Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/05/23;__ ` -- MINTITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission vas called to order at 10:00 a.m., May 23, 1988, by the Chairman in the Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED; 1:35 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Messe Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, HcBurney COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Feldhaus ALSO PRESENT: Jive Fick Planning Director Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator Joseph W. Fletcher Deputy City Attorney Arthur L. Dav Deputy City Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Debbie Vagts Housing Operations Coordi;~ator Mary McCloskey Senior Planner Greg Hastings Senior Planner Linda Rios Assistant Planner Edith Harris Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA POSTING - A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda vas posted at 10:10 a.m. May 20, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - May 13, 1988. PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the pGbiic will be alloyed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner McBurney offered a moll~n, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that the minutes of tY:e meeting of Harch 28, 1988, be approved as submitted. 88-694 5/23/88 !' MINUTES, ANAHEFM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-695 ITEM N0. 1 - CBOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 229, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-43, AND VARIANCE N0. 3772. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DONALD T. TARAI AND DOROTHY M. TAKAI, 3174 W. Rome Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 Mac Arthur Boulevard, X680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 3.07 acres, located at 150 South Dale Avenue and includes a portion of the Carbon Creek Flood Control Channel. GPA request - Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from the current General Commercial designation to Medium Density Residential or Lox-Medium Density Residential land use. Reclassification - RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 Waivers of maximum structural height and maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 64-unit apartment complex. Continued from the meeting of April 25, 1988. There were eight persans 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. Chairman Hesse pointed out the petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of June 20, 1988. Commis~ion'.r Herbst stated it bothers him to continue these matters to a date crrcain and then the neighbors come to the meeting and the develo~.r asks for another continuance and he felt the developer should be more =aalistic when requesting a continuance. Al Marshall, agent, explained they did try to contact as many of the neighbors as possible. Faye Molina, 223 Renoak Street, stated she has a petition to submit from many of the neighbors who could not attend the meeting and they are requesting a night meeting if this item is continued. Chairman Masse pointed out the Commission can make sure this item is last on the agenda on June 20 so that it xould probably be heard after 5:00 p.m. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated staff has not received all the items which would be heard on that date. Commissianer Carusillo stated the agenda would probably be heavy enough that this item could be scheduled a{: or near 6:00 p.m., so the neighbors who work could get to the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuzney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst voting no) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 20, 1986, at the request of the petitioner and that this be the List agenda item on that date. 5/23/88 l 88-696 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ma 23, 1988 1 ITEM N0. 2. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 240, ~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-46 AND VARIANCE N0. 3787. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RUTH MARIE MOUNT (SIGLER), 929 North Citron Avenue; DENNIS MONTGOMERY, 931 North Citron; BENJAMIN BEDOLLA, MARTHA BEDOLLA AND JESUS JIMINEZ, 937 North Citron; AND RICHARD M. BREWBARER AND NANCY JO BREA'BAKER, 943 North Citron Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: THE AMERICAN COMPANIES, ATTN: BRENT NERGUIZIAN, 18300 Von Rarman, Suite 610, Irvine, CA 92715. Property is approximately 1.2 acres, located at 929, 931, 937 and 943 North Citron Street. GPA request: Amendment to the Land Use Element proposing redesignation from the current low-medium density residential designation to medium density residential. Reclassification: RS-10,000 to RM-1200. Waivers of minimum building site area per duelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, maximum number of bachelor units to construct a 1 to 3-story, 47-unit "affordable" apartment complex. Continued from the meeting of May 9, 1988. There were 37 persons indicating their presence in oppositioublicshearing, it request; and although the staff report vas not read at the p is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Brent Nergvizian, agent, explained this is a 47-unit project with 25 two-bedroom, 2-bath units and 22 bachelor units. He stated ereunits thanng to provide a luxury apartment project which will have much bigg usual. He indicated he does have 17 letters to support this request and just received four additional Setters at the meeting today. He stated a line of sight drawing vas prepared to shoe the project and they are requesting a waiver for minimum building site area per duelling unit and are requesting reclassification of the property to RM-1200 and in that designation they would be alloyed to develop 43 units, and his request is for an additional four units. He stated the City policy is to call subterranean parking a story, and that this project is actually two stories of living area over the garage. Concerning the bachelor units, he stated he wanted to offer larger townhouse style units. Mr.Nerguizian stated they did have a meeting with 35 people from the neighborhood and received various responses of concern, and they have limited the building height to 29 feet, and that they could not provide a one-story project which the people in the neighborhood would like to see. Don Burton, 940 Winter Street, stated they did submit a petition. Chairman Messe responded that all the Commissioners did receive a copy of the petition with 218 signatures. Mr. Burton continued there were 133 homes involved and trey did make a map to shoe the location of those people who signed the petition, and pointed out that the church is on the opposite side, and they do have signatures from all homeonwers around the property. 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-697 CCmmissioner Boydstun pointed out the Commission received a letter from the church. Mr.Burton continued they are opposed to the multi-story apartments being placed in their neighborhood. He stated General Plan Amendment No. 169 permitted single-story units on the vest side of Citron and they do not wish to have anything higher than that, and they do not rant the high density that xould come from a 3-story apartment project. He stated there xere also other minor objections and other people wishing to speak. Harriet Gorzall, 956 N. Winter, stated she helped collect the signatures and dic: not have one refusal, and the main objections are the high density and traffic. She stated the traffic is heavy already in that area. Hs. Gorrall asked if the Commision received a letter from Mr. d. Mrs. Lester who could not attend the meeting and Chairman Messe responded the Commission does have a copy of that letter. Ms.Gorrall stated they are concerned that this project would bring more traffic. She explained she did not receive a card about this hearing. She pointed out she overheard a child telling a friend about the dangerous corner at Winter and Autumn and thought it interesting that a small child would realize the traffic is so bad that they would tell their friends to be careful. She referred to several accidents which have ocurzed in the area. Fred Bybee, 845 North Citron, stated he would like to address the crime and traffic in the area. He stated Citron Street is a drag strip now and his children are not alloyed to play ir. their own front yard because it is too dangerous. He stated he has seen time and time again where traffic did not stop to enter North Street at Wilhelmina and he would be concerned about an increase in traffic with possibly 96 to 100 more vehiices and people would be looking for different routes to take to work because of the congestion, and they xould be cutting through their tract creating a bad traffic situation for the residents. Mr. Bybee pointed out Anaheim High School is located in that area and they have a lot of foot traffic, and a lot ~f gang members from the Chevy Chase area come into their area. He stated he ie a police officer and is very concerned about the crime in the area which has been very little over the last 10 years; and that multiple family units do attract criminals and the underground parking area is a prime place for a burglar to work, and the potential increase for burglaries is tremendous, and that drugs would be a problem in that area. He stated if a variance 1s granted for 3 stories, it xould just be an addition to all the other variances xhich have been granted all over. He stated he is not opposed to changes and improvements, but he did not want to attract the wrong element to that area, and he felt personally, that this would ruin that neighborhood. 5/23/88 ~,_' '. MINl7TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-698 Ben Cooper, 923 North Winter, stated notices were sent to people xhose properties might be affected by this proposal and asked if the request would be ended if most of the property owners do not want it in their area. Chairman Messe explained the notices are sent to ail property owners within 300 feet of a proposed project and that the Commission does listen to both sides of the issue. Mr.Cooper stated he would like to knox xhy something liY.e this would be shoved down the throats of the people who do not want it in their neighborhood. He stated the only person who wants it is the property owner selling the property and the developer. He added he did not know why the neighbors have to go through these hearings. Commissioner Herbst stated this is a free country and everyone has the right to ask for what they rant on their property, and it means also that the neighbors who are opposed have the right to voice their opposition. He stated the developer can state the reasons he feels the request should be granted and the opposition can state why they are opposed, and it is then up to the Planning Commission to decide if the request is reasonable for the property and a good use for the area. He added everyone has the same rights, and that doesn't mean that the request will be granted. Mr.Cooper stated the traffic has been mentioned and he cannot imagine 96 to 100 more cars trying to park in that area, and he did not think the people would park in the underground parking garage. Bonnie Sybee, 845 North Citron, stated she did not plan to speak, but when she saw that all her neighbors were concerned, she wanted to voice her opinion. She said she sees no benefit whatsoever to allowing this use in their neighborhood and it can only harm the area, and she has seen it happen in other areas and it saddens her. She stated she drove around during the weekend and looked at different areas of Anaheim, and she sax apartments popping up everywhere and she believed this rill hurt and change the neighborhood. Darrell Ament, 923 Fall Place,•stated he agrees r•ith the points that have been made and wanted to make sure the Commission is aware that in 1961 the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. 169, and at that time the Planning Commission indicated those properties on the west side of Citron should be developed single story only. He stated the property owners have made investments to improve their properties based on a set of ground rules and that he has personally made a decision to invest money and remodel his property based on that same set of ground rules because he felt they would be adhered to, and he hoped the Planning Commission would continue to uphold that policy for one story units only in that area. Edna Olsen, 912 North Citron, owner of property on the east side of the street, stated she purchased her property and bu11t her house long before any developments came in, and that she has lived there since 1947, and is 75 years old and would like to be able to live in her home and not feel that she has to move. She stated she is afraid this density will bring crime to the area, and the underground parking garage xould be a place for drug exchanges, etc. She stated she does not want to see this type development put in that area, because the area is one story and they want to keep it that way. She stated she is concerned about crime and traffic, and that they already have txo churches on either side and many times the cars are parked across her drivexay 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May. 23, 1986 88-699 and she cannot get out. She stated she thought this would add a tremendous load on Citron Street, and she personalty did not like to see this happen. She stated these waivers should not be granted and 47 units is just too many for that small property. William Jolissaint, 1001 North Citron, stated this project xould be almost next door to his property, and that he and his xife are members of Anaheim Beautiful and the Cultural Arts Center and they would like to keep the city as beautiful as possible, and their property as nice as possible. He stated he cannot quite understand what is happening to the residential areas of Anaheim and he did not understand why developers want to purchase their properties. He pointed out there are four nice homes on that property which xill be demolished and a 3-story apartment complex developed on 1.2 acres. He stated he thought that is just too many units for that size property, and they do not want to have such an apartment complex on the zest side of Citron. He stated there are 2 or 3 projects now on Citron, all one story which are beautifully landscaped and they look nice, but this would be a 3-story complex with underground parking; and that there would be a tremendous increase in t.ra-ffic with a 47-unit project adding more than 96 vehicles. He stated in most cases both people would be working and have to have a vehicle and could be xorking at different hours. He stated he does want tc see progress but wants to see reasonable, sensible progress. Itii. Nerguizian stated these homes are much older than the others and are sitting on larger lots and are not being maintained and one property that is rented has a lot of junk cars stored on it. He stated according to the City Traffic Engineer, Citron Street is adequate to handle the traffic from this project, and that people exceeding the speed limit, Greeting a drag strip and not stopping is something they cannot control and that possibly stop signs should be installed, which is something they would be willing to do. He added, however, that is a police enforcement problem. Concerning crime, he stated it has been said that underground parking is a detriment, and they had submitted plans with gates, but the City asked that the gates be removed. He stated he did not believe multiple-family units attract criminals and the rents for these units xouid be j400 to $600 per month for the bachelor unit and ;850 per month for the other units, and that people living there v?ill have to earn ;20,000 to ;30,000 a year. He stated they have tried to mitigate the effects of this project, and there is a 20-foot landscaped buffer area in the rear; and that the second story of living area is BO feet from the property line. He stated they would be willing to put in an 8-foot high xall, and added there would be no windows looking into those single-family residential yards. He stated he would like to try to work with the City to make the project acceptable, and that they have tried to get constructive criticism from the homeowners, but they have negative attitudes and comments and want only single-story units and anything else would not be acceptable. