cause an
increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect
any adjoining land uses; and that the granting of the parking variance under
the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, Health,
safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject
to Interdepartmental Committee F.ecommendctions.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MC SUANEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right of appeal
the Planning Commission's decisica within 22 days to the City Council.
4/11/88
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-420
ITEM N0. 3. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3774.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: COMMONWEALTH EQUITY TRUST, 705 University Avenue,
Sacramento, CA 95825. AGENT: GOLDEN PIZZA INC., 4439 Avenue De Los Arboles,
Yorba Linda, CA 92686. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 5 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa
Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, and further described as 5595 East Santa
Ana Canyon Road.
Request: To permit a Domino's Pizza store with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request,
and although L•he sL•aff report to the Planning Commission vas not read, it is
referred La and made a part of the minutes.
Jeff Riley, 4434, agent, Golden Pizza Inc., referred to the parking study
submitted and stated he felt the request is self-explanatory and that unless
the unit remains empty, this use •:ould not Burt the parking situation any more
than il• is currently.
Commissioner Carusillo read a letter from the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition
written by Sonja Greval indicating the homeowners to the rear or north of this
center continue to be bothered by noise and traffic and other impacts from
this center and that the parking lot is already overcrowded at peak hours and
the center is not yet fully occupied and several large suites are still empty;
and L•hat further impacting the traffic situation in this center detracts from
the success of the businesses already in place and sometimes it is easier to
go elsewhere than fight for a parking place.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner McBurney stated after reading the parking study, lie did not feel
this us= will be a concern and titiat the Coalition's concerns will be mitigated
in that there will not be an increase in the parking problem.
Chairman Messe stated this center has parking problems, and they have valet
parking for the center on Saturday afternoon; however, lie thought this use is
as light as any lie has seen.
Commissioner Felditaus stated this is strictly a delivery type operation with
no room inside for seating.
Mr. Riley responded to Chairman Messe that they would have a maximum of 5 or 6
delivery vehicles on Friday night which is their busiest night, and responded
to Commissioner Feldhaus that number includes all the employees. He explained
the vehicles would be privately owned.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if those personal delivery ve}icles might be
parked on the lot at any time other tTian when they are working or when the
store is not operating to its greatest capacity.
4/11/88
4
\- ~ -~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-422
ITEM N0. 4. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3777.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DR. R. S. MZNNICK AND JAN W. MINNICK, 12269 Sky
Lane, Los Angeles, CA 90049. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre located at the southeast
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street.
Request: Waiver of required improvement of right of way to construct a
commercial building.
There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request,
and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the public hearing.
Dr. Steve Minnick, owner, explained his request is for relief from Section 1
of Ordinance No. 4666, based on SecL•ion 3 of that ordinance which specifically
states that if tl~,e costs of any or all tl~e requirements imposed by Subsection
.020 tlirougli .060 are disproportionate to the value of the project for which
the permit is sought, some relieve may be obtained. He stated the City of
Anaheim asked for a 7-foot dedication wl:icli he has already done, and that
dedication triggered txo items of great expense; relocation of the traffic
signal and a utility transmission pole
He stated he has served on Planning Commissions and City Councils and
understands the problems with running a city and expects to pay those costs
for the items such as removing and constructing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and
the catch basin, but that property is under ]8,000 sq. ft. and that lie
originally lead 140 feet on Orangetliorpe and 175 feet on Lemon and that has
been reduced to 110 feet on Orangetliorpe and 126 feet on Lemon by dedications
and the building vill be just under 5,000 sq. ft. and is constricted by the
uniqueness of the expectations of the Traffic Engineer vlio required the
drivevays to be set back to the furthermost point from tl~e corner which
requires the building to be set back 0 feet from Lemon and in addition tl~e
cost of the building is approximately $240,000. He stated among the items
enumerated at the staff meeting, there is the requirement for paying a traffic
signal assessment fee amounting to ;1,640, 7-foot dedication vliich is in
excess of 1,000 feet, appraised at ;30,000, the 1,000 feet of tree planting
fees, the corner driveways have to be closed, tl~e radius of the driveways leas
to be increased at a cost of $11,500, in addition to the $70,400. He stated
the ;70,400 which has been itemized by the Engineering Department amounts to
29.3% of the building and with the signal assessment fee, tree planting fees,
closing the drivevays, etc., the cost is $87,250, or 36% of the cost of the
construction; and the cost of the land dedication added to that makes a total
of ;117,250 or 49% of the cost of the construction.
Dr. Minnick explained recently a Big Five store vas constructed on
Orangethorpe, one inL•ersection to the east, and the off-site improvements at
that site were about ;68,000; and that property encompasses 370 feet of
frontage and iL• is a 10-acre parcel, vesus .4C acre which is the size of his
parcel with the 7-foot dedication removed, and in addition, the Big Five
building is 8,000 sq. ft., versus his 5,000 sq. ft. building; and in addition
many other commercial buildings are contemplated in go in behind the Big Five
building facing Lemon.
4j11/88
_ ,
1..~ _
88-423
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988
He stated Mr. Singer had mentioned that possibly the City of Fullerton would
contribute to some of these costs and that he had a joint meeting with Mr.
Singer and Mr. Paul Smith of Fullerton; and that Mr. Singer apparently
misrepresented that lie xouid be required tb make a 4-foot• dedication and that
Mr. Singer put a lot of pressure on ]:im to give Fullerton the 9 feet and that
he would have given them the 4 feet if it would not have constricted him to a
point that was unreasonable and that l:~ just has no room; that the building
requires 28 parking spaces and thaL• is all lie has after dedication; that Mr.
Smith stated he had no interest in 4 feet and ti:at he merely wanted the right
to have a grade crossing. He stated Mr. Singer lead also made a point that
possibly Fullerton would reimburse ]:im for some of these expenses with t•I:eir
redevelopment funds, and that lie l:ad a whole series of conversations with Mr.
Smith'and originally he had asked if there uas a possibility that they would
consider paying tl:e costs for relocating the transmission pole because it is
right in the line of the right turn lane, which is what he had wanted al.l
along; and that after talking will: his people, Mr. Smith stated there was no
way they would participate in tt:e expense of moving it southerly to its
ultimate position, and that lie wanted to move it easterly 3 to 5 feet to get
it out of the rigltt• turn lane and they would consider a cost of $1,000 to
$5,000 against the cost of moving it at $25,000.
Dr. Minnick stated lie l:as gotten a building permit and paid the $70,000 by
getting a construction loan and that he paid tl:e money in order to get started
on the project, realizing that is a dangerous thing to do from many
standpoints, but felt in light of the provisions of tl:e Code, lie believed the
Planning Commission would agree that the burdens are unreasonable. He stated
the City wrote him a letter and stated if the Planning Commission gives him
some relief on this project, that tl:r_y will refund the money.
Dr. Minnick responded to Chairman Messe that the $1000 to $5000 figure relates
Lo the Southern California Edison utility pole. He stated Mr. Singer pointed
out to I:im that the General Plan does not require that the pole be moved, and
if the pole is moved 5 feet to the east, it will interfere with the location
of their sign on the corner and the ultimate cost to move it back will
probably be $50,000.
Chairman Messe stated lie did receive a letter from Bryan Industrial
Properties, Inc. indicating they are concerned about the traffic problem in
the area and felt if the variance should be granted, a condition should be
imposed that the 7-foot street dedication be made and that the bus turnout be
completed prior to issuance of tl:e certificate of occupancy.
Richard Carter, Hryan Industrial Properties, 146 E. Orangetl:orpe Avenue,
stated their main concern is the traffic problem and that lie understands that
it is a terrible financial burden to the owner, but somehow if the City could
participate or something could be done to get tl:e street widened, it• would be
to everyone's advantage. He stated in the past Oranget}:orpe Avenue was not
very heavily traveled, but with all the commercial development- that has gone
on in Fullerton, the traffic has gotten really bad and suggested that should
be designated as one of the critical intersections.
4/11/88
~.. t _i`
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-424
Dr. Minnick stated he did make the street dedication and he thought they had
complied with all the opposition's requests. He stated the City would not
have to use the eminent domain procedure if they needed his property because
he does understand all the expenses and costs the City leas to bear and would
dedicate the property without compensation.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he understood from Dr. Minnicks comments that he
had dedicated 7 feet on Orangetl~orpe, but that he has 128 feet on Lemon. Dr.
Minnick stated technically the dedication was sliced off Orangethorpe and that
makes the Lemon side shorter. He stated the total frontage on Lemon was 135
feet and now it is 128 feet, and that lie still has 140 feet on Orangethorpe.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the ordinance says that tite Commission may grant
a variance if the cost of any or all of the requirements is disproportionate
to the value of the project and lie thought the term "disproportionate" should
be defined, and the percentage that should be considered as disproportionate
should be determined.
Dr. Minnick stated he tried to answer that by referring to the recently
developed "Big Five" store, vhicli encompassed 370 feet on Orangethorpe. He
stated he has to be concerned with a traffic signal which 99% of other corners
do not have and also the transmission pole which 99% of the other corners do
not have to consider; therefore, their costs, even though the other businesses
have 2-1/2 times as much frontage, and the size of their property is larger,
their on-site costs were substantially less than his.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the owner may leave the misfortune of being on
the corner, but also that may a fortune. Dr. Minnick stated he has leased two
stores and the rents are identical to the Big Five; that the corner is too
small and tTiat Anaheim allowed a dental building on the east side of him 10
feet from the corner and 80 feet southerly and Fullerton alloyed the Jack La
Lanne Building vliicli is 35 feet high and is rather large on the southwest
corner, and the wall in flee front is 5 feet from the sidewalk, and he is
totally blindsighted on two sides, and visibility is very limited and the
parcel is very small., and the egress on Lemon will be extremely difficult.
Commissioner Herbst suggested that he be relieved of the costs for the traffic
signal and utility pole relocation, and be required to pay for the rest of the
improvements at approximately ;25,000, plus ;11,500 for the special
requirements for the driveways, and pointed out he would have to make those
improvements anyway. Dr. Minnick stated the only two items he is addressing
are the signal and transmission pole.
He responded to Commissioner Bouas that Fullerton possibly might pay ;5,000 of
the costs, leaving ;20,000 for him to pay for relocation of the traffic
signal.
4/11/88
MIWTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11._1988 88-426
Malcolm Slaughter stated the Edison utility pole is located in the right of
way, either pursuant to a franchise or alternatively they are illegally ir. our
right of way and in either event, lie thought it is their obligation to move
the pole at their expense.
Art Daw responded lie did not think the City of Anaheim has any utilities on
that pole and it is strictly a transmission line for Edison.
Commissioner Herbst asked the projected date for the widening of Orangethorpe
since they have been collecting money from these developers. Mr. Daw stated
there is no definite timetable at this time.
Chairman Messe staL•ed if Edison pays for moving the transmission pole, the
total would be $45,400 and that is certainly closer and asked what the 10%
contingency fee is and Mr. Daw stated that, is basically for change orders Lo a
contract, and somewhat to cover the cost of inflation.
Commissioner Bouas asked if that fee leas to be charged, and N.r. Daw responded
that is a fee they do collect.
Commissioner Herbst stated the City of Fullerton owns more of the street in
that area than the City of Anaheim, and asked about the signalization since it
is in two cities.
Mr. Singer responded the City of Anaheim shares the signal with the City of
Fullerton and the costs any work done on the traffic signal at that location
is shared by both agencies.
Commissioner Bouas suggested tl~e City of Fullerton share in the cost of moving
the signal. Mr. Slaughter sL-ated the question is whether the public pays for
it•, or does the property owner pay for. it, or wlia.t portion does he pay. He
added after that has been determined, the City c,an talk to Fullerton about
taking care of their share.
Commissioner Herbst stated the traffic from this use is certainly lighter than
a service station and he did not think this petitioner should have to pay for
the relocation of the traffic signal and utility pole and the Commission
should delete those requirements.
Commissioners Feldhaus and Bouas agreed. Commissioner Carusiilo stated he
thought there is some validity to the fact that he is changing the use on tiie
property.
Commissioner Boydstun asked wlzy the City wouldn't pay 50% for moving the
signal, if they are paying 50% for maintaining it, bringing the total down to
X35,400, and asking the City of Fullerton to pay the balance for the traffic
signal relocation.
It vas noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has
determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class I, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and
is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
4/11/88
i ,
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-425
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the utility pole is not under the City of
Anaheim's jurisdiction, but the traffic signal is. Dr. Minnick stated the
traffic signal and the transmission pole are triggered by the dedication of
the 7 feet and those items are not related to leis project at all. He stated
the Supreme Court has ruled in two cases recently that the general public
should bear the burden and not the individual property owner of items where
the cause of the requirements is not L•he project itself.
Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Dr. Minnick stated ]ie has owr._>a that
property for 44 years, and that lie originally paid for the curbs, gutters,
etc. on that property. He stated the use of the property vas a servica
station. Commissioner Herbst pointed out the zoning was originally industrial
and was changed to commercial when Zody's came in. He stated it bothers him
that this property owner has owned this property for 44 years, and thaw. he put
the curbs and gutters in their present location originally and now the City
xants to video tl~e streets and have him move the curbs back again, and he is
not really changing the commercial use. He stated he felt this is just plain
"l~lackma i 1" .
Commissioner McBurney stated the petitioner is really changing the use by
building a new building and the City needs the dedication to xiden the street.
Chairman Messe pointed out the owner has said he is perfectly willing to
construct curbs and gutters and Commissioner McBurney stated the traffic
signal and utility pole have to be relocated in order to do that.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated the question is ulietiier this .s due to immediate
public need and necessity and is the public's health, safety and welfare
affected by this construction.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the question before the
Commission is that the applicant is reouesting a waiver of the Code
requirement requiring the petitioner to put in these improvements and two
determinations need to be made. He stated the Commission may wish to waive
the requirement totally or limit it to less than the $70,000 item?zed in the
staff report, and one determination is that the cost of the improvements is
disproportionate to the value of the project for which the permit is sought,
and that the public's Health, safety and welfare will not be adversely
affected by the granting of the variance. He stated the interesting question
is vhetlier the value of the project sought is the building or if the project
value in this case includes the land and there is a bit of ambiguity in this
ordinance, and it is up to the Planning Commission to make that kind of
determination as to what the language in that ordinance does mean and how it
should be applied in the future. He stated he thought the Commission should
address that issue. He stated as far as the disproportionality, if the
Commission figures it is disproportionate, then they are in a position to
grant some or less than all the relief he is seeking.
Commissioner McBurney asked iE the Engineering Department can offer any
relief. Art Dav stated the matter has been discussed vitii the City Engineer
and the only item which he feels should possibly be relieved, if tl~e
Commission would so desire, is tl~e relocation of the utility pole and there is
some question as to whether Southern California would have to relocate it at
their cost, or whether that would be a burden on the City when the street is
widened.
4/11/88
~_' ~~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-427
ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC 88-97 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit}• Planning Commission does hereby
grant Variance No. 3777, in part, pursuant to Ordinance No. 4866 on the basis
that the cost of any or all of the requirements imposed by subsections .020
through .060 are disproportionate to the value of the project for which the
permit is souglit•; and that the public's health, safety or welfare will not
be adversely affected by the granting of such variance and subject to
interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, with the requirement• for
relocation of the transmission pole being deleted and that 50% of the cast for
relocating the traffic signai shall be deleted.
Mr. Slaughter stated the resolution should be that the petitioner shall be
required to pay $2538 for the curb and gutter, $2850 for the drive approach,
$3097 for the sidewalk, $6000 for the catch basin, $3330 for the structural
placement of the street, $10,000 for the relocation of traffic signal,
$3783.50 engineering fee and $3783.50 contingency, for a total of $35,900.00.
Commissioner Carusillo added the term, "not to exceed a total of. $35,400, to
the previously-offered resolution.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MESSE. MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I40NE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the vritten right of appeal
the Planning Commission's decision vithin 22 days to the City Council.
4/11/88
~~ ~_1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-428
ITEM N0. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2985.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EAST ANAHEIM ENTERPRISES AND SAMUEL A. HARDAGE,
2100 Howell Avenue, Suite 109, Anaheim, CA 92807, ATTN. Fred Seligman.
AGENT: JERRY AND CONNIE CALIENDO, 465 S. Paseo Bandera, Anaheim, CA 92807.
Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
6.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 402 feet on the south side of
La Palma Avenue, immediately east of the centerline of the southerly
terminus of Kellogg Drive and further described as 5120 East La Pa].ma
Avenue.
Request: To permit an 1800-square foot• restaurant (including on-sale
alcohol) with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Tlier~ was one person indicating leis presence in opposition to subject
request; and altltougli the staff report was not read at the public hearing,
it• is referred to and made a part of Clie minutes.
Connie Caliendo, agent, explained the proposed 1,800-square foot restaurant
will be a family restaurant, and the Hours of operation will. be 8 a.m. to 6
p.m., Monday through Saturday, and that most of the oilier restaurants in the
area are open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and they would be willing Lo reduce Lhe
fours of operation if necessary. Slie explained there are 102 units in the
business park and L•liey expect to attract those people working at the park
and not• the general public. Sloe explained they plan to serve beer and wine,
and that she and leer Husband leave been operating a similar restaurant since
1970.
Ms. Caliendo stated the Redevelopment Commission leas recommended that they
not be allowed to sell beer and vine or anl~ alcoholic beverages and if that
is not permitted, they feel it will be a big burden on their business and
did not understand why they have made that recommendation. She stated they
do not plan to have a bar, and will only sell beer and vine, and not any
liquor.
Commissioner Carusillo stated earlier it was thought they would be selling
liquor. Ms.Caliendo stated they are applying for an original No. 41 permit,
on-sale beer and wine and that they will stipulate to that restriction. She
stated slie vas present at tl~e meeting last Monday, but vas not told about
tl~e Redevelopment Commission meeting and did not attend that meeting.
Kenneth Clark, Ciba Geiqey Corporation, 5115 E. La Palma, across the street
to ttie north and barely east of the proposed restaurant site, stated they
would urge the Commission to maintain the dignity of tl~e industrial zoning
in tliat• area and that a restaurant is not a permitted use and wit1~ on-sale
alcohol or beer and wine, it is most assuredly not a permiL•Led use. He
stated about two years ago, four members of this Commission beard arguments
regarding putting a hotel on that property ?nd one of the issues was on-sale
alcohol. He stated the zoning is for an industry or industrially-related
sales businesses and the question of food service was discussed thoroughly
then and that it, is not a permitted use for L•hat area and is permitted in a
commercial zone and there is plenty of commercial property in the general.
4/11/88
I
1 F l_!
~~.1
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-929
vicinit}•. He stated he can understand the desire to havz a restaurant• right
in that building now that the multi-tenant development leas been allowed
there, but there are plenty of other commercial properL•ies right duwn the
street and quite a few are vacant right nox where a restaurant could be
placed. He stated the zoning calls for allowing industrially-related sales
businesses and leaving xorked in industry all of his career, knows there is
nothing industrially relaL•ed about alcohol, and that it• is a safety problem,
and also a safety problem to Dave people stop there for a beer with lunch
and then driving away. He stated that corner does not Dave signals at this
time and there are stop signs nox and they do leave quite a bit of traffic
congestion and a lot of nigh speed through traffic in that location and was
concerned L•hat• drinking drivers coming from Llie driveway across the street
could become a safety problem for their people.
He urged L•he Commission to maintain t]ie dignity of the zone. He stated tlie}~
were pleased to be able to move within a planned industrial. corridor xhen
they moved here two years ago and have most of their people here nox and
like it Here, but L•his could be a potential problem.
