Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/02/29 MI E REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION February 29, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Messe at 10:00 a.m., February 29, 2988, in the Civic Center Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Planning Commission reviewed the plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:45 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman: Messe Commissioners: Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus, MuHu:ney ABSENT: Commissioners: Herbst ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Anni~:a Santalaahti Joseph W. Fletcher Paul Singer Arthur L. Daw Mary McCloskey Janet Hotula Linda Rios Greg Hastings Leonard McGhee Debbie Vagts Edith Harris Planning Director Zoning Administrator Deputy City Attorney City Traffic Engineer Deputy City Engineer Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Housing Operations Coordinator Planning Commission Secretary AGEtiDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 8:45 a.m., February 26, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin - February 19, 1988 ~BLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained that at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak oa items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. k0768p -88-231- 2/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM SITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-232 ITEM N0. 1. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION' RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-39: AND VARIANCE N0. 3754. PUBLIC HEARING OWNERS: Albert Levinson, et al., 222 E. Manville, Compton, CA 90220; AGENT: Ecoaolite Control Products, Inc., 3360 E. La Palma, Anaheim, CA 92806. LOCATION: 3360 East La Palma Avenue. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12.5 acres, having a frontage of appraximately 458 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 1226 feet and being located approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Miller Street. RECLASSIFICATION - Portion B - RSA-43,000 to ML. Request: To establish a 2-parcel industrial subdivision with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum number of small car stalls and (c) required lot frontage. This item was continued from the meeting of February 17, 1988. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman Meese declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-15T adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that the petitioner is a client of his company and pursuant to the pro~~isions of the above Codes, declared to the Commission that he was withdra-:,i.ng from the hearing in connection with Reclassification No. 87-88-39 and Variance No. 3754, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Chairman Meese left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Houas assumed the Chair. Case Sanderson, 2699 White Road, Irvine, stated they are parceliziaq a larger parcel which requires a number of variances, including a variance for parking. He saiQ Ecoaolite has been in this facility for at least 10 years and they are giving ownership to Ecoaolite for the basic facility, including more than what is adequate for their parking needs. He stated he wanted to be very certain that Ecoaolite has adequate parking because if they didn't, his development would suffer, since there is no parking on LaPalma. He said their traffic study found that even though Ecoaolite has had about 220 employees for the last 10 years, the actual use of the parking lot was about 180 spaces. He stated there is no way he would feel comfortable providing just for their current reeds, even though for the last decade that would have been more than adequate; and that Ecoaolite plans to stay in Anaheim now that they will have ownership of the building. He explained they asked Ecoaolite to give a conservative future estimate of whatever needs they might have and their response was that if they had any additional needs, they would qo to another shift and would not require additional parking. 02/29/88 INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 __88-233 Mr. Sanderson stated Ecoonlite has laid out a parking plan for 260 easy in and out angled parking stalls; and that hip overlay showed they were able to get 325 stalls (86~ of the total required per code). He stated Econolite did not want to have to purchase more land than what they needed because if ever there was a change, they still would have the flexibility of redoing the striping. Concerning Condition No. 8, he stated they would prefer to have the striping conform to the plan contained in the traffic report, so they could have the luxury of the easy parking; and that even that plan provides about 20~ more parking than needed, if everyone who works at Econolite were to drive to work. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner McSurney asked if the Traffic Engineer had reviewed the parking study. Paul Siaqer, Traffic Engineer, replied that he had reviewed it and the study definitely indir.ated that there would be adequate parking provided for Econolite, subject to restriping. He explained Condition No. 8 has bees proposed for the purpose of reducing the size of the parking waiver; and that he believed without the restriping, the parking waiver would be far too great in the future. Mr. Singer responded to Commissioner Bouas thz~ one parking lot could be restriped is the future, however, the problem with delaying conditions beyond the time when the City has as action such a~ this, is that it is very difficult t~ make the applicant comply and ~;.hey could be perhaps parking on the neighbor's property. He stated restriping a lot is fairly costly and should Econolite expand and not restripe their lot, he had doubts it would ever be restriped should they ever need more parking, and that is why staff is recommending that condition. He added the P1anning Commission, of course, can use their own discretion, and obviously they have enough parking now. Commissioner Souas inquired if the applicant is asking not to restripe the parking lot at this time, to which Mr. Sanderson replied that they were going to restripe it, but wanted to restripe i.t with 260 diagonal spaces so that it would be easier for the employees. Mr Singer informed the Commission that this would yield fewer parking spaces, and they would lose 10 to 15i of the spaces. Commissioner Mc Hurney suggested it might be more advantageous to restripe the parking area to the maximum number of stalls now, even though it might be a minor inconvenience to the employees. Mr. Sanderson replied that he could not answer for Econolite, but did not think they want to share parkinc7 with their neighbor and they are wanting the easier. parking because at 260 spaces, they are still 20~ over what is needed. Mr. Sanderson noted in about 15 years they would very probably be putting a slurry coating on the surface and it would be easier to restripe then and it would not be necessary to sandblast the lot, so it is not as costly. Commissioner Hoydstun asked if the easement running along the freeway would be remaining. Mr. Sanderson stated the access easement to Rockwell is addressed in Item 9, and they are going to be redoing an access easement with Rockwell and he did not believe it will be in the current location, but there will be an access easement. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-234 Commissioner Bouas asked if the traffic signal would remain and Mr. Sanderson replied that it would. He stated that if at any point they wanted to stop the access from Rockwell to the east, there is a condition that the traffic light will be removed. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if that was where the unlicensed vehicles come across. Mr. Singer responded that the unlicensed vehicles cross LaPalma at the signal, enter the Econolite property, and work their way through the property to the east which is next door to their facility, so they are using the Econolite parking lot to move their off-road vehicles and that will remain the same. ~ TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) Ghat the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviexed the proposal to reclassify Portion B of subject property from the RSA-43,000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the ML(Industrial, Limited) Zone and to establish a two-parcel industrial subdivision with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum number of small car spaces, required lot frontage on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 12.5 acres having a frontage of approximately 458 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Miller Street, and further described as 3360 East La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the 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 Chat the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-58 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-39 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including Condition No. 8 to be modified requiring that the parking lot be restriped for a minimum of 260 spaces. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY NOES: NO27E ABSENT: HERBST, 2dESSE Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-59 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does :sereby grant Variance No. 3759 oa tl:e basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase is traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of t::e parking waiver under. the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, including restriping the parking lot with a minimum of 260 spaces as shown oa the exhibit submitted with the traffic study. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-235 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST, MESSE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chairman Messe returned to the Council Chambers. COMMISSIONER CARUSILLO LEFT THE MEETING. ITEM NO 2 CEOA NEGAT7VE DECLARATION: VARIANCE N0. 3744. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Savi Ranch Associates, 450 Newport Center Dr., 8304, Newport Seach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 44.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road. Request: Waiver of required lot frontage to establish a 5-lot commercial/industrial subdivision. Continued from the meetings of January 18, February 1, and February 17, 1988. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Cary Lawler, Civil Engineer, K.W. Lawler 6 Associates, Inc, 2832 Walnut Ave, Sto. A, Tustin, stated the proposal is for 5 parcels is a commercial/ industrial subdivision, and the variance is necessary for a private driveway to provide access for Parcels 1 and 2 .*_o Pullman Street. He explained the map was approved by the City Engineer, subject to the approval cf this variance; and that he has reviewed all conditions of approval and has ao problem, except with Condition No. 9 which is a requirement for bike trail easements for several off-site properties which are not owned by Savi Ranch Associates; and that they are owned by one of the partners of Savi Qanch, but not by the legal entity itself. He indicated his office has been processing those easements for over a year and that they are making some progress, but not as fast as they would like. He added given the fact that the requirement for tha easements is already part of the Development Agreement between Savi Ranch Associates and the City, which is in effect, and gives the fact that it would take more time, he would like to request that Condition No. 9 be deleted, with the understanding that it is already part of. the Development Agreement. Commissioner Messe asked what legal entity is applying for this variance and who has authority over the easements. Mr. Lawler indicated he was not positive, but thought Mr. Hardy Selzer, who is one of the original people involved is the old Santa Ana Valley Irrigation Company, which is SAVI, owns those lands individually, as a private individual. 02!29/88 MINUTES AN,*HFIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-236 THE PiJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEp: Commissioner Bo~•dstun asked how they would handle the maintenance of Lot q2. Mr. Lawler stated Lot q2 is an existing Edison Company easement and they propose to basically create lot lines on either side, following the lines of the eaisting Edison easement. Mr. Lawler indicated there is a condition which requires the filing and prior approval of CC6Rs for this development, prior to recording the map, and those CCSRs will address maintenance of Parcel No. 2. He explained that allows the developer to lease the land within that easement, for example to a nursery, which he understands Edison will approve, and having the lot lines on either side of the easement would make it very simple and easy for the developer to lease it and not further encumber any of the other parcels. Chairman Messe asked if there was a way to develop lot lines that would necessitate tree neighbors taking care of that easement rather than having it as part of the CC6Rs? Mr. Lawler stated one way would be to delete the lot line between proposed Parcels 1 and 2, eliminating Parcel 2 in that it would become part of Parcel 1, with an easement over Parcel 1. He stated he would hesitate to draw any proposed lot lines down the middle of the easement, since that would put them in the position of having to deal with the Edison Company which he assumed would mean working with them for a long period of time. He stated if Commission is uncomfortable with creaking the proposed lot out of the easement itself and would prefer to tie the eaisting easement to a parcel or parcels, then he would suggest that the lot line between Parcels 1 and 2 be deleted, changing the total number of parcels to four. Chairman Messe indicated he thought that would ease the City's concerns about the maintenance of that property and asked the City Attorney to comment. Mr. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated he agreed that covered most of the concerns. Mr. Lawlor stated they would be willing to stipulate to that and asked if it would be necessary to go back to the City Engineer by reducing the number of parcels on the map. He explained it had been his experience that staff would object to approval of the final parcel map, if the tentative map was for five parcels and had been reduced to four. Mr. Fletcher stated deleting a lot line would be a substantial change and should be approved by the City Engineer. A N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner N.c Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a five-lot commercial/industrial subdivision with waiver of required lot frontage on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 44.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARF 29, 1988 88-237 the public review process and further finding oa 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-60 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance 3744 subject to the petitioner's stipulation to delete the lot line between Lot Nos. 1 and 2 and 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 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: IIOUAS, BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, MC IIURNEY, M~SSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: CABUSILLO, HERBST Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the vrritten right of appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Lawler asked if Condition No. 9 was deleted. Mr. Fletcher stated he was not familiar with the Development Agreement but it was his understanding from staff that the developer was required some time ago to dedicate those easements, per the agreement; however, the agreement does not require that the tra::t maps impose that condition. Mr. Lawler informed the Commission that the Agreement covers development of subject property; and that the requirement for the bike trail easements covers several off-site properties which are not owned by Savi Ranch Associates. He also eaplaiaed his office has bees in the process of submitting those documents for some time, and they have been working with city staff. He stated he is concerned that they cannot get that accomplished is 2-1/2 months, and they would like to record the map. He indicated he is representing Savi Ranch only, and they are dealing directly with Mr. Setzer to be sure that these things happen. Commissioner Feldhaus stated this agreement is between the City of Anaheim and the Savi Ranch Associates and the City is asking tY.at prior to the final parcel map approval, those easements be recorded. Joe Fletcher stated the easements are required under the terms of the agreement, but this map did not require meeting that condition; and that the City is taking an opportunity to resolve it now because the developer has not complied with that condition in a timely manner. He stated the City has other remedies if the developer is in breach or default of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Bouas stated she believed the condition should be left in. 02/29/86 88-238 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ^EnR`*ARY 29 198(1 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, said staff would get a copy of the agreement so Commission can see the exact wozdinq, and suggested trailing discussion on this item. She suggested if there is a difficulty, then perhaps the agreement should be amended so it does not become an issue whenever anyone comes in with some type of zoning action on the property. DISCUSSION OF ITEM N0. 2 WAS TRAILED UNTIL FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON ITEM NO. 4. Following the action on Item No. 4, Mr. Fletcher explained he had reviewed the contract and that it has a provision, in Paragraph No. 12, requiring that those easements be dedicated within 90 days. He stated there is nothing in the contract requiring the City to put this condition on this map; however, it would not be unreasonable to impose the condition, but there will be other opportunities to catch it and the Commission can defer it. Chairman Messe asked if the condition is imposed on the same entity and Mr. Fletcher stated the agreement covers this property, and would apply to the same entity or its successors. Mr. Lawler stated the easements have been at City Fiall for over a year for review. Anrika Santalahti stated she does n.i. ;cauw the details on this item, but typically a petitioner is required to submit easement deeds to the Ciur oses, the City would check to see that they z~re acceptable for the City's p p and then record them. She added, however, it can happen, apparently, for whatever reason, that a department is unsure whether they want all of the easements that were submitted. She stated if he submitted valid easement deeds, it is really a matter of the City makin~7 up its mind, and that to some extent could be considered as partial satisfaction. She added the City would typically record deeds of this sort rather than giving them back to the developer. Commissioner Bouas stated she thought the condition should not be deleted. Commissioner Boydstun stated she felt it was unfair to hold up this project because they can't get some deeds recorded. Commissioner Mc Burney suggested it might be best for the Planning Commission Secretary to send a letter to the Right of. Way Section to see if they can expedite these documents and if there is a problem, to notify the developer and finrl out if there are other backup documents they might need. Chairman Messe noted that Commission nas already voted oa a resolution which did not delete Condition No. 9 and if Mr. Lawler has a problem, he has the right of appeal to City Council, and agreed with. Commissioner McBurney that staff should look into the situation. 02/29/68 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-239 ITEM NO.~~~EOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: VARIANCE N0. 3751• PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Victor M. Vazquez, Jr., 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801; AGENT: Hugo A. Vasquez, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801. PROPERTY LOCATION: 1310 West Center Street. Request: Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 6-unit apartment building. Continued from the meetings of February 1 and February 17, 1988. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAREN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ::; was noted the petitioner's has requested a continuance to the meeting of March 14, 1988. A TI N: Commissioner IIouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regular meeting of March 14, 1988, at the applicant's request. ITEM NO 4 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED)• RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-34 (READVERTISED): VARIANCE NO 3791 (READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Vivian Ida Paulson 6 Mildred M. Moore, 2517 Hiway 35, Valley Park Manasquan, New Jersey 08736; AGENTS: Jerome R. Drukin, 1425 E. Lincoln Ave., Suite Q, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is a rectangularly- shaped parcel consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of approximately 98 feet on the west side of Harding Street, and further described as 111 and 115 S. Harding Street. There were seven people 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. Commissioner Boydstun had previously declared a conflict of interest at the meeting on January 18, 1988, and left the meeting. Continued from the meetings of January 18 and February 17, 1988. Jerry Drukin 1425 E. Lincoln, Unit Q., stated that he had submitted plans for a 10-unit apartment project which conformed with the reclassification of the property to RM-1200, consistent with the General Plan designation for medium density. However, at the suggestion of the Planning Commission and due to the concerns of the surrounding community, he subsequently resubmitted plans for reclassification to RM-2400, and that the revised project consists of 6 units, one o: which is affordable. He stated by changing from 10 units to 6 units, the coverage was reduced from approximately 55~ to something less than 40~. He stated he met all the site development standards for the project and provided each unit with a private yard, ranging in size from 300 - 400 square feet and he believed that would provide a nice private area directly attached to each unit, and also there is as much landscaped open area as he could provide as well. 02/29/88 FEBR ARY 2 1 88-240 .•rce aut~HEIM CITY PLANNIN MMI I N He explained at the community's suggestion, the access was removed from the alley, which is to the north of this property, and access is being provided from Harding Avenue. He stated he felt an excellent tool for buffering the residences on wasdtogcon^tructran Bhfoot highlblockewall alongttheaalleytwhich on the alley, rivac is the back yard of the northerly building and thought that would add p Y to the occupants of the three units on the north. Mr. Drukin stated the other two waiver,'hichlisethe density,bonustfor he is asking for only one additional unit, affordable; and ano9herHesexelainedhhistassistanthwilltpresentasomesmapstandhe single-family zonin P review the zoning and uses of the area. Pat Fitkin, 408 S. Beach 8112, Anaheim, presented maps to the Commission and explained the immediate area on Harding is mainly older homes (50 years old); residential on the east side of Topanga and twitheotherdcommercial,uses along corner of Western and Lincoln is commercial, Lincoln; and there are fourplexes on the east side along a whole street which are mainly two-story, owner-occupied, and next to that are two large apartment complexes, both 2-story, one 117 units and the other 93 units, and to the left is a 20 to 25 year old single-family tract to Orange Street. Ms. Fitkin pointed out the owner of the property directly south of subject property also progoses to develop his property. She stated on Topanga there are three duplexes and one is 2 story, and then there is a 2-story, single-family home on the corner of Topanga and Del Monte, and there are two apartment complexes on Topanga. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Drukin stated the lot to the south of the subject property is currently vacant and may or may not be developed, and he believed at the last meeting, the owner ofoiha~t tprdevelop thatcparcelewath have some plans, although tentative at this p some type multi-family development. Mr. Drukin indicated Mr. Eversole is present to answer questions. Concerning the waivers, Mr. Drukin stated one of the waivers relates to the 2-story construction, and that his two lots on the northerieXB3dand Harding are unique because to the west are two multiple-family dup immediately south on Topaaqa there is another two-story multiple-family unit; and there are other 2-story buildings in the immediate vicinity, and to the east there are some multiple-family ointedaoutathistparticularopropertyngs f single-family/multiple-family. He p well in excess of 150 feet from the properties on Grand Avenue which are attractive single-family homes. Mr. Drukin stated he had a meeting in his office to discuss the development plans with the surrounding property owners and one of twould]haveo2estorywas the fact that oa the east side of Harding Avenue, they apartment buildings in their back yard. He stated he explained to them that because of the unique situation with these two lots, there would not be any other situations like this on Harding. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-241 He stated there are several neighbors who have no opposition to the development; however, he did not believe that group who do not oppose the project is as big as the group of people who have opposition, but it does show there are some people in the area who don't feel this will have a significant impact. Hu referred to the exhibit showing the location of the three property owners in favor and asked to have it submitted into the public record. Mr. Drukin stated Chis will be a high quality, townhouse style project with low medium density which will be an improvement to the surrounding community. OPPOSITION Thomas Davis, 121 S. Grand Ave, stated the developer did reduce the number of units from 10 to 6, but only eliminated 2 bedrooms, and went from ten 2-bedroom units to six 3-bedroom units so he felt there would Se more people living in these six units than in the 10 units because people aren't going to rent 3-bedroom apartrnents without children. He stated also concerning the 2-story dwelling on Topanga, that is a one-bedroom, one-bath addition and is part of the owner's house, and is not a rental; and that is the only 2 story in the area. He stated he has pictures of several of the multiple-family units in the neighborhood, and most of them appear to be single-family homes, and they are not a large building such as Mr. Drukin wants to build. He stated he believes the roof is approximately 25 feet high, so there will be two very tall buildings, with a very narrow opening into the center. He stated he just did not think the proposed project would blend with the rest of the neighborhood. He presented the pictures into evidence. Dorothy ~ordill, speaking for Alva Bobst, stated the main question concerns the water supply and whether it will be from the City or local pump. She added the neighbors aze very much opposed to having this project go onto their local pump system and water supply. Tom Brady, 125 S. Harding Avenue, stated his main objection is to the 2-story structure. REBUTTAL: Mr. Drukin stated these are 3-bedroom condominium-style units, with individual private yards, and that he does anticipate there will be families living them, and he did not think we would want to limit the places where young people with a family could live, and especially based on the low medium density which they are proposing. Mr. Drukin stated another issue was the structural height, and that he tried to minimize that with an architectural treatment which will provide some relief, and there are some single-story, gad some two-story, with various roof lines and the pitches and peaks have been broken up. He stated this will be an attractive building, not in excess ~f a similar type 2-story building and is a quality project; gad that the front setback is normally required to be 15 feet minimum in the RM-2400 zone and this project is set back 25 feet, providing some additional relief. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, loAB 88-242 Concerning the water supply, Mr. Drukin stated the Fire Department has required a fire flow minimum which he must achieve in order to develop these buildings, and that he did not believe he would be able to achieve that fire flow on the current private water system and will construct a water line from Lincoln Avenue, and pay the appropriate fees and tie into the city water system, which will not impact the water supply there. He pointed out several of the other duplex buildings which have been built in that area have not been required to provide city water. He stated he would stipulate to construct a 6-inch minimum water line from Lincoln Avenue and put a fire hydrant there to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors in the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Larry Eversole, 121 S. Harding, stated he owns the property at 117 S. Harding, immediately to the south, and has no immediate pls~s to develop but that might change, and that he would probably develop a duplex. He added his concern is the higher density for that neighborhood. Commissioner Bouas asked if Mr. Eversole was considering one or two stories. Mr. Eversole indicated that would all depend on what happens on this item and he might propose two bedrooms upstairs. Commissioner Bouas stated Mr. Drukin had stated his property differed from other properties and that is why the 2-story would be acceptable and asked how it differs from the other properties, except it has an alley along L•he side, and asked if that was the reason he felt it qualified for 2-story. Mr. Drukin stated that was not his position precisely; that he believed it related to the overall positioning of the two properties in relationship to that entire area. He stated there are only a couple of properties that abut commercial zoning, and his property is directly abutting to the west of multi-family development, and across the street there is multi-family mixed with single family, but the ones across the street back up to nicely developed single-family homes on Grand; and that iie has a vacant lot to the south, which will, in all likelihood, get developed with some type of multi-family development. Commissioner Bouas stated Mr. Drukin may feel there is a distinction there now, but then the nett person will say since this is two stories, theirs should be too, and that just erodes the neighborhood to where it will become all two story eventually and that is what the neighbors are afraid of. She asked Mr. Drukin if he could accept a one-story development there. Mr. Drukin stated with t2ie parking requirements that are established at 2-1/2 spaces per unit, and is looking at just how much room the parking takes up by itself, they need to utilize more of the property. Commissioner Bouas stated a lot of the property is covered with concrete and Mr. Drukin stated there is is a central driveway with landscaping all along the driveway and there are the private yards for each unit. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBP.UARY 29, 1988 88-243 Commissioner McBurney stated he thought the development is quite admirable, and the General Plan does call for 36 units per acre and this project is well below that and it will be a quality development. He stated he would vor for approval, and would have no problem with the 8-foot high wall along the alley. Commissioner Feldhaus suggested that Condition 5 regarding utilizing city water facilities, should include his agreement to install a 6-inch pipe, since he had made that stipulation. Chairman Me_.se pointed out to the neighbors who were concerned about the 2-story that the height of the building is 25 feet and there are many 1-story buildings in Anaheim which exceed that height. He asked Mr. Drukin if he had read all the other conditions and was in agreement with them, including the roll-up garage doors, etc. Mr. Drukin responded "yes." ~TION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Boydstun, Carusillo and Herbst absent) 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 and to constz~uct a 2-story, 6-•unit "affordable" apartment complex with waivers of mazimum fence height, minimum building site area, and maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre having a frontage of approximately 98 feet on the west side of Harding Avenue, approximately 160 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further descriLed as 111 and 115 S. Harding Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative reclaration upon finding that it has considered the 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 Mc Hurney offered Resolution PC 88-61 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 87-88-34, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC GURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST Commissioner Mc Hurney offered Resolution PC 88-62 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 3741 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 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including a modification to Condition No. 5 that a 6-inch water line will be installed if necessary to utilize city water facilities. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAiiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-244 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC BURNE'L NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERHST Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision w:tthin 22 days to the City Council. COMMISSIONER BOYDSTUN RETURNED TO THE MEETING. zTEM N0. 5. - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED): VARIANCE NO 3755 READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Louis L. Neuman b Alice I Neuman, 526 N. Citron, Anaheim, CA 92805; AGENT: Mohammad Shashaani, 9 Coventry, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is approximately 0.42 acre located south and west of the southwest corner of Diamond Street and West Street, and further described as 115, 117, 117-1/2 North West Street. Request: Waivers of (a) minimum building site per dwelling unit and (b) maximum building height to construct a 16-unit, 3-story, "affordable" apartment building under authority of Government Code Section 65915. Continued from the meeting of February 17, 1988. There were nine (9) persons 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. Jam Shid, architect, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, stated the project is 2-story units over a parking garage; that each unit has two bedrooms and two baths and the entrance to the building is from West Street, and has a 20-foot landscaped setback. He stated he had visited the site and observed that this area i.s rather depressed. He stated there is a 6-foot high concrete wall on the north side, with 10 feet of landscaping with trees, and on the east side, there is a landscaped berm to the wall in order to hide the cars and parking and reduce the height of the building. He stated the building is located in the RM-1200 Zoae and is actually surrounded by RM-1200, except to the south which is commercial cad is going to be developed with a shopping center. Mr. Shid stated this is two stories above parking, and the structure is about 31 or 32 feet high, and a variance is required and there are similar 2-story buildings all o:'er the area and that he has pictures and documents to that effect and thought the City generally grants this kind of variance. 9PPOSITION• June Metntyre, 917 W. Sycamore, stated she never envisioned that she would be fighting to keep their area well maintained and noted it is very hard to get people out to a Council or Planning Commission meeting unless their own house 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-245 is next door to the project, and in her neighborhood it is particularly difficult because there are a lot of elderly people living there. Ms. McIntyre stated in 'looking at the very poor quality apartments that have been allowed in that area, if apartments are allowed on this property, it will impact a lovely single-family area on West Street. She pointed out the ones that have been allowed are very poor quality and some are deteriorating already. She explained she has done extensive, expensive remodeling and noted two other people on the same side of the street have remodeled within last few years, but have moved because of situation in the area and they had difficulty selling their property. She noted the area on West and Sycamore is heavily impacted with traffic and it is virtually impossible at certain hours of the day to get out of the driveways, and there are parking problems on Sycamore and west Street from the high school, and there is traffic all night long. She stated this type development will spill accupants into the back yards of some very wealthy homes off Westmont and Dwyer. She stated they are already impacted by people walking up and down in that area now and children are climbing fences, etc. and there are drug-related problems, and she felt this will lead further towards those problems. She stated the people from the Chevy Chase area are already looking in their area for homes and they want something that is affordable and these are planned to be affordable. Ms. McIntyre referred to the alley that is going to handle traffic and felt that is going to impact the area, and allowing this project will create more problems and she sees a worsening of filth by people coming into area with their litter, and there will be more thefts, etc.. She stated the older people in the neighborhood deserve the right to a quiet neighborhood, one which they bought into many years ago and have kept well maintained. Ms. McIntyre stated in summary, she was concerned about the impact of traffic, litter, drugs, trespassers, petty theft, etc. in the neighborhood She suggested the Commission have developers get the neighbors before these hearings also to work some of the problems. She stated the smaller architects do not follow through on their projects and architectural renderings do not always tell the truth. Mary Dunlap, 1209 Pearl Street, stated the plans look nice but having that many units and parking spaces on that property is a case of overdevelopment. She stated on the corner of Lincoln and West, they have the carwash and the high school, with constant traffic coming in and out of khat alleyway, and opposite that wou_3 be these units which would generate 40 to 50 more cars, and these are family units, with the possibility of having families with teenagers and their friends coming in and parking. She stated she can see a bad parking problem, with the overflow onto Pearl Street. She stated the applicant has said that this area is depressed and that there are some people who don't take care of their properties and some of those are the new apartment owners and referred to the apartments on Diamond Street; and that developers do come in and develop apartments, and then sell them to property management companies and they don't care who they rent to. She 02/29/88 MINUTES-ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-246 stated as far as that property itself being depressed, that there are two really nice older homes oa that property which are well taken care of. She stated again she believes this is overdevelopment of this property, and she did not like it being three stories. She stated she also sees a lot of rental signs for other affordable developments in Anaheim and did not think there is a need. Robert Morris, who resides at the corner of West ~ Lincoln, stated he felt this project has an awfully high density to go into this area, and that the amount of traffic going through the 5-point intersection will create a bigger problem. He stat..d also, putting a 3-story, low income housing project close to that corner across from the Mother Colony House, which is a historic site is Anaheim, bothers him. Commissioner Mc Burney stated only two units are proposed for affordable housing. Commissioner Bouas stated this truly isn't low cost housing and that is probably some of their concern. Margaret Carter, 1224 W. Pearl, stated her concerns are the heavy traffic, students on foot, bicycles and cars, and that Lincoln 6 west are noisy and heavily traveled streets; and that West Street has a constant flow of traffic even when school is not is session. She stated she felt the structure will increase traffic, and that the proposed pool and recreation area for the project are not adequate and there is no place for the children to play. She stated the increase in density is without regard for the liveablity of the neighborhood as a whole. She stated the RM-1200 zoning specifically permits 2-story multi-family dwellings in the area, but not 3-story high-rise developments. She asked if the General Plan means anything, and added she doubts it does if we keep allowing it to be set aside whenever it stands in the way; and that this is a clear case of overdevelopment. She stated the character of a neighborhood is a fragile thing, and asked that Commission please consider carefully whether or not this project is in the best interest of the area. Hazel Warner, 1202 Pearl Street, asked several questions concerning the distance from Diamand to the alley, the depth, length, what the lot looks like, what the project is replacing, etc. Commissioner Mc Burney explained the distance from Diamond to the corner of the alley is 136 feet; and that the triplex on the corner of Diamond and West will remain, and the brown house on Diamond will be removed Eor the swimming pool area and that the structure will be 32 feet high. Ms. Warner concluded she felt this overdevelopment of the land and that the project will displace some peop.e and she did not think the project will fit in with the neighborhood. Dave Prichard, 757 N. West Street, indicated he could not understand allowing three stories in this area and if crowded conditions cause problems, this project would cause new problems. He questioned the affordable aspect and stated he did not believe the building going in there would fit in with the area. Joe White, 809 W. Broadway, Anaheim, stated if this is allowed, he wants to make it clear that it is a precedent because there is nothing like it in the 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~'i COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 1988 _88-247 area. He stated he has an interest in some property on Pearl Street which would involve the removal of 3 single-family homes, and if this project is granted a variance, he will expect to develop a 35-foot high building on his property, after removal of the 3 single-family houses. He stated he feels there is no hardship on this property, anymore than on any other property in the neighborhood, and he wanted it understood that this is a precedent. REBUTTAL: Mr. Shid stated he worked with the neighbors, and is not opposing them, but is proposing to develop a project that will enhance the neighborhood rather than distracting from the ares. He stated there were questions about the quality of the building, and the project not being developed as presented and they are going to build according to the drawings which are before Commission, and the Building Inspectors are rather tough in the City of Anaheim, and they check to see that the builder is constructing the buildi.nq exactly according to the drawings. Mr. Shid stated he cannot solve the problems created by the high school students or the existing drug situation, but they are putting a buffer between the noise and traffic and this residential area. He stated they are talking about putting in 16 units, and there are already about fi~~~ families living in that area, so they are adding 11 people. Mr. Shid said they have studied the traffic, and do not believe there is that much overuse of the street, and he did not think an additional 11 people in the area will add that much to the existing traffic problem. Mr. Shid noted some people are concerned that the buildings surrounding them are going to be all 3 stories, etc., however, he would like to make the people more comfortable by telling them the zoning does not allow structures to qo closer, than 150 feet to the single-family houses. He stated they are building according to the zoning as for the number of units, number of parking spaces, etc. and the only waiver they are requesting is for the height, and that they applied for one affordable unit for a period of 10 years, and that is the formula of City of Anaheim. Chairman Messe infoz:~ed Mr. Shid that the Planning Commission usually asks for 20 years. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Mr. Shid stated they would prefer not to put the parking below grade except for 2 to 3 feet and it would be 6 feet above the finished grade. Debbie Vagts, Housing Operations Coordinator, stated the developer returned a letter of understanding agreeing that 2 units would be designated as affordable which would rent at 3593, which is the higher of the rents; and that the Housing Department would have ao problem changing it to 10~, which would be one unit, but the rent would be 3466, and that Mr. Shid can initial those changes. Mr. Shid stated he would want to have one unit designated as affordable. 02/29/88 MINUTES_1~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-248 Chairman Messe and Commissioner Rouas informed Mr. Zaman that he could have one or two units affordable, and it was his choice, however, the Commission would insist the agreement be for 20 years. Debbie Vagts noted their .letter to Mr. Zaman stated a minimum of 10 years or as approved by the Planning Commission or City Council and the Planning Commission has always wanted it for 20 years. Commissioner Boydstun stated over 25~ of the parking is tandem parking, and if the new ordinance is adopted, the petitioner would not be able to get building permits for these plans. She explained the Commission is trying to limit tandem parking to 25~ of the total because they feel it eliminates some of the congestion. Mr. Shid indicated he would have to go over the drawings and start redesigning to see what he could come up with. He stated according to the Zoning and Traffic Departments, everything was taken into consideration when he submitted the drawings originally, and that he was aware of the proposed change, but was hoping since he has been going through the process for about 8 months, that he could go straight to the Building Department and get the permits. He stated they were hoping the City would allow some time or credit for those people who have already applied for permits 9 months ago and are just now coming in. Commissioner Bouas indicated she thought he would have to pull a building germit before the ordinance was changed, or the new ordinance would affect him. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, clarified they would have to pull a building permit aad do a substantial amount of work and if the permit is pulled and no work is done on the job, then the new ordinance would still apply. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they needed to be well into construction and Mr. Fletcher responded the law is a little vague but it is definitely more than just pulling a building permit. Mr. Shid submitted into evidence pictures taken from surrounding buildings in the area to show the quality of the 3-story buildings. Commissioner Boydstun asked if it would be possible for the project to still work by reducing it a couple of units, and eliminating some of the tandem parking. Mr. Shid replied that would bring the quality of the project down; aad if there are mere units, they could afford to put more money into it and make really nice units because the return is better, and if they cut the number of units, the return is not going to be that good, and tie would rather keep the same number of units. Commissioner Boydstun stated sha had to agree with the people that live in that area, and that she has been in that area herself, and that is a very bad intersection and with the traffic from the high school, and those two alleys coming out togeY.her, there is going to be a real traffic jam. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COhglIccrnN. FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-249 Mr. Zaman noted they are also dedicating three feet to the alley from the property and also, they are improving the entire street, by putting new lighting, new sidewalks, and ali kinds ~f improvements are going to go into that alley. Chairman Messe asked if Mr. Shia had had any meetings with any of the immediate residents. He stated this was his first work in Anaheim, and ha will know the next time to contact the neighbors. He stated he just looked at the site and did not see a problem, but did see that on oue side there was a high school, and on the other side there is a body shop, and that the existing houses on the property are over 40 years old, and on his property there are five units which have to be demolished, and they have no architectural value. COMMISSIONER CARUSILLO RETURNED TO THE MEETING AT 3:40 p.m. Commissioner Felhaus, addressing June McIntyre, asked what she would envision going onto that property facing along that commercial strip, and added he had heard there was going to be a strip shopping center there. Ms. McIntyre stated she had talked with many friends who live in the immediate area and they would all love to see homes such as were put on West Street, and the corner property where the body shop is located could be developed and possibly some money could be made on the corner property with a larger development. Commissioner Bouas stated she did not believe anyone would buy a house across from that alley and across from the school. She stated the school may not be there forever, but that area certainly will not be a residential area. She asked if the real concern is for the affordable housing. Ms. McIntyye stated townhouses perhaps would be acceptable and stated they want to keep their neighborhood very upscale and they were all depending oa the fact that they would be able to keep things going nicely, but if the Commission starts letting people do this type of development, they have seen what happens with the units at the end of Sycamore and west. She added those were nicely built units 10 years ago, but then as people began to move in, problems developed and Code Enforcement has had a lot of trouble. She stated they have too many people in the area now and the people who own their homes there are very proud of them. She stated it is nice to say that this project is going to upgrade the area, but it doesn't work that way. Commissioner Bouas stated with the current zoning, 15 units could be built, and that apartments will probably go is there. Ms. McIntyre stated perhaps the zoning should be changed. Commissioner Boydstun stated she felt the density is too much for than property. Commissioner Feldhaus stated it is on the General Plan now and zoned for RM 1200 and he did not want to be guilty o£ telling a property owner what he can and cannot do with his property, especially when it falls within the code guidelines. Ae added he feels something has to be done in that particular area and that he visited the area and saw cars being worked on in the alley and people using the alley as a pedestrian way and it appears something needs to be done and he intends to support the project. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO?~:ISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 86-250 Commissioner Bouas said she felt this really is a good buffer project and that she wants to see West Street rer.~ain a fine street, but did think there are some problems and did not want to see the area turn into a slum area. She stated she feels these are quality apartments that can do a lot for the area. Commissioner Messe said the developer did stipulate to going down below grade two feet for the garage, and asked if that was something the Commission wanted to impose as a condition of approval, Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, stated with the way the parking is configured at this. time, they could not go down twc feet and that the dep`:1: of the driveway will not accommodate a ramp. A TI N: Commissioner Feldhaus offerer. a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Cortnnissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 3-story, i6-unit, "affordable" apartment building with waivers of minimum b!:i.lding site area per dwelling unit and maximum structural height on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.42 acre located south and west of the southwest corner of Diamond Street and West Street, and further described as 115, 117 and 117-1/2 North West Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the 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 Feldhaus offered Resolution PC 88-63 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance 3755 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 subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, and subject to the stipulation to lower the garage structure by 1 to 1-1/2 feet. It was pointed out to the developer that the standards for tandem parking may change before they get building permits. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOUAS, FELDHATJS, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST ABSTAIN: CON1dISSIONERS: CARUSILLO Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESS: 3:55 p.m. RECONVENE: 4:05 p.m. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-251 ITEM NO 6 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88-40: VARIANCE N0. 3756. PUBLIC HEAR7NG: OWNERS: Albert Cohen, 3301 Barrydell, Los Angeles, CA 90069. AGENT: Hugo A. Vasquez, 2240 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.29 acre having a frontage of approximately 106 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, approximately 1110 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Bouelvard and further described as 719 and 723 West La Palma Avenue. Reclassification: Portion B from CG to RM-1200. Request: To construct a 12-unit, 3-story "affordable" apartment building under authority of Government Code Section G5915 with waivers of (a) required coverage of parking spaces, (b) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height, (d) maximum site coverage and (e) required side yard setback. Continued from the meeting of. February 17, 1988. It was noted the petitioner has requested a continuance to the meeting of March 14, 1988. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the meeting of March 14, 1988, at the request of the applicant. ITEM NO 7 CEOA NEGATAIV£ DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3758 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: Louis P. Smaldino, 6252 N. Rosemead Boulevard, Temple City, CA 91780. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.47 acre located at the southeast corner of south Street and Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 804 South Anaheim Boulevard. Request: Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a donut shop in conjunction with an existing liquor store. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Louis Smaldino, owner, stated he was applying for a variance for the parking requirement for a donut store in conjunction with an existing liquor store on that site. He added the project is already under construction and is reading through the staff report, he noticed several references to building permits, and they already have their building permit, and the walls are up and the roof is on. Chairman Messe stated they probably got the building permit because under the retail classification they probably met the parking requirements, but for a 02!29!88 r rnur.,tTCCTf~jj FEBRUARY 29 198.- 88-252 ~_y °S ANAHEIM CITSC PLANNI" donut shop, which is considered "fast food", they did not meet the parking codes. He asked if they had paid the traffic signal fees, etc. Mr. Smaldino stated they had paid all fees and dedicated 2 feet at South Street. He stated he had also noticed in staff report there was a signage requirement. Chairman Messe noted that signing is not part of this application and as long any any signs conformed to Code, he would not need to come back. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~'1A~~~SED~ Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Smaldino stated there will probably be 10 to 12 seats were inside the shop and they do not have a tenant as yet, although several are interested in the site, subject to approval. of this variance. Mr. Smaldino responded to Chairman Messe that this is to be a 24-hour operation. He stated the current hours for the liquor store are 7:00 a.m. to cidnight. Commissioner Mc Burney said he thinks both of these uses have a fast turnover for parking and that he did not have a problem with this use. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if it is possible for someone to buy a beer and go nest door and drink it. A TI N: Commissioner Boua' offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a donut shop in conjunction with an existing liquor store with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of .land consisting of approximately 0.47 acre located at the southeast corner of South Street and Anaheim Boulevard and further described as 804 South Anaheim Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding oa 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. Commi.ssioaer Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-64 and moved for its prove e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby app Variance 2Io. 3758 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location ar.3 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 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUII, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ASSENT: HERBST 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 1088 88-253 Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO 8 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 3760 PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: Donald R. May and Rose Marie May, 836 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: Thomas Maurer, 150 E1 Camino Real, Ste. 200. Tustin, CA 92680. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive, approximately 680 feet east of the centerline of West Street, and further described as 836 West Romneya Drive. Request: Waivers of (a) permitted encroachments, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum floor area of dwelling units (deleted) and (d) minimum front yard setback (deleted) to construct a 10-unit apartment complex. There were two people 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. The applicant was not present and this item was heard following Item No. 9. PRESENTATION: Thomas Maurer, 150 E1 Camino Real, Tustin, Ste. 200, agent, explained the plans are to construct a 10-•unit, 3-story apartment building on Romneya. He stated there was some discussion regarding the tandem parking, and that he was not informed until last Friday that there was a proposal to change the standards for tandem parking. He stated he has been working with City staff for 2 or 3 months and it was a bit of a shock to learn of this change to 25~ one week prior to this hearing. He stated he is concerned about the timing the Commission is going to impose. He stated one issue is the height limit, and the zoning ordinance states an underground parking level is a story; and in the past, a basement-type garage, below grade with two stories above, would not require a hearing before the Commission. OPPOSITION• Dave Prichard, 757 N. West St., Anaheim, stated he owns property just west of the project and that he is very strongly opposed to three stories, because it would put his units in a shadow. He stated the address of his property is 906, 906-1/2, 908, 908-1/2 Romneya Drive. He stated he would be in favor of the project if it was reduced to eight units. Morris Frankel, 906-1/2 Romneya, stated lie 1?ves righ*_ next to the project, just 8 feet away, and he felt a 28-foot high structure will cut off his light. He stated there is already a parking problem in the area, and that he did not like L'~e size of the project. He stated there are a lot of signs in the area of apartments for rent. Mr. Frankel responded to Chairman Messe that he lives on the west side in a 1-story fourplex. 02/29/88 MINLrTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEARyARY 29 1988 88-254 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo stated he understood the existing building on the property was two stories and is probably close to 28 feet high. He informed the two gentlemen opposed to the project, that even though this project is going to be 3 storiea, it would still be only 28 feet high. Mr. Maurer stated there are some existing single-family residences there that are quite high, and one is a victorian style house, well in excess of 25 feet at the peak. He stated putting 10 units there will not be maximizing ±he density and they would be allowed one more unit. He added he doesn't feel the density is too high. Commissioner Soydstun stated the driveway entrance is 20 feet wide and 24 feet is needed. Mr. Mauer replied that he would stipulate to make the driveway 24 feet wide. Commissioner Baydstun inquired if Mr. Maurer was aware that the City is in the process of changing the ordinance so that only 25~ of the parking can be tandem, causing a loss of two parking spaces on this project, if the building permits were not obtained before the ordinance was passed. Mr. Maurer stated he had just found out about that proposed Code change; and that they would follow Code. Commissioner Messe informed him that the ordinance is proposed and will probably take about 90 days to become effective. Mr. Prichard returned to ask how far the building sits from the west property line. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, answered that according to the plans, it is five feet. Mr. Prichard stated that makes him even more concerned with the amount of daylight enjoyed. He stated although the house on the property at this time is 2-1/2 stories high, it is further away. Mr. Prichard asked if there is a require,nent to put in a block wall oa the west side. Commissioner Bouas replied there would be a block wall. Chairman Messe asked the Traffic Engineer what he believed the timing would be for adoption of the new ordinance. Paul Singer stated he expected it to go before the Planning Commission in one month and then to City Council, which would take about 60 days, or a total of about 90 days. Mr. Singer stated there is another problem with the project, and that is the ramp to the subterranean parking does not meet minimum city standards. Chairman Messe stated the developer has already stipulated to go to 24 feet wide. Mr. Singer noted not only the width is the problem, but the ramp design itself, and that a 10~ grade break is not possible and only a 5i grade break is possible so the ramp would only get the project 2-1/2 feet below grade. Chairman Messe noted that would bring the project up to about 32 feet in height. Mr. Maurer stated it would not be that high. He stated he understands, from the designer, that they are 3.8 feet below grade and that he Lhought he was using the City's standard, but at the worst case, it would only 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY ~c~ 1988 _ 88-255 be up to 29 feet, and that he could also lower the roof pitch. He stated there are many ways to keep the project at 28 feet and he would be glad to comply. Commissioner Messe stated the Commission could always vote on this, subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Maurer stated that would be acceptable and indicated he would talk to Mr. Singer. A TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARFIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 10-unit apartment complex with waivers of permitted encroachments (deleted), maximum structural height, minimum floor area of dwelling units (deleted), and minimum front yard setback (deleted) on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.3 acre, having a frontage of approximately 110 feet on the south side of Romneya Drive, approximately 680 feet east of the centerline of West Street, and further described as 836 West Romneya Drive; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-65 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3760, in part, denying waivers (A, C, and D) on the basis that they were deleted on revised plans, and gz•anting waiver (B) oa 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 'Loniag Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including a condition that the maximum height of the structure shall be 28-1/2 feet, and that the width of the driveway will be increased to 24 feet and the parking garage ramp grade shall be in compliance with City Standards. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: SOURS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: HERBST Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 02/29/88 ,•ni rc 88-256 ::_, rrFg ANAHEIM rITX PLANNING SION FEBRUARY 29 198 nu. rntmiT10NAL USE ornMl'T NO 2941. I E*~I NO 9 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATI vitnr.7c' HEARING: OWNERS: Marco Andreas Ba1je24366aLa'Hermosa1iLaqunavNiquel, Newport Beach, CA 92663; AGENT: Marty Mehl, CA 92677. LOCATION: 2995 East Miraloma Avenue. Subject property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 330OZimatelyt639nfeet andebeingllocated Avenue, having a maximum depth of app approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Red Gum Street. Request: To permit retail sales of light truck bedliners and related accessories in conjunction wit2~ an existing manufacturing and warehousing use. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Marco Baljeu, 2995 E. Miraloma, Anaheim, stated Marty Mehl is ill and that he would be filling is for him, and that basically this is a retail use of a small portion of an industrial building, mostly used for warehousing and distribution. He stated during the week they probably have between five and ten customers a day and on weekends from ten to twenty customers. TH£ PZLBL?C HEARII7 W ~4.5~~ Commissioner Bouas asked for clarification of the truck bedliners. Mr. Baljeu stated they are for the back of pickup trucks, and are truck bedliners and related accessories such as a back window or a bumper for a pickup truck. Commissioner Feldhaus asked how sales are encouraged for the truck bedliners. Mr. Baljeu replied that is done through newspaper ads and promotions which they have through various truck races or shows and direct mailings. Mr. Baljeu stated distribution would be done through this location, and this is more for a temporary use until they find a location in Anaheim. Chairman Messe stated this is a retail use and that the applicant is asking to be allowed in an industrial area. He asked how this would service the industrial users in the area or how it would service r_he industrial area. Mr. Baljeu replied a lot of people own trucks in the area, including the automobile auction and they do buy from them on a wholesale level. He also stated they advertise in the newspaper for this location, and in San Diego and Riverside. Commissioner Bouas inqui.rtd if the liners require installation and how long it would take to install one. Mr. Baljeu replied that it takes from ten to fifteen minutes to install and that 70'L of them are installed at the location in Anaheim. Commissioner Carusillo asked if they intend to have any signs on the property advertising the items for sale. Mr. Baljeu stated eventually, they would like to have a sign that would just say "Truck Outfitters", along with the sign for Pacific Skylights. He stated they do have additional office space02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-257 master plan calls for having twelve to eighteen stores within the next three years, and they would be using this as the corporate headquarters. He stated at that time they would not be retailing out of this location any longer. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Baljeu how close they are to finding a location for a retail outlet, to which he replied six months or maybe a year because, presently, they are looking at Huntington Beach first, then La Puente and that Anaheim was third on the list for locations. He stated they are negotiating on a Huntington Beach location now. Commissioner Messe stated he felt if the Commission granted the Conditional Use Permit, it should be granted for a limited amount of time, because he felt this use really does noC fit into the industrial area, per the City of Anaheim Code. He added the Anaheim Code says we shouldn't be encouraging oute.iders to come into the i.nduotrial area. Mr. Baljeu noted there are other retail uses in the area. Chairman Messe asked if applicant would object to a permit with a time limit, to which Mr. Baljeu replied that would be acceptable. Commissioner Bouas asked if a year would be long enough and Mr. Baljeu replied he thought they would actually need closer to a year and a half. Commissioner Bouas suggested that the permit be issued for two years, since there are trucks in the area. She stated she felt this use would service the industrial area. Chairman Messe stated he would still prefer to limit it to a year. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he would like one year. ACTION: Commissioner Bolas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CAP.RIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit retail sales of light truck bedliners and :•elated accessories in conjunction with an existing manufacturing and warehousing use on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 330 feet on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of the centerline of Red Gum Street, and further described as 2995 East Miraloma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration tcgether 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 Bouas offered Resolution No. PC 88-66 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2941, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 13.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, for a period of two (2) years, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations, eliminating Condition No. 2. 02/29/88 INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1938 BS-258 After voting oa the resolution, Condition No. 2 requiring that the driveway '~e reconstructed with a 10-foot radius was discussed and Commissioner Bouas did not think it should be required since the use is granted for a two year period. Commissioner Carusillo stated the resolution has already be edopted with the condition included and Paul Singer stated that is a Code requirement and would be required anyway. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, MC BURNEY NOES: FELDHAUS, MESSE. ABSENT: HERBST Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the ~+ritten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Mr. Baljeu stated there is also possibly a problem because of a telephone pole having to be moved if they have to have the ten foot radius, to which Mr. Singer replied that possibly it would have to be moved but that is the, requirement and it is part of the engineering standard. Mr. Singer noted that it would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission to delete the condition and Commissioner Bouas stated she would like it eliminated. She pointed out this building is at least five years old and that should have been done when it was constructed. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) to reconsider the resolution, eliminating the condition requiring the ten-foot radius. Commissioner Bouas re-offered Resolution No. PC 88-66 eliminating Condition Number 2 because of the two-year time limit imposed. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, HERBST, MC BURNEY NOES: ME~SE ASSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FFSRUARY 29 1988 88-259 THIS ITEM WAS HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM NO. 11. ITDM NO 10 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAIVER OF CODE REOUIREMENT• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2987: PU'3LIC HEARIN, OWNERS: Alfred Escobasa, 895 South East Street, Anaheim, CA; AGENT: Jamshid Zaman, 16116 Dickens Street, Encino, CA 91436. Subject property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.22 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street having approximate frontages of 124 feet on the north side of Vermont Avenue and 14i feet on the west side of East Street and further described as 895 S. East Street. Request: To permit a drive-through restaurant with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces required. There were two people 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. Mr. Jamshid Zaman, 16116 Dickens Street, Encino, CA 91436 stated this is a fast food restaurant, and will be a quality building, and they will sell quality food, and will not be selling beer or wine. He stated he had talked with City Staff and understood everything is up to code. Hs stated he hoped the project will help the City. OPPOSITION• Bryant Thomas, 1206 E. Hampshire, stated he will be living right across from the restaurant. He presented a petition with 155 names of people opposed to the restaurant, for reasons of overwhelming danger to their children and lives, and to the the City extending special favors, congestion of the streets, excessive noise in the neigborhood, and as overflow of garbage into the neighborhood. He stated he has a letter from the Superintendaat of the school district opposing the project. Mr. Thomas stated the restaurant will be open from 6:00 a.m. is the morning to 11:00 p.m. at night, subjecting them to 5 to 6 more hours of noise. plus Saturdays and Sundays. He explained currently they get a break in the traffic noise with the people from the industrial area leaving at 6 p.m. He stated the businesses already there do not have enough parking and are parking on their streets. Mr. Albin, 1207 E. Topaz, stated he agrees with Mr. Thomas. He noted the traffic is already heavy at that location particularly from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., however, they do get a break after 6 p.m.; and that he did not see a need for the restaurant in the neighborhood. He stated the businesses there presently 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ff:BRUARY 29 1988 88-260 do not have adequate parking and that he just feels this project will add to the problems already there. He also noted there are only two retail businesses on East Street, from Broadway south to Ball Road, a convenience store and a service station. Mr. Zaman stated he plans to sell good quality food and will keep the area clean, and that he would not sell liquor, beer or wine. TuF PttBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. 2aman stated this will be an independent restaurant, similar to McDoaalds or Burger King. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the speaker for ordering for the drive through and what type of control it would have, so as not to disturb the neighborhood. Mr. Zaman said they actually have 68 parking spaces and have enough space for the drive through. Commissioner Feldhat::s asked if there was an ordering device which the customers would talk into which might amplify the sound. Chairman Messe noted the ordering device is shown on the north side» Commissioner Mc Burney noted the speaker is shown in a position where the noise would be directed toward the industrial area rather than the residential and he did not think it would create a problem, and also noted there are volume controls on those speakers so they could be turned down at night and that could be included as a condition of approval. 02/29/88 MINIITES ANAHEIM CI'PY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1986 SS-Z61 Commissioner Feldhaus asked if there i~ a block wall on the east side of East Street next to the single-family residences and Mr. Singer pointed out there is a 6-foot high wall in that location. Commissioner Feldhaus referred to the corner where the chiropractic office fs located north of the parking lot and stated there is another wall and it was noted the parking lot entrance is on East Street. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he could not see how the noise and traffic would affect those residents on Hampshire. Commissioner Boydstun asked if tl~e petitioner would be willing to close earlier so the neighbors won't Have the traffic and noise late at night. Mr. Zaman responded that he xould close earlier at 10:60 p.m. Commissioner Boydstun stated a condition could be added that the facility will not sell food after 9:00 p.m., so that everyone would be gone by ll1 p.m. Mr. Zaman stated he planned to open at 6 a.m. and close at 11 p.m., but coulc? change tl~e hours to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and it was noted 6 a.m. xould not be a problem. Chairman Messe stated there was discussion about the width of the compact parking epaces t-o be 8-feet wide and Mr. Zaman responded that is not a problem. Chairman Messe stated earlier it was biscussed that a left turn going north on East StrPPt into the restaurant could impact the traffic on East Street quite a bit. He added one possibility is striping the center lane on East Street to accommodate a left turns into the restaurant and left turns for southbound traffic onto Vermont. He stated the Traffic Engineer will help design it and that the petitioner just needs to maY.e a stipulation to pay for the striping as required. Mr. Zaman responded he would be willing to make ti~at stipulation. Commissioner Bouas stated she agrees with the people in the area that in the evening that becomes a residential area and in her opinion, this is not the place for a drive through restaurant. She stated she realizes the industrial area is there and at lunch time, the restaurant xould be beneficial, but the residents on the other side of East Street have to be considered and when the industries close, the people a.~e gone in the evening, and it becomes a residential area and they deserve to have it stay residential and she would consider not allowing the restaurant at all. Commissioner Feldhaus asked where the children in the neighborhood go to school. Pfr. Thomas stated his children go to Roosevelt Elementary School and that he talY.ed t-o the crossing guard and he said that traffic is so fast on Vermont nov, it is hard for him to get the children across and just last week two children almost got run over and he thought this restaurant will bring in more traffic and they will have people there in the evenings and on weekends which they don't have nov. He stated he leas one son who goes to South Jr. High School. Mr.Thomas pointed out almost every house on the block signed the petition he submitted in opposition and they are very upset about this. N~ stated the traffic light is so close the corner, he did not think people will be able to turn into the restaurant without stopping traffic. He stated two years ago the City redesigned the street so there would not be sa many accidents at that corner, and this would put a lot more traffic on'that corner. Commissioner Feldhaus stated that was ]iis concern and that he went out to the site and sat in the parking lot of the chiropractic's office, but the City Traffic Engineer says he can address that problem. Mr.Singer stated he can help the problem, but can't cure it. 2/29/SS MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1988 38-262 Mr. Thomas stated if it becomes a popular place to eat, there will be more people coming there. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not think it will attract any one other than those people already traveling on that street and that for the most part, this will be a drive-through restaurant. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Zaman stated he can accommodate seating for 35 to 60 people, and Chairman Messe stated that is a large margin. Mr.Zaman responded his architect was supposed to be present and he wasn't sure of the number of seats. Commissioner Mc Hurney responded to Commissioner Bouas that typically a restaurant such as this can accommodate 65 to 70 people. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Zaman stated tlt~y will serve hamburgers, etc. and will also serve breakfast. Commissioner Feldhaus stated since they will be serving breakfast and can accommodate that many patrons sitting down, he would have a problem voting in favor of this restaurant. ]ie asked if an Negative Declaration should be approved since there seems to be a negative impact on the area. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated the Commission could have to refer to the Initial Study to determine whether or not a Negative Declaration is appropriate and that the Planning staff deterained from their review that it was. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a mot;ion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CAP.RIED (Commissioner Feldhaus voting no, and Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the p_oposal to permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.22 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of Vermont Avenue and East Street, and further described as 895 S.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 daring 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 effecL• on the environment. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus a.n:] MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent and Commissioners Boydstun and Carusillo voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny xaiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity and adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and granting of the parking waiver will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Houas offered Resolution No. PC 88-67 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2987, on the basis that it will increase traffic on an already hdavily-traveled street and bring noise and traffic into the residential area in the evenings and on weekends which they do not currently have. On roll call tYte foregoing resolution was passed by the folloxing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Bouas, Feldhaus, Messe, Mc Burney NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Boydstun, Carusillo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal *_he Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council.. 2/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM ITY_PLANNING CQh!~dISSION, FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-263 RECESS: 9:45 pm. RECONVENE: 4:55 p.m. ITEM NO 11 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.,REPORT NO 273 (PREV CERT.); VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12700• VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12701; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12702 PUBLI~EARING: OWNERS: Presley of Southern California, 17991 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENTS: Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, Inc., 1151 Dove Street, Suite 130, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property consists of three irregularly-shaped portions totaling approximately 152 acres located northeasterly and northwesterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue, having frontages along the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue and the future Highlands Road and further described as Development Areas 9, 10 and 12 of the previously approved Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan ($.P. 2Io. 87-01). Request: Petitioner proposes to develop approximately 129 acres as the Phase I development of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Elfend, agent, stated they are extremely pleased to be before the Commission and that he would like to acknowledge and thank the Plarninq Department for their assistance in the processing of the Phase I tentative maps, especially Joel Fick and Linda Rios for having been extremely cooperative, particularly the last few weeks, in receiving the information and reviewing it in a timely manner. He also thanked Art Daw, Engineering, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, and Dick Mayer of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Elfend stated the Highlands Specific Plan was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in June, 1987; and the process they went through was very comprehensive and lengthy, and the end ~ It was that the project was approved with over 121 conditions of approval. He stated ever since the approval in June, they ::ave been working with staff in an implementation mode, in the processing of the first phase of development. Mr. Elfend briefly reviewed the approved specific plan for the project. He presented slides indicating where the first phase of the Highlands is located, relative to the other ranches and noted the project site is located east of the Canyon Rim/Serrano Avenue intersection, and directly east of the project is the Oak Hills and Sycamore Canyon project. Mr. Elfend stated in processing t2ie Highlands project in 1987, several environmental and community benefits were derived from the Specific Plan approval. He presented slides showing that the Highland's Specific Plan provided far: (1) the developer has agreed to reduce the number of dwelling units and building areas permitted by the General Plan at that time, which also increases the amount of open space; (2) the Specific Plan provided 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM;6i5aION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 8E-264 improved land use interface with the surrounding community by providing a greater percentage of single-family homes and apartments and other attached housing; (3) elimination of hillside grading along the prominent northside ridgeline, highly visable from Serrano Avenue and homes west of Canyon Rim Road, to preserve community views and views from the proposed Weir Canyon Park. A slide wa: shown indicating that the site plan had land uses up and down the ridge line, and the new exhibit showing that area as completely green is an area where development was deleted. He explained that area was a major community viewshed which was preserved thro~xgh the Specific Plan process; and that consequently, the views would be preserved from the Weir Canyon Park. He stated this is one of the first projects that is providing a major private land owner dedication of land for that purpose, and also looking south from Canyon Rim, that entire ridgeline will be preserved. Mr. Elfend showed a slide of the development plan exhibit that was included in the approved Specific Plan, and that the areas that are cross hatched show the areas of the first phase, D~•:elopment Areas 9, 10 and 12; and a slide of a landscape concept, plan. He stated the first phase of development, consistent with the approvz•.'. ',ecific plan, provides for a total of 507 dwelling units as follows: 283 c~ ~i~ed single-family units and 224 condominium units. He stated in implementing the Phase I Bcilding Program they have enhanced the previously approved land pl:n in the following ways: (1) Improved circulation; and noted thr .school district and Parks Department voiced concern regarding access to their joint Bark/school site located at the intersection of Serrano and Canyon Rim in June 1987, and at the time, the developer had proposed access to the ^^.hool site an3 park site directly from Serrano. C'!e stated in the Phase I development plan, they have determined that there is a better access to be ~~rovided to the city and the school; and consequently, a new road called Highlands Road, which i~ a road that now parallels Serrano and directly adjacent to the park/school site was provided. Mr. Elfend said they also reduced slope heights. He explained the previous tentative map for Development Area No. 9 included major slopes adjacent to Developm~rit Area 10 and the school site; and once again, the enhanced land plan, will: improved circulation, minimized the slope heights in this area. He stated more importantly, they had increased lot sizes, pad sizes and interior living space; that originally, Development Area 10 had included all 3,000 sq. ft. lots with interior living space of 1,125 sq. ft. and Development Area 9 provided 5,000 sq. ft. lots, with interior living space of 1,225 sq. ft., but with the enhanced land plan, they have increased the number of 5,000 sq. ft. lots from 79 to i35, a 70~ increase, and the lot size averages 8,250 sq. ft. He stated they are increasing the amount of interior living space from a minimum of 1,225 sq. ft. to 2,"s00 sg. ft., with units ranging as high as 2,763 sq. ft., an 88`a increase in the amount of interior living space. Regarding the 3500 sq. ft. lot homes, he stated the average lot size of these homes has been increased to 5,890 sq. ft and increased interior living space from a minimum 1,125 sq. ft. to 1,535 sq. ft., again up to 1,917 sq. f*_., which amounts to a 37`b increase in the interior living space. Mr. Elfend stated the square footage of these particular units was an important issue brought ,~o by the Planning Commission. 02/29/89 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-265 Mr. Elfend stated aside from those major enhancements, consistent with the approved specific plan, the Phase I tentative maps also include landscaping plans (shown in the next few exhibits) which ensure a quality development. He added they have also provided, consistent with the agproved specific plan, monumentation fencing and signage plans, to also ensure a quality development sensitive to community views. He said they are still working with staff on the exact placement of wrought iron fences as opposed to solid walls; and those will be provided in a manner most sensitive to community views. Mr. Elfend presented slides showing the product to be built in the three development areas. Mr. Elfend related that he had a meeting last week with Bob Zemel of the Anaheim Hills Citiztns Coalition, who asked several questions about the project, including the status of an access road showed on the specific plan originating from Development Area 1 northerly to Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated although not a part of the Phase T Development Program, he had indicated to Mr. Zemel that this road is not anticipated to be built in lieu of providing access from Development Area 1 through the Sycamore Canyon Project. Ha explained when the Specific Plan was approved, they had a condition which provided for secondary access in three manners; that one was to take a road down through an adjacent property to the north, which would have taken it down to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Another alternative was to take i~ through the Sycamore Canyon Project, ~hict~ is their current plan. He stated he told Mr. Zemel that should any changes occur in this regard, he would contact him directly. Mr. Elfend referred to the Staff Report, Page 2, under Background which describes the overall Specific Plan Project, and pointed out the word "minimum" was placed in front of the 5-acre park site; and that the S-acre park site was not to bo interpreted as a minimum but the actual park site agreed to by staff and the developer prevAOUSly. He referred to Condition Nos. 58 and 59 on Paqe 30, and stated Condition No. 58 essentially is discussing street light facilities, and that he wanted to point out that it was their intent to post a bond as it relates to that condition. He stated Condition No. 59 concerns some type of median break required by this project, and that obviously they would participate is its reconstruction, if their project created the need. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Elfend to restate his position on Condition No. 59. Mr. Elfend replied that the condition requires that they were to reconstruct a median; and that he is saying that, yes they will, provided the final design requires their project to reconstruct it, which means they will either have a right turn movement in or some type of traffic movement that would require it. Chairman Messe added that it would still be to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. Commissioner Mc Burney a~L~d Mr. Elfend if that referred to Highlands Road and Mr. Elfend indicated that it did. 02/29/88 INUTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-266 Mr. Elfend noted the same comments of their intent to post a bond applies to Condition No. 50 on Page 39 of Tract No. 12701, and that his same comments would apply to Condition No. 57 as well oa Page 40. He stated he wanted to make the same clarification as Condition No. 50 as well as the condition again on the reconstruction of Serrano of the median on Canyon Rim Road. Mr. Elfend stated he had reviewed the corrected conditions and some additional conditions handed to him by staff, and concurred with them. He noted, however, there is one clarification item that had been discussed with Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, and that is a condition that is on 12700, 12701 and 12702 regarding the recordation of a covenant against the entire property acknowledging the conditions of approval set forth in Ordinance 4861 which is the Ordinance for the approved Specific Plan. He stated they had already recorded that covenant, and it had been submitted to the City Attorney's Office and they had provided comments back to them which require some minor changes in the wording of the covenant, and it was his understanding that when the item is resolved, this condition would no longer be applicable. Mr. Fletcher stated that if the condition had been complied with, he would recommend that the condition stay in and simply be deemed met. Mr. Fletcher stated their office had not signed off on that as yet, but informed the Commission that the developer has been complying. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Chairman Messe stated the list of revised conditions, which Commission had just been handed, all seemed to be acceptable to the developer, except No. 68, and that included the County of Orange added condition. He stated everything is fine there, and inquired if staff had any problem with the items Mr. Elfend brought up relative to bonding. Staff responded there was ao problem from their standpoint Commissioner Mc Burney asked Paul Singer, City Traffic Engineer, how the two ix.tersections to the development are going to be handled. Mr. Singer replied they are offset and the left turns are not in conflict with each other, and they just have to eliminate a portion of the median island to be able to get the left turn pocket. Mr. Singer stated the traffic signals would be only at Canyon Rim and Serrano. Commissioner Mc Burney stated he was pleased to see that the size of the lots had increase3 since the original approval and that he felt it mz•'res for a much better development. He stated the hill that Mr. Herbst and he had been concerned with has been addressed and felt he could support the project. Responciinq to Chairman Messe, Linda Rios stated the water master plan was approved, subject to conditions being worked out with the developer and the condition has been signed off. Concerning the site plan review, Commissioner McBurney stated since there is na one in opposition to this in the audience, he did not think that was an item to bo concerned with; and that the site plan itself is nothing more than 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-267 a blow up of the actual tentative map showing possible side slopes and typical grading within the development. He stated he did not think the average person in the public would have a concern regarding the site plans. Responding to Chairman Messe, Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated the minor transfer of density request regarding 4 units was submitted to Planning Department and was approved last week, and that tk~ere is a appeal period of that decision to the City Council. ANION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12700, including site plans, for a 6-lot, 224-unit air space condominium subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the submittal of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall make provisions for design features that conserve water such as controlled irrigation systems which employ drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic systems that minimize runoff and evaporation, and use of mulch on top of soil to improve water holding capacity of public landscaped areas; and, use of xeriscape and drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Pians indicating such conservation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department. (a'.4) 2. That is conjunction with submittal of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to the Highlands from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue; and, Fire Station No. 10 via a temporary emergency vehicular access road through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Hanch). Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer. (a7o> 3. That in conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an easement across Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for a temporary emergency vehicular access road; said tomporary access road shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicular access to the Highlands development from Fire Station a10 prior to the placement of any combustible materials oa any parcel in the Hiyhlands project. Said tert~porary emergency vehicular access road shall be demolished and removed upon the construction and opening to traffic of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and the Oak Hills Ranch. Prior to approval of the first fin31 tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash in a form and amount approved by the City to secure the above obligations. (a95) 02/29/88 INUTES ANAHEIM ITY DLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1986 88-208 4. Prior to the approval of the first final tract map or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a study shall be concluded by an independent third party acceptable to the City and the property owner/developer defining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) (e.g., assessment district(s)) to assure the project generates revenues (assessment revenues) to meet the assigned costs of City services (operations E:d maintenance) on a year by year basis. Final decision for establishing such financial mechanism(s) will be that of the City Council. Such mechanism(s) shill be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient to recover any variances between revenues to the City generated by project development and assigned City costs to service the project. The City shall have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom together with the Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional off-site revenues generated by the project (e.g. regional shopping center revenues to City}; and, when the assessment revenues reach equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costs for said studies associated with determining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to said first final tract or parcel map approval. (qll) 5. That bonding for construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in conjunction with the final map. (q21) 6. That the water supply system shall be °uaded and constructed in accordance with the water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations as provided below: (a) The developer shall install the secondary system improvements. (b) Funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities fees as provided for in Rule 15-B. (c) Primary mains shall be installed by the City with funds provided by the 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 the final tract map approval. (p22) 7. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Library Department to provide the Highlands proportionate share of costs for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch (East Hills). Written proof of said agreement sha31 be furnished to the Planning Department and subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's Office. (q26) 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 86-269 8. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, 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 polica facility to serve the easterly portion of the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning and Police Departments and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department and City Attorney's 9ffice. (H27) 9. That prior to final tract map approval, plans shall be submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for review and approval for defensible space concepts and safety features (i.e. access, visibility, surveillance, etc.). (N28) 10. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easements for any public facility (including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Oak Hills Ranch, Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), or adjacent properties to the north of the Highlands in order to serve the needs of the Highlands, as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager. Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole expense of the property owner/developer. (q30) 11. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim the Highlands' proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station and storm drain facilities) which facilities and utilities are located in the Bauer Ranch (East Hills) but will also serve the Highlands. Said funds sha'1 be used to reimburse Kaufman and Broad (the developer of the Bauer Ranch) far the Highlands proportionate share of said facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement agreements administered by the City. (~3I) 12. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share of the costs to the City for provision of an off-site street maintenance facility to serve the easterly portion of the city as deter:~ined by the Director of Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (~32) 13. That prior to approval of the final map, a financial mechanism, ccceptable to and approved by the City, for maintenance of private streets shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (N35) 14• That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing r~ ~~rements for the sanitary sewer systems within the tract parcel or boundaries, for review and 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-270 approval by the City Engineer. The sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (#37) 15. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map for Development Areas 11 and 12, the owner/developer shall provide the City with evidence of compliance with the Orange County Sanitation District Master Plan and that all requirements of the Orange County Sanitation District, including annexation (if deemed necessary by the Orange County Sanitation District), have been complied with. (#38) 16. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the location, phasing, bonding and details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations, to t_ layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study to be performed by the property owner/developer and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Acceptability of the proposed connection to the City's existing sewer system at Canyon Rim Road shall be determined by the City engineer. (#39) 17. That, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, in the vicinity of Serrano Avenue and Canyon Rim Road. The dedication offer shall also provide that the park site be graded flat (5~ slope or less). (#42) 18. That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City, and established at the expense of the owner/developer, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (#47) 19. Prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, that reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer. in the uncemente9 portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (#50) 20. That prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval within the boundaries of SP87-1, the petitioner shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for l~.ndscapinq and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the devr,'~,pmQ.nt of this property and for the maintenance of Deer Canyon. (#51) 21. 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 owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1) maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median islands installed in conjunction 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-271 with said subdivision except those located within arterial streets; (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 within the boundaries of SP87-1. The developer of each tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (#52) 22. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department. The developer shall also provide and construct all necessary trench, backfill, conduit and manholes, vaults, haadholes and boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. (#55) 23. That prior to approval of the final 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. (#58) 24. That prior to approval of the first final parcel or tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address the erosion, ~~,ltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns within the drainage basin. In addition, the study shall address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of construction and final design, including erosion control measures in the upper reach of the system, shall be in conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County Environmental Management Agency. (#61) 25. That prior to the approval of the final tract map, bonding for the Master Plan Facilities and in-tract improvements shall be provided. (566) 26. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a special maintenance district or other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer for the maintenance of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site necessitated by the Highlands development. (#69) 02/29/86 MINUTES_ANAHEIM CITY PLA2INING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-272 27. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion. of detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and subdrains in the area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit. (q80) 28. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer of the Highlands shall prepare a comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 273 and shown on Exhibit 29 of the Specific Plan, the plan proposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization of the Deer Canyon drainage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree losses. This program and related details shall be finalized during the subsequent permit processes with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the approval of the final roadway design plan, and shall also be subject to review by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (p88) 29. That the developer shall widen Imperial Highway by one additional northbound lane from Santa Ana Canyon Roa3 to Route 91 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 401st residential unit within the boundaries of SP87-1. Said obligation skull be secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. To the extent the developer/owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or other benefited prop~+rlies, he may petition Lhe City Council f.or establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs associated with the establishment of nay such districts shall be at the expense of the owner/developer. (1190) 30. 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 Highlands Project 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 from its existing terminus at Ca;~.yon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project, or when grading commences on the Oak Hills tianch, whichever comes first. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch shall post similar security i.n 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 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-273 as well as for one-half of, the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) within the same time fraune as set forth above. (b) In the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security as set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of the Highlands Project may post security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of thz first final tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of t:ie construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project or when grading commences on Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), whichever comes first, provided that the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) posts 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/Weir Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above. (c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch nor the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranc'n) posts the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall, prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map on the Highlands Project, post a security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from the existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highland project and that prior to issuance of the building permit for the 401st residential unit, the developer shall provide an off-site access road to Santa Ana Canyon Road via the proposed routs to the north, or through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) (via Weir Canyon Road) or by the widening of Fairmont Boulevard (from Canyon Rim Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road) at its ultimate circulation designation. To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provi'a reimbursement to the Highlands Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace F,anch) for the cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the Highlands Project owner/developer. (q91) 31. That yrior to the approval of the first final tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall agree to construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and the City Traffic Engineer at no cost to the City. Written proof o.~ said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (q96) 32. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP67-', the property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in the Highlands to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. (q97) 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 _88-274 33. That prior to approval of khe first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate property owner. (#98) 34. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of 87-1, the property owner/developer shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include, transit service, park and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities), bikeways, and other transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (#99) 35. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. (#103) 36. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries ~f SP87-1, the general alignment of the Highlands road system shall be submitted far review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. (#109) 37. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be furnished as part of is-tract improvements prior to the approval of the final tract map. Bonding for any off-site road extension, shall be furnished prior to agproval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (#110) 38. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall submit a viable action plan subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission assuring the timely construction of improvements identified as follows: (a) Extension of Serrano Avenue into the City of Orange to provide regional access through the City of Orange into Anaheim. (b) Extension of Imperial Highway to Loma to join existing Lo^ia Street in the City of Orange. (#112) 39. That prior to the approval o'_ the first final tract or parcel :nap within the boundaries of SP87-1, the developer shall pay for and the Cicy shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a financialrian for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall determine the cost of the imprcvements and assign those costs among the Highlands, Oak Hills and Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch); nay undeveloped parcels of land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and Oak Hills Ranches; and, the 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINFi COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 19Lt$ 88-275 City. The cindings of the study, showing oc~~{i~tionate share of cost distribution, shall be~• rrne ~~indiaq upon t•`1e developments and shall 'be paid for at the time of issuar:,a of buil~lag permits. Proportionate share will be determined 'eased on impacC can ;ianea Ana Canyon Road: (a) {4i6en Sa;`a, An.-+ Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane cen.'guration betvreen Img.+sial ri5ghway and the Bauer 2anch (East Hills) imp.ovements. (b) Restripe the ea:;tbound off-ramp from the ~1 Fre:eway at Wz.r Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn a7~u right-turn lane. (#113) 40. )tat prior to approval of the first final tracC or parcel map within tb.e boua~:.aries of SP87-t, the obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 31 shall be secured by a performance bond, 1%•tter of credit, or. other form of security in an amount and form approved by the City. Ssid security s::+11 be provided and approval thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the appro•:.al of any agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is established. (#120) 41. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the ia.nd required for implementation of the water system to the City is conjunction with streets, and through easements at the time of final tract reap recordation. ~fhe reservoir sites shall be dedicated *~ith the finai rt•a; or Then re,quire3 b; t.._ City. i;;20) 42. That prior to recordation of the tract map, the owner/developer shall record a covenant requiring the seller to provir:e the purchaser ~~f each residential dwelling with written informstion concerniag~ Anaheim Municipal ^ode Section 14.32.500 p•~rtnining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street sweepiaa." Such writteir information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for c•iolation. (1134) 43. that all fac:?:t.+_ea shall be located within public rights-of-xay and easements dedicated with the recordation of the final map. The conduit system with associzted concrete manholes and vaulr_s shall be itas:.alled underground. ~witehes and/or capacitors shall be an metal cabinets mouat~d a:,ove ground on concrete pads. (#57) 44. That prior to the recordation of th•~ first final tract orrarcel map within tY.e bou~ldaries of SPBZ-i, the property owner/developer :.hall fee-dedicate 129 acres within ;.seas I? and III (Weir. Canyon viewshed) to the County of Orange for pn:manent open space. (#87) 45. That the .owner/developer sha'_1 dedicate the land for the public street syst~!m for public use with the recordation of thq •Linal tract n+ap. (#1J8) 46. That prior *_o the app~:ovaT of the finai map, vehir„~lar access rights to all ,-rterial highways within ar adjacent to subject tract, excerpt a't street open.,:ngs, shat: be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAII~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FES~' '! 29, 1~$8 88-276 47. :haS :1-ould tk;is s:~bdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, etch :abd.f~•i;ioa therPpf shall Lie submitted in tentative form for approval. .~, i~r:;k arior to any occups.ncy, temporary street name signs shall be installed ii permanent street :am2~ sip?ns have not hen installed. 49. That graving, excavation, and ali oth.^,c construction activities shall be cone„r.ted in such a manner so as to rc+i:lin.~:ae the possibility of nay silt originating from !:his p'~ject being c:irrie3 into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from ~ flowing thrcrr~h this project. 50. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with. the Highlands Specific Plaa, including installation o: street name signs. 51. That all lots within suLiject tract stall be served by underground utilities. 52: That p-iot to fiaa.l tract m:~p approval, transmission and terminal storage fees shall be paid tc ';he water T~:.ility Division by the ^wner/develo~ier .in a.:-o:oa?:cr with Rule :~,C of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 53. :hat prior to final tract map approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with kulo 1!5S ~f the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 54. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweoping" signs s:,alx be ins*_alled as required by the Street Maintenance and SIIZitatio~ riivision and is accordance with specifications or. file wil'h said division. 55. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documeato ~f the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to ': he developer's title companf aut.hccizing recordation th~ceof, shall be .o •:}±:~~itted to the City Attorney's Office and appra~~e3 b~ she City Attorney's .Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed anti recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 56. That all tublic streets adjacent to the blue border of the tract shall be fully included ~rithin the tract. 57. That all sanitary sewers located within a private street system shall bE rnainta.ned by the pronerT:y owncsrs in accordance with the requirements :,F Condition No. 13 58. That street lightit;y facilities along Serrano Avenue shall ue installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that secusitX in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount anu ic-m satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City ::o guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said secur~.ty shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to 02/29/88 ~tINt3'1'ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-277 final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. This is in the event that Serrano Avenue is included within the blue border of the tract. 59. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map gaining access from Canyon Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee reconstruction of the median islan~' on Canyon Rim Road to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. 60. That prior to approval of the final tract map, that an adequate cul-de-sac or hammer head be shown on the tract for "V-V" Street to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 61. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of the Highlands project that 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 its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands project. 62. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 63. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in compliance with Condition No. 89 of Ordinance No. 4861. 64. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 65. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 66. Prior to the approval of any final tract map, parcel map or improvement plan for any development within the area of the 408 units, a bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim guaranteeing the construction of the permanent sewer connections. This bond shall remain in effect until the completion and acceptance of said sewer. Further that the permanent connection to the City's sewer system shall be for a maximum of 73 units and the temporary connection shall be for a maximum of an additional 408 units. 67. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1-17. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-278 68. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant in a form apgroved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that those conditions of approval set forth in Ordinance No. 4851 which require completion of cectaia tasks other than those required prior to either submission or approval of the first tentative or final parcel or tract map are tied to said map for purposes of carrying out completion of the purgoses of the Specific Plan. Any condition referencing the first (tentative/final) tract or parcel map shall for the purposes of this covenant mean the first (tentative/final) tract or parcel within the boundaries of SP67-1. 69. That the development of s;:bject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP87-1 (Specific Plaa for he Highlands at Anaheim Hills-Ordinance No. 4861). 70. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 71. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that Condition Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 63, 64, and 65, above-mentioned, are tied to said rnap for purposes of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plan. 72. No final map shall be recorded until those portions of tY.e area proposed for development by the tentative tract map and encumbered with open space easements to the County of Orange have been exchanged with the County fnr other open space areas so as to release the parcels for development. ACTION Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by ~ummissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 65473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12701, inc?udiag site plan, for a 135-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the submittal of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall make provisions for design features that conserve water such as controlled irrigation systems which employ drip irrigation, soil moisturz sensors, gad automatic systems that minimize runoff gad evaporation, and use of mulch oa top of soil to improve water holding capacity of public landscaped areas; and, use of xeriscape and drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Plans indicating such conservation measures shall be reviewed gad approved by the Public Utilities Department. (q14) 2. That in conjunction with submittal of the first find tract or parcel map +ithi.n the houndaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developar shall submit 02/29/88 MjN~TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COYdNISSI0t7, FE9RUAP.Y 29, 1988 88-279 plans delineating roadway access to the Highlands from Fire Station No. 9 via Serrano Avenue; and, Fire Station No. 10 via a temporary emergency vehicular access road through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch). Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer. (a7o> 3. That is conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an easement across Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for a temporary emergency vehicular access road; said temporary access road shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicular access to the Highlands development from Fire Station a10 prior to the placement of any combustible materials on any parcel in the Highlands project. Said temporary emergency vehicular access road shall be demolished and removed upon the construction and opening to traffic of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and the Oak Hills Ranch. Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash in a form and amount approved by the City to secure the above obligations. (a95) 4. Prior to the approval of the first final tract map or parcel map wit'~in the b<r~~••.aries of SP87-1, a study shall be concluded by an independent third party a::eptable to tt,e City and the property owner/developer def'iniog the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) (e.g., assessment district(s)) to assure the project generates revenues (assessment revenues) to meet the assigned co^ts of City services (operations and maintenance) on a year by year basis. Final decision for establishing such financial mechanism(s) will be that of the City Council. Such mechanism(s) shall be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient to recover any variances between revenues to the City qe~t~rated by project development and assigned City costs to service the project. 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 together with the Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional off-site revenues generated by the project (e.g. regional shopping center revenues to City); and, when the assessment revenues reach equilibrium with al2acated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costs for said studies associated with determining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/deve'loper by means of reimbursement to the City prior to said first final tract or parcel map approval. (ali) 5. That bonding for construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in conjunction with the final map. (a21) 6. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in accordance with tY:e water Utility's Rates, Rules and Regulations as provided below: 02/29/88 1 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. F'E~UARY 2~ 1988 88-280 (a) The developer shall install the secondary system improvements. (b) Funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs shall be advanced by the developer through the payment of special facilities fees as provided for in Rule 15-B. (c) Primary mains shall. be installed by the City with Funds provided by the Developer in the form of primary acreage fees as provided for in Rule 1~-A. (d) The necessary financial arrangements for construction of the special facilities and required primary main fees shall be made prior to the final tract map approval. i.~22) 7. TYiat prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Library Department to provide the Highlands' proportionate share of costs for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch (East Hil.ls). Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's Off:°.ce. (1126) 8. That prior to approval o: the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the Ci!y of Anaheim Police Department to provide its proportionate share of costs to the Ci~y 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 and Police Departments and shall be subject to approval by the Police Department and City Attorney's Office. (1127) 9. That prior to final tract map approval, plans shall be submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for roview and approval for defensible space concepts and safety features (i.e. access, visibility, surveillance, etc.). (q28) 10. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easements for any public facility (including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to cross the Gak Hills Ranch, Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), or adjaceni properties to the north of the Highlands in order to serve the needs of the Highlands, as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager. Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole expense of the property owner/developer. (p30) 11. Ti1at prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim the Highl:•ads' proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities (including a :ire station and storm drain facilities) which facilities and utilities are located in the Bauer Ranch (East Hills) but 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAPEIM CITY PLANNIyG COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-281 wi1.1 also serve the Highlands. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Hrus~ (the developer of the Bauer Ranch) for the Highlands proportionate share of said facilities and utilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement agreements administered by the City. (031) 12. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share of the costs to the City for provision of an off-site street maintenance facility to serve the easterly portion of the city as determined by the Director of Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject to approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (032) 13. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Departnent. (037) 14. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the location, phasing, bonding and details of the sower facilities shall be determined by street configurations, lot layouts, grav.~ty flow and a subsequent sewer study to be performed by the property owner/developer and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Acceptability of the proposed connection to the City's existing sewer system at Canyon Rim Road shall be determined by the City Engineer. (039) 15. That, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, in the vicinity of Serrano Avenue and Canyon Rim Road. The dedication offer shall also provide that the park site be graded flat (Si slope or less). (042) 16. That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City, and established at the expense o: the owner/developer, prior to the apprrval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (047) 17. Prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map withii. th~• boundaries of SP87-1, that reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer in t2ie uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer.. (050) 02/29/88 MINjj_ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMdI ION FEBRUARY 20 1988 88-282 18. That prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval within the boundaries of SP87-1, the petitioner shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property and for the maintenance of Deer Canyon. (#51) 19. 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 owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1) maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision except those located within arterial streets; (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 Offices and shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. The developer of each tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. the developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance gad bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries o: SP87-1. (#52) 20. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a non-refundable fen foz lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department. The developer shall also provide and construct all necessary trench, backfill, conduit and manholes, vaults, handhoies and boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. (#55) 21. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide grading, sever, 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. (#58) 22. That prior to approval of the first final parcel or tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and environmental concerns within the drainage basin. In addition, the study shall address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of construction and final design, including erosion control measures in the upper reach of the system, shall be in conformance with the findings of, said study. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, California Department of Fish gad Game and the County Environmental Alanagement Agency. (#61) 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY io. 1988 _ 88-283 23. That prior to the approval of the final tract map, bonding for the Master Plan Facilities and in-tract improvements shall be provided. (p66) 24. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the Boundaries of SP87-1, a special maintenance district or other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer for the maintenance of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities bath on- and off-site necessitated by the Highlands development. (k69) 25. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of detailed soils and geologic investigations for the subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and subdrains in the area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit. (~80) 26. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer of the Highlands shall prepare comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 273 and shown on Exhibit 29 of the Specific Plan, the plan prcposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization of the Deer Canyon drainage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree losses. This program and related details shall be finalized during the subsequent permit processes with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the approval of the final roadway design plan, and shall also be subject to review by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (p88) 27. That the developer shall widen Imperial Highway by one additional northbound lane from Santa Ana Canyon Road to Route 91 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 401st residential unit within the boundaries of SP87-1. Said obligation shall be secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. To the extent the developer/owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the owner/developer. (/90) 28. The following conditions apply to the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Sauer Ranch. (a) The owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall post security is an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to guarantee construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 24,_19$8 88-284 to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project, or when grading commences on the Oak Hills Ranc1-, whichever comes first. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch shall post similar security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon {formerly Wallace Ranch) within the same time frame as set forth above. (b) In the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security as set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of the Highlands Project may post security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project or when grading commences on Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace'Ranch), whichever comes first, provided that the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) posts similar security in as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map oa the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above. (c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch nor the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) posts the security as provided is (a) and (b) sbove, the property owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall, prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map on the Highlands Project, post a security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from the existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highland project and that prior to issuance of the build.inq permit for the 401st residential unit, the developer shall provide as off-site access road to Santa Ana Canyon Road via the proposed route to the north, or through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) (via Weir Canyon Road) or by the widening of Fairmont Boulevard (from Canyon Rim Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road) at its ultimate circulation designation. To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to the Highlands Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for the cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the Highlands Project owner/developer. (p91) 29. That prior to the approval of the first final tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall agree to construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-285 the City Traffic Engineer at no cost to the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#96) 30. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in the Highlands to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. (#97) 31. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate property owner. (#98) 32. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of 87-1, the property owner/developer shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include, transit service, park and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities), bikeways, and other transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (#99) 33. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. (p103) 34. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the general alignment of the Highlands road system shall be submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract. or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. (#109) 35. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall De furnished as part of in-tract improvements prior to approval of the the final tract map. Bonding for any off-site road extension, shall be furnished prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (#110) 36. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall submit a viable action plan subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission assuring the timely construction of improvements identified as follows: (a) Extension of Serrano Avenue into the City of Orange to provide regional access through the City of Orange into Anaheim. (b) Extension of Imperial Highway to Loma to join existing Loma Street is the City of Orange. (#112) 02/29/88 MINUTES AtPAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-286 37. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the developer shall pay for and the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the Highlands, Oak Hills Ranch and Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch); any undeveloped parcels of land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road and from the southerly City limits to Oranggthorpe Avenue, and including all of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and Oak Hills Ranch; and, the City. The findings of the study, showing proportionate share of cost distributian, shall become binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of buildzng permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on Santa Ana Canyon Road: (a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate six-lane configuration between Imperial Highway and the Sauer Ranch (East Hills) improvements. (b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and right-turn lane. (8113) 38. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the obligations of the developer as set forth is Condition Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 29 shall be secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and form approved by the City. Said security shall be provided and approval thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is established. (p120) 39. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at the time of final tract map recordation. The reservoir sites shall be dedicated xith the final map, or when required by the City. (k20) 40. That prior to recordation of the tract map, the 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 co facilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (q34) 41. That all facilities shall be located within public rights-of-way and easements dedicated with th~~ recordation of the final map. The conduit system with associated concrete manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above ground on concrete pads. (p57) 42. That prior to the recordation of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall fee-dedicate 129 acres within Areas II and III (Weir Canyon viewshed) to the County of Orange for permanent open space. (Y8T) 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUAR= 29, 1988 88-287 43. That the owner/develo~~er shall dedicate the land for tY.e public street system for public use with the recordation of the final tract map. (n108) 44. That prior to the approval of the final map, vehicular access rights to all arterial highways within or adjacent to subject tract, except at street openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 45. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 46. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installer:. 47. That prior to recordation of the final map, final site plans indicating unit layout, minimum building and front-on garage setbacks, and building coverage for each lot shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. 48. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing th~.ough this project. 49. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground utilities. 50. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, is an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. TS~e above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 51. That prior to final tract map approval, transmission and terminal storage fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rule 15C of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 52. That prior to final tract map approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division '~y the owner/developer in accordance with Rule 158 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 53. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with specifications on file with said division. 54. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIMSITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-288 to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be .filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 55. That all public streets adjacent to the blue border of the tract shall be fully included within the tract. 56. That prior to recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer shall record a reciprocal access agreement for those adjacent lusts ha~vinq 20 and 21-foot wide frontages to ensure joint access. 57. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map gaining access from Canyon Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit. or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee reconstruction of the median island on Canyon Rim Road to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building pez•mit. 58. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of the Highlands project, the owner/developper shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, the 78-foot wide right-olE-way required for the construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands project. 59. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in as amount as specified in the N.ajor Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 60. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessmEnt fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in as amount as determined by the City Council. 61. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 62. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants stall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 63. Prior to the approval of any tract map, parcel map or improvement plan for any development within the area of the 408 units, a bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim guaranteeing the construction of the permanent sewer connections. This bond shall remain in effect until the completion and acceptance of said sewer. Further that the permanent connection to the City's sewer system shall be for a maximum of 73 units and the temporary connection shall be for a maximum of an additional 408 units. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-289 64. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1-22. 65. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that those conditions of approval set forth in Ordinance No. 4861 which require completion of certain tasks other than those required prior to either submission or approval of the first tentative or final parcel or tract map are tied to said map for purposes of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plan. Any condition referencing the first (tentative/final) tract or parcel map shall for the purposes of this covenant mean the first (tentativeifinal) tract or parcel within the boundaries of SP87-1. 66. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP87-1 (Specific Plan for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills-Ordinance No. 4861). ti7. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 68. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that Condition Nos. 46, 48, 49, 53, 59, 60, 61 and 62 above-mentioned are tied to said map for purpases of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plan. A TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5; and does, therefore, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 12702, including site plan, for a 148-lot, single-family detached subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the submittal of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall make provisions for design features that conserve =~ator such as controlled irrigation systems which employ drip irrigation, toil moisture sensors, and automatic systems that minimize runoff and evaporation, and use of mulch on top of soil to improve water holding capacity of public landscaped areas; and, use of xeriscape and drought-tolerant species for landscaping. Plans indicating such conservation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department. (/14) 2. That in conjunction with submittal of the first find tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall submit plans delineating roadway access to the Highlands from Fire Station No. 9 via 02/29/88 '~ ., 68-290 MI E ANAHEIM ITY PLANNIN MMI I N FEBR ARY 2 1 Serrano Avenue; and, Fire Station No. 10 via a temporary emergency vehicular access road through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch). Such plans shall be to the satisfaction of the City Fire Chief and the City Engineer. (q70) 3, That in conjunction with the submi*_tal of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an easement across Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for a temporary emergency vehicular access road; said temporary access road shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicular access to the Highlands development from Fire Station q10 prior to the placement of any combustible materials on any parcel in the Highlands project. Said temporary emergency vehicular access road shall be demolished and removed upon the construction and opening to traffic of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road Connection through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and the Oak Hills Ranch. Prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash in a form and amount approved by the City to secure the above obligations. (q95) {, Prior to the approval of the first final tract map or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a study shall be cencluc2eC~ by an independent third. party acceptable to the City and the property ~wrer/developer defining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) (e.g., assessment district(s)) to assure the project generates revenues (assessment revenues) to meet the assigned costs of City services (operations and maintenance) on a year by year basis. Final decision for establishing such financial mechanism(s) will be that of the City Council. Such mechanism(s) shall be formed to generate assessment revenues sufficient to recover any variances between revenues to the City generated by project development and assigned City costs to service the project. The City shall have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom together with the Highland's estimated proportionate share of additional off-site revenues generated by the project (e.q. regional shopping center revenues to City); and, when the assessment revenues reach equilibrium with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costs for said studies associated with determining the most appropriate financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to said first final tract or parcel map approval. (qll) 5. That boadin3 for construction of the required water system improvements shall be furnished in conjunction with the final map. (q21) 6. That the water supply system shall be funded and constructed in accordance with the Water Utility's Rates, Rules and Requlati:~+~ as provided below: (a) The developer shall install the secondary system improveo2/29/88 ~:- MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 29. 1968 38-291 (b) Funds for construction of the pump stations and reservoirs shall be advanced by the developer thrcugh the payment of special facilities fees as provided for in Rule 7.5-8. (c) Primary mains shall be installed by the (:ity with funds provided by the 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 the final tract map approval. (q22) 7. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Library Department to provide the Highlands proportionate share of costs for provision of a library facility to he located oil the Br.uer Ranch (East Hills). Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's Office. (q26) 8. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Police Department to i,rovide its proportionate ehare of costs to the City for provision of an off-site satellite police acility to serve the easterly portio~a of the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Plar_ninq and Police Departments and shall be subject to aporoval by the Police Department and City Attorney's Office. (p27) 9. That prior to final tract map approval, flans shall be submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for review and approval for defensible space concepts and safety features (i.e. access, visibility, surveillance, etc.). (q28) 10. That prior to approval of the firsi final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acauisitioa of easements for any public facility (including but not limited to water, electrical, sewers, 3raiaage) that will be necessary to cross the Oak Hills Ranch, Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), or adjacent properties to the north of the Highlands in order to serve the needs of the Highlands, as required by the City Engineer and the Public Utilities General Manager. Land or easements shall be acquired and dedicated to the City at the sole expense of the property owner/developer. (930) 11. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim the Highlands' proportionate share of the cost for providing public facilities and utilities (including a fire station and storm drain facilities) which facilities and utilities are located in the Sauer Ranch (East Hills) but will also serve the Highlands. Said funds shall be used to reimburse Kaufman and Hroad (the developer of the Bauer Aanch) for the Highlands proportionate 02/29/88 .,,_ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 1988 88-292 share of said facilities and ~itilities. Said costs shall be determined by reimbursement agreements administered by the City. (q31) 12. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property o•.rner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim Maintenance Department to provide its proportionate share of the costs to the City for provision of an off-site street maintenance facility to serve the easterly portion of the pity as determined by the Director of Maintenance. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and the Maintenance Department and shall be subject L•o approval by the Maintenance Department and City Attorney's Office. (k32) 1"s. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the tract parcel or boundaries, for review and approval by the City Engineer. The sewer system for the project shall be funded, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. (q37) 14. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the location, phasing, bonding and details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by streel• configurations, lot layouts, gravity flow and a subsequent sewer study to be performed by the property owner/developer and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Acceptability of the proposed connection to the City's existing sewer system at Canyon Rim Road shall be determined by the City Engineer. (~39) 15. That, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parc.sl map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 acres of parkland at a site location acceptable to the City and its local park site criteria, adjacent to the elementary school site, in the vicinity of Serrano Avenue and Canyon Rim Road. The dedication offer shall also provide that the park site be graded flat (5~ slope or less). (p42) 16. That the Four Corners Trail shall be maintained by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City, and established at the expense of the owner/developer, prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP07-1. (q47) 17. Prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, that reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer in the uncemented portions of the parkways along any arterial highway. The responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping shall be financed through a special maintenance district or another financial mechanism acceptable and approved by the City of Anaheim and shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (q50) 18. That prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval within the boundaries of SP87-1, the petitioner shall make provision, acceptable to the 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2~, 1988 88-293 City of Anaheim, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property and for the maintenance of Deer Canyon. (q51) 19. 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 owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant obligating the Homeowners Association to (1) maintain the landscaped portion of parkways of any arterial street parkways adjacent to Association maintained slopes and/or common areas, and all median islands installed in conjunction with said subdivision except those located within arterial streets; (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 he recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. The developer of each tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereinabove described parkways and median islands, including providing the above specified insurance, until such time as the Homeowners Association becomes legally obligated therefore as hereinabove provided. The developer shall post a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee performance of the developer's obligations herein described. Evidence of the required insurance and bond shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to apprcval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (p52) 20. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a non-refundable fee for lots as determined by the Public Utilities Department. The developer shall also provide and construct x11 necessary trench, backfill, conduit and manholes, vaults, handholes and boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. (q55) 21. That prior to approval of the final 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. (q58) 22. That prior to approval of the first final parcel or tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a feasibility study of the developer's proposed storm drain concept shall be conducted to address the erosion, siltation, sedimentation equilibrium and envir~nn:ental concerns within the drainage basin. In addition, the study shall address the maintenance costs associated with the facilities. Said study shall be conducted by the City and funded by the developer. The phasing of construction and final design, including erosion control measures in the upper reach of the system, shall be in conformance with the findings of said study. Said study shall be approved by the City Engineer and reviewed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County Environmental Management Agency. (q61) 02/29/88 MINUTES_ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-294 23. Ths:•. prior to the approval of the final tract map, bonding for the Master Plan 'Facilities and in-tract improvements shall be provided. 0166) 24. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, a special maintenance district or other funding mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer for the maintenance of all open or natural channel storm drain facilities both on- and off-site necessitated by the Highlands development. (#69) 25. That prior to approval of the final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and subdrains in the area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit. (p80) 26. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer of the Highlands shall prepare a comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 273 and shown on Exhibit 29 of the Specific Plan, the plan proposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization of the Deer Canyon drainage, enhance woodland habitat and compensate for tree losses. This program and related details shall be finalized during the subsequent permit processes with the Department of Fish and Game prior to the approval of the final roadway design plan, and shall also be subject to review by the City Engineer and the County of Orange and review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (#88) 27. That the developer shall widen Imperial Highway by one additional northbound lane from Santa Ana Canyon Road to RoutA 91 prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 401st residential unit within the boundaries of SP87-1. Said obligation shall be secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of tFie first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. To the extent the developer/owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the owner/developer. (q90) 28. 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 Highlands Project 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 from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road 02/29/88 J" MINUTES__ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-295 to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for ane-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project, or when grading commences on the Oak Hills Ranch, whichever comes first. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch shall post similar security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map on the Highlands Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection within Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) within the same time frame as set forth above. (b) In the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security as set forth in (a) above, the owner/developer of the Highlands Project may 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 the construction of Serrano Avenue from its existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of t'~e Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 401st residential unit on the Highlands Project or when grading commences on Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch), whichever comes first, provided that the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) posts 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/weir Canyon Road within their property as well as for one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above. (c) In the event that neither the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch nor the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) posts the security as provided in (a) and (b) above, the property owner/developer of the Highlands Project shall, prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map on the Highlands Project, post a security is an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue from the existing terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highland project and that prior to issuance of the building permit for the 401st resident~sl unit, the developer shall provide an off-site access road to Santa Ana Canyon Road via the proposed route to the north, or through Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) (via Weir Canyon Road) or by the widening of Fairmont Boulevard (from Canyon Rim Road to Santa Ana Canyon Road) at its ultimate circulation designation. To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to the Highlands Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) for the cost of construction within the third ranch as provided in (a) and (b) above. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the Highlands Project owner/developer. (q91) 02/29/88 ~ ~ `~ -~ INUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~ION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-296 29. That prior to the approval of the first final tract map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall agree to construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and the City Traffic Engineer at no cost to the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (q96) 30. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in the Highlands to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. (q97) 31. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall coordinate the construction schedule, alignment and developer responsibilities for any road construction through adjacent properties with the appropriate property owner. (#98) 32. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of 87-1, the property owner/developer shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a Transportation Systems Management program with specific guidelines indicating strategies to reduce the amount of trips and increase the amount of non-vehicular transportation. Strategies may include, transit service, park and ride turnouts, carpool and vanpool facilities), bikeways, and other transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (q99) 33. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. (p103) 34. That prior to approval of the first final tract or pastel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the general alignment of the Highlands road system shall be submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. (gi09) 35. That for on-site roadways and traffic signals, bonding shall be furnished as part of in-tract improvements prior to the approval of the final tract map. Bonding for any off-site road extension, shall be furnished prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1. (11110) 36. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the owner/developer shall submit a viable action plan subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission assuring the timely construction of improvements identified as follows: (a) Extension of Serrano Avenue into the City of Orange to provide regional access through the City of Orange into Ana.~eim. (b) Extension of Imperial Highway to Loma to join existing Loma Street in the City of Orange. (p112) 02/29/88 .s MINUTES ANAHEIM ~"'ITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-297 37. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the developer shall pay for and 'he City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a financial plan for6circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the Highlands, Oak Hills and Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch); nay undeveloped parcels of land located within the study area from Imperial Highway to weir Canyon Road and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all of Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch) and Oak Hills Ranch; and, the City. The findings of the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, shall become bind;.ng upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based oa impact on Santa Ana Canyon Road: (a) Widen Santa Ana Caayan Road to its ultimate six-lane configuration between Imperial Highway and the Sauer Ranch (East Hills) improvements. (b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir Canyon Road to provide one right-turn lane and one optional left-turn and right-turn lane. (8113) 38. That prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 29 shall be secured by a performance bond, letter of credit, or other form of security in an amount and form approved by the City. Staid security shall be provided and approval thereof by the City required contemporaneous with the approval of any agreement creating such obligation or at the time such obligation otherwise is established. (8120) 39. Thac the owner/developer shall dedicate the land required for implementation of the water system to the City in conjunction with streets, and through easements at the time of final tract map recordation. The reservoir sites shall be dedicated with the final map, or when required by the City. (N20) 40. That prior to recordation of the tract map, the owner/developer shall record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each residential dwelling with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (N34) 41. That all facilities shall be located within public rights-of-way and easements dedicated with the record?r.ion of the final map. The conduit system with associated concrete manholes and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above ground on concrete pads. (q57) 42. That prior to the recordation of the first final tract or pa::cel map within the boundaries of SP87-1, the property owner/developer shall fee-dedicate 129 acres within Areas II and II_ (Weir Canyon viewshed) to the County of.Orange for permanent open space. (~87) 02/24/88 s- ~, MINUTES ANAYE,i,M,_r~y PLAh'NIN~COMMISSIONs_ FEHRUARY 29, 1988 88-298 43. That the owner/developer shall dedicate the land for the public street system for public use with the recordation of the final tract map. (x108) 44. That prior to the approval of the final map, vehicular access rights to all arterial highways within or adjacent to subject tract, except at street openings, shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim. 45. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 46. That prior to any occupancy, temporary street name signs shall be installed if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 47. That prior to recordation of the final map, final site plans indicating unit layout, minimum building and front-on garage setbacks, and building coverage for each lot shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. 48. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities .shall be conducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from or flowing through this project. 49. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground utilities. 50. That street lighting facilities along all public streets shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to final tract map approval. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 51. That prior to final t: act map approval, transmission and terminal storage fees shall be paid to the water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rule 15C of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 52. That prior to final tract map approval, special facilities fees shall be paid to the Water Utility Division by the owner/developer is accordance with Rule 158 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 53. That prig to final building and zoning inspections, "NO parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division and in accordance with specifications on file with said division. 54. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted 02/29/88 ~'Y ES ANAHEIM- C~~PLANNING COhA~(ISSION FEBRUARY 29 1988 88-299 to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded is the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 55. That all public streets adjacent to the blue border of the tract shall be fully included within the tract. 56. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map gaining access from Canyon Rim Road, the owner/developer shall post security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim to guarantee reconstruction of the median island on Canyon Rim Road to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineering prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 57. That prior to recordation of the first final tract or parcel map within the boundaries of the Highlands 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 its ezisting terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands project 58. That prior to recordation of the final tract map, that the owner/developer shall record a reciprocal access agreement for those adjacent lots, having 20-foot wide frontages, to ensure joint access. 59. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate major thoroughfare and bridge fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as specified in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 85R-423. 60. That prior to issuance of a buiidinq permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in comp'iance with Condition No. 89 of Ordinance No. 4861. 61. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate fees due for primary, secondary and fire protection shall be paid to the water Utility Division by the owner/developer in accordance with Rules 15A and 20 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations. 62. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 63. Prior to the approval of any tract map, parcel map or improvement plan for any development within the ares of the 408 units, a bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim guaranteeing the construction of the permanent sewer connections. This bond shall remain in effect until the completion and acceptance of said sewer. Further that the permanent connection to the City's sewer system shall be for a maximum of 73 units and the temporary connection shall be for a mazimum of an additional 408 units. 02/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. FEBRUARY 29. 1988 88-300 64. That subject property shall be developed substantially is accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1-22. 65. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that those conditions of approval set forth in Ordinance No. 4861 which require completion of certain tasks other than those required prior to either submission ar approval of the first tentative or final parcel or tract map are tied to said map for purposes of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plan. Any condition referencing the first (tentative/final) tract or parcel map shall for the purposes of this covenant mean the first (tentative/final) tract or parcel within the boundaries of SP87-1. 66. That the development of subje-t tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP87-1 (Specific Plan for the Highlands at Anaheim Hills-Ordinance No. 4861). 67. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only t,o the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 68. Prior to or in conjunction with recordation of the final tract map, the owner/developer of subject property shall execute and record a covenant is a form approved by the City Attorney, against the entire property, acknowledging that Condition Nos. 46, 48, 44, 53, 59, 60, 61 and 62 tDave-mentioned are tied to said map for purposes of carrying out completion of the purposes of the Specific Plaa. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days to the City Council. 02/29/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Februar 29, 1988 88-301 ITEM N0. 12. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 239. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION. Subject study area is approximately 12.7 acres bounded by Center Street to the north, West Street to the east, Broadway to the south and the Santa Ana Freeway to the west. To consider an amendment Lo the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing redesignation from Medium Density Pesidential to Low-Medium Density Residential. There were twelve (12) persons indicating their presence in favor of subject request and four (9) people indicating their presence in opposition to subject req^ a t; and altliougl: the staff report vas not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Janet Kotula, Associate Flanner, explained this i5 a Planning Commission initiated General Plan Am~ndmert and the study area totals approximately 13.7 acres and contains approximately 71 lots with approximately i42 dwelling units; and 31 lois that are zoned RM-1200 and developed with 24 single family residences and 7 multiple family units; 8 lots are zoned RM-2400 and developed with 6 single family homes and 2 multiple family units; 29 lots are zoned PD-C and developed with 16 single-family homes and 14 multiple family complexes and 3 lots are zoned CG and developed with multiple family units. She stated if the Commission recommends approval of this General Plan Amendment, staff would recommend that the Commission direct staff to start reclassification proceedings to reclassify the study area to a zone that would reflect and implement the adopted General Plan designation. Joyce Morse, 1100 W. Center Street, thanked the Commission for not approving the apartment complex earlier; and that src lives at the corner of West, Center and Lincoln and there is an average of r_ne accident a week there and one injury accident a monL•h. Slie stated she understood after this General Plan Amendment is approved, there is the option to rerone and there are differing views on reclassifying commercial property to residential; however, she purchased leer property in order to restore it and to raise her children there and she would personally like to see a residential designation. Myrna Beach, 203 S. West, and owner of property at 125 S. West, stated she is concerned about the quality of life with so many people crowded in such a small area; and that they already have a parking problem and more people would increase that parking problem. She explained most of the current parking problem comes from the people in the apartments on the east side of West Street a:~d she realizes that even though L•he developers are required to build garages, no one seems to put their car in the garage. She stated site would not want to see any more units like that one on Walnut going into this area. June McIntyre, 917 W. Sycamore, sL•ated the five-point intersection is a very bad traffic situation and explained she did not ouite understand this proposal when she came to the meeting, but now understands the Commission wants to go to a lower density wit]-. less people in the area, and asked if there is a developer interested in this area. Chairman Messe stated the Commission has not- talked to a developer, but just felt this area might be one that should be redesignated. '-/?9/88 MINOTES, ANABEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1988 ___ 38-3 Ms. Mc Intrye stated she agrees with this action and xould like to see that same reasoning used on the area discussed earlier today. It was pointed out that the Commission cannot discuss that area at L•oday's meeting. Bob Morris, 1100 W. Center, stated his only Concern ifi that a lot of people want commercial zoning for the property value; but• that he cannot get loans to improve his property because it is residential, but zoned commercial and that he xould like to see a xay to alloy him to improve his property for residential use, but still have the option when Lincoln becomes commercial to have his property go commercial also for the property value. Raymot:d Baker, 114 Cherry Street, stated he is a concerned citizen and has lived in this same location for about 50 years and that he is 100 for development if it is done properly, but from what he has seen, so much of the development in certain areas of Anaheim has gone too far and a lot of the areas have been overdeveloped. Mr. Baker stated probably for his oxn best interest he shou:d not be in favor of this request, but as a resident in the area who keeps his property properly maintained, he is ir. favor of the lower denslty simply because of the increased traffic the higher density brings. Chairman Messe stated right now the General Plan calls for medium density residential in that area and the Commission today is considering changing that to low-medium density residential. Mr. Baker stated as a resident of a single-family home in that area, he is willing to sacrifice a few dollars to live in a desirable location, but if it continues the way it is going under the medium density residential designation, he did not think he could stay much longer. He stated there is a tremendous traffic and parking problem there now. OPPOSITION: There were 4 persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject- request. Harry Rnisely, owner of properties at 1104 and 1114 W. Center Street, stated he totally supports low density, but that he does not like the suggestion that the properties be reclassified. He stated the south side of Center Street is now zoned commercial and lie would like the Commission to take action today to delete the 1100 block of Center Street, with the boundary line dove the alley. He stated the General Plan Amendment doesn't bother him, but the reclassification does; that he has no plans for development, but there is commercial across the street and with the I-5 freeway coming in and the widening of Lincoln, he thought the south side of Center Street will be ideal for commercial not only for property values, but for land planning for the City of Anaheia. He added he speaks for about 6 of the 9 owners in that block. Dave Pritchard, 757 N. West Street, stated he owns properties at 1119 and 1123 Chestnut and 115 Walnut, and thaw lie bought those properties because they were zoned the way there are, knowing that soaeday he could build some units, and that he hasn't built the units yet because he did not feel the timing was right. Ae added it is difficult to wake up and find your property is worth about 1/2 what it vas the day before and he just did not think that is fair and he would like the option that when he is ready to deveiop, the decision could be made as to whether the proposed project is too much or too little for the property, but felt this is putting a blanket on the whole area. 2/29/88 88-305 MINDTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1988 Crystal Atry, 1122 W. Center Street, stated she agrees with commercial zoning, but wants low density residential because she plans to live there for the next 10 to 20 years and that she has two small children and xants to raise them in a good quality neighborhood. She stated, however, when Lincoln widens and the freeway comes in, she wants the option for commercial because their property will be Lincoln frontage and too busy for residential living. Victor Vazquez, representing his parents at 1302 W. Center, stated he also owns the property at 1210 W. Center and they purchased those properties ten years ago because they were zoned RM-1200 and agreed it is a bitter pill to take when you go to bed at night and wake up the next morning and your property value is cut in half. He stated their family does construct apartment complexes and that is wlly they purchased in this area. Concerning the parking problem, Mr. Vazquez stated a lot of the existing units were built under the old City parking requirements; that they have four units and garages for one vehicle per unit, but• the current parking requirements are 2-1/2 spaces per unit and when they develop, they huiid to tl~e City specifications and that they build quality units. Mr. Vazquez stated rezoning this area to RM-2400, cuts the property value in half and also that the 1100 block o£ West Center Street should be considered as commercial. Tom McDonough, 123 S. West, stated he has lived the~~ for about 25 years and found it alarming that the Planning Commissioners can just take a tour of the neighborhood and decide to downgrade everybody's property. He stated he is not ready to sell and there are some lots in the neighborhood which are not north much if you can't build on them, and some that are not north much as a house and the average house in the neighborhood is about 60 years old. He stated he thought this decision is really arbitrary. He stated the parkin, problem is enforcement and has nothing to do with density. THE PIIBLIC HEARI.~G WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mc Hurney ascertained that all property owners within 300 feet were notified and with only four owners present in apposition, ne would think the others are all in favor, or at least are not opposed. Mr. Baker stated some people who have spoken in apposition are friends and good neighbors and speak of buying their property for development, but that he bought his property for a home; and the moat they could leave put on that property until the General Plan was changed was a duplex. He stated he did not object when it was changed in the 1950'x, but they have had years to develop their properties and he is not objecting if they want to develop duplexes or triplexes, but the one on South Walnut looks like a monstrosity. He stated the parking for the apartment building to the north of his property has 18 parking spaces for 12 units and it does not create a problem. Mr. Baker stated hips property is 50 years old, but that he will. take anyone through to see that it meets Code. 2/29/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY ?CANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1988 SS-S04 Commissioner Mc Burney stated he wanted to make sure everybody was notified; that there was quite a turnout when the Commission had a hearing for an apartment development, but only a feu have turned out for this hearing to change the General Plan designation which tells him that the majority of the property owners are in favor. Commissioner Boydstun stated it is known that a lot of that property will be lost to the freeway alignment and asked if it would be more logical to change the designation only to Walnut and leave the area between Walnut and the freevay as RM-}200 as a buffer. Janet Botula responded that is an option flee Commission can consider. Commissioner Feldhaus stated this came about because it was discovered that many years ago before the Lincoln realignment that Center Street was commercial and still was commercial and the Commission felt that vas cut of place and asked staff to initiate this study. Commissioner Boydstun stated the freeway will take back to Clierr}• and most of the larger units are west of Walnut, so that would all conform and that would be a buffer and from Walnut to West Street, the zoning could be RM-2400. Chairman Messe stated everything vest of Walnut would be medium density and everything east of Walnut would be low-medium densit}•. Commissioner Boydstun stated the owners on Center cannot have it both ways and when that street becomes a thoroughfare later, it could be changed back. She added she knows they cannot get ioans for home improvement because it is zoned commercial. Chairman Messe stated the Commission would he recommending approval of a new exhibit B with tl:e area west of Walnut deleted. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he is conce n,ed because we du not even have a date for the freeway alignment or the Lincoln widening; however, he has heard that CALTRANS does have some reserve funds for acquiring properties along the freeway. Mary McCloskey, Senior Planner, stated the EIR for the freevay widening is being prepared and should be in its draft form in June or Jul}' and will be coming to the City for comment and the alignments through that EIR process will be set. She added it is the City's understanding that there is money set aside by the State if projects should come up for approval that fall xithin that proposed alignment. She stated their schedule is that it would be no sooner than 1993, but they do have protection money in place nor•. Art Daw, Deputy City Engineer, responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that we do not leave a date fixed at this time for the widening of Lincoln Avenue. He stated the Engineering Department has received proposals from a consultant to study the widening of Lincoln Avenue and determine which alignment might be selected, as well as the preparation of an EIR. He stated they think Lincoln Avenue is critical to provide access to the downtown area and after the preparation of an EIR, they will decide whether or not to proceed with the project and start acquiring right of way, but as of right nox, it is not scheduled. 2/29/R8 MINi7TE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 29, 1988 Commissioner Feldhaus asked if the north side of Center Street would it remain on the General Plan as commercial if it was deleted from this action, . Mr. Daw stated the City leas asked the consultant for the propesai of the widening of Lincoln Avenue, to study taking the right of way from both sides which he thought was seven feet or whether to take 14 feet from one side or the other, and they are to study all three alternatives. Mr. Fr.itchard asked if the Commission would consider deleting north of Chestnut, like they are for Walnut because there are no single-family homes north of Chestnut. Chairman Messe asked to review the colored map. He then stated that would really be spot zoning. ACTION: Commissioner Hoydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the current medium density residential designation to the lov-medium density residential designation of z• rectangularly-shaped area consisting of approximately 13.7 gross acres located south of Center Street, west of West Street, north of Broadway and east of the Santa Ana Freeway; 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 t'ne basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project vill have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hoydstun offered Resolution No. PC 88-68 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 239, Exhibit B, with the area west of Walnut Street being deleted for the study area and remaining designated for medium density and the area east of Walnut being designated for lov-medium density residential land uses. On roll call, the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, FELDHAUS, MESSE, MC BURNEY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, CARUSILLO ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERSST Greg Hastings asY.ed if Commission wishes staff to initiate proceedings for reclassification of this area. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner NcBurney and MOTZON CARRIED (Commissioner F:erbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby instruct Planning staff to initiate Reclassification proceedings to implement the designation recommended in General Plan Amendment No. 239. Mr. Knisely asked if there vill be a public hearing for the general plan amendment and it was pointed out the General Plan Amendmen*_ will be heard by the City Council and there will be notices sent out regarding that public hearing. It vas also noted no zoning actions have been taken as yet on any of the properties. z/~~~ss 88-30G MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Februar 29, 1988 ITEM N0. 13. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 235, uFr_LASSIFICATION N0. 67-88-32 (READVERTISED) AND VARIANCE N0. 3738 (READVERTISF OWNERS: SAN'i0A BECERRA & ROSA BECERRA, 1019 East North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805; DONALD K. S'afALLEY ~ JERI M. SMALLEY, 1020 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92801; JAMES R. NEEDHAM S SHIRLEY A. NEEDHAM, 128 E. North Street, Anaheim, CA 92801. AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 9000 MacArthur Blvd., X680, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.07 acres, having a frontage of approximately 210 feet on the south side of North Street, approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of East Street, and further described as 1014, 1020 and 1028 East North Street. Reclassification: RS-7200 to RM-2400 Request: To construct a 10-unit, 1-story, "affordable" apartment complex with waivers of minimum building site area per dxelling unit, maximum site coverage and maximum fence height. Continued from meetings of January 4, February 1 and February 17, 1988 at petitioner's request. It vas noted the petitioner has requested a txo-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARP.IED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of March 14, 1988, at the petitioner's request. Following the recess at 9:05 p.m., Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the hearing for GPA No. 235, etc. not be heard before 4:30 on March 14, 1988, so that it xill be easier for L-he neighbors to attend because they have had to come to so many hearings on this property recently. ITEM N0. 14 - REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1401 - Re nest for Inter retation of Permitted Rrtail IIses in the ML Zone at 2310-2320 E. Crangethorpe Avenue. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained the applicant is requesting that his use be considered as a permitted use under the existing conditional use permit and staff did not feel that it would fall under that category. Mr. Hastings responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that this is an existing business and is expanding and that it is in the ML 'Zone. Commissioner Boydstun stated she visited the site at about 2:30 p.m, and hers was the only vehicle in the parking lot out front. She stated this business does not have any distributors in this area and they want to be able to sell decorator type items and some discontinued or overflow of clothes and tee shirts and that 90% of the building appeared to be warehousing and packaging. She stated not one customer came in while she vas there. 2/29/S8 D1INlJi'ES ANrU1EID1 CITY P1.:LVNING CODCiI5SI0N, February 29, 1988 88-.i07 Commissioner Bouas stated she did not see a problem. Greg Hastings responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that if this was a new compler., the use would not be permitted as a permitted use and the Commission can make a determination that the use falls under the category of Interior decorator, manufacturing drapes, shades, etc. of CUP No. 1401. He explained the Code has changed since that conditional use permit xas granted and they could not apply for this use in the ML zone today. Chairman Messe stated that :•hole strip is almost all retail. Commissioner Feldhaus added they have a carpet store, office supplies outlet and a furniture store. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the retail sale of small furnishing items (tables, stands, screens and carpets) and decorator accessories made of pewter and brass, such as fiyurir,es of animals, lamps and vases does quality under the category for "Interior decorator, manufacturing drapes, shades, etc." approved in Conditional Use Permit No. 1401, as a permitted use in the ML 7,one. B. REQUEST OF ANAHEIM HILLS DEVELOPMENT COMPADIY FOP. A WAIVER OF THE HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE REQDIRING FERTILITY SOIL SAMPLES FOR TRACT NOS. 10970, 10976 and 10977. The Engineering Department recommends denial of subject request. AC'PION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that th~r City Council deny the request for waiver of hillside grading ordinance requiring fertility soil samples for Tract Nos. 10970, 10976, and 10977 as requested by the Engineering Department in their staff report to the Planning Commission and City Council. OTHER DISCUSSION Chairman Messe stated Commissioner Feldhaus has been appointed to the Economic Development Council and will report back on any items relating to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submittrred, Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission 2/29/88