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he does not have any questions, but would make a statement that he has been on the Planning Commission for many years and the Planning Commission has done everything possible to keep the single-story limit in that area, and to keep it lox density or low-medium density, and this request is for medium density. He stated the surrounding area is low or low-medium density in every direction, and he would consider this request for 5/23/88 MINQTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI-R~fISSION, May 23, 1988 88- RM-1200 as "spot zoning". He stated there is no reason to change the General Plan as far as he is concerned. He stated this is purely a single-family residential area or lox-medium density designation on the General Plan and as one Commissioner, he has promised himself and the people he worked xith, that this xould remain single-story and he would do everything in his power to see that it stays that ray. Commissioner Bouas stated she would agree and that was the promise, and that she really felt the Planning Commission should stick to that so the neighborhood will know xhat is going on. She stated the developer vouid have to redesign his project to a single-story project and asked if he wanted to request a cotinuance and try to work out something with the neighbors. Mr. Nerguizian stated he would be willing to meet xith the homeowners in the area, but that he knoxs they want single-story. He stated it should be defined as height and not stories and that he could redesign it and retain the subterzranean parking structure completely subterranean. He stated the main concern of the homeowners vas the height and xhat they see from the street and they were not as concerned with what xas underground. Commissioner Bouas stated that vas the Planning Commission's concern and that he should come up xith something more compatible that would not infringe on the residential area. She stated if the parking is to be underground, the matter would have to be readvertised as a two-story project. She stated the project should also provide security gates. Paul Singer stated the parking structure has to be designed to accommodate security gates, and the way it is currently designed, there is no way to have security gates, except at the property line. Mr. Nerguizian stated he would like to be able to redesign the plans with the understanding that the parking vouid be 80% to 90% below grade, with single-story units on Citron, with possibly a second level of living azea further axay, so the units xould be single story on Citron, xith the roof sloping up and it xould be set back to mitigate the neighbors' concerns and the people driving by xould see it as a single-story unit. Chairman Mease stated that would address some of the concerns of the neighbors and the Commission, and added the Commission is also concerned about the density. Commissioner Herbst stated the density should be RM-2400. Commissioner Boydstun explained she vas on the other side of the fence when that General Plan AsQndment vas discussed in the past, and she did talk with the neighbors, and when it xas rezoned to Rm-2400, that is what the neighbors adamently wanted .and that is what all the people still want. She stated she got the message loud and clear from the Planning Commission and City Council that this is what they ranted in that area and to try and change it nor, would be wrong. 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 _ 88-701 Commissioner Herbst stated the Planning Commission is considering reviexing the entire General Plan and in some areas where the designation permits RM-1200 and RM-2900, the Planning Commission will request an in-depth study to consider dovnzoning those properties because the streets and infrastructures cannot handle tl~e additional density. He stated the .d~evelo,per should bring in plans consistent with what is going on in that area. Mz. Nerguizian stated that area has same properties zoned for RM•-1200 on the General .Plan. Commissioner Herbst stated subject property is zoned RS-10,000, not RM-1200. Commissioner Carusillo stated he would like to see the Planning Commission honor the General Plan Amendrent res5riction adopted in i?81. Hs added he has a problem with 2 story and felt that is just overbuilding that area, and that he is not in favor of subterranean parking in that location. Chairman Messe pointed out the developer has the general feelings of the Commission and the neighbors, and asked if he would like to request a continuance. Hr. Nerguizian stated he would like to request a continuance in order to meet with the homeowners and, hopefully, get more constructive criticism and hoped they might consider alternatives to one story. He responded he xouid like a two-week continuance and Chairman Messe stated that would requite plans to be submitted to staff by Friday of this week, and that he xould like to see a four-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Souas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of June 20, 1989, at the request of the petitioner in order to submit revised plans. Chairman Messe pointed out this matter would not be readvertised. Darrell Anent stated the developer indicated he notified the neighbors and that Use received no such notice, and he is an owner within 300 feet. He suggested the City should check to see that those people who should be notified are notified. Mr. Nerguizian stated he got the list of neighbors from the title company and if there is anyone else who xould like to be notified, they should leave their names so he can add them to the list. 5/23/86 ~..'' MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI?7G COMMISSION May 23 1988 88-702 ITEM N0. 3. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-52 AND VARIANCE N0. 3782. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MOHAMMAD KIAFAR AND PARVIN KIAFAR, 300 N.Tustin Avenue, X201, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Property is approximately .33 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Anna Drive. Request: Reclassification from CL to RH-1200 and waivers of minimum building site area per duelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage, and permitted encroachment (deleted) to construct a 3-story, 14-unit, "affordable" apartment complex under authority of Government Code Section 65915. Continued from the meetings of April 25 and May 9, 1988. There vas 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. Mohammad Kiafar, agent, explained the entrance to the project has been changed to Anna Drive and that they have redesigned the project and deleted the waiver of permitted encroachment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairman Messe, Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated the developer has signed the "affordable" agreement. Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the letter from the bus company vas a mistake and the condition requesting bus turnouts along with concrete pads and bus benches is not being imposed. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the composition of the first floor and whether or not it is crushed stone and also what type landscaping is proposed. He clarified he is concerned about the first floor area identifed as the "access corridor". He stated the Commission is trying to discourage that crushed stone look and is trying to get something more acceptable and possibly something green because they have seen some projects which were very sterile looking and vast to discourage that and added he did not knOV if it could be done, but that he would like to see some actual grass or turf, adding he realized leakage could be a prcbiem. Mr. Riafar stated they could do something that would not cause a drainage problem and referred to planting some type of plants in pots and added they would do something that would be acceptable to the City. Commissioner McBurney suggested something such as artificial turf which could be used and not cause a drainge problem. Chairman Messe asked if the architect might have a land3cape plan and Mr. Kiafar responded he thr~;ght he did, but did not think he vas present. He stated they would make the project look as nice as possible and he knee they could not have anything that would cause a drainage problem and that he did bring that to the architect's attention. 5/23/88 ~ ~ '; MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY`PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1968 88-703 Commissioner Carusillo stated none of the Commissioners were impressed by some of the projects they have recently approved when the main foundation is nothing but concrete with no plants or grass and he thought that is dam,~ging to the health of the people who live there, at least from a psychological standpoint and asked the location and type of recreational facilities proposed. Mz. Kiafar stated the recreational area is on the second floor and there is probably some type of exercise equipment or area or a ballroom where people can get together. Commissioner Carusillo stated he gets the impression that Mr. Kiafar is not really sure of what the final project will be and hoped he would take the Commission's suggestions and keep ir: mind the peace and tranquility of the people who will be living there. He added some developers might take the approach of putting up the project, renting it out and going on to the next project and he hoped this developer will make the project aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Herbst added that some of the projects the Commission recently reviewed were pretty disgraceful and that a condition should be included that a landscape plan be approved by the Commission prior to issuance of building permits in order to be sure the project is done right and added the plan could be brought back under the Reports and Recommendations portion of the agenda. Mr. Kiafar stated ite would be willing to comply and that he plans to do this project in the proper manner. Commissioner Bouas added the Commission will be requiring a landscape plan on all developments in the future. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from Lhe CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone, and to construct a 3-story, 14-unit, "affordable" apartment complex under authority of State Government Code Section 65915 with waivers of minimum building site area per dwelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and permitted encroachments {deleted) on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.33 acre located a^, the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Anna Drive; 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 88-130 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-52, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roil mall the foregoing resolution vas passed by the °ollowing ~'~te: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Her~st, Messe, McBurney NOES: C01dN.ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus 5/23/88 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Hay 23, 1988 88-709 Commissioner Herbst stated the "affordable" agreement shoulc be for 20 years and De~bie Vagts responded the agreement is normally for 10 years unless approved otherwise. Commissioner Herbst stated he xould only vote for approval if the agreement is for 20 years and Chairman Messe stated it can be assumed that this Commission will always require a 20-year agreement. Mr. Kiafar stated he would like to request that agreement be only for 10 years and Commissioner Hetbst stated ±he "affordable" should be forever and this xill be a 20-year agreement and added the developer is getting extra units by designating some as "affordable" and Chairman Hesse noted the Planning Commission has always required the agreement for 20 years. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-131 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3782, in part, on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do 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 in identical zoning classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including a condition that a landscape plan be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits and that the "affordable" agreement be for a 20-year term. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas parsed by the folloxing vote: AYES: COlQIISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MESSE MC GURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. Responding to Commissioner Herbst, Greq llastings, Senior Planner, explained these plans were submitted prior to staff's instructions from the Commission to have developers's bring in a landscape plan for Commission's review and that landscape plans are being required in the future; however, in the meantime, staff can include whatever information has been submitted by the petitioner in the staff report. 5/23/88 ~ 1 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 23, 1988 88-705 ITEM N0. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EEPORT N0. 2@7 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3010. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SANTA FE LAND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY. 3230 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 100, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: PHILIPS BRANDY REDDICK, 16012 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92719. Property is approximately 48.4 acres bounded by Hunter Street to the north, Kellogg Drive to the east, La Palma Avenue to the south and Manessero Street to the west. To permit industrially-related office uses in conjunction with a proposed industrial complex. Continued from meeting of May 9, 1968. It was noted the petitioner has requested that subject petition be continued to the meeting of June 20, 1988. ACTION: Commissioner Houas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of t}ie aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 20, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 5. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-BB-50 AND VARIANCE N0. 37 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOSEPH N. MAKABI AND JALEH J. MAKABI, ET AL, 3333, 3335, and 3335-1/2 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92803. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Bouelvard, lk680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 0.73 acre located on the north side of Ball Road, approximately 250 feet east of the centerline of Westvale Drive and further described as 3333, 3335 and 3335-1/2 W. Ball Road. Request for reclassification from RS-A-93,000 to RM-1200, and to construct a 2 and 3-story, 29-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural height. The following action vas taken at the beginning of the meeting. There were 12 persons 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. Al Marshall, agent, explained they did meet with the neighbors, and then realized that what they were proposing vas not right for this site. He stated he did give the neighbors a letter asking for this continuance with the intention of submitting revised plans. Chairman Messe asked if the scope of the project would be change. Mr. Marshall responded they are going to be presenting a condominium project rather than apartments and they will work with the neighbors. He added they will withdraw this request if the Commission desires; however, they prefer to continue it. Commissioner McBurney stated he would have no problem granting a continuance since the Planning Commission has not seen the plans f.or the project they intend to propose. Commissioner Herbst stated he would like to hear from the neighbors. 5/23/88 i, ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-706 George Hrott, 3306 West Glen Holly, stated they did have several meetings with the developer and they have fought to have this turned down, and the neighbors do not think this size project should be placed on this small property. Ce stated they all live in single-family homes and do not xant to see condominiums or apartments on that property. He stated there are three single-family homes on that property at this time, and added they would like to have the continuance in order to meet with the developer, and if the project he proposes is not satisfactory, they will continue t,o fight. Commissioner McBurney stated he would offer a continuance to June 20 and Commissioner Bouas asked if that is enough time. Commissioner Herbst stated staff xould like to have enough time to readvertise since this will be a different project. He stated there is a large property next door to this propert}• (the nursery) which at some time will be redeveloped and whatever is allow on this property will continue onto that nursery property next door. He stated Deerwood Street is planned to go through et sometime in the future. He stated he would like to see a General Plan Study to consider leaving the rear portion of that property as RS-7200 and redesignating the front 120 feet for commercial uses and that he thought that was the original intent of the General Plan. He stated he recognizes that RS-7200 Does to Ball Road, but that frontage would definitely be more suitable for commercial and the back portion is surrounded on three sides by RS-7200. Chairman Messe stated the Commission can instruct staff to study that area. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldheus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of July 6, 1988, at Lhe petitioner's request in order to submit revised plans. ADDITIONAL ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct staff to review the General Plan with consideration of possibly redesignating the front portion of this property along Hail Road approximately to the alley for commercial uses and continuing Deerwood Street on through both properties, and that the rear portion remain as RS-7200. Commissioner McBurney asked how the Planning Commission could dictate to the property owner what he could do with that remaining 31 feet of property and added he did not see how they could take a hatchet and cut up a piece of property in this fashion. Commissioner Herbst stated the owner plans to propose high density condominiums or apartments, and the Planning Commission car, evaluate that as not being feasible for that area. Commissioner Bouas stated if the owner of the nursery property next door wants to sell, then the land could be assembled, but the Planning Commission can not force them to comply but certainly could look at different possibilities. Commissioner Herbst stated he is looking at the General Plan on the basis of good land planning, and he thought whatever happens on this property will happen on the property next door. 5/23/88 i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 86-706 Chairman Messe stated to those present in opposition that it is possible they would not receive a new notice of the July 6, 19P.8, hearing and that it is a Wednesday meeting. Greg Hastings responded that if the developer proposed condominiums, staff would recommend the matter be readvertised. Chairman Messe pointed out this could be the first or the last item on the agenda and it vas noted from the people present that they would rather see it as the first item on the agenda. ITEM N0. 6 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-51, AND VARIANCE N0. 3797. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SPIROS GIANNOTSCS AND CATHERNINE GIANNOTSOS, 1469 Alabama Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15216. AGENT: MASSORD MONSHIZADEH, 1524 Victoria Way, Placentia, CA 92670. Property is approximately 0.28 acre located on the vest side of East Street, approximately 110 feet south of the centerline of North Street and further described as 75.` V.East Street. Request for reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a 2-story, 5-unit apartment building with xaivers of aaximum structural height, minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard setback. Chairman Messe pointed out that several neighbors had requested that this item be trailed until the end of today's agenda. There were several people present. Trent Wilson, 1001 East North Street, explained he vas one of the neighbors who had asked for this matter to be trailed to the end of the agenda so that more people could be present. Chairman Messe responded he would trail this item until last and added that it might not be that much later because the agenda did not appear to be very heavy. Item No. 6 vas heard at the end of the meeting. There were six persons indicating their presenc•a in apposition 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. Dr. Ronald Crowley, agent, stated they have built five projects on La Palma and that they are proposing to start development on East Street similar to what they have done on La Palma; that this is a 5-unit complex and each unit is approximately 1,200 sa. ft. and has three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths and this x111 be a high level apartment complex. He stated they will be widening East Street by 13 feet which x111 significantly increase its cagacity. Hassord Monshizadeh, agent, referred to the 150-foot setbacY. requirement to single-family zoning and stated there are many projects in Anaheim which were allowed that waiver and stated they are about 70 to 80 feet from the closest single-family property. Regarding the waiver of minimum front yard setback, he explained they have a 15-f.oot setback to the street and they have dedicated an additional 15 feet to the City. He stated he could move the building about 2 feet to the south and have less landscaping. 5/23/88 l- MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-707 Responding to Chairman Messe, Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the adjacent property to the west has neL been rezoned and is still zoned RS-7200. Mr. Monshizadeh presented photographs taken of the house next door to the vest and stated the property is actually a "junk yard". Lloyd Lassly, 738 N. Rose, stated his property backs up to the property in question and the agent wade a comment that the adjacent property has a pile of junk and he wanted to note that for some reason thzt has been alloyed to remain Lhat xay and asked what assurance they have that the City will not alloy the same thing to happen vitt~ the new project and ghat would prevent three or four families from moving into one unit. He stated the developer has said they did a wonderful job along La Palma and suggested the Commission talk to the people who own the properties right behind those apartments and they would find out they cannot sell their homes because the apartments are looking right into their yards and that reduces the value of their property. He added that developer promised to put in trees and there had to be numerous requests just to get them to fulfill their promises and they do not want the same thing to happen here. He stated the developer proposes to buy up all the properties along East Street and put in two-story apartment complexes and that would ruin his property. He explained he has a pool and does not want two-story apartments overlooY.ing his pool. He stated 2:e thought the Planning Commission should think about the rest of the people who live there and not just those people who bought homes on £ast Street and want to get rid of them. Frank Guevara, 735 N. Bush Street, stated those pecple xho live on Bush were not mentioned, but this project would have an effect on Lhem. He added he thought there will be more than one family rer.tinq one of these units and that is the problem he has with this project. He explained he has seen that happen on all the streets around him and the tenants from the apartments are parking on the streets. He added if there was a guarantee that only one family would live ir. each unit, they might be more acceptable, but there is no way to make that guarantee. He referred to the area of East Street and Sycamore and stated it looks a South American marketplace and he does not like it. Tim Foster, 710 N. Bush, asked what the front of the complex will look like on East Street. He stated his second concern is the control of the number of people and explained he wanted to know how the number of people living in one unit will be controlled. He stated he has written letters but has not gotten an answer to that question. Commissioner Carusiilo stated the enforcement of the number of people per unit would be done by the Code Enforcement Office. He explained the problem is actually being able to get into the unit without a search warrant and stated he understood Mr. Foster's concern. Mr. Foster stated it is obvious on the day the trash is picked up that there are a lot of people living in a unit. Chairman Messe stated the City has three new Code Enforcement Officers, but that it is a very difficult problem to control. 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 _ 88-708 Joseph Pletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is a City Council policy requiring a covenant to be recorded against the property limiting the occupancy to txo persons per bedroom; however, occupancy limitations in housing is a difficult area to enforce and the question is really what constitutes a reasonable limit. He stated xith the condition requiring recordation of the covenant, the Planning Commission or City Council could revoke the permit for violation of the condition. Commissioner Houas stated occupancy is easier to control xith the new complexes but there is nothing to regulate the older units. She stated basically it is up to management of the units and the property owner. Mr. Foster stated the problem is with the owners who are willing to rent to three or four families and the only xay anything can be done is i£ the neighbors complain. Chairman Messe stated that ordinance vas only enacted within the last 8 to 12 months. Commissioner Bouas stated nox at least there is a way to do something about it if the neighbors complain. Trent Wilson, 1001 E. North Street, stated there are five 3-bedroom units proposed, and potentially there could be 30 adults and 30 children living there before anything could be done. Commissioner Feldhaus stated 30 is maximum number that could live there legally and referred to the four units which were built adjacent to this where there is no room to park because people are living in the garages. He stated he hoped the new Code Enforcement Officers will be able to make an improvement in the situation. He stated the welfare of the citizens of Anaheim is at issue xhen property owners sell to developers who want to increase the density drastically and the streets cannot handle the traffic, etc. He stated the bad traffic at the five xay intersection of La Palma, East and North has been discussed on many occasions, and just last week there vas a near fatality accident at that .:owner. Commissioner Feldhaus stated some of the properties are already established such as the four-plex, the 7-11 and service station back up to the most critical part of that intersection and unless other properties are recycled such as this for apartments, the City would not be able to get the dedication for the improvements needed. He stated the traffic is not going to get better and this development would be a good step forward and with the improvements to be made by this developer, it would improve the traffic situation. Ray Linehan, 721 N. East Street, stated he understands this developer will dedicate enough area for an additional traffic lane and the widening of East Street will begin. Chairman Hesse asked if the widening of East Street xouid be done right away or if the Clty xouid xait until they have all the dedication. Art Dav, Deputy City Engineer, stated the Engineering Department on an individual parcel basis such as this will accept the fee for the cost of the widening and when it is practical to do the widening, the City voul.d prepare the contract for the widening. 5/23/88 i MINDTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1986, 88-709 Mr. Linehan stated that area does need some improvements, and about a year ago a larger development vas denied by the Commission. He stated he thought what is being proposed is not outrageous xith the land costs and the type of units proposed. He stated he understoon that a tenant xould have to qualify with an earning of about $2,200 per month in order to rent one of these units and he thought that xould alleviate a lot of the problems. He referred to a traffic study done one year ago which indicated traffic would not be a problem. Ronald Dawes, 725 N. Bush Street, stated he is a land owner in Los Angeles and they have placed a moratorium on construction there because there is no sewer facilities available and stated he wondered if that is what will eventually happen in Anaheim. He stated he has owned his property there for about 25 years and they just recently paved the street in front and he vas assessed an additional $7,000 ara asked at what point this developer pays for the street widening, and noted he is probably going to pay the fee at today's prices and then the City of Anaheim will get around to actually doing the improvement in the future. Chairman Messe stated the City of Anaheim has not run out of sever capacity except in a couple of places and projects are denied when the facilities are not adequate until the problem has been mitigated. He stated if this development is approved, the developer will pay for the improvements now and the actual. improvement would not take place until the last property has been dedicated which could take up to 15 years. Mr. Dawes stated in that case all the property owners in Anaheim end up paying for the overdevelopment of other areas and adjacent property owners will pay and not the developer. Chairman Messe responded he did not think the City of Anaheim had ever assessed properties such as this and there would be no future assessment to the property owners. victor Highfield,719 N. East Street, asked how the street would be widened. Chairman Messe responded it would be dangerous to do it piecemeal. Mr. Highfield stated it was done just down the street, about the 700 block. Art Dav stated a consultant is currently making a study of East Street from Ball to the 91 Freeway and that study will encompass estimates for widening and it should be completed in 3 or 4 months. Commissioner Douas stated the Traffic Engineer has said the La Palma and East signal will be changed with a left turn cycle which wi~l help that corner. Mr. Highfield stated some signals have been to improve the quality of life for citizens on East Street, but this is just to hold the status quo. He stated it appears the impact of traffic from these projects is negligible and 97% of the traffic is from out of the area. Commissioner Herbst stated if the zoning is changed to RM-2400, developers would not be as likely to buy the properties and everything xould stay the same; and if the zoning goes to RM-1200, the concern would be the number of people residing in one unit and enforcement of that would be up the Code Enforcement Officers and management of the units, and no difference can be made unless the managers of the project care. He stated if East Street is held to single family developments, it would have to be widened to four lanes by taking the parking and that would make it not conducive for single-family residences. 5/23/88 +',. ~ _ ~ MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23 198b 88-710 Mr. High.field stated the zoning has been the same since 1968 and now suddenly it is being changed to RM-2400. Chairman Hesse stated the developer has requested a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to RM-2400, and the Commission feels if this block is going to be recycled, it would be to RM-2400 and not RM-1200. Dr. Crowley stated he thought there has been a misunderstanding about the trash being a problem on La Palma and there has never been a co:~plaint abc;ut that from his development on La Palma. He added they are still the owners of the 27-unit complex on the corner of La Palma and East Street, and there are a number of 3-bedroom units and they have just changed managers and he has been informed that one 3-bedroom unit is tented to three young girls and another unit is rented to 3 young men and their wives. He stated they do not believe in overcrowding because it does serious damage to the units and as long as they are the owners, they xill not allow extremely high density. He stated they will also screen the views to prevent tenants from looking down onto adjacent properties and the balconies would have walls high enough so that a person could not look over and down onto neighboring properties. He stated they have nn xindovs looking onto adjacent properties; and only one unit would look down onto adjacent property and the units on the other side would look onto property which they hope to be developing. Mr. Monshizadeh answered the question about the number of people living in one unit by stating there is no assurance except that they have to comply with the agreement they have to record with the City restricting the number of occupants; and they will have an on-site manager. He added they have to make a dedication to the City for widening the street by one lane and they have to post a bond to guarantee the street lighting facilities. Mr. Nonshizadeh referred to the condition requiring a 6-foot high block wall and stated there is an existing 5 to 5-1/2-foot high wall on the south and stated because they plan to develop he adjacent property in the future, they would like to delay the construction of that wall so they can combine those costs. Chairman Messe asked why they did not consider consolidating these two properties and doing the development all at once. Mr. Monshizadeh stated actually the developers are waiting for the outcome of this meeting to make an offer on the adjacent property. Commissioner Bouas asked if the Commission can put a time limit on the condition for the wall on the south and then if he cannot purchase the adjacent property, the wall would become a requirement. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated a 6-foot high wall. is required between a multiple-family development and single-family residential property and a waiver would be required to eliminate that requirement. She responded to Commissioner Bouas that a time limit could be included on that condition. 