Fred Seligman, developer of the property, stated it xould leave been nice of
Ciba Geigey had contacted him and L•hat he was amazed that they are even
concerned because they are not really across the street. He stated he is
interested in this park which ]~e developed and is interested in the right
t}•pe of L-enants and thought the restaurant would be a nice amenity for the
tenants in the park and for L•lie area. He added there is no commercial
zoning from Lakeview Lo Imperial on that street. He stated lie xould assure
the Commission that the alcohol would be a way to help their income with
limited beer and wine sales.
Ms. Caliendo stated slie can understand flee concerns, but did not think this
restaurant will create a problem by having cusL•omers coming in and leaving
one or two beers and leaving and creating a hazard. Slie stated t',iey
currentl}• have a similar facility in Corona del Mar and have been there for
four years and have never had any problems and they do check the
identifications and will not be attracting a young crowd.
Slie stated they rill only be sel.lino the beer or wine from a three door
cooler and tiie customer xill taY.e it to flee counter and pay for it. She
added L•hc sale of beer and wine does help their business.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe sL-ated he is not. concerned about them serving beer and wine
Lo minors; but to the people who are working in the industrial park. He
added he oxns a business in an industrial park in the 1Jort•]least Industrial
Area and lie would prefer that his employees who work xith equipment do not•
drink at• lunchtime beca::~~ ~-hey could get their fingers caught in the
equipment, etc. vitli very little alcohol in their system.
9/11/88
~_. ~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CODII•1ISSION, April 11, 1988 88-430
Commissioner Herbst agreed and stated he employs about 30 people who work
xith equipment and is very much opposed to any type of liquor or alcohol
being served around the industrial areas because alcoholism is a disease and
some of them are involved in the industrial businesses and they have a
tendency to overdo it and are proved to accidents. He added he has no
problem xitli file use for the sandwich shop, and pointed out they are allowed
in tine industrial area Uy a conditional use permit and that is wliy this
Bearing is being Held. He stated they do service the industrial community
and having a restaurant there, vnuld probably cut down on the traffic
problems. He stated he is vehemently opposed to serving Ueer and vine and
lie would oppose the use without a commitment from the petitioners that they
will not sell beer and vine or any alcohol beverages.
Commissioner Carusillo stated lie sees Commissioner Herbst and Chairman
Messe's point, Uut felt t}ie}' are being discriminatory because if an
alcoholic warts tc drink, they could go to Keno's, Marie Callendars's, etc.
He stated he would agree and would he concerned about his employees going
out to lunch and maybe liavir:q one drink too many, but if they are going to
do that, there are plenty of sources availaUl.e to them.
Commissioner Herbst stated this is Llie industrial area and the employees can
wall; to this facility, vlicrein Chey might not leave time to drive to those
other establishments and the convenience of this Uothers him.
Commissioner Feldliaus stated recently approved Senate Bill 937 states that
if tl~e City permits a mi?ced use of alcohol in this zone in another location,
this applicant could not b~ denied the same use. He pointed opt the
industrial zone does vat allow for the sale of alcohol and, therefore, the
City is not required to approve this application, even under that new Senate
Bill 937.
Chairman Messe stated there are sandwich shops in that area which do have
beer and wine sales.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, responded to C'.~airman Messe that he
was rot familiar with the Uill referred to by Commissioner Feldhaus.
Commissioner Bouas stated slie was not sure she would aoprove a restaurant in
this location.
Mr. CiarY. stated it is true that there are sandwich shops in the area which
serve beer and wine, but they are located on commercial zoned properties and
this area of La Palma between Lakeview and Imperial does not have any.
commissioner Bouas stated allowing that development itself was even
questionable, but to allow the sandwich shop with beer and wine sales is
more of a problem because it does vat relate to tY,e industrial area and
added slie would not vote for the sale of beer and wine on that site.
Mr. Seligman stated this is not a marufacturinq park and it h1s 102 high
tech businesses wlticli are service oriented, distribuL-ion with office and
warehouse and this type establishment would be an amenir.y for that park.
9/]1/88
f
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION April I1 1988 88-431
Commissioner Carusillo stated the real issue aside from the sale of beer and
wine is the parking waiver ana asked about the proposed signing and what
type advertising is proposed vhicli might encourage people from outside the
area to patronize the sandwich shop and overcrowd the parking.
Mr. Seligman stated there are 480 parking spaces and unfortunately 40 of
those spaces are under the Southern California Edison easement and they leave
a res!:•riction that those spaces could not be counted for zoning purposes;
However, those spaces do exist and Edison cannot stop them from parking
there because they do own the land.
,yr.Singer explained the Edison Company will no L- grant the right to park on
tl~e easement L•y contract• because they want to have the right to mcve the
Lowers for vliicli the easement is required and if they allowed parking and
those spaces were marked and cars were parked there whet. they needed to have
access, they would have problems utilizing their easement.
Commissioner Feldliaus stated he would like t•o see Lhis matter continued in
order for staff to provide the Commission with a copy of Assembly Bill 937
and also for staff to provide bac}:ground information on any uses which leave
been granted in the industrial zone.
Commissioner IIouas asked if this sandvicli slice would be feasible without the
sale of beer and wine and Ms. Caliendo responded Lhey feel it will. hurt
their business not to have it because they cannot compete with other
est•ablisliments in the area uliich have that privilege. Slie explained those
sandwich shops are right on La ?alma and she did not know if those
properties are zoned commercially.
Commissioner Carusillo asked if there will be any signs outside flee building
or in the windows. Mr.Seligman stated any signs other than what is
permitted by Code would have Lo come before flee Planning Commission for a
variance.
Mr. Slaughter returned from leis office and explained from what he can
understand in reading Assembl}• bill 937 quickly, Chapter 176 of the
1987/1988 Regular Session of the Legislature does not relate Lo the sale of
alcohol with food, but to the sale of alcohol vitli vehicle fuel. anal added he
did not think this bill leas any impact on this request.
Mr.Slaughter read a portion of Assembly Bill 937 "....no City shall. by
ordinance or resolution legislatively prohibit the concurrent retailing of
vehicle fuel and beer and wine for off siL-e consumption in zoning districts
where the zoning allows motor vehicle fuel and off sale beer and vine to be
retailed on separate sites. He stated this bill became effective on January
1 of this year.
ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded b}' Commissioner Mc
Hurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission leas
reviewed the proposal to permit an 1800-square foot restaurant, including
on-sale alcohol xith waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.3 acres,
having a frontage of approximately 401 feet on the south side of La Palma
Avenue, and being located immediately east of the centerline of the
4/11/88
~: `..a
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-432
southerly terminus of Kellogg Drive and further described as 5120 East La
Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis
that it leas considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on
the basis of the initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does Hereby
grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parY.ing waiver will
not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and granting of the parking waiver
under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace,
liealtli, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Carusillo offered a resolution and moved for its passage and
adoption that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2965, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section
18.03.030.030 through 18.030.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental. Committee
Recommendations.
Chairman Messe asked if Commissioner Carusillo intended to include a time
limit on this use. Commissioner Carusillo responded ]1e thought a one-year
time limit would be reasonable in order to determine whether or not the use
will cause a problem.
Commissioner Herbs t• stated he could not vote for the restaurant as long as
the petitioner is not. willing to eliminate the sale of beer and wine. He
stated the Commission has denied this type request in the past because it
really does no t• service the industrial area and, in fact, may cause problems
and L11at he tlioug}it approval would just open the door for more requESts.
Commissioner Carusillo stated !ie did not think there would he a problem
because the customers xould come from that complex and there is very little
machinery in this complex. Commissioner Bouas stated people would come from
oL•her businesses. Commissioner Carusillo stated people will be walking to
this restaurant, but it would be just as easy for them to get to one of the
oL•her establishments which serves beer and wine, and he felt denial would be
very discriminatory.
Commissioner Mc Burney stated even though tl~e use is not highly industrial at
this time, it could change. Commissioner Herbst stated there are a lot of
liigli tech industries in that area and he thought there are just too many and
that he voted against some of them, and thought some of them xill change and
go back to industrial uses.
Commissioner Feldliaus stated he would like to know if other restaurants have
been granted the right to sell beer and wine in the industrial zone.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COyMISSION April 11 1988 88-433
On roll call, the foregoing resolution FAILED TO CARRY by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE, MC BURNEY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-98 and moved for
its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby gran L- Conditional Use Permit No. 2985, in part, to permit the
restaurant, however, prohibiting the sale of beer and wine, pursuant to
Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.030.035, subject to
Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations.
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MESSE, MC AURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CARUSILLO
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Dfalcolm Slaughter stated Code provides that the petitioner has one year in
which to commence the use and pointed out the conditional use permit leas
been granted but that the sale of beer and wine has been prohibited. He
presented the written right of appeal to the City Council within 22 days.
ITEM N0. 6. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 299A.
PUBLIC HEARIA'G. OWNERS: KENNETH W. HOLT AND HELEN L. HOLT TRUSTEES, 1557
W. Mable SL•reet, Anaheim, CA. AGENT: DAVID R. JACKSON, 1557 W. Mable
Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property is approximately 4.0 acres located at
1557 West Mable Street.
Request: To permit an expansion of an existing private school with waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum structural setback.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request
and although the staff report vas not read at tl:e public hearing, it is
referrer L•o and made a part of the minutes.
David Jackson, Executive Director of Fairmont School, stated they are
proposing several stages of development and this is primarily to add a
couple of classrooms.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the parking spaces with 517 required and 55
proposed and Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded the parking is
adequate.
4/11/88
~' `?
88-434
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~L*fISSION, A ril 11, 1988
Commissioner Bouas asked about the tent and what it would be used for. Mr.
Jackson responded they would use it for carnivals and the school halioveen
activities, etc. and it• vould be put up for an event and then taken down;
however, they would like to be able to leave it up during most of the summer
months.
Chairman Messe explained they will have to obtain a special events permit
each time they erect the tent.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc
Aurney, and MOTION CARRIED that• the Anaheim City Planning Commission leas
reviewed the proposal to permit the expansion of an existing private school
with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum struroximatel
setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app Y
4.0 acres: Portion A }laving a frontage of approximately 338 feet cn the
north side of Mable Street and being located approximately 520 feet east of
the :enterline of Loara Street and further described as 1557 West Mable
Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that
it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on
the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will nave a significant effect on the
environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and
MOTION CARRIED that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
waiver (a) of code requirement on the basis that there are special
circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings which du not apply to other identically zoned
properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity; and granting waiver (b) on
the basis L-irat the parking waiver will. not cause an increase in traffic
congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land
uses; and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if
any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-q9 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2994, pursuant to ?~^~heim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental.
CommitL•ee Recommendations.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed i:y the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, f'eldhaus, 1?2rbst, Messe
McBurney
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy CiL•y Attorney, presented the right to appeal the
Planning Commission's decision uitlrin 22 days to the City Council.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the property description on Page 1 of the
staff report should be reversed and Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded
it does appear there is an error and that it xill be corrected.
4/11/88
.._........._.,....~,.,..,. ..,. _,>,a ..ewe.:on,s~
~, `.~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-435
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PLAZA INVESTMENTS, 314 South Brookhurst, Suite 200,
Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: DHIREN SHAH, 13144 Carmel Street, Cerritos, CA
90701. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 0.67 acre, having a frontage of approximately 97 feet on the east
side of Stanton Avenue, and further described as 328 Nortll Stanton Avenue.
Request: To construct a 3-story, 55-unit motel.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and
two persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request; and although
the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a
part of the minutes.
Commissioner Mc Burney asked if the motel to tl~e south is two stories or three
stories and Mr. Slzah responded that it is two stories.
Chairman Messe stated Ll~is structure will be 31'6" and Mr. Sliah replied }ie did
not knox the height of the adjacent building. Responding to Commissioner Herbst,
Mr. Shah stated there will be five units with kitchenettes and explained
originally there was to be nine units with kitchens, but there was a change
because of some of the other requirements and the revised plans do provide for
five units.
Commissioner Herbst stated he wanted to make sure the owner is aware of the City
codes regarding rental of these units as apartments.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas,
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal to construct a 3-story, 55-unit motel on an irregularly-shaped parcel of
land consisting of approximately 0.67 acre, having a frontage of approximately 97
feet on the east side of Stanton Avenue, and being located approximately 1240
feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue and further described as 328 North
Stanton Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis
that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the
basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-100 and coved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2997, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections
18.030.030.030 and 18.030.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations including the stipulation of the petitioner that there will be a
maximum of five units with kitchenettes.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERHST
MC Bi:RNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS
Joseph W. Fletcher, Deput}• City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal
the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
4/11/88
~,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANYING COMMISSION April I1, 1988 BB-436
RECESS: 6:30 p.m.
RECONVENED: 7:25 p.m.
ITEM N0. 8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2998
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: CONSOLI, MC CUBBIN INVESTMENTS, 303 N. Placentia,
xD, Fullerton, CA 92631. AGENT: PACIFIC AUTO DESIGN, P. 0. BOX 3416, La
Habra, CA 90632. Property is approximately 0.5 acre, fronting on tl~e
northeast side of Sunshine Way, approximately 110 feet south of the
centerline of Miraloma Avenue and further described as 1270 N. Sunshine Way.
Request: To permit an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request;
and although tl~e staff report vas not 'read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Steve Vettel, partner, Pacific Automotive Design, explained this an
automobile body repair and paint facility, and the majority will be
wholesale work for other dealers (75% to 85%). He referred to Condition No.
4 prchibiting outdoor storage of vehicles and no xork is permitted outdocrs,
and explained they have an approximately 4,000 sq. ft. gated area where
L•heir additional parking will be during the day, and they could store some
work in progress in that area at night and explained the area has a slatted
fence. He stated, depending upon approval from the City, they anticipated
to put a spray booth in that area.
Chairman Messe stated this request is just for a conditional use permit and
a waiver of code requirement.
Commissioner Bouas asked if those parking spaces in that gated area are
counted towards the requirements. Mr. Vettel responded there is enough
space there to put the booth and also that is where the employees would park
and they would be leaving the gate open during the business hours.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chairman Messe stated the Commission received a letter from James Hundley,
owner of property aL- 1260 Sunshine Way and 1271 Sunshine Way, objecting to
this request because parking in that area is currently congested.
Mr. Vettel stated parking doesn't seem to be a problem as far as they are
concerned, and noted they did a parking study and each lot provides its own
parking and the tenants who share the building with them have two to four
vehicles there maximum per day and the majority of the 25 spaces available
are virtually empty. He stated their parking on their portion of the
property is not a problem, nor is the business to the north.
4/11/88
F_.. i
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April }1, 1988 _ 88-437
Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Vettel stated that they are
actually xorking vitli Caliber Motors on HMWs and Mercedes and just recently
closed their Huntington Beach in order to move closer to their main source
of business vhicli is Caliber Motors.
Commissioner Herbst asked about the paint booth and Mr. Vettel responded
they were going to put in a reverse flox booth, xith a dry chemical fire
system and that lie has been in contract xith the Fire Department.
Commissioner Carusillo staked there seemed to be ample parking spaces at
this site xhen he visited at about 2 p.m., and Commissioner Boydstun
responded there xas plenty of parking xhen she visited the site.
Commissioner Bouas stated slie did not think outdoor storage is permitted in
that area.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated outdoor storage is permitted as an
accessory use to a permitted primary use provided it is completely screened
from view and provided it doesn't affect the parking.
ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc
Burney, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to permit an automobile repair facility xith waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularl}•-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.5 acre, having a frontage of approximately 36
feet on the northeast side of Sunshine 19ay, approximately 110 feet south of
the centerline of Miraloma Avenue, and further described as 1270 N. Sunshine
Way; and does i~ereby approve the Negative Declaration on the basis that it
has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process and further finding on the basis
of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial
evidence that the project rill have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McHurney
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant xaiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will
not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinit}• nor
adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and granting of the parking waiver
under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-101 and moved for its
passage and adoption that the Anaheim Cit}• Planning Commission does hereby
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2998, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code
Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations, including a modification to Condition No. 4 to
permit the outdoor storage of vehicles xith xork in progress at night and
that the gated storage area shall be completely screened from view xith a
xood slatted fence, as stipulated to by the petitioner at the public
hearing.
4/11/88
ti t
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-438
On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the folloxing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MC GURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right of appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM N0. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0.281 (PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED),TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 13267, 13458, 13459, 13460, and 13461, AND
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 88-02.
PDBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Haie Avenue, Irvine,
CA 92714. AGENT: DIANA 130ARD, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714. Property is approximately 56 gross acres, located within
the northwestern portion of The Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills
Ranch), to the north and vest of the future northerly expansion of Serrano
Avenue, bounded on the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, and bounded on
the north by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch).
Request for removal of 47 specimen trees.
Request for conditional exception to permit Lot No. 10, Tentative Tract No.
13267 at less than 120 feet in depth adjacent to Serrano Avenue and tentative
tract maps as follows:
A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13267 - 30-lot, plus two landscape
easement lots/single-family residential detached subdivision.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13458 - 30-lot, plus one open space lot and
one landscape easement.
C. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13459 - 29-lot, plus one open space lot/
single-family residential subdivision.
D. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13460 - 37-lot, plus one open space lot/
single-family residential detached subdivision.
E. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13461 - 30-lot, plus two open space lots and
one landscape easement lot/single-family residential detached
subdivision.
There xas no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request,
and although the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is
referred to and made a part of the minutes.
Diana Hoard, agent, explained this is the first five tracts in The Summit
project xhich vas originally planned in the Planned Community Zone text for 201
single-family units of the RS-5000 zone; that originally they had planned 156
units in that zone and due to redesign and some street work and a eater
reservoir, they are down to 153 lots. She explained the average lot size is
8,000 sq. ft. with quite a fex lots yell in excess of 8,000 sq. ft.; and that
this will provide the initial link on Serrano to accommodate Woodcrest and The
Highlands on both sides; however, it does require some specimen tree removal.
4/11/88
MINIITES, ANAHEIM ~:):.;'~_Y':'..~:~y~'.t~ k:~'2IMISSION April 11 1988 88-439
Ms. Hoard stated she i'cu~ ir`r:ieved the conditions, including the ones just
provided and agrees with them, but vouid like to clarify Condition No. 106
which requires an agreement on the infrastructure and that the property owner
is responsible for it. She stated she wanted it on the record that the Baldxin
Company has done most of their major infrastructure in their previously
developed planned communities with Mellox Roos financing and should the City
approve a Mellow Roos Financing District for that area, it vouid be their
intention to use that for the major backbone infrastructure.
THE PDBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Carusillo stated he vouid like to be sure a condition is included
that no construction vehicles will access the site from Canyon Rim or Serrano,
explaining his concern is the hazard with the steep hills.
Commissioner Mc Burney pointed out that xas a stipulation with all three of the
developers in that area, and Joel Fick, Planning Director, pointed out that vas
discussed extensively with the original plans, but vas not included as a
condition but that the Commission cou~a add it.
Ms. Hoard stated the only problem she has with adding that as a condition
unless it is included as a condition on the other ranches, is that it puts
Baldwin at a disadvantage in acquiring the righL• to cross the other properties.
She stated she vas not aware that it vas included as a condition on the other
two developers.
Joel Fick stated it vas added by the Commission and x111 be included in both
their Development Agreements which are going to the City Council tomorrow.
Ms. Hoard asked if the condition will include a requirement that they must
alloy Baldxin access across their property. She responded to Commission Mc
Burney that The Summit would have access via the dedicateo road.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated he thought Mr. Elf end had agreed to xork out an
agreement with the Baldwin Company for access and that vas one of the things he
vas concerned about.
Joel Fick responded to Commissioner Carusillo that he thought the access xould
not be dedicated with the financing parcel maps and that it would be offered
for dedication and the City will not accept the right of xay until after it is
completed. He stated it will be up to Baldwin, and the Highlands and Woodcrest
to work out the access situation amongst themselves.
Chairman Messe asked if there has been any conversations to date regarding this
access problem. Ms. Hoard responded there is progress in that regard, but it
tends '~o go better when they are on par and restricting their access on Serrano
and Canyon Rim vouid be a disadvantage.
Commissioner Bouas stated she thought Oak Hills had agreed they would have to
come through the Wallace Ranch and that Wallace Ranch developers had agreed to
allow them to cross their property. Joel Fick responded he did not remember
4/11/88
MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11. 1988 88-440
that stipulation; and that their original development approvals phased the
construction of the Weir Canyon/Serrano connection and they had to build it
prior to the 601st unit; however, in the Development Agreements that timing was
advanced to prior to first certificate of occupancy, and there vas to be a
temporary access road and that Highlands was restricted from coming through
above and they did agree on that issue. He stated he recalled that discussion
with Woodcrest and Highlands, but not with Baidwin.
Commissioner Herbst stated there is a major problem and Highlands was denied
the right to use that road for specific reasons and he did not think the
Commission could give Baldwin the right to use it. Ms. Hoard stated she
understands and she had anticipated the Commission's concerns in achieving that
access, and responded that Weir Canyon access is really on the other side of
their property.
Commissioner Herbst stated there should be no heavy construction traffic on
Fairmont, Canyon Rim ar Anaheim Hills Road. Ms. Hoard stated she would just
ask that when either of the other two ranches come in, that they have this same
restriction so that they don't have to negotiate the use of that area and
pointed out there are some tract maps coming up on Sycamore soon.
Concerning the fire road, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the fire road
only connects the Highlands and Sycamore properties and does not touch the Oak
Hills property.
Commissioners Bouas and Carusiilo agreed that could be added when the other
developers do come in.
Joel Fick stated the Woodcrest tracts will be before the Planni;ig Commission on
April 25, so this could be included at that time. Responding to Commissioner
Carusillo, Mr. Fick stated adding it as a condition on this approval would
certainly make it consistent• xith the stipulations made when the Planned
Community Zone was heard, but that he does understand Ms. Hoards' concern that
it makes it difficult to work it out if it is a condition of approval.
Mr. Fick stated the other agreements require that they have to take access not
from the present Canyon Rim and Serrano and they have arranged for the fire
road access. He stated if it is not included as condition on the tract maps,
if there was a Development Agreement, the location where they could take access
would only be limited by present codes or ordinances. He stated the only street
according to code which would be restricted is Fairmont.
He explained staff is currently working with the Baldwin Company and it is
their goal to bring the Development Agreement to the Commission in about a
month and Chairman Messe stated it would not do any good to hold up approval of
this until that agreement was in place.
Commissioner Herbst asked if there is an easement to get to that property from
Weir Canyon. Hs. Ho?rd stated the roads are just "farm roads", and they do not
have an easement and thought the three property owners had just worked out an
arrangement.
4/11/88
.~
~ .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-441
Commissioner Carusillo asked if this request could be approved subject to that
agreement and Commissioner Bouas pointed out it is Ms. Hoard's concern that if
a condition is included, it would make her negotiations harder.
Mr. Hoard suggested the ondition could be worded to include "based on their
cooperation" and then if she cannot get their cooperation, perhaps she could
return to the Commission and that would give her a recourse. She stated that
has been their objective and that she will proceed xith her negotiations, but
would like the option to come back to the Commission if they say "no" or
require something that is not reasonable.
Commissioner Mc Burney suggested the condition be worded to require
construction L•raffic access to this site shall be made by routes other than
Serrano and Canyon Rim and through cooperation with 'the other ranches, and then
Baldwin can xork out an agreement either through the fire road or the dedicated
access for the extension of Serrano.
Joel Fick agreed that is a good suggestion. He stated when the dedication is
offered, especially on the Sycamore Canyon property, that would most likely be
an avenue to come from the Weir Canyon Road area and the City has the option of
controlling the acceptance of the dedication and in the event the City could
nut accept the dedication for some reason, it would mean this condition could
be dealt with at the time.
Ms. Hoard suggested the approval be made by the Planning Director.
Responding to Chairman Messe, Ms. Hoard explained the request for conditional
exception to permit Lot No. 30 to be less than 120 feet in depth adjacent to
Serrano Avenue deals with a side facing lot situation versus a rear facing lot;
that the 120 feet is really fir the rear facing lots and there is a landscape
easement between the lots and the lot is particularly vide to accommodate the
conditions adjacent to Serrano and they feel they still have adequate side yard
and a landscaped zone and that is 32 feet to the next house.
Commissioner Mc Burney stated he is glad to see the size of the lots getting
larger and noted originally minimums were proposed.
4/11/88
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-442
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 281, przviously certified by
the City Council on June 30, 1987, for The Summit (Oak Hills Ranch) Planned
Community (Reclassification No. 86-87-19) is adequate to serve as the required
environmental documentation for Tentative Tract Nos. 13267 including the
requested conditional exception, 13458, 13459, 13460, and 13461, and Eor
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-02.
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBucney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the conditional exception for Lot No. 30 of Tentative Tract No. 13267 which
has a lot depth of 70 feet adjacent to Serrano Avenue and the pad elevation
ranges from 3 to 13 feet below the street elevation of Serrano Avenue, and the
proposed residential structure would have a 25-foot sideyacd setback from
Serrano on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property such as limited size, unusual shape, extreme topography, or
dominating drainage problems.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by ,ummissioner
Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together wit', its design and
improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve:
A. TENTATIVE TRACT No. 13267 for a 30-lot plus two landscape
easement lots/single-family residential detached subdivision
subject to the following conditions:
(NOTE: CONDITIONS ADOPTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-19
(THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS) ARE POLLOWED BY THE CONDITION NUMBER SET FORTH
IN THE ORDINANCE).
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations stated in Exhibit B (Revision
No. 1) (the document titled Public Facilities Plan for the Oak Hills Ranch
Development) as further amended by the City Council's action on April 5, 1988
(now Exhibit B (Revision No. 2) Public Facilities Plan for The Summit). (#1)
2. That the ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community
shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with the conditions
pertaining to such parcel; provided, however, that the word 'parcel' shall
mean presently existing pzrcels of record and any parcel approved for
subdivision by the City Council. (#2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of
subject property as shown on Exhibit 3 in the document titled Planned
Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch Development and dated March 20, 1987
i ')
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aptil 11, 1988 88-443
(labeled Exhibit A, Revision 1), and in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zone), the property owner/developer shall
submit final specific plans of development for each portion to the City
Planning Commission for review and approval. Final specific plans shall
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit
A (Revision No. 1) and relating the area to be rezoned to the overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location map shall include a legal description of the
property upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
(c) Site plans, floor plans and elevations - showing the
placement of all buildings and structures; the front, side and tear
elevations; the roof plans; and the exterior building materials including
roofing.
(d) Lot dimensions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient to
indicate the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut
and fill earthwork involved.
(e) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of
proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be
retained.
(f) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the
nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public
accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular
storage.
(g) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along
any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain.
The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of-way shall. consist of decorative open-work
materials.
(h) Signing plans - indicating the proposed signing program and
including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs;
and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. in
addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such
as the commercial site, future park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (#3)
4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall
comply with the requirements of the 'Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone• as outlined
in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#4)
~~ `~
MINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-444
5. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 'Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zones. (#6)
6. That in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheim ?lann±:.g Area •8", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
information. concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three ~~ind:au (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012
..~d 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
~a~1
WATER
8. That all water supply planning for the project shall be closely
~~ordinated with, and be subject to review and final approval by, the City of
;:naheim Public Utilities Department. (#14)
9. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed in accordance with the water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. 1. (#15)
10. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designed
as part of the City's Master water System ultimately serving areawide
development. (#16)
11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the
water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (#17)
12. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the required water system improvements shall be `urnished in
conjunction with each final map. (#18)
13. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install the secondary system
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs
shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities
fees as provided for in Rule 15-B; (c) primary mains shall be installed by
the City with funds provided by the property owner/developer in the form of
primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or parcel map approval with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#19)
BS-445
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN" COMMISSION, A ril 11, 1988
TRAFFIC
14. That with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
approval of the first final *_ract or parcel map, the property owner/developer
shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit
District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of
non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include tcansit secvice, park
and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (A21)
15. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch.
(a) The owner/developer of The Summit shall post security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
o°_ the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whicheve[ comes first. The
owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post similar security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weic Canyon Road connection within the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developCio~f to theucommencementtofegradingin
an amount and form approved by the City p
on The Summit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading on the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes ficst,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts similar
security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to commencement of
grading on The Summit to guarantee the construction of the Serrano Avenue/ureic
Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time frame as
set forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the
Highlands Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts
the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/deos~laper of
The Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Summit, p
security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the
construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the existing terminus of
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-446
Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road
at the southern boundary of the Bauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible
materials on The Summit.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project or the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
expense of The Summit owner/developer. (#24)
16. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of an arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further,
proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the extension of Serrano Avenue. (#26)
17. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance cezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall agree to
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, at no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#28)
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance cezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signali2ation and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (#29)
19. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (#30)
20. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required signals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City system. (#31)
21. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare
Pee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
22. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summit ~9evelopment. (#33)
~~i
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 _88-447
23. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. (#37)
24. That prior to any occupancy, temaorary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#38)
25. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 108 except by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (#39)
26. That gates shall not be installed across any 9riveway or private
street in.a manner which may adversely affect ve!~icular traffic in the
adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall confor^~ to
Engineering Standard Plan tdo. 402 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel t4ap No. 87-363.
(#40)
27. That any on- or off-site roads shall to constructed in accordance
with all applicable Circulation Element and E~gir~aar.ing standards. (#41)
28. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the
public street system for public use with the recordatior. of each final tract
map for each individual residential area. (#42)
29. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each
final tract oc parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. (#43)
30. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. (#44)
31. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public and private toads; (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (#45)
32. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the developer shall pay for
and the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-448
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road
and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The findings of
the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, shall become
binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
(a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to i.ts ultimate six-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (#46)
33. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided
from another source than Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
STREET MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 hereof, the street maintenance
facility shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of
Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located adjacent to the
proposed park or school site and shall be approved e,y the Director of
Maintenance. In conjunction with approval of the Eirst final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the precise configuration of
the street maintenance Facility shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. If the configuration of the site is different from the site
offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the owner/developer shall
provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site. Furthermore,
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of
Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter into an
agreement with the Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share
of the costs to the City for provision of the street maintenance facility to
serve the easterly portion of the City as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the
Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to
approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (#47)
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, •No parking
for street sweeping' signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (#48)
36. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to 'Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping'. Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation, (#49)
~ -~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, Aptil 11, 1988 86-449
REIMBURSEMENTS
37. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map, whichever occurs
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summi~ proportionate share of the cost for
providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities
and utilities are located in the Bauer Ranch but will also serve The Summit
which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the
developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agreements administered by the city. (#51)
FIRE
38. With the exception of Parcel Map t7o. 87-363, that in conjunction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station t7o. 10 via a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (#52)
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency
Eire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207 (a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (#53)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (#54)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (#55)
~_< `.~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-450
42. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir
Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be provided in
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for °ire fighting
equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
general traffic circulation. (#56)
43. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01 ). Such further
requirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Built-in fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(#57)
44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (#58)
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as requited to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (#59)
46. That prior to they issuance of the first building pecmit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (#bl)
PARKS
47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of the park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/developer and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agreements with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (#62)
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aoril 11, 1988 88 451
48. As required by Condition No. 138, hereof, the community park site
shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of Parcel Map
No. 87-363. The precise configuration of the park area required for
dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and, if different from
the previously dedicated configuration, the owner/developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication of the approved park site prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area.
Should Parcel Map No. 87-363 not be processed, then prior to approval of the
first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area, the property
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate the approved
park site. (#64)
49. That the payment of in-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (#66)
50. That County trails shall be maintained by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District ar other financial mechanism accep*_able to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the expense of the property
owner/developer, prior to the issuancE of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
(#67).
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon current population projections); however, adjustments
may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population in the development actually be reali2ed. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation 6
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (#69)
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
insure that the graded areaQ for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 66 of City
Council Resolution No. 88R-144. This grading feasibility study must be
provided with the first final tract approval. Final grading plans for the
park must be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services and Engineering Department and be in conformance with the
previously-approved grading feasibility study. (#70)
53. a. That the owner/developer complete the park construction
within one (1) year from the issuance of the 970th building permit or the
issuance of the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever
comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous
I
( ~~t
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aptil 11, 1988 88-452
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the City, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all weather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items 77a and/or 77b as indicated
above. (#77)
UTILITIES - GENERAL
54. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final L•ract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Highlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
expense of the property owner/developer. (i78)
55. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (#79)
LIBRARY
56. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-3631 that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (#80)
POLICE
57. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs to the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and City Attorney's Office. (#81)
MI'iUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-453
SCHOOLS
58. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner!~evelopec shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Sum^iit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to tte issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with proof of a written agreement between The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District agreeing on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost Eor the school facility. In addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
Summit. (#82)
SANITARY SEWERS
59. With the exception of Parcel Map NO. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the
tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (#83)
60. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. (#84)
61. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a)
the acquisition of any zequired permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, Eor maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines in private streets which shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#85)
HYDROLOGY
62. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address
_.
~'~
"..,
MINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-454
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfying both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. In addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the maximum extent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees in that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed by the City Engineer. (#86)
63. with exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (#87)
b4. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (#89)
65. That erasion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (#90)
66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the Following items: (a) advancement of funds for
and the construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the
construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements; (c) any
permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed necessary by the
City of Anaheim. (#91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (#92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (#93)
69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (#94)
p' ^~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-455
70. With the exception of Parcel'Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a special maintenance district or
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the expense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of all open or nat~~ral channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated by The Summit development. (f95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities a,s required by the drainage feasibility study
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October
15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the property
owner/developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract or parcel and from the downstream boundary of
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the
first final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the extent the
property owner/developer may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the proper~;~ owner/developer. (!9b)
GRADING/SOIL/LANDSCAPING
72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a
final grading plan prepared by a civi), engineer based on recommendations of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist ~aubsequent to completion of
detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific Feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be subject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Pour Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said procedures shall be
reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and providing temporary
~" ~}
88-456
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril 11 1988
stabilization on slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate
planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessazy, and a watering and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
downstream. (#97)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies (Lownes Geologic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, and May
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage,
and recommendations for further study. (#96)
74. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (#99)
75. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch or
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenan~~ mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (#100)
ELECTRICAL
76. With the exception of Parcel Nap No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
vlans are designed and coordinated with site development. (#101)
77. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (#102)
78. That ,the property owner/developer shall provide and construct for
the City all necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility costs shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City *_o
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (#103)
~. '_ ~
~~~.
MINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ap[il 11, 1988 88-457
79. With the exception of Parcel Map NO. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(#104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (#105)
B1. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated with the
recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(#106)
LANDSCAPING
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
Irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. (#107)
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
proposed grading and construction schedule. It shall provide visual screening
of urban uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (#108)
84. Tnat reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway, The
responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of Anaheim and shall. be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the first Einal tract or
parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map tio. 87-363. (#109)
1,'^~1
88-458
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION, April 11 1988
85. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prlor to the
first final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall
make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and
maintenance of the slopes within and/oc created by the development of this
property. (#110)
86. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been Eound to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision, except those located
arithin Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the CLty Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently wi*_h tt~e first final tract or parcel map, with
the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways
and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#111)
NOISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 'Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects' and with
Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (#113)
88. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (#114)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
89. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California Gas Company and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the extent
feasible. (#115)
r ~)
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-459
90. That all bolding construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. ($116)
91. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
the project shall promote, to the ertent possible, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot Ovate[ heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommpdating future retrofitting. ($117)
SOLID WASTE (REFUSE)
92. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes Eor the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. ($118)
AIR QUALIT':
93. That the property owner/developer shall implement regular ground
watering and other forms of, construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. ($119)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
94. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading
operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
sufficient concentrations of significant Fossils are encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
property owner/developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are
undertaken. ($120)
MISCELLANEOUS
95. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). ($124)
96. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an
assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to meet the
assigned rost of City services un a year-by-year basis. Such assessment
district shall be formed prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and
(, :~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-460
initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for The Summit. The City sha!.1 have the right to monitor said
revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount
necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach
equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final
tract or parcel map approval or at such other later time as may be approved by
the City Council. (#128)
97. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial
mechanisms referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#130)
98. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television network system. (#131)
HAAITAT ENHANCEMENT
99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a
Hahitat Replacement Program, approved by the State Department of Pish and Game
and in accordance with the Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, for
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (#134)
OTHER MISCELLAt7E0US
100. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development
area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property o>ner/developer
shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said Plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocations if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline oc other measures
necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the property
owner/developer. (#135)
101. The obligations of the developer as set Eorth in Condition Nos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, BO and 81 of Resolution No. 88R-144 shall be secured by a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approved
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (#136)
(, ~,-..~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-461
102. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any
of the above conditions shall be subject to appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision ur
action. (1137)
103. Notwithstanding any provision of the conditions of approval
contained herein to the contrary, the property owner/developer may process and
(upon approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code) record Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-363 for the limited
purpose of conveyances for finance without complying with any of the
conditions of approval contained herein which, by their terms, must be
complied with prior to submittal of an application for, approval oE, or
recordation of, a tentative or final tract or parcel map provided:
(a) Parcel Map N0. 87-363 shall contain a note to the effect that
this map is being f'.led for financing and conveyance Eor financing purposes
only and will have no public improvement requirements; no building permits are
to be issued for the ).ots or parcels created by this map; and, the recording
of a subsequent map is required before building permits can be issued; and, a
covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney is recorded against the
entire site reflecting same;
(b) Irrevocable offers of dedication for right-of-way for all
arterial highways (with adjoining slope easements) and community park and
other public facility sites identified in these conditions of approval are
made prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363; and,
(c) Parcel Map No. 87-363 otherwise complies with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Anaheim Municipal Code. (1138)
104. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
105. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative foim for
approval.
106. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
107. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title comp4ny authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the Ci.y Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
~.~ ~'
88-462
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril 11 1988
.JB. That prior to recorda~±on of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit, project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide
right-of-way required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from the
Highlands boundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
109. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-y.9 (The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community -
Resolution No. 88R-144.
110. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
111. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-requited improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim
Municipal 2cning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval
does not Include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
114. That prior to recordation of the final tract map, that the
owner/developer shall record a reciprocal access agreement between Lot Nos. 28
and 29 to guarantee a minimum 20-foot wide shared accessway from the public
street.
115. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos 1, 2 and 3.