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY~PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1960 88-711 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti explained the Commission could probably give the petitioner a time limit on construction of the 6-foot high xall as long as a bond was posted to guarantee its construction. She explained the condition could be further modified so that if the adjacent property is rezoned too RM-2400, the wall would not required. Commissioner Carusillo stated whatever is approved on this property will set the trend for the rest of East Street going south. He stated he vas concerned about the privacy of the homeowners to the vest who wou13 have to be looking at a two-story wall for a long time. He pointed out the units are only 9 feet from the zest wall. Commissioner Hoydstun stated the Commission realizes the 150 feet is not practical and from the edge of this property to the edge of the next single family property is 70 feet. Chairman Messe stated he thought the property next door had been rezoned to RM-2400 and Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the City Council had denied General Plan Amendment No. 235. Responding to Chairman Messe, Hr. Monshizadeh stated they are proposing three stories on North Street and stated he could shox the neighbors what will happen if this plan is not approved. Annika Santalahti stated she remembers the discussion by City Council and they were concerned about the bad traffic situation on North Street, and did not want to approve the multiple family zoning. Commissioner Herbst stated he feels the whole clock has to be considered; and that the only way that area is going to be developed is with some land assembly because the street has to be widened and this proposal is also requesting a xaiver of the 20-foot wide landscaped buffer to 5 feet. He stated the only way he would vote for approval of this project, recognizing it would still be closer, would be xith a four-plex, not a five-plex, and added he thought with a four-plex, they could get a 35-foot setback instead of the normal 50 feet because of the hardship, which is this lot is exceptionally deep compared to others on East Street, but this would be abutting single-family residential and once precedent is set, that is what the setback would be for the rest of the street. Commissioner Herbst asked if the project could be redesigned to eliminate the variances, adding he would be willing to give some consideration because of the street widening, but not this close to the neighbors. He stated the setback has gone from 150 feet to 50 feet. Mr. Monshizadeh stated the Commission had indicated they wanted RM-2900 on this property and that is xhat he has brought in and asked whether the Commission wants to see development on that property or not. 5/23/88 ~~'l~.~tk"7h8Y4ti3~`y'i ~ _ ...... .............._...,..~.~-....,r...:..-.....,~.~.~,,......:.......m.-.vauwa ! .. _.~.. :,'";'P.S, ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-712 Chairman Messe stated the Commission wanted RM-2400 without any waivers. Mr. Monshizedah states' in order to develop that property, there will have to be xaivers. Commissioner Herbst stated the neighbors have to be considered and they have not been given any consideration in this plan. He stated this project would be creating a problem for the neighbors Mr. Monshizedah stated the people here complaining are 130 feet away from subject property. Commissioner Herbst stated that has nothing to do with it and there are Codes that have to be abided by and these people would not be here if the Code was being followed. Commissioner Carusillo stated this is a lot less than the 150 foot requirement and agreed approval of this plan is out of the ;uestion. Mt. Monshizedah stated four units would not make sense and that is a very difficult parcel to develop because with the street dedications taken away, there is not much left. He clarified to Commissioner Carusillo that the property to th•_ south could be developed within the 50 foot setback requirement and that the owner to the zest is requesting a zone change. Chairman Messe stated he thought some consideration should be given ion this property and the Commission has indicated a willingness to consider four units, but feel five 3-bedroom units are just too many and that the ;project could be redesigned to conform to the RM-2400 standards. He asked if the petitioner would like to have a vote on this plan. Mr. Monshizadeh responded he would like a vote. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas, and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-2400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone in order to construct a 2-story, 5-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum front yard setback and minimum sideyard setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.28 acre, having a frontage of approximately "~ feet on the vest side of East Street, approximately 110 feet south of the centerline of North Street and further described as 755 N.East 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 have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC 88-132 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclassification No. 87-88-51 on the basis that it is surrounded by single-family residential zoning. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CAROSILLO, HERBST, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY`pLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 198b 88-713 Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-133 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3797 on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity, and further on the basis that Reclassification No. 87-88-51 requested in conjunction with subject variance vas denied by the Planning Commission. On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed Ly the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTIIN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, ~°$SE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SOUAS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FELDHAUS Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council Commissioner Bouas stated he had voted no because she thought this would be a start to clean up that area which is only getting xorse and worse. 7 - CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-53 AND N0. 3796. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: HERBERT F. BERGER AND BETTY JEAN BERGER, 2240 W. LINCOLN AVE., ANAHEIM, CA 92801. Property is approximately 0.34 acre located at the southeast corner of Lodge Avenue and West Street, and further described as 1188 N. West Street. Reclassification from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story, 14-unit apartment complex with waivers of required coverage of parking spaces, minimum building site area per duelling unit, maximum structural height, maximum site coverage and minimum recreational-leisure area. There were five people indicating their presence in opposition to subject request, and although the staff report to the Planning Commission eras not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained this is a 14-unit complex, with 13 two-bedroom, two-bath units, and one 1-bedroom, 1 bath unit, with subterranean parking and txo stories above the garage. He stated he vas not aware of the five waivers since his architect had represented him at the meeting with the City representatives. He stated he can revise the plans and reduce Lhe number of units to 12 and delete the four parking spaces in question, making better circulation in the garage. He stated also there will not be any affordable units which should please the neighbors. He stated he will provide a more detailed landscape plan also. 5/23/88 MINOTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23,1988 88-714 Susan Kocsis stated reducing the complex to 12 units instead of 14 is an improvement and she is glad there is no affordable because that area is not suitable for affordable units, and with the waivers requested, the project would do nothing but harm to the area and make existing problems worse. She presented a letter from Diane Simons, property manager of property at 1552 West Street, expressing opposition because that area already has ovecrowding and substandard living conditions; and that a three-story building would be out of character in that area. Ms. Kocsis referred to the condominium project existing in that area and added they are quiet and peaceful and she would hate to see that change with apartments coming in and bringing density problems. David Rudolph, 1152 N. West Street, stated the units face Lodge Street and the plans show txo driveways, and the Traffic Engineer has recommended only 12 units be permitted because of circulation and that is all he thought should be permitted. He added guest parking should be considered also and the guests should have easy access to the parking so they will not park on the streets. He stated the single-family property directly to the east is neglected and he hoped something could be done to clean up that property. He stated he would like L•o work xith the developer to make sure a quality project in tune with the neighborhood will be constructed. Ron Yates, 134 S. Illinois, stated three years ago the City approved a similar project across the street from where he lived on Ohio Street and there has been a considerable amount of police activities and drug activities at that location. He stated he has now moved to a single family home and is concerned about that same thing happening here. He stated there are jefinite problems with increased density. Pearl Nazarian, 1152 N. West, H-4, stated she has submitted a letter to the Plar.^ing Commission; that she faces West Street and sees the people from the apartments coming into their common area and the children play in their drivexay because they have no place to play in their own apartment co¢olex area. She stated she sees cars speeding down the sL•reet; and the cars parking in the "red" zones and in front of the fire hydrant and they block her drivexay and ahe has even stopped calling the Police Department because ahe knows they have other things to do. She stated when she has guests coming, she parks her car on the street during the day so she can have a place for them to park later. She stated an additional 12 units would just add to these problems. Ms. Nazarian stated there is another new project under construction about one block away xhich will also add to L•he problems when they are rented. She stated the complex she lives in was originally an apa;-tment complex and xas converted to condominiums and they were assured when they purchased the units that they were to remain for senior citizens, but at least 40% are now rented and there is nothing they can do about it and the renters do not obey any of the rules. She added she thought this project would add to their existing problems. She stated renters do not care about the property and it seems some developers with a lot of money are coming in and buying all the single-family homes and putting in big apartment complexes. 5/23/88 (~ } MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23,1988 88-715 Cleve Rossetti, 1151 ?7.West Street. F-1, stated he lives in the central part of the condominium complex next to the pool and was concerned that people outside their complex will come in and use the pool uninvited and also the laundry facilities and asked if this proposed complex would have their own laundry facilities. He stated parking is already a problem. He stated he was also concerned that they Could have to have additional insurance because of the pool or be required to hire a lifeguard in the summer. He stated according to the staff report, there could be four adults in each unit and just about everybody has a car, so that means a possibility of 50 additional vehicles in the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo referred to the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission and stated the philosphy seemed to be regarding the density with overbuilding and overcrowding and the height of the structures and the psychological affects on the tenant's health and welfare; and that the 2-1/2 foot vide landscaped area and lack of recreational area were also concerns amd it seemed the Commission and Council both agreed those things should be carefully considered. Chairman Messe suggested Mr. Vazquez look closely at the recreation area with 200 square feet required and only 1 ~oposed. Mr. Vazquez stated he thought that is an exceilent point. He stated the Commission had voiced concern abcit his development next door to his office at 202 S. Olive, and he wanted to explain that that vas his first large development and funds were limited and his partner refused to put in the landscaping. Fie stated he would be happy to join in any meetings and share his costs for 23 projects. Mr. Vazquez stated this will be a beautiful project. ACTION: Commissioner McHurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Houas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of June 20, 1988, at the request of the petitioner. 5/23/88 +.. , ~--k ~ aH-716 M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 19H8 ITEM N0. 8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3012. PIIBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ROTANDA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 350, Nexport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 0.95 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and West Street, and further described as 1101-1111 W. Lincoln Avenue. Request: A 10-unit, 5,999 sq. ft. commercial retail center. There was na one indicating their 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 minutes. The petitioner was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Greg Hastings, Senfor Planner, responded to the Planning Commission that the Sanitation Division has agreed to the trash location as shown on the plans submitted by the petitioner. ACTION: Commissioner Bovas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revier•ed tl:e proposal to permit a 10-unit, 5,999 square foot commercial retail center on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistt.ng of approximately 0.45 acre located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Weat Street, and further described as 1101-1111 W. Lincoln Avenue; and does hereby approve tt:e 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 vial have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Bovas offered Resolution No. PC 88-134 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3012, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bovas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Herbst, Messe, McBurney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Feldhaus Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeel the Planning Commission's decision xithin 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:25 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:35 p.m. 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL'ANNIP;G COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 86-717 ITEM N0. 9. ENVIRONMEATTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 281 (PREV. CERTIFEID) AND ADDENDUM (READVERTISED), TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13519, 13515, 13516, 13517, AND 13518, AND ^PECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 88-03. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. Property is approximately 108 gross acres, consisting of 8 parcels located south of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded or, the west by the Highlands at Analyeim Hills, on the south and southeast by Irvine Company property and further designated on the previously-approved The Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills Ranch) Planned Community Zone Land Use Plan (Reclassification No. 86-87-19) as a Residential, Single-Family RS-HS-10,000 (SC) and Open Space OS (SC) development area (Development Area 101). Request for tY,e removal of 83 specimen trees and the following tract maps: A. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13266, 14-lot, plus 1 open space lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. B. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13512, 37-lot single-family residential detached subdivision. C. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13513, 31-lot plus three open space lots, single-family residential detached subdivision. D. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13514, 28-lot plus one open sf:ace lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. E. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13515, 28-lot plus two open :;pace lots, single-family residential detached subdivision. F. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13516, 30-lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. G. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13517, 28-lot, single-family residential detached subdivision. H. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13518, 14-lot, single-family detached subdivision. Continued from the meetings of April 11, April 25 and May 9, 1988. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report to the Planning Commission was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Diana Hoard, agent, thanked City of Anaheim staff, particularly Joel Fick, Mary McCloskey, Linda Rios and Eric Harrison. She explained these tracts represent 210 lots of 10,000-square foot subdivisions and is the second of their tract areas south of Serrano; adjacent to the Highlands; and that this tract has the dedication to the Weir Canyon Regional Park of 13.48 acres, with some additional easements for recreation and scenic views; and that the average lot size is 11,515 sq. ft., with the minimum being 8,000 sq. ft. Regarding the tree removal permit, Ms. Hoard explained they worked hard and long with the Department of Fish and Game to come up with a management program which will encompass the entire property and recreate an Oak woodland; and that they will be replanting trees on a 7:1 ratio. 5/23/88 ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANTING COMMISSION May 23,1988 88-718 Concerning the conditions, Ms. Hoard stated Condition Nos. 105 and 112 are duplications and also 106 and 110. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated it appears staff has done an excellent job in analyzing the project and this is quite a comprehensive plan. Chairman Messe pointed out the staff report should be corrected to show the request is for the removal of 63 specimen trees, not 84. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that pursuant to Sections 15153 and 15154 of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Report No. 281, including the Addendum, is adequate to serve as environmental docuomentation for tl~e proposed tentative tracts, based upon the following: (a) EIR No. 281, along with the addendum, is adequate under CEQA guidelines as the addendum only addresses minor technical changes or additions. (b) EIR No. 281, along with the addendum, adequately describes the environmental setting of these proposed tract maps and the specimen tree removal. (c) EIR No. 281, along with the addendum, adequately describes the significant environmental impacts that these tracts may create in combination xith existing, approved and probably future development in the area. (d) EIR No. 281, along xith the addendum, adequately describes alternatives and mitigation measures to the significant effects that may be created by the cumulative impact of the proposed tentative tracts/specimen tree removal, with the existing, approved and probable future development in the area. (e) The proposed project is within the projections of the development described in EIR No. 281. (f) The proposed tracts and specimen tree removal do not create any new significant environnmental impacts and do not require any new mitigation measures. (g) The mitigation measures identified in EIR No. 281 have been incorporated into the proposed projects. (h) The Statement of Overriding Considerations previously adopted ir. conjunction with EIR No. 281 is still applicable. And after considering Environmental Impact Report No. 281 and the Addendum, and after reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented to supplement EIR No. 281 and the Addendum, the Planning Commission finds: 5/23/88 l } MINUTES, ANAH-cIM CITY PLANNING COhL~iTSSION, May 23, 1988 88-719 (1) EIR No. 281 and the Addendum are in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and State and City Guidelines; (2) Although the project will incrementally contribute to significant cumulative unavoidable adverse impacts which were identified in EIr No. 281, the City Council previously acknowledged these impacts and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when they Certified EIR No. 281 on June 30, 1987: (3) Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the previously certifed EIR No. 281 with the Addendum to said EIR is adequate to serve as environmental documentation for Tentative Tract Map Nos. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518, and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 87-03. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commission Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-03 on ti:e 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 tl~e topography of the building site renders removal reasonably necessary and that ary Specimen Trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel of an equal number of trees from tl:e specifie6 list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivisions toeether with their designs and improvements are consistent with the Anaheim General Plan; and further pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.24.061.010 does hereby determine that the terrain for Development Area 101 is such that the enforcement of the minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet is impractical and that the average area of all cots within the division of land in Development Area 101 is not less than 10,000 square feet (11,515 square foot average for subject eight (8) tracts proposed) and that no lots are less than 8,000 square feet; therefore, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Tract No. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517 and 13518, subject to the following conditions: 5/23/88 j' ~ ~ ~} MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITE PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-720 (the first 111 conditions apply to Tract Nos. 13266, 13512, 13513, 13519, 13515, 13516, 13517, and 13518, and additional conditions pertaining to each individual tract follow:) 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 read~• 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 (x2). 3. That prior to introduction of ordinances rezoning each portion of subject property as shown on Exhibit No. 3 in the document titled Planned Community Zone for the Oak Hills Ranch DeveJnD~e:ic r.nd 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 fot 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 nap 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 - shoving the placement of all buildings and structures; the front, side and rear elevations; the roof plans; and the exterior building mattrials 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. 5/23/88 88-721 MINUTES, ANAHEIM. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Ma 23, 1988 (e) Landscaping plans - indicating the eztent and type of proposed landscaping and including any ezisting vegetation which is to be retained. (f) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the nature and eztent of public and private streets, alleys and other public accesaways 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 is a manner which may obstruct the view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work materials. (h) Siqniaq 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 Eas*_ern 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, sad residential land uses, etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility. (N3) 4. That all development including grading and landscape plans shall comply with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone" as outlined is Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (N4) 5. That nay specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone". (N5) 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 eziatiaq :oninq within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#7) 7. That as specified is Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012 and 18.84.OG2.032, ao roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted. (MB) ~H 8. That prior to the approval of the first tentative tract or parcel map, with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, said map shall show the location of the terminal storage reservoir and prior to the approval of the final tract or parcel map, with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the property owner/developer shall cater into a rrittea agreement rith the Water Engineering Division as to the ezact placement of the terminal rater storage facility. (/12) 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88'722 g. That all rater 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. (N14) 10. That the rater supply system for The Summit development shall be designed in accordance with the Water Utility's Master Plan for Special Facilities District No. 1. (N15) 11. That the rater mains and rater storage reservoirs shall be designed as part of the City's Master Water System ultimately serving areawide development. (N16) 12. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the rater 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 rhea required by the City. (N17) 13. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, t1'iat bonding for construction of the required rater system improvements shall be furnished in conjunction rith each final map. (N18) 14. 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 15-5; (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 xith the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (N19) TRAFFIC 15. 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, is cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to ezamine 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 sad ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities, bikexays, and other transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (N21) 5/23/88 MINUTES,.ANAHEIN. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May_23, 1988_ 88-723 16. 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 far one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within the Sycamore Caayoa prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project, or the commencement of grading on The Summi~., 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 Caayoa Road connection within the Sycamore Canyon Ranch within the same time frame as net 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 ns 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 aecurity as provided is (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of The Summit shall, prior to coRSnencemeat of grading oa 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 eziatiaq terminus of Serrano Avenue at Canyon Rim Road to the ezistiag terminus of Weir Canyon Road at the southern boundary of the Hauer Ranch prior to placement of combustible materials on The Summit. To the eztent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to The Summit and either tie Highlands Project or the Sycamore Canyon Ranch for the cast of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above. Costs associated with the establishment of such districts ahall be at the ezpease of The Summit owner/developer. (/24) 5/23/88 MINIITES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-724 17. With the ezception of Parcel Map Ho. 87-363, tl^at prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property oxner/developer shall provide the City of Anaheim with proof of an arterial highway right-of-xay across the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby permitting the property oxaer/developer to eztend Weir Cnnyon Road and Serrano Avenue through the Sycamore Canyon Ranch, thereby providing access to The Summit; and, further, proof of an arterial highway right-of-xay across the Highlands property to provide for the eztension of Serrano Avenue. (#26) 18. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property, the property oxaer/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. (N28) 19. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property, the property oxaer/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) 20. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property oxner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate property oxner. (#301 21. That prior to issuance of building permits, or as otherxise 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 xith the City system. (#31) 22. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Hridge Thoroughfare Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance xith City Council Resolution No. 85-R-423. (#32) 23. That no residential front-ons along arterial highxays shall be included in The Summit development. (#33) 24. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be submitted for reviex sad approval to the Planning Department. (#37) 25. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (/38) 26. That ao public or private street grades shall ezceed 10! ezcept by prior approval of the Chief of the Fire Department and the Engineering Division. (#39) 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1968 ____88-725 27. 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 nay 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 ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (q40) 28. That nay on- or off-site roads shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable Circulation Element and Engineering standards. (N41) 29. That the property owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the public street sys*_em for public use with the recordation of each final tract map for each individual residential area. (M42) 30. With the ezception 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 ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. (p43) 31. That bonding for on-site roadways and traffic signals shall be furnished as part of is-tract improvements. (/44) 32. That the property owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the following: (a) design sad 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 oa- and off-site roadways and any subsequent environmental assessments deemed necessary; (d) maintenance of the private street system sad all public and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism approve3 by the City. (A45) 33. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-3b3, 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 sad assign those coats among the Highlands, The Summit and Sycamore Canyon Ranches; any undeveloped parcels of land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Caayoa Boad sad from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe 1-venue, sad 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: 5/23/88 I ~ 1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-726 (a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate sir-lane confiquratioa between Imperial Highxay and the Bauer Ranch improvemen*_s. (b) Restripn 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. (146) STREET MAINTENANCE 34. As required by Condition No. 138 of Resolution No. 88R-144, 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 sad shall be approved by the Director of Maiatenaace. Ia conjunction with approval of the first final tract or parcel map, with the ezceptioa of Parcel Map No. 87-363, the precise configuration of the street maintenance facility shall be approved by the Director of Maintenance. If the confiquratioa 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 ezceptioa of Parcel Map N0. 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 detern:iaed by the Director of Maiatenaace. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and 'che Maintenance Department sad shall be subject to approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (147) 35. That prior to final building sad zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of Maintenance sad in accordance with specifications on file with said department. (148) 36. With the ezceptioa 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 oa-street parking is prohibited sad the penalty for violation. (149) 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-727 REIMBURSEMENTS 37. With the ezception 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, wh;chewer 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 afire station, electrical and water facilities, and drainage facilities), which facilities and utilities are located in the Bauer Ranch but xill 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 Sauer Ranch) for The Summit's proportionate share of said facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement agreements administered by the city. (p51) FIRE 38. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 67-363, 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 Submit from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue or some other acceptable route; and, Fire Station No. 10 via a new weir Canyon/Serrano ce~naectioa or some other acceptable route. Such plans shall De to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and City Traffic Engineer. (N52) 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 buildiaq 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 ns adopted by the City of Anaheim. (M53) 40. That the water supply system for The Summit development shall be designed to provide sufficient fireflov pressure and storage in accordance with Fire Department requirements. (M54) 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 ezterior walls of the first floor of each buildiaq, in conformance with City standards. Specific information on tho design and implementation of tho required hydrant system network for The Summit may be obtained from the Fire Department. (M5S) 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-728 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 is 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. (956) 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 2oae 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further requirements include, bu't 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 npplicable in accordance with City standards for commercial sad/or residential buildings. (957) 44. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. (A58) 45. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed residences shall be landscaped with a low-fuel combustible seed miz. Such slopes shall be spriaklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of one hundred (100) feet of separation between flammable vegetation and nay structure. (959) 46. Thnt 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. (961) ERRS 47. With the ezception 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 w:s.tten agreement with the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department specifying the timing sad 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. (962) 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-729 46. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. (N63) 49. That the payment of is-lieu fees for additional park dedication obligation requirements shall be made in accordance with City requirements ;tnd the Subdivision Map Act when determined appropriate by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. (N66) 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 ezpense of the property owner/developer, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. (N67) 51. That the park dedication requirement shall be for the full 12-acre requirement (based upon current population projections,l; however, adjustments may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should Tess 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. (N69) 52. That a grading feasibility study of the park site must be submitted sad approved by the_Department of Parks, R~icreatioa 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 Reach park dedication can be provided consistent with Condition No. 68 of 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. (N70) 5/23/88 MINUTES AyAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 19od 88-7_'0 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 - rR 54. With the ezception of Parcel Map N0. 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, severs, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Highlands property or Sycamore Canyon Ranch, fn 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 ezpense of the property owner/developer. (d78) 55. with the ezception of Parcel 1Sap No. 87-363, that prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide grading, hew@rr water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Utilities Department ao that Utilities• Facilities Plans are coordinated with site development. (/79) LIBRARY 56. With the ezception 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 eater 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 Hauer 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. (p80) 5/23/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-731 p9LICE 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. (N81) $.('HOOLS 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; sad 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 end size of the elementary school site as well as specified timing of dedication, construction, grading of the site and nay 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. (N82) SANITARY SEWERS 54. With the exception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map, the property orner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary aerar systemr, rithia the tract parcel or boundaries, for revier sad approval by the City Engineer. The newer system for the project shall be funded, constructed end maintained in accordance rith the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (N83) 60. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the locat?tea, phasing, bonding sad details of the serer facilities shall be determined ay attest configurations, lot layouts, gravity floc and a subsequent serer study performed by the property owner/developer sad to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. (N84) 5/23/88 MINiJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 1988 88-732 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 desiga and construction of all local sewer lice eztensions and related facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map with the ezception of Parcel Map Ng. 87-363, as approved by the City Engineer; (c) a Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to sad 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 ezpense of the property owner/developer. (/BS) HYpROLOGY 62. With the ezception 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 erasion, 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. Zn 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 desiga, including erosion control measures shall be is 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 oa-site shall be located to preserve significant stands of oak trees to the mazimum extent feasible. The property owner/developer shall submit results of a maaping 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 ezception 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. (/67) 64. That the design sad 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) 5/23/88 MIA'GTrS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 19b~ 88-733 65. Th,nt erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases is abort-term erosion and sediment transport both oa-site and doxastream. Such measures rill be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely seeding of graded slopes sad the use of temporary control devices, e.q. sediment traps, desiltiag basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (N90) 66. That the property owner/developer of The Summit shall be financially responsible for the following items: (a) advancement of funds for sad the construction of the Master Ylan draiaage 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. (N91) 67. That bonding for the Master Plnn drainage facilities shall be provided is conjunction xith the various phases that may be approved. Bonding for in-tract improvements shall occur with tract approvals. (N92) 68. That the phasing of in-tract drainage improvements shall occur as final tract maps are approved for all development areas. (N93) 69. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the improvements for each tract. (N94) 70. With the ezceptioa of Parcel Mnp 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 ezpense 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. (N95) 71. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, is the preparatf..~~~ of the site, sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no grading xork shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all off-site drainage facilities as required by the draiaage 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 draiaage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs of x2iich shall be borne by the property oxaer/developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size sad typa sufficient to carry runoff xaters originating from higher properties through subject property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities 5/23/88 MINUTES AVAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-735 shall be the first item of construction sad 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 occurancy permit. To the eztent the property owner/developer may qualify for reimburset~.ent 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 t2;e ezpense of the property owner/developer. (p96) GRADING/SAIL/LANDSCAPING 72. With the eaceptioa 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 sad 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, sad appropriate drains sad 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 is the vicin~ry 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 Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City Eaqiaeer 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 mopes as required; (b) that grading plena shall include an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City Eaqiaeer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate planting of vegetation on all ezposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging, if necessary, sad 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 gaaeral recommendations presented is the geotechnical studies (Lownes Geologic Services, dated 1983; Leighton and Associates, dated August 1986, sad May 1985) referred to is 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 drainane, and recommendations for further study. (M98) 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 88-735 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 nay cut sad fill slope shall be developed in accordance with City Council Policy No. 211. (#99) 75. With the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, that prior to approval of the first tentative tract oz 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 ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, provicle for a maintenance mechanism for said slopes acceptable to the City Engineer. {#100) ELECTRICAL 76. With the ezception 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 sad private, at ao cost to the City is accordance with the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. (0102) 78. That the property orraer/developer shall provide and construct for the City all necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults, handholes and pull bores per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. The scheduling sad funding for the backbone ayatem 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 ezception of Parcel Map N0. 87-363, that prior to final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer- shall advance a aoa-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department. (#104) 80. That the electrical ayatem and related improvements shall be installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical facilities shall be provided in ac~ordaace with City codes. {#105) 5/23/88 MINi3TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 1988 __ 88-736 81. With the ezception 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 is metal cabinets mounted above-ground on concrete pads. (8106) 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. (8107) 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 sad 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 rank) 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 sad be in conformance with City requirements and standards. (8108) 84. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the property owner/developer in the uncemeated portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The responsibility for maintenance of acid landscaping shall be financed through a special maintenance district or nnother financial mechanism acceptable and approved by Che City of Anaheim sad 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 ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (8109) 85. with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, ttlat prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval, the property owner/developer shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for laadseapinq and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property. (/110) 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEI*S CITi PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 19~.. 88-737 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 ezecute 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, ezcept those located within Heir 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 thr. ezception 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 Aomeowaers Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The property owner/developer shall post a Dond 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 iasssraace and bond shall be submitted to sad approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, with the ezception of Parcel Map No. 87-363. (/111) NOISE 87. That prior to issuance of building germits, 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, ezcept when preservation of the viewahed is involved. (/113) 88. That construction activities shall be limitod to normal daytime hours is 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 rith 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 a:tent feasible. (8115) 5/23/88 _ ,, --'r I 88_738 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CI7i PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, loud 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) 40LID WASTE (REFUSE) 82. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be is accordance with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas sad access for trash pickup. (#118) 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) rrtr TURAL 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/develoi~er 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 sad Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to review as 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 (nee Environmental Impact Report No. 281). (#124) 96. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-363, ttsat prior to approval of the first final tact map or parcel map for The Summit project, the owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form as assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to meet the 5/23/88 f ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23, 19bo 88-739 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 as 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 costa 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. (1128) 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. (M130) 98. That the property owner/developer shall construct sad dedicate to the City of Anaheim all cable facilities necessary to implement the City's cable television network system. (8131) 99. That prior to introduction of the first ordinance rezoning any portion of subject property, the property owner/developer shall provide a Resource Management P.ogram, approved by the State Department of Fish and Game and is accordance with the Draft EIR No. 281 and Response to Comments, for review sad approval by the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Community Services Departments. (N134) 100. The obligations of the developer as set forth is Condition 27os. 12, 28, 29, 47, 62, 77, 80 and 81 of Resolution No. 68R-144 shall be secured 2~y a performance bond, leteer of credit, or other form of security in as 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. (N136) 101. Any decision or action required of the Planning Commission by any of the above coalitions shall be subject to appeal to or review Dy the City Council within twenty-two (22) days following the date of such decision or action. (M137) 102. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted is such a meaner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project bninq carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 5/23/88 ~ .~ ~.' MIA*UTES ANI,iiEIN. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 23, 19bd 86-740 103. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 104. 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 sad is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 105. 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 record.+tion thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and appro~•ed by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded is the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 106. 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. 107. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance xith all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 86-87-14 (The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Communit}• Resolution No. 88R-144. 108. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground utilities. 109. 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 '::he Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amauat and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the abo:a-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. 5/23/88 {'111~U1LJ ... .~~~ M Cii"a °""'LING COMMISSION May 23 1988 88-741 110. That construction traffic or equipment access shall be provided from another source than the ezistinq Serrano Avenue or Canyon Rim Road. . 111. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the eztent 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. ~nnrTrnxnr CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13266 112. That the vehicular access rights to Serrano Avenue shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13512. 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specificiations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~nnITIONAr. CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13513. 