~ , ^1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 _ 85-463
and B. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13458, 30-lot plus one open space lot and one
landscape easement lot/single-family residential detached
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations stated in Exhibit B (Revision
No. 1) (the document titled Public Facilities Plan for the Oak Hills Ranch
Development) as further amended by the City Council's action on April 5, 1988
(now Exhibit B (Revision No. 2) Public Facilities Plan for The Summit). (#1)
2. That the ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community
shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with the conditions
pertaining to such parcel; provided, however, that the word 'parcel" shall
mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel approved for
subdivision by the City Council. (#2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of
subject property as shown on Exhibit 3 in the document titled Planned
Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch Development and dated March 20, 1987
(labeled Exhibit A, Revision 1), and in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zone), the property owner/developer shall
submit final specific plans of development for each portion to the City
Planning Commission for review and approval. Final specific plans shall
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit
A !Revision No. i) and relating the area to be rezoned to the overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location map shall include a legal description of the
property upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
(c) Site plans, flooc plans and elevations - showing the
placement of all buildings and structures; the front, side and rear
elevations; the roof plans; and the extecior building materials including
roofing.
(d) Lot dimensions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient to
indicate the relationship of the pcoposal to the nature and extent of the cut
and fill earthwork involved.
(e) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of
proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be
retained.
(f) vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the
nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and othec public
accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular
storage.
r ' 1f
~ ~'...~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 68-464
(g) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along
any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain.
The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work
materials.
(h) Signing plans - indicating the proposed signing program and
including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs;
and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall. provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. in
addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such
as the commercial site, futuree park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (#3)
4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall
comply with the requirements of the 'Scenic Corridor Overlay 2one• as outlined
in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#4)
5. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 'Scenic
Corridor Overlay 2one•. (#6)
6. That in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
(#8)
WATER
8. That all water supply planning for the groject shall be closely
coordinated with, and be subject to review and final approval. by, the City of
Anaheim Public Utilities Department. (#14)
9. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. i. (#15)
10. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designed
as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide
development. (#16)
.,._...__...___.-....s..~.nwm..ww.-w,ownc+wnw ~wi\'riiY.
88-465
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril 11 1988
11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the
water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (#17)
12. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in
conjunction with each final map. (#18)
13. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install the secondary system
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs
shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities
fees as provided for in Rule 15-B; (c) primary mains shall be installed by
the City with funds provided by the property owner/developer in the form of
primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or parcel map approval with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#19)
TRAFFIC
14. That with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
approval of the first final tract oc parcel map, the property owner/developer
shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit
District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of
non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include transit service, park
and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (#21)
15. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch.
(a) The owner/developer ocioietoua lrovallofpthe firstifinal an
amount and form approved by the City p PP
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whichever comes first. The
owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post similar security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands asowell as forroneehalfeofothecuction of
Serrano Avenue within their property
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-466
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of The Summit may post security in
an amount and form approved by the City prior to the commencement of grading
on The Summit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading on the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes first,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts similar
security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to commencement of
grading on The Summit to guarantee the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir
Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time frame as
set forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the
Highlands Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts
the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of
The Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Summit, post a
security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the
construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the existing terminus of
Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road
at the southern boundary of the Bauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible
materials on The Summit.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project or the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
expense of The Summit owner/developer. (#24;
16. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of an arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further,
proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the extension of Serrano Avenue. (#26)
17. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall agree to
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, at no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#28)
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (#29)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11 1988 88-467
19. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (#30)
20. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required signals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City system. (#31)
?.1. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Transportation Carcidor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
22. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summit development. (#33)
23. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. (#37)
24. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#38)
25. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 108 except by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (#39)
26. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the
adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363.
(#40)
27. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance
with all applicable Cicci+lation Element and Engineering standards. (#41)
28. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the
public street system for public use with the recordation of each final tract
mao for each individual residential area. (#42)
29. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each
final tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. (#43)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-468
30. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. (644)
31. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public and private roads; (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (645)
32. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final tract oc parcel map, the developer shall pay for
and the City s:~;all be responsible for conducting a study to determine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamere Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road
and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The Findings of
the study, showing proportionate space of cost distribution, shall become
binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
(a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Preeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (646)
33. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided
from another sou[ce than Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
STREET MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 hereof, the street maintenance
facility shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of
Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located adjacent to the
proposed park or school site and shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. In conjunction with approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the precise configuration of
the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. If the configuration of the site is different from the site
offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the owner/developer shall
provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site. Furthermore,
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of
Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter into an
i ' j
~ .
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-469
agreement with the Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share
of the costs to the City for provision of the street maintenance facility to
serve the easterly portion of the City as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the
Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to
approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (#47)
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, °No parking
for street sweeping' signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (#48)
36. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping°. Such written information ^hall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (#49)
REIMBURSEMENTS
37. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
introduction of the first or9inance rezoning any portion of sahicheverooccurs
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map,
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summit proportionate share of the cost for
providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities
and utilities are located in the Bauer Ranch but will also serve The Summit
which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Brcad (the
developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agr.,•rt, ants administered by the city. (#51)
FIk.
i 38. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that in conjunction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (#52)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-470
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency
fire equipment, fire hydrant location any other construction features to the
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207(a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (#53)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (#54)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel oc
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in confurmance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (#55)
42. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fite Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
or other ?cceptable route and Pire Station No. 10 via a new Weir
Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be provided in
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting
equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
general traffic circulation. (#56)
43. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further
requirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of hori2ontal surfaces when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Built-in fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(#57)
44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (458)
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped with a low-fuel combust.ble seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (#59)
;~
t
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-471
46. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (#61)
PARKS
47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract oc parcel map Eor any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of the park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/developer and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agcee:~ents with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (#62)
48. As required by Condition No. 138, hereof, the community park site
shall br .irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of Parcel clap
No. 87-363. The precise configuration of the park area required for
dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and, if different from
the previously dedicated configuration, the owner/developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication of the approved park site prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area.
Should Parcel Map No. 87-363 not be processed, then prior to approval of the
first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area, the property
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate the approved
park site. (#64)
49. That the payment of in-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (#66)
50. That County trails shall be maintained by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the expense of the property
owner/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
(#67 ).
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon current population projections); however, adjustments
may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population in the development actually be realized. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation b
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (#69)
;' \
r' ~ ~
~,.
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APtil 11, 1988 88-472
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
insure that the graded areas for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 68 of City
Council Resolution No. 88R-144. This grading feasibility study must be
provided with the first final tract approval. Final grading plans for the
park must be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services and Engineering Department and be in conformance with the
previously-approved grading feasibility study. (#70)
53. a. That the owner/developer complete the park construction
within one (1) year from the issuance of the 970th building permit oc the
issuance of the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever
comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement ;~f any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
nor The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first Einal tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the Cf.ty, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all xeather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items 77a and/or 77b as indicated
above. (#77)
UTILITIES - GENERAL
54. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior _ approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the 8ighlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
expense of the property owner/developer. (#78)
55. With the exceltion of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water., storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (#79)
f ,. .~.
! ~ '~ '
MINUTES, ANARETM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-473
LIBRARY
56. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
o:' khe first final tract o.: parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/develoF r shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (#BO)
POLICE
57. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs t , the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to se-••~ the easterly portion of the City. Written
proof of said agreement shall ~ .~~rnished to the Plannim3 Department and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and City Attorney's Office. (#81)
SCHOOLS
58. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the proper;! owner/developer shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with prc~~f of a written agreement between The Summit and the Orange Unifies
School District agrec•i~~g on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well ar, specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost for the school facility. In addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
Summit. (#82)
SANITARY SEWERS
59. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the
tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (#83)
i` ~I
MINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOtd A ril 11 1988 88-474
60. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. (#84)
61. That the property owner developer of The Summit shall be
Financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a)
the acquisition of any required permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines in private streets which shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#85)
HYDROLOGY
62. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the First final tract or parcel map, a Feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfyiny both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. In addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and [e viewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the maximum extent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees in that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed by the City Engineer. (#86)
63. With exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systers within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by t~:•~ City Engineer. (#87)
64. That the design and inatallatL:n of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow critaria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (#89)
88-475
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A [il 11 1988
65. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes snd the use ~f temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (#90)
66. That the property owner/develope_ of "he Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for
and the construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the
construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements; (c) any
permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed necessary by the
City of Anaheim. (#91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (#92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved Eor all development areas. (#93)
69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (#94)
70. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a apecial maintenance district oc
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the expense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated b; The Summit development. (#95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed aE in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities as required by the drainage Feasibility study
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October
15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
proceedings therefor (the casts of which shall be borne by the property
owner/developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract or parcel and from the downstream boundary of
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the
first final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the extent the
property owner/developer may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
'... a~F
MI[JUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CnMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-476
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#96)
GRADING/SOIL/LANDSCAPING
72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a
final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of
detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be subject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Four Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said procedures shall be
reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and providing temporary
stabilization on slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate
planting of veyetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
downstream. (497)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies (Lownes Geologic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, and May
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage,
and recommendations for further study. (498)
74. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (499)
75. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval.
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacen~_ to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch oc
{^; '._ ~.
88-477
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril 11, 1988
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (#100)
ELECTRICAL
76. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement Mans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
olans are designed and coordinated with site development. (#101)
77. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (#102)
78. That the property owner/developer shall provide and construct for
the City all necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility costs shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City to
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (#103)
79. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(#104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (#105)
B1. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-353, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements ~9edicated with the
recordation of. final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(#106)
LANDSCAPING
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that
,; j
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-478
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. (;107)
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
proposed grading and construction schedule. It shall provide visual screening
of urban uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (;108)
84. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The
responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the First final tract or
parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (;109)
85. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
First final tract or parcel map approval, the property ow:ier/developer shall
make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and
maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this
property. (;110)
86. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been found to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision, except those located
within Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands s:aming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map, with
the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parr.P.) shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways
and median i:~gnds, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated •.~refore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-479
amount and form satisfactory to tY~e City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#111)
NOISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 'Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects' and with
Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (#113)
d8. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (1114)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
99. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California Gas Company and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the extent
feasible. (#115)
90. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#116)
91. That suodivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
the project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#117)
SOLID WASTE (REFUSE)
92. That project solid wd?re han9ling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screen .:g of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (#118)
AIR QDALII~
93. That the property owner/developer shall implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (#119)
{~
as-aso
MINUTES, ANAREIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A ril 11 1988
CULTURAL RESOURCES
94. That a certified paleontol^gist shall be retained during grading
operations to pro~~ide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
sufficient concentrations of significant fossils are encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
property owner/developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are
undertaken. (#120)
MISCEL~ANEOOS
95. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Pazks,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). (#124)
96. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an
assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to meet the
assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year basis. Such assessment
district shall be formed prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and
initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the Eirst certificate of
occupancy for The Summit. The City shall have the eight to monitor said
revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount
necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach
equilibrium with allocated costs snd recovery of any prior unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final
tract or parcel map approval or at suci~ other later time as may be approved by
the City Council. (#128)
97. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial
mechanisms referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. l#13U)
98. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television network system. (#131)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-481
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a
Habitat Replacement Program, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game
and in accordance with the Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, Eor
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (#134)
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
100. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development
area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer
shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said Plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocations if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Pour Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures
necessary to permit development, including any n~ressary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the property
owner~~eveloper. (#135)
101. The obligations of the developer as set Earth in Condition Nos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution tio. 88R-144 shall be secured by a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approved
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (#136)
102. Any decision oc action required of the Planning Commission by any
of the above conditions shall be subject to appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision or
action. (#137)
103. Notwithstanding any provision of the conditions of approval
contained herein to the contrary, the property owner/developer may process and
(upon approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code) record Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-363 for the limited
purpose of conveyanceP for finance without complying with any of the
conditions of approval contained herein which, by their terms, must be
complied with prior to submittal of an application for, approval of, or
recordation of, a tentative oc final tract or parcel map provided:
(a) Parcel Map N0. 87-363 shall contain a note to the effect that
this map is being filed for financing and conveyance for financing purposes
only and will have no public improvement requirements; no building permits are
to be issued for the lots or parcels created by this map; and, the recording
of a subsequent map is required before building permits can be issued; and, a
(- - ~'}
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-482
covenant in the Eorm approved by the City Attorney is recorded against the
enY.ire site reflecting same;
(b) Irrevocable offers of dedication for right-of-way for all
arterial highways (with adjoining slope easements) and community park and
other public facility sites identified in these conditions of approval are
made prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363; and,
(c) Parcel Map No. 87-363 otherwise complies with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Anaheim Municipal Code. (1138)
104. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
105. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative Eorm for
approval.
106. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
107. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, tend restrictions, and a latter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
108. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide
right-of-way required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from the
Highlands boundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
109. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (The Summit cf Anaheim Hills PlanneZ Community -
Resolution No. 88R-144.
110. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
f -.; ...Q
~~
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-483
111. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certifz<cate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim
Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval
does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
acco?dance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
.._.....~~....__._.__...~...__...__..._........ _... _..._........._._.~-__ .............~...,.+.._..,....-W-.......rw.var.c..«wnMi+a'irl.`+"~>eTYXANfRCiS~..,;:
~11
:.} f
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 ___ 86-484
a~^d C. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13.5, 2b-lot plus aue open space lo'c and one
water tank site lot/single~Fs;rril,y residential detached subdivision.
PLANNING-RELATEL
1. Tt:at tit° property owner/drv:,_oper shall be responsible foc
implam~er.•..?tion of all applicable stipul.aticns Mated in Exhibit B (•zvisi~n
No. 1) (th'~ document tit1E: Public Facilitjes Plan for the Oak Hills Rama
Developme~lt) as further amended by the City Council's action on April 5,. 1998
(now Exhibit B (Revision No. 2) Public Facilities Plan for The Summit). (#1)
2. Thai t. a: ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community
shall be adopted .1~ each parcel i.s ready to comply with the conditions
pertaining to such parcel; provided, however, that the word 'parcel' shall
mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel approved for
subdivision by the City Council. i~2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning ea;:h portion of
subject property as shown on Exhibit 3 in •r;he document titled F~ianned
Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch Development and dated March 20, 1987
(labn_led Exhibit A, Revision 1), and in accordance with the Provisions of
Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zone, the property owne.°/developer shall.
submit final specific plans of development foc <~ach portion t~ :.~• Cit;
Planning Commission for review and approval. Final specific ~..;,tr shall
include, but r.:ay not be limited to, the follawing:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps a.n Exhibit
A iRevician No. 1} and relating the area to be rezoned to khe overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location mar shall include a legal description of the
orrperty upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
~c) Site plans, floor plans and elevations - showing the
placement of all buildings and structures; the front, Qide and tear
elevationu; the roof plans; and the exterior building materials including
roofing.
(d) Lot dimertFions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient t.o
indicate the relationship o:° the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut
and fill earthwork involved.
(e) Landscapinr~ plans - indicating the extent and type of
proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be
retained.
(f) °Vehic;:lar circulation dnd parking plan - indicestiny the
nature and extent. of put.~lic and private streets, alleys and other publi.:
accessways for vehicular cit+:ulation, oFf-street parking, and vahfculac
storage.
~• 3 ~~~
MINitTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-485
(g) p:_nce G,slS wall ~~l~r.~ - indic,~tin9 the type of fe :ring along
any lot line of. a s.'_t=e abutting a street, :reek, lake ar open storm drain.
The specific censxa or ::a?.1 location shall t>,~ sh;,wn in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing lorated in a snans:ar which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of--way shall consist of d~coratiae open-work
matF•rials.
(h) Signing plans •• indi~ Ming the protia;ad signing program and
inc~::~9ing, but not limited to, an, iaerstification, tr,rsiness or other signs;
and :;pecify4ng the Rite, height, location, color, aterial and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-:self (1/2) mile of the corridor. In
additior;, signs stall be provided to identify pzopesed Future land uses, such
as the commercial site, future park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall bt! subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic ~ngi~aer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (13)
4. That all tievel.opment inc uding grad,n3 and landscape plans shall
comply with the requ.~re.nents of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zones as outlined
in Chapter 10.84 of the 4naheim Municipal Code. (14)
5. Th~.t any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservatias! regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 'Scenic
~~orridor Overlay Zones. (16)
6. That i^ accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheeim Manning Area •B•, the seller shall lrovide each buyer with written
in£ormaticn concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three hundred (30D) feet of the boundaries of Kubject tract. (:7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Muri^_ipal Coda Sections 18.84.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoev,~ shall be permitted.
(18)
WATER
8. That aYl water aups7ly planning for the project shall be closely
coard;~ated with, and be subj_~c;`. to review and final approval by, the City of
Anaheim Public Utilities De partswent. (114)
9. That the water suppll system for The Surunit c;evelirpment shall be
designee in zccordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. 1. (115)
10. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designed
as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving area wide
development. (116)
i~ i ;~~
88-486
MINUTEST ANAHEIM CITY PT.ANNING COMMISSIONr A ril 11 1988
11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the
water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (#17)
12. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the requited water system improvements shall be furnished in
conjunction with each final map. (#l8)
13. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install thumsestationssandereservoirs
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the p p
shall be advanced by the developer throu9~imarypmainstshall belinatalledtbys
fees as provided for in Rule 15-B; (~) p owner/developer in the form of
the City with funds provided by the property
primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and cegovaldwithmthe
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or parcel map app
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#19)
TRAYFIC
14. That with the exception of Parcel Map the pC pettytoaner/developer
approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
shall, in cooperation with the City ~f Anaheim and Orange County Transit
District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program wi~h specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of
nen-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include transit service, pack
a~~ ri_de turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (#2.L)
15. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenne/Wefc Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch.
!a) The owner/developer of The Summit shall post security in an
amount and torm approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tact or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whichever comes first. The
awnet/developer of the Highlands Project shall post similar securi~y in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Froject to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the
SycamoretCanyon RanchewithinAtheusameltimenfra Boas setnforthnat,:thin the
88-487
MitiUTE_L ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of The Summit may post security in
an amount and form approved by the City prior to the commencement of grading
on The Summit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of. the construction of Serrano Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading on the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes first,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch pests similar
security in an amount and form appzeved by the City prior to commencement cf
grading on The Summit to guarantee the constructi~a of the Serrano Avenue/Weir
Canyon Road within their property as well as for une-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time Erame as
set forth above.
(c) Tn the event that neither the owner/developer of the
Highlands Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts
the security as rcovided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/dos~laper of
Tt,e Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Suminit, p
security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee tterminus of
construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the existing
Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the existing terminus of Weic Canyon Road
at the southern boundary of the Sauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible
materials on The Summit.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
expense of The Summit owner/developer. (#24)
16. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or. parcel map, the property owner/developer snail
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of an arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyor, Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further,
proof of an arterial highwa}• right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the extension of ~errano Avenue. (#'L6)
17. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property,. the property owner/developer shall agree to
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, at no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#28)
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject propertyN the property owner/developer shall •submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (#29)
~ 1
88-488
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A [il 11 1988
19. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (030)
20. That prio[ to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required signals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City system. (#31}
21. That the property owner/developer shall pay tie Bridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
22. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summi*_ development. (#33)
23. Thnt prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval + the Planning Department. (#37)
24. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#38)
25. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 108 except by
prior approval of the Chief o. the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (039)
26. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway oc private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the
adjace:t public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363.