112. That prior to approval of the final grading plan for any area having interface with the future Weir Canyon Regional Park, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for his approval a site specific hydrology study plan demonstrating that surface runoff to the park area will not increase as a result of proposed on-site grading and other development related drainage and urban runoff effects. (N88) 113. That prior to approval of the final grading plan adjacent to the future Weir Canyon Regional Park boundary, the property owner/developer shall submit a visual impact aaalys£s to assist mitigation of visual impacts through refinements to final grading plans and sits plans. Tlae aga^ais shall ezamine potential impacts to major viewpoints off-site to be identified and prepared with the assistance of Orange County EMA staff, and shall be in accordance with the Response to Comments Section of EIR No. 281. Based on this analysis, grading plans and site plans shall be refined to the greatest degree feasible in order to reduce visual intrusion from the proposed Summit development into the proposed Weir Canyon Regional Park. The analysis and its recommendations shall be prepared in close cooperation with Orange County EMA staff who shall have a minimum of twenty one (21) days {from the date of receipt) to review and comment oa the analysis and its findings. The analysis and its recommendations shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be implemented in connection with commencement of any development within the viewshed area. Furthermore, grading will emphasize scenic vistas onto open space areas from all public rights of way, trails, and development parcels, and a minimum twenty (20) foot landscaped building setback shall be maintained from the top of all manufactured slopes adjacent to the future Weir Canyon Regional Park boundary. ($112) 5/23/88 l MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIt7G COMMISSION Mav 23 1988 88-742 114. With the exception of Parcel Map No. B7-363, that prior to the recordation of the first final tract or parcel map adjacent to the park, the property owner/developer shall irrevocably offer to dedicate, in fee, acreage as ultimately approved for that area to be aanezed to the Weir Canyon Regional Park to the County of Orange for permanent open space. (#129) 115. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and a specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~nnrmrnNtr CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13514. 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and a specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~-9DITIONAL CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13515. 112. ThE..: subject property shall be developed substantially is accordance with plans and a specifications oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit Nos. 1 and 2. pnn7TrnNAt CONDITIONS IN CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13516 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and a specifications oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Ezhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~.DDITIONAL CONDITIONS ~N CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13517. 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and a specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. ~~DITIONAL CONDITIONS IH CONNECTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT~70 13518 112. That pior to approval of the final grading plan for any area having interface with the future Weir Canyon Regional Park, the property owner/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for his approval a site specific hydrology study plan demonstrating that surface runoff to the park area will not increase as a result of proposed oa-site grading and other development related drainage and urban runoff effects. (#B8) 113. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and a specifications oa file with the City of Anahim marked Ezhibit Nos. 1 and 2. PPROVAL OF SPECIMEN TREE REMOV 1. That the removed trees shall be replaced with the planting of two (2) minimum 15-gallon trees {from the specified list is Section 18.84.038 (Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Muncipal Code) for every one specimen tree removed is accordance with The Summit Tree Removal Plan (Ezhibit No. 1). 2. That prior to final building and zoning inspections. Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Joseph W. Feltcher~ 'puty City Attorney, presented ,' written right to appeal the Planning _,mmission's decision on the Spec.~..en Tree Removal Permit within 22 days to the City Council and within 10 days on the tentative tract maps. ITEM N0. 10. (PREY. CERTIFIED), VARIANCE N0. 3798, REQUEST FOR FINAL SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 13267, 13458, 13459, 13460. AND 13461 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. Property consists of five parcels totaling approzimately 56 acres located west and north of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded oa the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, on the north by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) Waivers of permitted signage in residential zones to construct sir entry monument signs, maximum height, location and type of walls l-.o construct view and solid walls varying from 6 to 6 feet, 6 inches in height adjacent to residential lot lines and/or building pads; and maximum coverage and minimum open space requirements to construct 4, 5, or 6-bedroom single-family dwellings on thirty-three lots and request for final specific plan approval for a total of 153 single-family detached dwelling units. Diana Hoard, Baldwin Company, explained this is a request for approval of final specific plans of .development for the first tract maps and that there are three different floor plans for three and four bedroom homes with bonus rooms. She stated the variance deals with monumentation signs is the RS-5000 zone and explained this project is a part of the Planned Community Zone and the signs were shown when that zone was originally approved. She stated there is also a request for a variance for the type and location of the walls so they can locate them in a manner to preserve the views and create a sound wall on Serrano sir inches higher than permitted since their noise study indicates they need a wall for approzimately five homes in thet area. She responded to Chairman Messe's concern that the Commission had not seen the sound study, and that staff did see it, but not as a part of this request. Ms. Hoard stated the other variance relates to lot size and the waiver is necessary because the extra room (bonus room) is being counted as a bedroom. She added they have found in a project of this size, typically that room is not being converted to use as a bedroom, but the wall is being removed to make the other rooms larger or it is being used as a recreation room or office area. She explained this involves only seven lots and it would be hard to even identify which .lots they are in relationship to the slopes is the area, and explained that is where the models are expected to be located. Responding to Chairman Messe, Ms. Hoard stated in most cases the deviation is less than 5!, and that this particular product was developed in Portola Hills and it was very successful. Ms. Hoard stated the proposed conditions are acceptable. 5/23/88 ti ~'~ _. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May 23, 1988 88-743 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct six entry monument signs with waiver of permitted signage in residential zones, and to construct view and solid walls varying from six feet (6') to six feet, 6 inches (6'6") in height adjacent to residential lot lines and/or building pads with waiver of maximum height, location and type of walls; and to construct 4, 5 or 6-bedroom single-family dwellings on seventeen (17) lots with waiver of maximum coverage and minimum open space requirements on property consisting of five (5) subdivisions totaling approximately 56 acres located north and west of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, on the north by Sycamore Canyon and further designated on the previously-approved The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community Zone Land Use Plan (Reclassification No. 86-87-19 as a residential single-family RS-5000(SC) development area (Development Area 102); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the gublic review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the proyeci will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC 88-135 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3798 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in th2 same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in t_he identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and further on the basis that subject property is part of a Planned Community in which sign monumentatioa provides identification necessary to create a sense of community; and t3.-at subject property is located in a hillside area and certain visual opportunities exist which solid block walls would preclude and certain locations would have wrought iron or plexiglass walls; and also subject property is located adjacent to Serrano Avenue and a noise attenuation wall is required in certain locations, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC SURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS 5/23/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23 1988 88-744 Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 3oes hereby determine that Environmental Impact Report No. 281, previously 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 final specific plans for Tentative Tract Nos. 13267, 1345E, 13459, 13460 and 13461. Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve final Specific Plans for Tentative Tract Nos. 13267, 13458, 13459, 13460 and 13461, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a tract map to record the division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 2. That subject F•roperty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 13. 3. That the entry monument signs shall be located on private property and in such a position so as not to create a visual intrusion or vehicular traffic. Prior to construction, the enact location will be approved by the City Engineer. 4. That pursuant to Section No. 17.08.640 of Title 17 (Sui~division Code) the following landscaping features shall be required: (a) on each building site or lot of a subdivisiaa, there shall be tea trees per gross acre or two trees per lot, whichever is greater, and such trees shall be spaced at intervals of not more than forty feet. (b) Adjacent to arterial highways (Bert: Avenue) trees shall be planted within ten feet of the property line nearest the right of way line, except where existing trees are being planting. (c) New trees shall be is fifteen gallon containers and be at least six feet tall at the time of planting. (d) Where a developer retains existing trees, said trees may be counted in calculating the number of required trees set forth in (a) above. 5. That prior to issuance of building permit, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied xith. Extensions of further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 5/23!88 q ,l INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANN'NG COMMISSION Mav 23 1988 88-745 6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 4 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 7. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim ML,~;icipal 2oninq Code and any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. PLANNING-RELATED 8. 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) 9. That in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residaaces in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "S", the seller shall provide each buyer with written inform~~"a concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three ~ ,^:,"•.-ced (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (p7) 10. Thak as specified in Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.84.041.012 and 18.84.062.032, no rcof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted. (#8) il. That the property owner/developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare Fee for the Easter Transportation Corridor in Compliance with City Council Resolution Na. 34-R-423. (N32) 12. That prior to any occupancy, temporary Street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not bean installed. (~38) 13. 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. (H48) 14. That prior to issuance of each building permit, ttse property owner/developer shall submit detailed design pl.aaes 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, and al.l weather driving surface mast be provided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every building Constructed must be accessible to Fire Departir~ent 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) 5!23/88 .. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMrcSroN_ May 23. 188 88-746 15. 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. (1155) 16. That prior to any construction on any parcel on The Summit, access, as approved per Condition No. 52 of Resolution No. 88R-144, 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 is accordance with Fire Department policies and requirements for fire fighting equipment and emergency evacuation only. Said access would not be used far general traffic circulation. (q56) 17. 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 br~ishland. 3uilt-in fire protection such as sprinkler systems shall also commercial and/or residential buildings. (q57) 19. 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 requ=red to establish a minimum of one hundred (100) feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. (q59) 20. 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. (q61) 21. a. That the owner/developer compl~ate the par` 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 t2-e Sycamore Canyon Ranch owner/developer in their parksite located contiguous to the Summit property, regardless of the number of building permit issued for The Summit. c, "hit prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map, with the ex<:eption of Parcel Map No. 87-363, containing the 970th unit the owner/developer will post a bond or other appropriate security in an 5/23/88 ~- i 'y. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23 1988 88-747 amount and from 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 a and/or b as indicated above. (#77) 22. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical facilities shall be provided is accordance with City codes. (#105) 23. 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) 24. 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 uystem shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and the application of fertilizers and pesticides dies not exceed appropriate levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by and irrigation engineer. (#107) 25. 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 landscaped architect to integrate and phase Che 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 sgace areas on- and off-site. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscaped 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) 26. That if landscaped maintenance is to be financed through a Homeowner's Association, which Association has bees found to be acceptable to the City of Anaheim, the property owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a convenant 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 5/23/88 ~!~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNYNG COMMIS$J,.4N~Mdy 23 1988 88-748 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 therefor 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 stbmitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, xith he exception of Parcel Map LIo. 87-363. (#111) 27. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property a~wner/developer shall present evidence satisfactory Y.o 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) 28. 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 CONSER~~ATION 29. That prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer confer with the Southern California Gas Company an3 r_he amity of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases fo:~ the purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the vxt;ent feasible. 30. That all huilding construction shall comply with the California Energy Commission conservation requirements asd the standards outlined under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#116) 31. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for the project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for mazimizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes), and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#117) 32. 