(#40)
27. That any on- or off-site roadu shall be constructed in accordance
with all aprlicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards. (#41)
28. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the
public street system for public use with the recordation of each final tract
map for each individual residential area. (#42)
29. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each
final tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted fot review and
approval by the City Engineer. (#43)
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANt?ING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-489
30. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. (#44)
31. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public and private roads; (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (#45)
32. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the developer :shall pay for
and the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to det~zrmine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Y.ighway to Weic Canyon Road
and from the southerly City limits to Orangethocpe Avenue, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The findings of
the study, showing proportionate share of cost distrib~ition, sha':1 become
binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
(a) widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound oEf-ramp From the 91 Freeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (#46)
33. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided
from another source than Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
STREET MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 hereof, the street maintenance
facility shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of
Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located adjacent to the
proposed park or school site and shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. In conjunctior. with approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, r.he precise configuration of
the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. ~f the configuration of the site i7 different from the site
offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the owner/developer shall
provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site. Purthermoce,
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of
Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter into an
,:
88-490
MINUTES, ANAREIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZUr7, April 11, 1988 _, -
s
agreement with the Maintenance DePsioneof thepstreet maintenancelfacilityato
i
of the costs to the City for prove as determined by the Director of
serve the easterly portion of the City 4
Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the t
Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to E
approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (#47) '
i
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, `No parking
for street sweeping' signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Mainte-nance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (#48)
36. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a Covenant requiting the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to `Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping'. Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (#49)
REIMBURSEMENTS
37. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map, whichever occurs
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summit proportionate share of the cost Eor
providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities
and utilities are located in the Sauer Rancaidub wino ert owner priorutoithe
which proportionate share of cost will be p y P P Y
issuance of the Certif?cate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the
developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agreements administered by the city. (E51)
FIRE
38. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that in conjunction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Sucb, plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (#52)
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency
fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-491
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207(a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (t53)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireilow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (t54)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (t55)
42. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weic
Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be provided in
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting
equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
general traffic circulation. (#56)
43. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01 ). Such further
requirements include, but are not .limited to: chimney spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent bruahland. Built-in fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(t57)
44. That fuel breaks shah be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (t58)
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (459)
46. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fait share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (461)
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A Lil 11 1988 BS-492
PARKS
47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of the park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/developer and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agreements with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (#62)
48. As required by Condition No. 138, hereof, the community park site
shall be irrevocably offered €or dedication prior to recordation of Parcel Map
No. 87-363. The precise configuration of the part, area required for
dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and, if different from
the previously dedicated configuration, the owner/developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication of the approved park site prior to the
approval of the first final kract or parcel map adjoining any park area.
Should Parcel Map No. 87-363 not be processed, then prior to approval of the
first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area, the property
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate the approved
park site. (#64)
49. That the payment of in-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (#66)
50. That County trails shall be maintained by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the expense of the property
owner/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
(#67).
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon current population projections); however, adjustments
may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population in the development actually be realized. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation 4
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (#69)
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
i
MIIIOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAIINING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-493
insure that the graded areas for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 58 of Cit
Council Resolution No. SSR-144. This grading feasibility study must be
provided with the first final tract approval, Final grading plans for the
park must be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services and Engineering Department and be in conformance with the
previously-approved grading feasibility study. (#70)
53. a. That the owner/developer complete the park construction
within one (1) year from the issuance of the 970th building permit or the
issuance of the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever
comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the City, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all weather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items 77a and/or 77b as indicated
above. t#77)
UTILZTIES - GENERAL
54. With the exception of Parcel Map NO. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Bighlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as requited by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
expense of the property owner/developer. (478)
55. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval dy the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (#79)
LIBRARY
56. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363_ that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-494
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (#80)
POLICE
57. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs to the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning DeT~artment and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and City Attorney's Office. (#81)
SCHOOLS
58. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with proof of a written agreement between The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District agreeing on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost for the school facility. In addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
SANITARY SEWERS
59. With the exception of Parcel Map NO. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the
tract parcel of boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (#63)
60. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. (#84)
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 68-495
61. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a)
the acquisition of any required permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, oc other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines in private streets which shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#85)
HYDROLOGY
62. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfying both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. In addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the maximum extent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees in that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed by the City Engineer. (#86)
b3. With exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel oc tract map, the property owner%developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (#87)
64. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (#89)
65. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (#90)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 BB-496
66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for
and the construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the
construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements; (c) any
permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed necessary by the
City of Anaheim. (#91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (#92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (#93)
69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (#94)
70. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel mao, a special maintenance district or
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the expense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated by The Summit development. (#95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities as required by the drainage feasibility study
have been installed and ate operative. Positive assurance shall be provided
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October
15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the property
owner/developer) prior. to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher propezties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract or parcel and from 'the downstce~sm boundary of
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the
first final building inspection of occupancy permit. To the extent the
property owner/developer may qualify for reimbursement €rom surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#96)
MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-497
GRADING/SOIL/LANDSCAPING
72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, thaC prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a
final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of
detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be subject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Fouz Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said procedures shall be
reviewed by the Fouc Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and providing temporary
stabilization on slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions Eor measures such as immediate
planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
downstream. (197)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies (Lownes Geologic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, and May
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage,
and recommendations for further study. (198)
74. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (199)
75. with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch or
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (1100)
MINUTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-49a
ELECTRICAL
76. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (#101)
77. That the property owner developer shall have the Financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the S:ity in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulation. (#102)
78. That the property owner/developer shall provide and construct for
the City all necessary trenches, backfill, ccnduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility cos±:s shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City to
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (#103)
79. With the. exception of Parcel Map NO. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(#104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (#105)
81. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated with the
recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(#106)
LANDSCAPING
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
Irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that
cne application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. {#107)
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-499
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
pr~~~ ed grading and construction schedule. It shall provide visual screening
of ur~an uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (#108)
B4. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The
responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of ~;naheim and shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the first final tract or
parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#109)
85. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
first final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall
make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and
maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this
property. (#110)
86. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been found to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision, except those located
within Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map, with
the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the he:einabove described parkways
and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a band in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final. tract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 67-363. (#11).)
~` ~ °
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMHISSION, April 11, 1988 88-500
NOISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 'Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects' and with
Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (#113)
88. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (#114)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
89. That prior to issuance of building permits, rye property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California Gas Company and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including furthez methods of energy conservation to the extent
feasible. (#115)
90. That all building construction shall comely with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (+1116)
91. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
tie project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and nat'iral cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#117)
SOLI? WASTE (REFUSE)
92. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screening of trash ceceptacie areas and access for
trash pickup. (#110)
AIR QUALITY
93. That the property owner/developer shsll implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (#119)
CULTURAL RESOUP.CES
94. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading
operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
suf~icient concentrations of significant Fossils ace encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
MINUTES, Al7AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-501
property owner/developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted ana appropriate mitigation measures are
undertaken. (#120)
MISCELLANEOUS
95. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the ParY.s,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containiny
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). i#124)
96. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an
assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to :meet the
assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year basis. Such assessment
district shall be formed prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and
initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for The Summit. The City shall have the right to monitor said
revenues and costs. Anneal assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount
necessary to offset the yearly difference between costa associated with said
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues teach
equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final
tract or parcel map approval or at such other later time as may be approved by
the City Council. (#128)
97. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial
mechanisms referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#130)
99. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all cable Facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television network system. (#131)
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a
Habitat ;.placement Program, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game
and in accordance with the Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, for
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (#134)
MINUTES, ANAHEIM f_ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-502
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
100. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development
area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer
shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said Plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocations if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures
necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the property
owner/developer. (#135)
101. The obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution No. 88R-144 shall be secure9 by a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other forrn of security in an amount and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approved
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (#1363
102. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any
of the above conditions shall be subject to appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision oc
action. (#137)
103. Notwithstanding any provision of the conditions of approval
contained herein to the contrary, the property owner/developer may process and
(upon approval in accordance with the Subdivision Hap Act and Tir.le 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code) record Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-363 for the limited
purpose of conveyances for finance without complying with any of the
conditions of approval contained herein which, by their terms, must be
complied with prior to submittal of an application for, approval of, or
recordation of, a tentative or final tract or parcel map provided:
(a) Parcel Map N0. 87-363 shall contain a note to the effect that
this map is being filed Eor financing and conveyance for financing purposes
only and will have no public improvement requirements; no building permits ate
to be issued for the lots or parcels created by this map; and, the recording
of a subsequent map is required before building permits can be issued; and, a
covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney is recorded against the
entire site reflecting same;
(b) irrevocable offers of dedication for right-of-way for all
arterial highways (wir_h adjoining slope easements) and community park and
other public facility sites identified in these conditions of approval are
made prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363; and,
1
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-503
(c) Parcel Map No. 87-363 otherwise complies with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#138)
104. That grading, excavation, and all other const[uction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
105. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
106. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
107. That prior to Einal tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
108. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide
right-a~-way required for the constructior. of Serrano Avenue from the
High2'~r,d;e L+oundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
109. That the development ~f subject tract shall be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (The Summit of Anaheim Aills Planned Community -
P.esolution No. 88R-144.
110. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
111. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
tt. }
7 ( 'i
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-504
112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim
Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval
does not include ar_y action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and ..
f
MINUTES, ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aptil 11, 1988 88-505
and D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13460, 37-lot plus one open space lot and one
landscape easement lot/single-family residential detached
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations stated in Exhibit 8 (Revision
No. 1) (the document titled Public Facilities Plan for the Oak Hills Ranch
Development) as further amended by the City Council's action on April 5, 1988
(now Exhibit B (Revision No. 2) Public Facilities Plan for The Summit). {fl)
2. That the ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community
shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with the conditions
pertaining to such parcel; provided, however, that the word 'parcel' shall
mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel approved for
subdivision by the City Council. (~2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of
subject property as shown on Exhibit 3 in the document titled Planned
Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch Development and dated March 20, 1987
(labeled Exhibit A, Revision 1), and in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zone), the property owner/developer shall
submit final specific plans of development for each portion to the City
Planning Commission for review and approval. Final specific plans shall
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit
A (Revision No. 1) and relating the area to be rezoned to the overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location map shall include a legal description of the
property upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
(c) Site plans, floor plans and elevations - showing the
placement of all buildings and structures; the front, side and rear
elevations; the roof plans; and the exterior building materials including
roofing.
(d) Lot dimensions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient to
indicate the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut
and fill earthwork involved.
(e) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of
proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be
retained.
~. ,.
V ~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 11 1988 88-506
(f) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the
nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public
accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular
storage.
(g) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along
any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain.
The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work
materials.
(h) Signing plans - indicating the proposed signing program and
including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs;
and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. In
addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such
as the commercial site, future park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (q3)
4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall
comply with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone" as outlined
in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (q4)
5. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone". (i16)
6. That in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (p7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 13.84.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
(q8)
WATER
8. That ali water supply planning for the project shall be closely
coordinated with, and be subject to review and final approval by, the City of
Anaheim Public Utilities Department. (q14)
9. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. 1. (q15)
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aoril 11. 1988 88-507
10. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designed
as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide
development. (q16)
11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the
water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (q17)
12. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in
conjuacti~n with each final map. (q18)
13. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install the secondary system
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs
shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities
fees as provided for in Rule 15-H; (c) primary mains shall be installed by
the City with funds provided by the property owner/developer in the form of
primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or parcel map approval with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (A19)
T_~FFIC
14. That with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer
shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit
District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of
non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include transit service, park
and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (q21)
15. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch.
(a) The owner/developer of The Summit shall post security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Caayoa Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whichever comes first. The
owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post similar security in an
~~:
MINUTES ANAHEIM C'TY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 11 1988 88-508
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the fi-st final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of The Summit may post security in
an amount and form approved by the City prior to the commencement of grading
on The Summit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading on the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes first,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts similar
security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to commencement of
grading on The Summit to guarantee the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir
Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time frame as
set forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the
Highlands Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts
the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of
The Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Summit, post a
security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the
construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the existing terminus of
Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road
at the southern boundary of the Bauex• Ranch prior to placement of combustible
u:aterials on The Summit.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project or the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
expense of The Summit owner/developer. (#24)
16. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 67-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of as arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further,
proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the extension of Serrano Avenue. (#26)
17. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall agree to
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, ~t no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#28)
MINUTES.•. ~*rnE]EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Agril 11 198 88-509
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
1~ortion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (#29)
19. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (#30)
20. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required signals shall be subject to review and approval b1 the City Traffic
Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the CiCl system. (#31;
21. That the property owner/developer shall pay the fridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
22. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summit development. (#33)
23. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. (#37)
24. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#38)
25. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 10~ except by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (#39)
26. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the
adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard Plan No. 402 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363.
(#40)
27. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance
with all applicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards. (#41)
28. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the
public street system for public use with the recordation of each final tract
map for each individual residential area. (q42)
~~
~.fiNUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 11 1988 88-~1Q
29. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each
final tractor parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. (q43)
30. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. (q44)
31. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public and private roads: (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (p95)
32. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the developer shall pay for
and the City shall he responsible for conducting a study to determine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road
and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The findings of
the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, shall become
binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
(a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (q46)
33. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided
from another source than Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
STREET MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 hereof, the street maintenance
facility shall be irrevocably offered £or dedication. prior to recordation of
Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located adjacent to the
proposed park or school site and shall be approved by the Director of
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PTANNING COMMISSION. April 11. 1988 88-511
Maintenance. In conjunction with approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the precise configuration of
the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. If the configuration of the site is different from the site
offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the ownerldevelaper shall
provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site. Furthermore,
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of
Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter into an
agreement with the Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share
of the costs to the City for provision of the street maintenance facility to
serve the easterly portion of the City as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the
Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to
approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (N47)
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking
for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specificar,i,ons on file with said
department. (p48)
36. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping". Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (q49)
REIMBURSEMENTS
37. With the exception of Parcel Map No. A7-363, that prior to
introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map, whichever occurs
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summit proportionate share of the cost for
providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities
and utilities are located is the Sauer Ranch but will also serve The Summit
which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the
developer of the Bauer Rarch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agreements administered by the city. (q51)
FIRE
38. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-353, that in conjunction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
T
MIh~TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 _ 8$x`12
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (652)
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency
fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and on the construction siY.e. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207(a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (653)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (654)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or
Iot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (655)
4c. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue
or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir
Canyon/Serrano connection or other acceptable route, shall be provided in
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting
equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
general traffic circulation. (656)
43. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance w}th the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further
requirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Huilt-in fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also~be provided where applicable in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(657)
44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (658)
~,
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April it 1988 88-513
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (q59)
46. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (1161)
PARR
47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall eater into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall .include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of t%le park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/c;~ve3oper and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agreements with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (q62)
48. As required by Condition No. 138, hereof, the community park site
shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of Parcel Map
No. 87-363. The precise configuration of the park area required for
dedication and develapment by the owner/developer shall be approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and, if different from
the previously dedicated configuration, the owner/developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication of the approved park site prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area.
Should Parcel Map No. 87-363 not be processed, then prior to approval of the
first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area, the property
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate the approved
park site. (p64)
49. That the payment of in-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (q66)
50. That County trails shall be mainta~.ned by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the expense of the property
owner/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
(~)
~`
N,INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11. 1968 88-514
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon current population projections); however, adjustments
may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population in the development actually be realized. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation S
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (N69)
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
insure that the graded areas for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 68 of Citv
Council Resolution No. BBR-144. This grading feasibility study must be
provided with the first final tract approval. Final grading plans for the
park must be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services and Engineering Department and be in conformance with the
previously-approved grading feasibility study. (q70)
53. a. T's`.. the owner/developer complete the park construction
within one (1) ye~% ~:rom the issuance of the 970th building permit or the
issuance of the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever
comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the City, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all weather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items 77a and/or 77b as indicated
above. (q77)
UTILITIES - GENERAL
54. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Highlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
expense of the property owner/developer. (N78)
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM155I0N April 11 1988 88-515
55. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm 3rain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (#79)
LIBRARY
56. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363 that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Rarch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (#80)
LI E
57. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs to the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and C.f.ty Attorney's Office. (#81)
Sit 0OLS
58. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with proof of a written agreement between The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District agreeing on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost for the school facility. In addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site. elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
Summit. (#82)
ITARY SEWER
59. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the
r
~.
..:
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1968 88-516
tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (#83)
60. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to he submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. (#84)
61. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a)
the acquisition of any required permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines in private streets which shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (#85)
HYDROLOGY
62. With the exception of Parcel Mag No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfying both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. In addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the maximum extent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees in that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed iiy the City Engineer. (#36)
63. With exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (#87)
`~..:p
MINUTES ANAHrIM CITY PLANNING COMMI°Pi^i April 11 1988 88-517
64. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (p89)
65. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirertients, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (q90)
66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall b~,
financially responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for
and the construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the
construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements; (c) any
permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemeG necessary by the
City of Anaheim. (q91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (~92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (q93)
69. Tbat local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (1194)
70. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a special maintenance district or
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the expense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of a21 open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated by The Summit development. (q95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities as required by the drainage feasibility study
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October
15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation
proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the property
owner/developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
sr;
;'~
88-518
itrrrtrTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 1 1988
functional throughout the tract or parcel and frriorhto thesissuanceuofatheof
the property to the ultimate point of disposalePmit. To the extent the
first final building inspection or occupancy p
property owner/developer may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (q96)
^RADING/SOIL/LANDSCAPING
72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 8T-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a
final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer bauent torcomMletionlofs of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist subseq P
detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be subject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Four Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said Prrovedrbs thelCity
reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and app y
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe. and providing temporary
stabilization on slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate
planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
downstream. (q97)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotecdatedlAutuste1986owand Maylogic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates. 9
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, znd surface and subsurface drainage,
and recommendations for further study. (k98)
74. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (q99)
+P 4,
1 y.
:.:
MINUxES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 11 1988 88-519
75. With the exception of Parcel Map tto. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch or
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (#100)
~ECTRICAL
76. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (#101)
77. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures.
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (#102)
7B. That the property owner/developer shall provide and construct for
the City all necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system utility costs shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City to
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (#103)
79. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(#104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities sh311 be provided in accordance with City codes. (#105)
81. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated with the
recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(#106)
...
MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 11. 1988 88-52Q
LANDSCAPIN
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
Irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by as
irrigation engineer. (aI07)
~93. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
proposed grading and construction schedule. Zt shall provide visual screening
of urban uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landsct~ping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (G108)
84. That reasonable lands~r~ping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The
responsibility for maintenance of saia..landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the first final tract or
parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map tio. 87-363. (M109)
85. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
first final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall
make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and
maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this
property. (N110)
86. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been found to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision, except those located
within Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
,,.
vrw rrrs ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMIfISSION April 11 1988 8E-521
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map, with
the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways
and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#111)
NOISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with
Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (#113)
88. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (#114)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
89. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California Gas Company and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the extent
feasible. (#115)
90. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#116)
91. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
the project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#117)
SOLID WASTE (REFUSE)
92. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (#118)
i ~' ~'
~~ y'
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 11 1988 88-522
AIR QUALITY
93. That the property owner/developer shall implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (#119)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
94. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading
operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
sufficient concentrations of significant fossils are encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
property owner/developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist 1~as been contacted and appropriate :~itigation measures are
undertaken. (#120)
MISCELLANEOUS
95. That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). (#124)
96. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an
assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to meet the
assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year basis. Such assessment
district shall be formed prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and
initial assessment implemented prior to .issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for The Summit. The City shall have the right to monitor said
revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount
necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach
equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final
tract or parcel map approval or at such other later time as may be approved by
the City Council. (#128)
97. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial
mechanisms referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the
ezpense of the property owner/developer. (#130)
A d.
aV :~;
~(•INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhL"dISSION Ap3i1 11 1988 68-523
98. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television network system. (8131)
I~A• ITS AT ENHANCEMENT
99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer s4;,n11 provide a
Habitat Replacement Program, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game
and in accordance with *.he Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, for
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (8134)
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
100. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development
area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer
shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said Plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in i.ts present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocations if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures
necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibility of the property
owner/developer. (8135)
101. The obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution No. 88R-144 shall be secured by a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approved
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement cresting such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (8136)
102. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any
of the above conditions shall be subject to appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision or
action. (#137)
103. Notwithstanding any provision of the conditions of approval
contained herein to the contrary, the property owner/developer may process and
(upon approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code) record Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-363 for the limited
purpose of conveyances for finance without complying with any of the
conditions of approval contained herein which, by their terms, must be
complied with prior to submittal of an application for, approval of, or
recordation of, a tentative or final tract or parcel map provided:
(a) Parcel Map No. 87-363 shall contain a note to the effect that
this map is being filed for financing and conveyance for financing purposes
,.w A
~. ~~
r~IhJ'f'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COASMISSION Anril 11 1988 88-524
only and will have no public improvement requirements; no building permits are
to be issued for the lots or parcels created by this map; and, the recording
of a subsequent map is required before building permits can be issued; and, a
covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney is recorded against the
entire site reflecting same;
(b) Irrevocable offers of dedication for right-of-way for all
arterial highways (with adjoining slope easements) and community park and
other public facility sites identified in these conditions of approval are
made prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363; and,
(c) Parcel Map No. 87-363 otherwise complies with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Anaheim Municipal Code. (8138)
104. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
105. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
106. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement is a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
er_pense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
107. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
108. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wi6e
right-of-way required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from the
Highlands boundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
109. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community -
Resolution No. 88R-144.
110. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
s
MiNtrrES, ANAFtrrt rITY PLA_~ 7ING COhiriISSION Ap;~ ~ 1 ~ 988 88-525
111. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager is accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in as amount and form saE=Factory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted wikh the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior to occupancy.
112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
113. That approval of this application constitutes approval o£ the
proposed request only to the extent Chat it complies with the Anaheim
Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval
does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
•• <°t:
^Ai~ ~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aori2 llt 1988 88-526
and E. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13461, 30-lot plus two open space lots and one
landscape easement lot/single-family residential detached
subdivision; subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING-RELATED
1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for
implementation of all applicable stipulations stated in Exhibit B (Revision
No. 1) (the doctunent titled Public Facilities Plan for the Oak Hills Ranch
Development) as further amended by the City Council's action on April 5, 1988
(now Exhibit B (Revision No. 2) Public Facilities Plan for The Summit). (N1)
2. That the ordinances reclassifying The Summit Planned Community
shall be adopted as each parcel is ready to comply with the conditions
pertaining to such parcel; provided, however, that the word "parcel" shall
mean presently existing parcels of record and any parcel approved for
subdivision by the City Council. (q2)
3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of
subject property as shown on Exhibit 3 in the document titled Planned
Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch Development and dated March 20, 1987
(labeled Exhibit A, Revision 1), and in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.85 (the Planned Community Zone), the property owner/developer shall
submit final specific plans of development for each portion to the City
Planning Commission for review and approval. Final specific plans shall
include, but may not be limited to, the following:
(a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit
A (Revision Ho. 1) and relating the aria to be rezoned to the overall Summit
Planned Community. Said location map shall include a legal description of the
property upon which the final specific plan is being filed.
(b) Topographic map.
(c) Site plans, floor plans and elevations - showing the
placement of all buildings and structures; the front, side and rear
elevations; the roof plans; and the exterior building materials including
roofing.
(d) Lot dimensions and pad sizes - of all lots sufficient to
indicate the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut
and fill earthwork involved.
(e) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of
proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be
retained.
(f) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the
nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public
accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular
storage.
~~: :c.
'~-
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,. April 11 1988 88-527
(g) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along
any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain.
The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color,
material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the
view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work
materials.
(h) Signing plans - indicating the proposed signing program and
including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs;
and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of
such signs. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern
Transportation Corridor area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. In
addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future laud rases, such
as the comm•~rcial site, future park/school site, and residential land uses,
etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City
Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (q3)
4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall
comply with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone" as outlined
in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#4)
5. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree
preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone". (#6)
6. That in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of
Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written
information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within
three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#7)
7. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012
and 18.84.062.032, no roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted.
(#8)
WATER
8. That all water supply planning for the project shall be closely
coordinated with, and be subject to review and final approval by, the City of
Anaheim Public Utilities Department. (#14)
9. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special
Facilities District No. 1. (q15)
10. That the water mains and water storage reservoirs shall be designed
as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide
development. (p16)
MINUTES ANAHEIM CIT`i PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88-528
11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property
owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the
water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at
the time of final tract or parcel map recordation. The reservoir sites shall
be dedicated with the final maps, or when required by the City. (#17)
12. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that bonding for
construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in
conjunction with each final map. (#78)
13. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in
accordance with the following Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations:
(a) the property developer/owner shall install the secondary system
improvements; (b) funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs
shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities
fees as provided for in Rule 15-B; (c) primary mains shall be installed by
the City with funds provided by the property owner/developer in the form of
primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 15-A; (d) the necessary financial
arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary
main fees shall be made prior to final tract or parcel map approval with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (#19)
TR FF
14. That with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer
shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit
District, prepare a coordiuat:ed study to examine methods of implementing a
Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating
strategies to reduce the amount. of trips and increase the amount of
non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include transit service, park
and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikeways, and other
transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development
site. (#21)
15. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano
Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Aanch.
(a) The owner/developer of The Summit shall post security in an
amount an3 form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of
Serrano Avenue within The Summit as well as for one-half of the construction
of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon
prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project,
or the commencement of grading on The Summit, whichever comes first. The
owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post similar security in an
amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final
tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of
Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the
construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above.
~, ~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 11 1988 88-529
(b) In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as
set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of The Summit may post security in
an amount and form approved by the City prior to the commencement of grading
on The Summit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within The
Summit as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano .Avenue within
the Highlands Project prior to the placement of combustibles on The Summit, or
commencement of grading on the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, whichever comes first,
provided that the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts similar
security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to commencement of
grading on The Summit to guarantee the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir
Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction
of Serrano Avenue within the Highlands Project within the same time frame as
set forth above.
(c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the
Highlands Project nor the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch posts
the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of
The Summit shall, prior to commencement of grading on The Summit, post a
security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the
construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road from the existing terminus of
Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the existing terminus of Weir Canyon Road
at the southern boundary of the Sauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible
materials on T}se Summit.
To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish
reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The
Summit and either the Highlands Project or the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the
cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above.
Costs associated with the establishment of such districts shall be at the
expense of The Summit owner/developer. (q24)
16. With the excaptioa of Parcel N,ap No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide the City of Anaheim with proof of an arterial highway right-of-way
across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property
owner/developer to extend Weir Canyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the
Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, furi:her,
proof of an arterial highway right-of-way across the Highlands property to
provide for the extension of Serrano Avenue. (q26)
17. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall agree tc
construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District
and the City Traffic Engineer, at no cost to the City. Written proof of said
agreement shall be furnished to the Planuing Department. (q28)
18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall submit a
phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in The
Summit to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. (q29)
~`- ~.
may'
i.~%
MIh^^i7'ES ANAHEIM CITY PL'LTi*I*'G CO'*"dISSIO*T '~"d 1 11 1988 88-530
19. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer casponsibilities
for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate
property owner. (#30)
20. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherwise deemed
necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the precise location and phasing of any
required signals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic
Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City system. (#31)
21. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare
Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council
Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32)
22. That no residential front-ons along arterial highways shall be
included in The Summit development. (#33)
23. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be
submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. (#37)
24. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be
installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#38)
25. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 10~ except by
prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering
Division. (#39)
26. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private
street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the
adjacent public street(s). Installation of any gates shall conform to
Engineering Standard P].an No. 902 and their location shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the approval of each
tentative tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363.
(#40)
27. That any on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance
with all applicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards. (#41)
28. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the
public street system for public use with the recordation of each final tract
map for each individual residential area. (#42)
29. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of The Summit
road system including residential and local street alignments, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each
final tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map 270. 87-363, the
engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer. (#43)
~~ mil'.
88-531
MINUTE ANAHEIM ITY PLANNIN MMI I N A ril 11 1
30. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be
furnished as part of in-tract improvements. (#44)
31. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible
for the following: (a) design and construction of the public and private road
system; (b) design and construction associated with landscaping of the
parkways adjacent to public and private roads; (c) acquiring any permits for
any on- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments
deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system and all public
and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism
approved by the City. (#45)
32, With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the developer shall pay for
and the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a
financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall
determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the
Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of
land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road
an3 from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all
of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch and The Summit; and, the City. The findings of
the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, shall become
binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of
building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on
Santa Ana Canyon Road:
(a) widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane
configuration between Imperial Highway and the Bauer Ranch improvements.
(b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir
Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and
right-turn lane. (#46)
33. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided
from another source than Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road.
,~,TREFT MAINTENANCE
34. As required by Condition No. 138 hereof, the street maintenance
facility shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of
Parcel Map No. 87-363. Said facility shall be located adjacent to the
proposed park or school site and shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. In conjunction with approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. E7-363, the precise configuration of
the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the Director of
Maintenance. If the configuration of the site is different from the site
offered for dedication per Parcel Map No. 87-363, the owner/developer shall
provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate said modified site. Furthermore,
prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of
Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall enter into an
;w
,~.:~ :.~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-532
agreement with the Maintena• ;e Department to provi~4 its proportionate share
of the costs to the City for provision of the street maintenance facility to
serve the easterly portion of the City as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the
Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to
approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (#47)
35. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking
for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of
Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said
department. (#48)
36. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
recordation of each tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each
residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street
sweeping". Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street
parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (#49)
REIMHURSEDSENTS
37. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to
introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property
or prior to approval of the first final tract of parcel map, whichever occurs
first, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement
to the City of Anaheim for The Summit proportionate share of the cost for
providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station,
electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities
and utilities are located in the Hauer Ranch but will also serve The Summit
which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or use for the first unit in The
Summit. Said funds sha21 be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the
developer of the Bauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said
facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement
agreements administered by the city. (#51)
FIRE
38. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that in conjunction
with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map, the property
owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to The Summit
from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route;
and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir Canyon/Serrano connection or some
other acceptable route. Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (#52)
39. That prior to issuance of each building permit, the property owner/
developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessiir.ility of emergency
fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the
.~
`~:.,
S~INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Avril 11, 1988 88-533
Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of building
materials on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be
provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every
building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The
width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section
10.207(a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (q53)
40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be
designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance
with Fire Department requirements. (q54)
41. That prior to commencement of structural framing oa each parcel or
lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first
floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific
information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system
network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (q55)
42. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access,
as approved per Condition No. 52, from Fire Station No. 9 via Serra::o Avenue
or other acceptable route and Fire Station No. 10 via a new Weir
Canyon/Serrano conaECtion or other acceptable route, shall be provided in
accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting
equipment aad emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used for
geaeral traffic circulation. (q56)
43. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire
safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire
resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of
Anaheim for Fire Zone 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further
requirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors,
protected attic and under floor opeaings, Class C or better roofing material
and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces when located
within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Built-in fire protection
such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applica3le in
accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings.
(q57)
44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department. (q58)
45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall
be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be
spriaklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100)
feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (q59)
46. That prior to the issuaace of the first building permit, the
property owner/developer shall provide its fair share of the cost of the
construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of
Maintenance. (q61)
4
... •d•
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88-534
PARKS
47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing and
dollar amount of the property owner/developer's responsibility for park
facility construction. Said agreement shall include the following: (a)
identification of the physical boundaries of the park site, as agreed to by
The Summit property owner/developer and the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department; (b) plans for vehicular and pedestrian access to the park
site, including any necessary agreements with adjacent property owners as
approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and by the
City Traffic Engineer. (862)
48. As required by Condition No. 136, hereof, the community park site
shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordaton of Parcel Map
No. 87-363. The precise configuration of the park area required for
dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and, if different from
the previously dedicated configuration, the owner/developer shall provide an
irrevocable offer of dedication of the approved park site prior to the
approval of the first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area.
Should Parcel Map No. 87-363 not be processed, then prior to approval of the
first final tract or parcel map adjoining any park area, the property
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer tc dedicate the approved
park site. (864)
49. That the payment of in-lieu fees for additional park dedication
obligation z~equirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements and
the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation
and Community Services Department. (k66)
50. That County trails shall be maintained by the County or through a
Special Maintenance District or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City, and shall be established at the expense of the property
owner/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
(~)
51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre
requirement (based upon ::urrent population projections); however, adjustments
may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the
anticipated population in the development actually be realized. Final site
acceptance requires the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation 6
Community Services with the submittal of the first final tract map. (k69)
52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted
and approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
the Engineering Department to determine the average slope of the site and
~,` .
MINU'S'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 A8-535
insure that the graded areas for The Summit park and future Sycamore Canyon
Ranch park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 68 of Citv
c'n,+ncil Resolution No. 88R-144. This grading feasibility study must be
provided with the first final tract approval. Final grading plans for the
park must be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community
Services and Engineering Department and be in conformance with the
previously-approved grading feasibility study. (#70)
53. a. That the owner/developer complete the park construction
within one (1) year from the issuance of the 970th building permit or the
issuance of the first building permit for Parcel 202 of Area D, whichever
comes first.
b. That The Summit shall begin construction of their parksite
within thirty (30) days of the commencement of any construction required of
the Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous
to The Summit property, regardless of the number of building permits issued
for The Summit.
c. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel
map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit
the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an
amount and form approved by the City, to ensure the parksite design and
construction (including all weather vehicular access approved by the
Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Traffic
Engineer) are completed as required in items 77a and/or 77b as indicated
above. (#77)
UTILITIES - ~NERAL
54. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition
of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to water,
electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Highlands
property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, in order to serve the needs of The Summit,
as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager.
Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole
expense of the property owner/developer. (#76)
55. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' Facilities
Plans are coordinated with site development. (#79)
LiIBRARY
S6. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363 that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map for any portion of subject property,
.~ ~~
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88 536
the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Anaheim Library Department to provide The Summit proportionate share of costs
for provision of a library facility to be located on the Sauer Ranch. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Plannin3 Department and
shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's
Office. (q80)
P LI E
57. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to provide
its proportionate share of costs to the City for provision of an off-site
satellite police facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. Written
proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and
Police Department and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department
and City Attorney's Office. (q81)
H L
58. That prior to introduction of ttie first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide the
Planning Department with a letter indicating The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District, have come to a conceptual agreement on the location and size
of the elementary school site; and that prior to the issuance of the first
building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide the department
with proof of a written agreement 2?etween The Summit and the Orange Unified
School District agreeing on the actual location and size of the elementary
school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading
of the site and any further obligations benefiting the area ranches as to
their proportionate share of cost for the school facility. In addition, the
agreement shall provide for The Summit proportionate share in providing
off-site elementary and secondary school facilities to meet the needs of The
Summit. (q82)
SANITARY SEWERS
59. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit
plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the
tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The
sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering
Department. (q83)
60. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, the location, phasing, bonding and
details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations,
lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study performed by the
property owner/developer and to be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer. (q84)
.es
~:
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11„_1988 88-537
61. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a)
the acquisition of any required permits and environmental assessments; (b) the
design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related
facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the
exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a
Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and
approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of the lift station, force
main and sewer lines in private streets which shall be established at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (N85)
HYDROLOGY
62. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a feasibility study of the property
owner/developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted tc address
the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns,
including the optimum level of high level flow for satisfying both hydrology
and natural vegetation needs within the drainage basin. This study shall also
address these effects on the proposed park site. In addition, the study shall
address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study
shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of
construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be in
conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by
the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County
Environmental Management Agency. Furthermore, precise alignments of drainage
improvements in the northern portion of the major drainageway on-site shall be
located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the maximum extent
feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a mapping
survey of oak trees in that area to the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, indicating which trees will be preserved, at the time the
drainage system plans are reviewed by the City Engineer. (q86)
63. With exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of
each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel
boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (q87)
64. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and
construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (N89)
65. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term
erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures
will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely
seeding of graded slopes and the use of temporary control devices, e.g.
sediment traps, desiltinq basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (q90)
~` --
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88-538
66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be
financially responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for
and the construction of the Master Plan drainage facilities; (b) the
construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements; (c) any
permits and any subsequent environmental assessment deemed necessary by the
City of Anaheim. (k91)
67. That bonding for the Master Plan drainage facilities shall be
provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. Bonding
for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (q92)
68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as
final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (Jt93)
69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the
improvements for each tract. (N94)
70. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract or parcel map, a special maintenance district or
other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be
established at the expense of the property owner/developer for the maintenance
of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site
necessitated by The Summit development. (k95)
71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the amity Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site,
sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading
work shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all
off-site drainage facilities as required by the drainage feasibility study
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided
to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October
15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be
dedicated to the City, or the City Council. shall have initiated condemnation
proceedings therefor (the costs of which shall be borne by the property
owner/developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The
required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry
runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to
ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be
functional throughout the tract or parcel and from the downstream boundary of
the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the
first final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the extent the
property owner/developer may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or
other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the
establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs
associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the
expense of the property owner/developer. (k46)
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 11 1988 88-539
RADING/SOIL/LANDS APIN
72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a
final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a
soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of
detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area.
Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible
recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization,
liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and
subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
and shall be subject to a grading permit: (a) Furthermore, that grading
operations in the vicinity of the Four Corners Pipeline shall include
procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline
operation is not interrupted or jeopardized. Said procedures shall be
reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City
Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possibly affect said
pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the
pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and prr:idirg temporary
stabilization on slopes as required; (b) that grading plans shall include an
erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City
Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate
planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins
and sandbagging, if necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The
plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during
construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation
downstream. (q97)
73. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the
general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies (Lownes Geologic
Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, and May
1985) referred to in EIR No. 281. Said recommendations shall include
specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and
fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage,
and recommendations for further study. (k98)
74. That ix~ conjun%:.:~z. with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer '.1 provide information showing that the overall
shape, height and grade of ny cut and fill slope shall be developed in
accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (p.99)
75. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first tentative tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall
identify the location of slopes adjacent to roadways which provide access to
The Summit (and which roadways may be located in the Sycamore Canyon Ranch or
Highlands development), and furthermore shall, prior to approval of the first
final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363,
provide for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City
Engineer. (8100)
s:
<~,
MT Ni1TFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Agril 11 1988 88-540
ELECTRICAL
76. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval
of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide
grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and
approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities
plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (8101)
77. That the property owner/developer shall have the financial
responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures,
retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public
and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim
Rates, Rules and Regulations. (8102)
78. That the property owner/developer shall provide and construct for
the City all necessary trenches, Lackfill, conduits, manholes, vaults,
handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations.
The scheduling and funding for the backbone system u~ili.ty costs shall be
determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals.