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) 33. That the property owner/developer shall implement regular ground watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City standards. (#'18) 34. 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 (City Council Resolution No. 88R-144). 5/23/88 ____ __ i.c ~~ 1088 - 88-749 *'*rS ANAHEIM CITY PL Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on the variance within 22 days to the City Council and within 10 days on the specific plan approval on the tentative tracts. ITEh, NO >> ENVIRONMENTAL IMP.AS.T-~FPOPT NO 28~ (PREVIOUSLX CERTIFIED) AND aec• ADDENDUM.. ^°+'°°''r PLAN AMENDMENT N4,=-2a1 A~.'D RECI' FICATION NO 86-87-1 _ fl~~~-^* (A*,'ENDMENT NO 1) AND A (READVERTISED) (INCLUDIN^ ^ENERAL PLAN OF DEVELC DEN ITY TRANSFER REQUEST) OWNER: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA. 92714. AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BAiDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of a~pprozima*_ely 591 acres, bounded on the south and east by the Irvine Company property and further described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community (formerly Oak Hills Ranch). To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignrtionhoflthetyestern half of residential and open space land uses within a p ro ect the previously-approved "The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community p j boundaries; and to consider Amendment No. 1 to the previously approved PC (SC) (Planned Community, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone, General Plan of Development and Public Facilities Plan for The Sutr~cnit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community to transfer development area densities and revise the location and boundaries of the RS-5000 (SC) (Residential, Single-Family) Scenic Corridor Overlay), RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay), and OS (SC) (Open Space, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zoning areas fox a portion of the western half of The Summit project (Phase I including Development Areas 103, 104, 105 and 106 as shown on the previously-approved Land Use/Parcelization Plan for The Summit) with an overall reduction in the number of dwelling units from 2157 to 2117, land use and zoning designations for two development areas within the western half of the project (Phase I) and all develogmeat areas and open space areas within the eastern half (Phase II) of The Summit (including 30 acres of commercial use, a 10-acre elementary school site, and a 12-acre par;c site) would remain unchanged and total open space acreage would remain at 169 acres. There were no one indicating their presence is opposition to subject request and clthough the staff report was not lead, it is referred Co and made a pa;~~t of the minutes. Diana Hoard, agent, presented slides of the site and explained due to refinements they have made to the project, the grading has been reduced significantly, and they will provide more detached homes instead of townhomes which had been proposed on flat pads, and the number of units has been reduced to 40 in that area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Hoard responded to Chairman Messe that the proposed conditions are acceptable. 5/23/88 .~ Linda Rios, Assistant Planner, stated this is an amendment to the General Plan and there should be a condition included limiting the number of units as stipulated to by the applicant and that should also be included in the Amendment to the Public Facilities Plan and that the reclassification involved is not only changing the zoning, but the density transfer is to accommodate the proposed number of units; and that Condition No. 143 is that the City Traffic Engineer will be reviewing improvements without the tracts as development occurs and that is on the exhibits which have been revised to reflect the proposed request. A TI ~: Commissioner Boydstua offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine after reviewing Environmental Impact Report No. 281 which was previously certified by the City Council on June 23, 1987, in conjunction. with the Planned Community approval, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project were addressed through that certification process; and subsequently, an Addendum has been prepared and incorporated therein; and the Initial Study prepared by the applicant indicates that no additional impacts would result from the approval of subject General Plan Amendment; and the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that EZR No. 281 (previously certified) and Addendum, are adequate to serve as environmental documentation for this general plan amendment. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-136 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 242 - Land Use Element. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: Feldhaus Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-137 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant amendment to Reclassification No. 86-87-19, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAGS Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 5/23/88 . _ _..._ .... .._.... .w..,......~...._v...~,........,~..~.,.,,..~~.~,: ` .t MINUTES ANAPEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION May 23 1988 88-751 ITEM NO 12 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3799 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: DZANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, Ca 92714. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately X91 acres, bounded on the west by the Highlands of Anaheim Hills, on the north by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), and on the south and east by the Irvine Company property and further described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills Planned Community (formerly Oak Hills Ranch). Request: Waiver of minimum lot width to establish, a 35-lot, RS-5000(SC) (Residential, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone subdivision with one flag lot at minimum 20-foot width to construct detached single-family structures wthin proposed Tentative Tract No. 13534 and eight RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone subdivisions totaling 258 residential lots with lots at a minimum 20 to 65-foot widths to construct attached single-family structures within proposed Tentative Tract Nos. 13268, 13492, 13493, 13494, 13495, 13535, 13546 and 13537. There were no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Diana Hoard, agent, explained the f:.aq lot situation and that it is the result of being adjacent to one of the large slopes that needed to be recompacted and re-graded, and this offers them more flezibility. She stated the variance is needed to allow the concept for '•pair.ed houses" with each lot to be individually owned. Chairman Messe asked if the Baldwin Company has done this type project in any other location. Al Baldwin, Baldwin Company, responded they have done similar projects in three other locations where the lot is individually owned. He added to his knowledge there has not been a problem with people renting them to someone else. Commissioner Boydstun stated there is a similar project is Anaheim and they are all owner occupied. ACTION: Con~miissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIO,. ~F,RRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Go~rmi,.sion has reviewed the proposal to establish one 35-lot. RS-5000(SC)~ zoned subdivision and eight RM-3000(SC) zoned subdivisions totaling 258 residential lots with waiver of minimum building site width on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 591 acres, bounded on the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, on the north by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and on the south and east by the Irvine Company property and further described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills Ranch) Planned Community; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative 5/23/88 ~~ ~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. May 23 1988 88-752 Declaration toget*er 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 code waive_*s will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC88-138 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3799, on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity; and further on the basis that flag lots have been granted in other areas of Anaheim Hills subject to interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC HURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Co:nTission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. aarn n^ 14 ENVIRONMENTai TMPA('T REPORT NO 281 {PREV CERTIFIED) AND pFVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO 88-03 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPA27Y, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA1. 92714. AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDENT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. Property is approximately 591 acres generally located southeasterly of th.e southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road and Santa Ana Canyon Rod, bounded by Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) on the north, the Irvine Company property to the east and south, and the Highlands at Anaheim Hills on the west, and further described as The Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills Ranch). An application for recommendation to the City Council for adoption of Development Agreer..ent No. 88-03 and EIR No. 281 (previously certified) for the previously approved Oak Hills Planned Community Reclassification (86-87-19) development area which consists of up to 2,157 residential units, 30 acres of commercial uses, a 10-acre elementary school site, a 12-acre park and 169 acres of open space. There were no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. 5/23/88 _.~ MINU'S'ES ANA~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Mav 23 1988 88-753 Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission and explained the Development Agreement is a 10-year agreement for The Summit project and is similar to the agreement for The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon projects which were just recently approved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the vehicular construction traffic being prohibited on Serrano Avenue. Ms. McCloskey stated that has been included as a condition of approval. Commissioner Herbst asked about the timing for the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated a study will be required first and then incremental payments would be made as building permits are sought and the Development Agreement spells out the timing and 50~ will be paid with the first certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit; and that the remainder will be required within one year and then the City would be looking to widen that street rather than receiving incremental payments over the 10-year period. Chairman Messe stated the Development Agreement not only accelerates that process, it speeds up payment for fire, policy and maintenance facilities. Joel Fick stated the Engineering Department is going ahead with studies to determine erectly waht improvements need to be made and when they need to be made and that they will provide more detailed engineering design drawings. He stated Santa Ana Canyon Road does lend itself to incremental segments for widening. Arthur L. Daw, Deputy City Engineer, stated it could possibly be up to two years before Santa Ana Canyon Road is widened; and that a draft of the study mentioned has been received by the City from the consultant and is currently being reviewed. ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, the City of Anaheim has conducted an Initial Stud} to determine whether the Development Agreement, as a project under CEQA, will potentially result in adverse effects; and that Final Environmental Impact Report No. 265, Final Environmental Impact Report No. EIR No. 281, Supplement to EIR No. 265, anti subsequent Addendum, have bees certified in accordance with Sections 15161, 15163 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and were considered prior to the approval of the project and determined adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Development Agreement and to satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA, including Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15062. 5/23/88 88-754 *^'r~ J~NAHEIM CITX PLANNING COMMISSION b,av 23 1988 Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-139 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Ci•`.;• Council introduce and adopt an ordinance to adopt Development Agreemen~ No. 88-03. On rail call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERHST, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FELDHAUS Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ,.EH un lq REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION A, VARIANCE '.O 3563 - Request from Linda Horning of Kaufman and Broad for time extension to comply with conditions of approval on property located north and west of the intersection of Bauer Road and Monte Vista. ACTION• Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconc:xd by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldh~~saabsent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby g one-year time extension for Variance No. 3563, to ezpire on May 28, 1989. g, VARraNrF NO 3660 Request from Peter Genovese of Crestmark Real Estate for extension of time (which will ezpire on May 28, 1988) in order to comply with conditions of approval. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year time extensio:s for Variance No. 3660, to expire on May 27, 1989. C. ~.,.....,.r..r •roarT No 12554 - Request from Raymond Buckley of gtyasaker b Associates Irvine, Inc. (new owner's agent) for a one-year extension of time to expire on June 9, 1989. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Feldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission noes hereby grant a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract No. 12b65 to expire on ,?une 9, 1989. 5/23/88 ~9 'y" .. 88-~ ~ E p t.7IN 0 'I IO Mav 23 1988 D. taanaOSED ORDINANCE FO° arnmc>'TION OF RI~fi~~F WAY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRITrrar INTERSECT_I.ON DESIGN The staff report to the Planning Commission indicated thaC the issv.e of how to acquire the right of way for implementation of the critical intersection design was postponed from the May 9, 1988, planning Commission meeting iu order for a new ordinance to be prepared; and the proposed ordinance (Exhibit No. 1) would require that buildings not be constructed in the future critical intersection right of way, but that no dedication of right of way and no payment for improvement to the critical intersection standard be required. It was also noted that staff is recommending that Exhibit No. 2 be adopted which would require dedication of right of wa1! for the critical intersection standard upon issuance of a building permit, variance, conditional use permit or other discretionary zoning action, but not require the property owner to pay for the improvements to critical intersection standard. Commissioner Herbst clarified that if the City wants a person's property, they will have to compensate the owner. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, explained the City would pap all costs. He explained this proposed ordinance addresses the obligation of the property owner if he wants to improve his property; and that currently the property owner would be required to dedicate and pay for all costs to improve to the critical intersection standards. He responded to Commissioner Herbst that the ordinance pertaining to the variances and conditional use permits still would remain in effect. Mr. Cletcher responded to Chairman Messe that if there xas a minor change to an existing structure, there is an existing procedure whereby the property owner would not have to improve to the critical intersection standards and that would remain in effect and that this relates to the 24 intersections covered is General Plan Amendment No. 210, and those in the stadium area. g~TION Commissioner McBuraey offered a motion, seronded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Faldhaus absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Exhibit No. 1 for the proposed Code Amendment for acquisition of right of way for implementation of critical intersection design be approved by the City Council. 5i 23/88 r:. ~.~ '~ MINCtTES. ANJL?EIM CITY PLANNING COhN.ISSiON, May Zit. 1988 88-~f~. r~Z~IiI~'. `~1u1~3'`.M+~ Following t''rrri! aot6 on Item No. 6, which was the last ma ctf:F to be discussed, thr. foilawiag action was taY,an: ACTIn,Ki Commissioner Herbst offersd a motion, seconded bg Commiss2ne.~ >3ouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner ''eld'arus absent) that the n:aetiag be adjourned. The raeetinq was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully s~ubmitt~ed, Edith L. Aarris Planning Commission Secretary g110m E 116m 5l~~!8C