The property owner/developer shall also advance this fee to the City to
complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (8103)
70. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to final
tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall advance a
non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department.
(8104)
80. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be
installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical
facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (if105)
B1. With the exception of Parcel ;4ap No. 87-363, that all facilities
shall be located within public right-of-ways and easements dedicated with the
recordation of final maps. The conduit system with associated concrete
manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or
capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads.
(N106)
LANDSCAPING
82. That in conjunction with the submittal of each grading plan, the
property owner/developer shall provide landscape plans specifying an
Irrigation Management Program for the oa-site landscaped areas, said plans to
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure
that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that
the application of fertilizers and pesticides does rot exceed appropriate
levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify
methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an
irrigation engineer. (k107)
;~ "~,
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Avril 11 1988 88-541
83. That prior to approval of each grading plan, the property
owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and
approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape
architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the
proposed grading and construction schedule. It shall provide visual screening
of urban uses (residential, commercial, school, water tank) from open space
areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed
landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department
that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in
accordance with the prepared plan. The plan shall include heavy emphasis on
drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with
City requirements and standards. (A108)
84. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall
be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the
uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The
responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a
special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and
approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the
property owner/developer prior to the approval of the first final tract or
parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (A109)
B5. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to the
first final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall
make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and
maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this
property. (1!110)
B6. That if landscape maintenance is to be financed through a
Homeowner's Association, which Association has been found to be acceptable to
the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall
execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1)
maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways
adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median
islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision, except those located
within Weir Canyon Road; (2) indemnify and hold the City of Anaheim harmless
for damages resulting therefrom; and (3) maintain liability insurance for said
parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The
form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and
shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map, with
the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. The property owner/developer of each
tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways
and median islands, including providing thr above specified insurance, until
such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as
hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a bond in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance
of the property owner/developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of
the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City
Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final Cract or parcel map,
with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (All!)
l~7~~ES ANAHEIM CITY PLAtiNING COMMISSION April 11, 1988 88-542
NOISE
87. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building
Inspector that each portion of the proposed project is in conformance with
Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with
Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved. (8113)
88. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime
hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction
equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce
the project's short-term construction noise effects. (8114)
ENERGY CONSERVATION
B9. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall confer with the Southern California Gas Compa;iy and the
City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the
purposes of including further methods of energy coaservatioa to the extent
feasible. (8115)
90. That all building construction shall comply with the California
Energy Commission coaservatioa requirements and the standards outlined under
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (8116)
91. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for
the project shall promote, to the extent possiLle, opportunities for
maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes),
and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or
indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (8117)
SOLID WASTE (REFUSE)
92. what project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance
with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for
trash pickup. (8118)
AIR QUALITY
93. That the property owner/developer shall implement regular ground
watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City
standards. (8119)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
94. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading
operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If
sufficient concentrations of significant fossils are encountered during
monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the
.e
~.
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PANNING COh4dI~S14N Avril it 1988 _--.~~
property owner/developer and grading cor..tractor as determined appropriate by
the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface
archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified
archaeologist has been contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are
undertaken. (f1120)
MISCELLAt7E0US
95. That. prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks,
Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to
review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which
incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and
preservation of on-site woodland resources within ungraded areas containing
oaks (see Environmental Impact Report No. 281). (8124)
96. With the exception of Parcel Map t7o. 87-363, that prior to approval
of the first final tract map or parcel map for The Summit project, the
owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an
assessment disl-rict to assure the project generates .'evenues to meet the
assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year ~ .':s. Such assessment
distri:a shall be formed prior to approval of the ';trst final tract c*. parcal
map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and
initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for The Summit. The City shall have the right to s.~onitor said
revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not ew~eed an amount
necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said
project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach
equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prioF unfunded costs for
two consecutive years, srsid mechanism(s) shall be tormiaated by the City. The
costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the
owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final
tract or parcel map approval or at such otk:er later time as may be approved by
the City Council. (817.8)
97. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial
mechanisms referenced in previous conditions shall be established at the
expense of the Property owner/developer. (8130)
98. That the property owner/developer shall construct and dedicate to
the City of Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's
cable television networY. system. (8131)
HABITAT ENHANCP~(ENT
99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any
portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a
Habitat Replacement Program, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game
and in accordance with the Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, for
review and approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Departments. (134)
~. ~,
:~.
~_;
MIhJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNItIG COMMISSION, April '11 1988 88-544
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
100. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development
area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer
shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said Plan shall analyze the
feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and
identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable
mitigation measures including relocations if deemed necessary. The plan shall
be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City.
Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures
necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or
permits associated therewith, shall be the responsibi~.ity of the property
owner/developer. (#135)
101. The obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 12,
28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution No. 88F2-144 shall be secured by a
performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and
form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approved
thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any
agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is
established. (#136)
102. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any
of the above conditions shall be subject tp appeal to or review by the City
Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision or
action. (#137)
103. Notwithstanding any provision of the conditions ~f approval
contained herein to the contrary, the property owner/developer may process and
(upon approval in accordance with the Subdivision M.zp Act and Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code) record Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-363 for the limited
purpose of conveyances for finance without complying with any of the
conditions of approval contained herein which, by their terms, must be
complied with prior to submittal of an application for, approval of, or
recordation of, a tentative or final tract or parcel map provided:
(a) Parcel Map No. 87-363 shall contain a note to the effect that
this map is being filed for financing and conveyance for financing purposes
only and will havb ao public improvement requirements; no building permits are
to be issued for the lots or parcels created by this map; and, the recording
of a subsequent map is required before building permits can be issued; and, a
covenant in the form approved by the City Attorney is recorded against the
entire site reflecting same;
(b) Irrevocable offers of dedication for right-of-way for all
artr.rial highways (with adjoining slope easements) and comt::anity park and
other public facility sites identified in these conditions v;; approval are
made prior to the recordation of Parcel Map No. 87-363; ti: •',
(c) Parcel Map No. 87-363 otherwise complies with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#136)
;: ~,
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April I1, 1988 88-545
104. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities
shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any
silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by
storm water originating from or flowing through this project.
105. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one
subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
106. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an
agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete
the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's
expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract
map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the
property.
107. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of
the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the
developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted
to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office,
Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as
approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
108. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map
within the boundaries of The Summit project, the owner/developer shall
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide
right-of-way required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from the
Highlands boundary to the Sycamore Canyon Boundary.
109. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and iu
conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 86-87-19 (The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community -
Resolution No. 88P.-144.
110. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground
utilities.
111. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be
installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utllities General Manager, and that
security in the form of a bond, certifir.ate of deposit, letter of credit, or
cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the
above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements
shall be installed prior tr,~ occupancy.
112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be
dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
};
'~.,. v
H?~~FS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSLON April 11 1988 88-546
113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the
proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim
Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval
does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
114. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and
MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-02 in connection with Tentative Tract Map
Nos. 13267, 13458, 13459, 13460, and 13461 on the basis that a reasonable and
practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires
removal of the tree or trees whose removal is sought; and that the topography
of the building site renders removal reasonably necessary; and Further that
any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same
parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone, and the applicant has stipulated that each tree
designated for removal will be replaced on a two-to-one ratio in conformance
with Zoning Code Section No. 18.84.038.060.
Prior to voting, Commissioner Herbst asked if the trees will be shown
specifically on a map to show which ones will be removed to prohibit complete
discretionary removal of any trees and that the 47 trees are specifically in
the right of uay.
Linda Rios stated there is an exhibit on file (labeled Exhibit No. 2) which
shoes the trees to be removed. She explained the petitioner has proposed to
replace the trees on a 2 to 1 ratio and Code requires a 1 to 1 replacement
ratio.
ITEM N0. 10. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED,
TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517 and 13518
and SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 88-03.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 HALE AVENUE, IRVINE,
CALIFORNIA 92714. nGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY.
16811 HALE AVENUE, IRVINE, CA 92714. Property is approximately 108 gross
acres, located within the southwestern portion of The Summit of Anaheim Hills
(formerly Oak Hills Ranch) to the south of the future rortherly extension of
Serrano Avenue, bounded on the West by the Highlands at Ara=oieZHills (former
Wallace Ranch) and bounded on the south by Irvine Company p p Y•
It was noted the petitioneL has requested that subject petitions be continued
to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 25, 1988.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by commissioner Mc
Burney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be
continued to the meeting of April 25, 1988, at the request of the petitioner.
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI4. PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11,'.,88 88-547
ITEM N0. 11. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-44 AND
VARIANCE N0. 3771.
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: TESTA ALMA EMMA BOSWELL, C/0 THOMRS RONALD BOSWELL,
2033 Park Ridge, Norco, CA 91760 AND NARY PLICET, 19811 Buzleigh, Yorba
Linda,CA 92686. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 Mac Arthur Blvd., Suite 680,
Nexport Beach, CA 92660. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of approximately 0.78 acre, having a frontage of approximately 217
feet on she north side of Ball Road, approximately 700 feet west of the
centerline of Nutvood Street and further described as 2011 and 2017 West Ball
Road.
Request: F.eclassification from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 in order to construct a
2 and 3-story (previously 3-story) 28-unit (previously 30-unit) "affordable"
apartment complex with waivers of minimum building site area per duelling
unit, maximum structural height and maximum site coverage.
Continued from March 28, 1988.
There were approximately eleven people indicating their presence in opposition
to subject request and although the staff report the Planning Commission vas
not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Magdy Hanna, agent, explained they feel they have negated a lot of the
neighbors' concerns.
Al Marshall explained this is proposed ae a 28-unit apartment project
consisting of six bachelor units and the balance being 2-bedroom, 1-bath and
2-bedroom, 2-bath units; and that 64 parking spaces are provided, with 25%
being tandem spaces. He stated they were concerned about compatibility of the
project with the neighborhood with the density and privacy of the
mingle-family residents to the east.
Mr. Marshall stated the RM-1200 zone alloys 36 units to the acre and they are
requesting 35.8. He staved regarding privacy for the neighbors, that the
project consists of four units on the ground within 20 feet of the property
line, with the first units being slab-on-grade with a 6-foot wall and there is
no view from those units to the single-family homes. He stated the second
group of units that back up to t5e first units are attached, one story over
top of a recessed parking deck, approximately 1-1/2 stories in height and they
face toward the courtyard and have no balc~nieo or patios that would alloy any
type of view to the single-family homes. He explained the first two-story
unit is 139 feet away and it faces the parking lot or additional buildings in
front and has no direct views to the airgle-family homes. He stated the
ciasest txo-story, over parking unit is 94 feet away. He explained they
attempted to get all activity away from the single-family homes.
He stated the units are very residential in nature and they feel they will fit
in with the neighborhood and viii blend in quite yell. He explained they are
not pro- ing any affordable units, even though the staff report does indicate
this i~ affordable project.
:'.c*: presented an Exhibit shoving the RM-1200 zoning along Ball Road, and noted
moat of that area is either RM-1200 or commercial zoning and he has not found
any RM-2400 adjacent on Ball and RM-1200 zoning seems appropriate for this
'location and it is also indicated that way on the General Plan.
4/11/88
_ . _..~. .
S
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-598
Mr. Marshall stated the traffic on Bali Road does not seem to be an issue,
although it is alxays a .:onsideration, and ;toted there is no major
intersection directly affected by this project. He stated he is not familiar
with what is going on with the church property surrounding this property.
Mr. Hanna stated this project is very similar to the project they presented on
Teri Circle and that: project xas approved by the City Council and that they
did mitigate the privacy concerns by putting the units on the ground. He
state9 the units were actually closer to single-family homes on the Teri
Circle project.
Mr. Hanna stated they did work with the neighborhood and tried to resolve
their concerns. He added the Planning Commission did approve a 34-unit
project on this property in September 1987 by majority vote and it was denied
by the City Council because the developer had not addressed the privacy
concerns of the neighbors; however, they feel they have addressed ail the
issues with .his project. He explained also xhen the City Council denied the
34-unit project, that developer brought back a project for 2d units which is
what triggered the RM-2900 zoning; however, there is no RM-2400 on Ball Road,
and it is all either RM-1200, commercial, or single-family homes which can be
converted to either commercial or RM-1200. He added he thought the real issue
]sere is the traffic and vas sure the Traffic Engineer could tell the
Commission whether or not there is a major traffic problem.
Don Haiker, 939 S. Agate, stated they have been here several times regarding
this same property; that the developer is saying an issue is the traffic and
Mr.Singer has indicated there is not a traffic problem, and the neighbors do
not think traffic i.s a problem. He stated the problem is density and they are
opposed to this density. He stated they understood Lhat the zoning on this
property had been changed to RM-2400 and that none of the neighbors heard
anything about an appeal of that action to the City Council and, in fact, the
staff report indicates there vas no appeal and asked why the zoning xas never
changed to RM-2400.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the requirement was that the applicant
meet certain conditions of approval. prior to finalization of the zoning and
the applicant did not want to utilize that zoning; however, the approval is
still there, but the zoning has not been finalized.
Mz. Haiker stated based on subject p:~perty becoming RM-2400, the Planning
Commission initiated RM-2400 zoning on the adjacent church property to the
north and asked the results of that action.
Mr. Hastings explained he has contacted the City Clerk's Office and was
informed that no appeal vas filed and that matter vent to tl:e City Council and
there vas no action and the rea9ing of the first ordinance vi21 be held very
shortly.
Mr. Haiker stated shey are opposer ~o the density and that he has talked to a
real estate appraiser who said that their property values xill be decreased
with apartments behind their homes and he felt this kind of density is
4/ 11/88
j ..
MINOTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 111 1988 88-549
uncalled for. He stated at this time they do noL have any problem with gangs, but
felt putting an underground parking facility would create a habitat for covert
activities and high density apartments could encourage that. element to come
into the neighborhood. He added that would also set a precedent for high
density apartments in that area and it will destroy their neighborhood.
Concerning privacy, he stated that is a concern and added the developers did
meet with the neighbors to discuss the plans and approached them saying
they cared about the neighborhood, but at the last meeting they said they did
not have their drawings in, and thought the plans had to be in by a certain
time and he did not undezstand why the meeting had to be cancelled.
Mr. Haiker stated a project similar to this, variance 3745, vas rejected which
alloyed 54% coverage and nor this request is for 69% which is even greater and
will have a greater impact on the area.
Mr. Haiker stated they have supplied well over 200 signatures opposing this
kind of density in the area and knex they could get more and also there are
slow growth initiatives being considered all over the state.
Mr. Haiker stated the staff reports indicates the Commission can grant these
variances as long as there are special circumstances on the property and
pointed out all the RM-1200 properties on Juno are developed with single-story
structures and that the Zoning and Building Codes are to protect the people in
the area and the Code requires a 150 foot setback betxeen multiple-family
complexes and single-family homes.
Carl Frank, owner of property at 2013 Juno Place, stated his property is just
north of subject property and that he has lived in the area since 1961 and
certainly did not agree that there is no traffic problem in that area. He
stated they have moved the driveways closer to the schools and churches and he
did not think that is a good idea; that across the street is Reye School, next
to that is St. Justine, and just vest is a church and on Sunday morning there
is a lot of traffic.
Mr. Frank stated he belongs to St. Justine Church and they are a little
concerned also and referred to the apartments on Empire where there are too
many units and too many people and thought there will be more problems if this
is approved. He stated he did not think they should be alloyed more than the
55% permitted. He added he has heard that the Trident School might be opening
again and that vas a big problem before.
Mr. Frank continued that they have two schools and too :hurches adjacent to
the property and he thought this project is a poor idea. He stated this is
the only property that will have a driveway on Ball Road for several blocks in
that area.
Mr. Frank stated many of the schools have activities at night and the people
are coming and going at all times, and there are children who do walk home and
the traffic ie really bad.
4/11/88
,,. .ti
Y '., ,t !
'~~ '_ i
MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL I1, 1988 80-550
Auro Casimiro, 947 S.Agate, 3rd house north of Ball Road on the east side of
the proposed apartments, stated he objects to this request because i*. would
bring more people to be living at the rear of his house and that he has been
there for 10 years and theze have been no problems and he was afraid with more
people, they will encounter more problems. He stated he is also afraid the
price of their houses xill go down.
Pam Tran, 955 S. Agate, west side of the proposed project, stated she
currently shares the back yard fence with the property oxner and most of their
concerns have been presented by the neighbors, but they feel the zoning
permitted by the City right now is more than enough and that txo-stories
should not be permitted any closer than 150 feet because that would be denying
them their privacy and peace. She stated she is concerned about their health
with the trash enclosure being proposed right next to their property and would
request to have the trash storage area relocated away from their property.
Ms. Tran stated of lot of the people walk to church every day and are afraid
with the traffic and higher density that they would not be safe.
Olga Ward, 932 S. Agate, stated they have lived there for 17 years and planned
to stay there and bought the property because it is close to schools and the
church. She stated there are a lot of children in this area and also a lot of
elderly people who walk to church and now the neighbors have children who
walk to school at the St. Justin church and are concerned that they could not
walk safely with all the additional people moving into the area.
Al Marshall responded to Chairman Messe that the meeting with the neighborhood
took place on March 18th. He stated regarding Hr. Haiker's concern about
setting a precedent, that RM-1200 zoning already exists on Hall Road and is
the predominant zoning. Regarding the coverage percentage, he explained the
increase is actually providing greater recreational area and greater use of
the structure, and they could meet the site coverage requirement, but it would
provide a leas attractive project and this is a more expensive solution and
the percentage of increase is not for density. He stated the staff report
shoes 6800 aq. ft. of zecreational/leisure area, but it is actually almost
12,000 sq. ft. He stated it is not unusual to have a two-story project on
Hall Road.
Concerning people walking the neighborhood, he stated that is very desirable
and he did not know whether or not the apartments would affect that and if it
would frighten people to have a project like this in the area. He stated they
alxays try to address the concerns of projects like this attracting
undesirable people and breeding gangs. He explained the price range of these
rentals, the management and quality of people goes into maintaining the
quality of the project.
Mr. Hanna stated the type of people living in these units is a result of the
type of management and assured the neighbors that they will screen the tenants
through their management company and they do a credit check and also the
number of people living in each unit is limited and he did not think there
should be any concern and explained a L•enant would have to earn approximately
;3,000 per month in order to qualify to rent one of these units.
4/11/88
A. icyy
~\ y'
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 11, 1988 88-551
Commissioner McHurney asked if there will be a security gate to the
underground parking and explained he is thinking of an overhead gate which
comes down, rather than opening to the side. He stated he thought a security
gate would alleviate a lot of the neighbor's concerns. Mr. Hanna responded they
are not Proposing a security gate because the driveway is not long enough.
He stated they can study that possibility and work with staff to provide it.
Chairman Messe stated the trash storage area vas also a concern of the
neighbors. Al Marshall stated the trash can be moved away from the
single-family area, but it must remain close to Hail Road due to requirements
of the Sanitation Division.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated there vas a question about the bachelor
units, and they are actually counted as one-bedroom units since they are on
two different levels and the parking needs to be increased one space per unit,
as well a~ the minimum size of the units would need to be 700 sq. ft. rather
than 550 sq. ft. He explained a bachelor unit is defined as a room with a
bath, with or without cooking facilities, so it is a one-room unit.
Chairman Messe stated the plans show a bedroom upstairs in these units
separated from the living quarters, and those units would qualify as
one-bedroom unite rather than bachelor units.
Mr. Hanna stated they can correct that and can provide a different type of
unit. Chairman Messe stated they would have to increase the parking in order
to meet the requirements for one-bedroom units. Ns. Hanna responded they will
keep the bachelor unite and make it ail on one level and explained the bedroom
is not actually a room, tut is just stairs going up, with no door.
Creg Hastings explained the bedroom in a loft counts as a separate bedroom.
Commissioner Herbst asked if they had considered RM-2400 development. Mr.
Hanna responded it would not work and that originally the dEVeloper had
requested 34 units and it vas approved, and this is a 28-unit project. He
stated the cost of this property vas considerably higher than they i,ormally
consider.
Commissioner Herbst stated there is a problem with density in this City and
the Planning Commission has to start some place changing it; and that the area
vas rezoned io permit less density and the Commission has held several
hearings and these neighbors have been to many meetings and the City Council
denied a similar project. He stated the church property vas also rezoned and
he does nut appreciate a project such as this being proposed after ail the
hearings which were held. He added he thought this property is very suitable
for RM-2400.
Commissioner Herbst stated he felt it is necessary that the General Plan for
the whole city be reviewed regarding zoning with the designations xhich were
put on the General Plan many years ago. He stated these neighbors have some
very good reasons to want to keep their area the way it is and converting
single-family homes to apartments has to stop. He stated with RM-2400 zoning,
apartments xould still be alloyed, but there would }lave to be less unite.
Mr. Hanna stated this would be downzoning just one parcel ai:d Commissioner
Herbst noted the church property was also rezoned because it could be
redeveloped someday.
9/11/88
i
88-552
IT" PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11, 1988
Chairman Messe Stated this property abuts a single-family neighborhood and
that isn't true of the yellow squares shown on the exhirit and he thought that
is what was considered by the City Council whey. they denied the first project.
He responded to Mr. Hanna that the Planning Commission did approve the first
request for a 34-unit project, but it xas later denied by the City Council
because it was not the right thing for that neighborhood.
Mx. Hanna stated they have mitigated all the neighbor's concerns about their
privacy and the only concern is the traffic on Ball Road and vas sure that
Ball Road can tolerate the traffic from this project. He added there are no
single-family homes facing Ball Road.
Commissioner Bouas stated eliminating the "affordable" units should be
considered a plus for the neighbors and she thought that vas one of their
concerns and pointed out 14 units could be developed in the P.M-2400 zone, and
with a density bonus for affordable units, they could build 17 units. Mr.
Hanna responded a project such as that would never be built.
Commissioner Carusillo stated on January 18 of this year, the Planning
Commission denied a similar request. Commissioner Bouas noted that project
had txo stories next to the single-family homes.
Commissioner Carusillo continued that Variance 3745 proposed coverage at 54~
and this project proposes 69% coverage and it vas the Commission's point of
vier at that time that this area might be better served with RM•-2400.
Mr. Hanna stated the Planning Commission approved a project with a higher
density Uefore. He added the issue here is the way they designed the plan and
the way they mitigated the problems to the neighborhood and the single-family
homes. He stated he develops a quality project and they mitigate the problems
and are concerned about the neighborhood.
Commissioner Carusillo stated the opinion of the Commission nandtthatohe still
was that the area might be better served with lesser density
feels the same way.
Chairman Messe stated based on certain City Council concerns, when the next
project came before the Planning Commission, it was denied.
Ret~ponding to Commissicner Feldhaus, Mr. Haiker stated 935 S. Agate is next
previoushneighbors toldbhim that theyhwereslongmtime residentsgofoAnaheim,the
Commissioner Feldhaus stated there were concerns by some of the people on
Agate that they would not be able to sell their property and Mr. Haiker stated
these nev owners were pre-approved for the loan becaus? the City of Anaheim is
subsidizing their payment.
Commissioner Feldhaus ~:tated there is a tvo-story structure at 911 S. Agate,
with a zoom addition over the garage and Mr. Haiker stated that was done prior
to him moving there and he has lived there since 1980. Commissioner Feldhaus
stated on Empire there is a two-story structure which is visible and wanted to
point out there are some two-story structures in that area. He•stated
4/11/88
~r' ~%
88-553
MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1988
originally that was a concern of the neighbors. He added there is a buffer
zone with the parking lot of the church. He stated the zoning is RM-1200, but
the structures are all four-plexes, eight-plea and one tz•ipiex, but they are
lover density than this proposal.
Concerning the traffic, Commissioner Feidhaus stated he thought that is
negligible; hoxever, traffic on Ball Road is very heavy and the concerns
should be the children and people xalking to the church, etc.
Commissioner Mc Burney stated he has reviewed the plans and renderings and
found that the developer has been very sensitive to the neighbors by keeping
the single story and two story structures from any visual intrusion into the
single-family residential area. He stated he is concerned that in trying to
get RM-2400 on this property, the quality of the project would not be as good
as this because of the price. He agreed that he did not like to see this
density on the property, but appreciated the quality project proposed.
Commissioner Carusillo stated with the rezoning, the price of the property
xould be adjusted. Commissioner Herbst stated it is possible the owner is
asking too much for the property, but this is a land use issue and that is
what the Planziing Commission is supposed to be concerned about.
Commissioner Feldhaus stated single-family homes will not be built on that
property and asked :hat else it could be used for, Commissioner Mc Burney
stated along Ba11 Road. the probability is for commercial uses.
Chairman Meese asked hex the ircreaffie in site coverage increases the
recreation area. Mz. Hanna stated ~$he foot.print of the building and the
subterranean garage are txo different things and stated in the center of the
area, they could design it to be open and according to the Code, they would
meet the 55%, but thEn tt xould not be usable, dnd he did not think the
subterranean garage a~ part of the coverage and anything open on top of the
deck should be considered open.
Chairman Meese stated they visited a site today where the Commission
considered that area as recreational area and he thought the Commission is
sorry they alloyed it.
Mr. Marshall explained that area will be a recreational area which would
otherwise be left open Lo the parking belox, anG the definition of the Code
deals xith the coverage of the site for structure, and a carport would be
considered as structure, but this would be part of a post tension structure
that would allox for benches, planting, trees, Jacuzzi, hot tub, etc. He
pointed out where they planned to place Jacuzzi, and some trees and plants,
with some valkxay and benches and the patios looked out onto that area.
Commissioner Bouas pointed out the patios are enclosed, and referred to a
project seen today xhere the area xas :onsidered patios, but they opened up to
the decking and they were not fenced.
Responding to Commissioner Hoydstun, Mr. Marshall stated the deck would be
covered with a xaterproofing material that comes in a different color
combination and the plants would be in boxes. He stated they have done
planters that are block xall and stucco, but that becomes prohibitive in a
project of this size.
9/11/88
MINO'fES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, APRIL 11, 1988 88-554
Commissioner Feldhaus asked the height f the closest units to the
single-family homet> on Agate. Mr. Marbhmii responded the height of the first
unit to the top of the save is 8 feet, anC to the top c,: ti:,F~ roof, it is .'.2
feet and to the top of the r.eak, xould be approximatei,f i0 feet, and raxpiaiaed
the 8-foot portiar. is 20 feet from the property line and t?~c• cems•es of the
roof is approximately 52 feet, and the rear portion xherE '.r'ho t,oof goes back
down is '?4 feet to the ear;e and the a-we is 12 feet frnr ie ;;•roperty sine.
C:ialrmar. Messe z•aked the iiatance i_CiIIi the patio edge to ~:~~ single-family
residences. Mr. ;darshali rer,}onded the one-story structure W?rich a
slab-on-grade is approxima+.aly 12 feet from tl,~• 6-feet high b'_c~ck wall that
adjoins the single-family lot.,
Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Eis. Tran stated their fence is higr~z
than 6 fee!: and is wood.
Commissioner McSurney asked if the recreational area could have some
artificial grass with a meandering walkxay to give it some character, adding
he thought that would be a lot more acceptable to the C.:mmissio~, judging from
what they sax today.
Mr. Marshall stated they could put real grass on the deck.
Mr. Hanna asked for a two-week continuance in order to redesign the bachelor
units. He stated they like to solve all their problems before the Manning
Commission rather than going ti, the City Council.
Chairman Messe stated he is still :lave a problem with the density which causes
the sits coverage to be greater, etc. and it is against what xis approved
bE~fore, and the ;;-operty has been reclassified to RM-2400 for a purpose.
Comm:issioner Feldhaus stated the number of people o,~posir, tn~ project has
dwindled drasticailj_
Chairman Messe stated this is about the 81:h or '9th time these neighbors have
cope before the ?lanning ~'c s.:~ission or Ci cy Comicii ratentlg.
Mr. Hanna responded to Commissioner Herbst that he could not develop a protect
meeting the RM-2400 requirements.
ACTION: Commissioner Her.•bst oYfered a motion, seconded by Commie;:~ion2r Souas
and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planntng Commission has revieve~ the
proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-93,000 (Residential/
Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Fami2.yi Zone s,o
construct• a 2 and 3-story, 28-unit "affordable" project ?;ith waivers of
minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum seructural height and
maximum site coverage on a rectangularly-shaped rarcel of ?and consisting of
approximately 0.76 acre, having a frontage of approximately 2.17 feet on the
north aide of Ball Road, approximately 7R~J feet zest of the centerline of
Nutwood Street and further described as 211 and 2017 west :Ball Road; and does
hereby approve the Negative Declaratiion On the basis that it has considered
the proposed Negative Declaration together xitti any comments receiwed during
4/Jt/88
. .~
1988 88-555
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY Fi•ANNING COt•L"SISSION, APR'iL 11,
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial
Study and any comments recsived that there is .^~o substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on thz E^.vironmPri~.
Commissioner Flerbst offered ResolutiziF. i+r. i^- 88-102 and moved F~~r its passage
and adoption ':i`lat the Anaheim City Pian.ning Cocmission does here:+; ?~+ny
Reclassification No. 87-BB-4 ,.
On roll call the foregoing resolution w.s passed b~ the folloxing vote'
AYES: COh:•:~1iSS'_`,+iEnt7: Boydstun, Carusilio, P.erbst, Mess
Mc;Burney
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Boras, FeldhauF;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-103 and moved for its passage
and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby 3eny
'Variance No. 3771 on the basis that there are tZO special circ:ias`.~nces
applicable '.:o the property such as size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, •%hich da not apply to other ideiatically zo^ed propertiPS in the
vicinity; ar;h that strict applicati~ rf the '.zoning Codc does not deprive the
property of p,'ivi.leges enjoyc~a .by other ;;: op~rties in identical zonir3
classification in the vicinity; ,nd furt;lier an the basis that Reclassification
No. 87-99-44 ;coposed in conjunction with this variance was denied by the
Planning Commission, thereby prohibiting said variance.
On roll call the foregoing resolution xas passed by the folloxing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYASTUN, C,~RDSILLO, HERBST, MC li!rRNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOGS. FEJ.DHAUS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Malcolm Slaughter, Aenuty ^.iry Attorney, presented the written rigYt to appeal
the Plann'-rg Commiss.ion's :iecision xithin 22 days to the C:.ty Council.
9/11/88
...~. _.._.._.._ .__......____....,.._..-....~•vr...x~«~a,•e.:az~w~:!~FV:iD:,rs:s a f
~,. .+9:
~~F :
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMwtISSION, APRIL 11, 1988 88-556
12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERtQIT N0. 2957. Nunc pro tune Resolution to correct
conditions of approval in Resolution Np. PC87-243 granted in
connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2957 on property located
at 510 S. Euclid.
A TI N: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-104 and
moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant a nunc pro tune resolution to correct
Resolution No. PC87-243 granted in connection with Conditional Use
Perr,~_c No. 2957.
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
HERBST, MESSE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
B. VARIANCE N0. X527: Request from Gerald R. Bushore for approval of a
one-year extension (retroactive to January 6, 1987) on property
located at 381 South Henning Way.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, -econded by
Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant a one-year time extension (retroactive
to January 6, 1987) for Variance No. 3527 to expire on January 6,
1989.
C. CONDIT~TTAL,y~SC PERMIT N0. 515 - Request from Magdy Hanna for
terminatio:, of Conditional Use Permit No. 515 on property located at
3040 West Savzmnah street.
The staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 22, 1988,
indicated Variance No. 3727 granted by the City Council on January
26, 1988, contain3d 3 r..oadition requiring the owner of subject
property to submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit .No. 515 and said letter has been submitted.
ACTYQN: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. FC 88-105 and
moved for its pa.:,sage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 515.
4/11/88
::~,r
Z+,~NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PT.ANNING COMMI~,SION. APRIL 11. 1988 88-557
On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS
HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
:ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
D. VARIAN,~E NO-,____-____,_3773 - (TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 12665) - Request for
review and approval of spe~:.ific plans for 11 single-family residences
as required by Condition No. 9 of Tentative Tract No. 12665.
There was several persons present inr_erested in th._s request.
Commissioner Carusillo explained that he was not aware of this
request for continuance earlier and apologized for them having to
wait this lung only to find out that the matter was not even going to
be heard. Fie explained, however, that the Commission is well aware
of the problem with the trees and it has been discussed and the
Commission does intend to examine the legality of the removal of the
trees.
E. TENTATIVE MA.P OF TRACT NO. 109@2 (Revision No. 2) - Request from
Linda Horning, Raufman and Broad, Inc.) for approval of Revision No.
2 to the specific development plans for Tentative Tract No. 10982,
East Hills/Bauer Ranch - Area F.
Revin Rirk,. Raufman and Broad of Southern California, presented
exhibits showing the proposed praject.
Greg HastinGs, Senior Planner., responded to Chairman Meese that staff
did review the plans and they do conform to all applicable RS-5000
(SC) Zone standards with the exception of those previously waived
under Variance No. 3563, and one of the units has a height of 27 Eeet
and the applicant indicates that an administrative adjustment request
will be made to allow this encroachment, and if approved, the
Administrative Adjustment xou]d allow a 10! (2.5 foot) deviation from
Code.
A I N: Commissioner Souas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby approve the specific plans as
submitted by the applicant on the basis that they are in substantial
conformance with the plans previously-approved under Variance No.
3563 and Tentative Tract Map No. 10982 (Revision No. I) and upon the
granting of an Administrative Adjustment for the height of the
structure.
Chairman Meese poiat~d out this action is not for a height waiver and
that will be a separate issue.
4/11/88
a
;~
88-558
MINUTES AbAFEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 11 1988
Greg Hastings explained if the Administrative Adjustment is not
approved by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant would have to
come back before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Carusillo clarified that if no one objects to the
administrative adjustment request, it will be approved. He stated he
has a problem, especially in the Scenic Corridor, with something like
this being arbitrarily approved, and rhat he thought it just defeats
a lot of what is being accomplished in ;:he area.
Kevin Rirk explained this is the last 15 lots of their development
and they are single-family residences rather than apartments and that
11~ of the model will have a roofline in excess of the 25 feet, and
the property is substantially below an adjacent roadway ana adjacent
developments and there are 50 to 100-foot slopes and the views xould
be minimally impacted by the 2-1/2 feet.
Reslonding to Commissioner Carusillo, Greg Hastings explained
apartments or multiple-family units would be allowed at 35 feet.
F. VARIANCE NO 3624 - Request for retroactive extension of time to
comply with conditions of approval.
The staff report to the Planning Commission indicated Variance No.
3624 for waiver of maximum building height to construct a 21-unit
apartment complex was approved by the Planning Commission on December
8, 1986, subject to conditions, on property located on the north side
of Jackson Avenue, approximately b60 feet east of the centerline of
Park Vista Street.
ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year time eztension,
retroactive to December 8, 1987, for Variance No. 3624, to expire on
December 8, 1988.
G. N^v.,.rrr nr ayyi.irATiO_N FROM~HE COtTNTY OF ORANGE OFFI~'F OF THE TAX
rnrrcrTnR-TREASURER - For information only - no action required).
The staff report to the Planning Commission explained that the Orange
County Office of the Tax Collector-Treasurer, per Section 2821 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code, has submitted to the Planning Commission
the attached notice. The notice explains that they have received an
application requesting a separate tax bill for property located
approximately 265 feet east of the southwest corner of Miraloma
wyenue and Blue Gum Street. 2oainq staff has notified the
Enyineering Division of this notification in order to insure
compliance with any applicable subdivision regulations.
No action was taken by the Planning Commission. q/11/88
_...- -..~._,..... ~.............~ .~.,.~..,n.uww.N: ~:~~t:.:..:.•a:!::Y..r~.Yff:T`: ~.:.rir~'i1i:V':ts:6
j ;.
e.
.•
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 11 1988 88-559
H. ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY - Request to determine
conformance with the General Plan.
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) has requested
the City to determine conformance with the General Plan for the
acquisition of a small triangular-shaped parcel along the westerly
side of the Santa Ana River, north of Ratella avenue, which is needed
for flood control purposes (see attached maps). The Orange County
Flood Control District proposes to acquire this parcel.
According to the EMA, the westerly 70 feet of this parcel is
encumbered by a 70-foot wide easement that is owned by the District,
which leaves a remnant parcel that is too small for development. The
parcel's acquisition will provide continuity ui ownership in the
District right-of-way, provide a safer right hand turn onto the
maintenance road, and provide additional staging area during the
reconstruction of the Ratella Avenue Bridge over the Santa Ana River.
ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-106 and
moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planing
Commission does hereby find that the proposed acquisition of Droperty
along the westerly side of the Santa Ana River, north of Ratella
Avenue for flood control purposes is in conformance with the Anaheim
General Plan.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST
MC BURNEY AND MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
I. DRAFT ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CODE ^^xrrvxrxr rnxvFx7FHCE MARKET
pEFINITION CONVENIENCE MARKET PARKING REQUIREMENTS SENIOR CITIZEN
PARKING REOUIREMENTS, AND ~FOUIRED ELEVATOR AS IT RELATES TO CRITERIA
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENT PROJECTS.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, explained several suggestions made by
the Planning Commission have been incorporated into these ordinances
and read corrections into the record of changes just proposed by the
City Attorney's Office.
Chairman Messe stated the ordinance doesn't say anything about the
greparation of food. Mr. Fick responded for purposes of this
section, food prepared oa the premises is any food that is cooked,
assembled, altered, etc. on the premises.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated most convenieL~e markets
historically have come in for a parking waiver and this is going to
complicate the matter and could severely curtail the requests for
parking waivers.
4/11/88
~~x :r }
3 z`~'
MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL i,:~, 1988 88-560
Commissioner McBurney stated he thought this will solve the problem
and because of the magnitude of the parking waivers required, the
developers will probably drop the request for food service. He
stated if the fast food restaurants added gasoline pumps in front of
their restaurants, they could reduce their parking requirements.
ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the
draft ordinances to amend the Code concerning convenience market
definition, convenience market parking requirements, senior citizen
parking requirements, end required elevator as it relates to criteria
for senior citizens' apartment projects.
J. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE. Ordinance No. 4785 included for
review and discussion.
Commissioner Carusillo indicated he had requested this review and
that he was not aware of the procedure and that it has caused a lot
of people to be upset and thought perhaps the arbitrary approval
should be reviewed.
Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, stated the ordinance limits
the waivers to a maximum of 10~ over code.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, also explained that notices
are mailed to property owners within 300 feet and if there is any
opposition, the matter is set for a public hearing.
No action was taken.
j~DJOURNMENT•
The meeting was adjourned to 9:00 a.m., April 25, 1988, in order for the
Commissioners to go on a fie13 trip to Sycamore Canyon.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Resp t submitte~~
Edith L. Aarris, Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Commission
4/11/88