Loading...
Minutes-PC 1988/04/25 MINUTES a ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Date: April 25, 1988 The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order at 9:30 a.m., April 25, 1988, by the Chairman in the Council Chambers, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:c.0 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Messe Bouas, Boydstun, Carusillo, Feldhaus Herbst S McBurney COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Joseph Fletcher Arthur L. Daw Paul Singer Greg Hastings Mary McCloskey Leonard McGhee Linda Rios Edith Harris Planning Director Deputy City Attorney Deputy City Engineer Traffic Engineer Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Planning Commission Secretary ~ENDA POSTING. A complete copy oi' the Planning Commission agenda was posted at 10:00 A.M., April 22, 1988, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin April 15, 1988 PUBLIC INPUT: Chairman Messe explained that at the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and/or agenda items. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Feldhaus and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst abstaining) that the minutes of the meeting of February 17, 1988, be approved as submitted. 0105m 88-561 /25/88 ~, f { ! a ~SINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 __ 88-562 Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the minutes of the meeting of February 29, 1988, be approved subject to a correction on the last page that Commissioner Feldhau:: was appointed to the Economic Development Council, as the Planning Commission liaison; and on Page 88-234 and 88-235 to show Commissioner Carusillo being absent on the roll call vote. BEM NO 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 281 (PREY CERTIFIFn)• TENTATIVE TRA N 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 1 7 ADD 13518; ~pECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO 88-03. p)JBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: BALDWIN BUILDING COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: DIANA HOARD, VICE PRESIDE2TT, THE BALDWIN COMPANY, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714; LOCATION: Property is approximately 108 gross acres, located within the southwestern portion of the Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills Ranch) to the south of the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue, bounded on the west by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills, (former Wallace Ranch) and bounded on the south by Trviae Company property. Request: Approval for removal of 84 specimen trees and the following tract maps: 13266, 13512, 13513, 13514, 13515, 13516, 13517, 13518. Continued from meeting of April 11, 1988. Chairman Messe stated the petitioner has submitted a letter requesting that this matter be continued to the May 9, 1988, meeting. TI N: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 9, 1988, at the petitioner's request. TTFM NO 2 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• GENERAL PLAN AMENpMEN~_Nt 2 • RECLASSIFICATION N0. 87-88 43• VARIANCE NO. 3772. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: DOtIALD T. TARAI AND DOROTHY M. TARAI, 3174 W. Rome Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92804; AGENT: MAGDY HANNA, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, 8680, Newport Beach, CA •92660. LOCATION: 150 So. Dale Avenue. GPA Request: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, proposing a redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential or Low-Medium Density Residential Reclassification Request: RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Variance Request: Waivers of (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site coverage to construct a 2-story, 64-unit affordable apartment project. There were 10 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. 4/25/88 ~. ;`". ~z: <- MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLADT2IING COMMISSION Avril 25 19b8 88-563 Al Marshall, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, presented slides showing the site is approximately 133 feet wide and 1119 feet long with a wholesale nursery currently on the site. He added the project includes the channel aezt to the property which is 73 feet wide by the length of the property; and that they have met with the Orange County Flood Control District regarding this proposal. He noted that strip of land is part of a three channel study which the Orange County Flood Control District is completing; and that the nursery next to it is a wholesale storage lot for a nursery. He indicated they are proposing 84 one-bedroom, 2-story units, which are all oa the nursery site and the parking and driveway are aver the channel, with a cul-de-sac turn-around at the end. Mr. Marshall stated the project will be an attractive 2-story project, with ao subterranean parking; and that there is a project directly across the street from the site which is 3-stories, 2-stories over semi-tuck under parking. He stated he feels the project will greatly enhance the area. Mr. Marshall stated the 2-story, slab-on-grade apartments adjacent to the channel are approximately BO feet from the nearest single-family property line. He stated they feel this would be a good use for this property and that right now it is basically unusable. He stated they did have a homeowner's meeting, and mailed notices to owners in a 300-foot radius, and had one gentleman outside the radius contact them whose main concern was traffic onto Dale Street. He stated another access to the property is a possibility and there are several options, but they have not explored them at this time. OPPOSITION• Moriano Molina, 223 Reaoke St., Anaheim, stated he represents the neighbors who are very much opposed to the continued building of apartment units in their community and the primary reason for opposition is the overbuilding of the community. He noted the traffic problem is very real and the apartment building across from the site has increased traffic tremendously and caused numerous accidents. He stated there is a school adjacent to the property where children are• required to cross the street. Mr. Molina stated their quality of life is lessened by the tremendous amount of irresponsible Y~uilding and referred to other large complexes being constructed or recently completed, including a 30-unit complex which replaced a small medical complex oa Broadway, and one being constructed on Brookhurst where a single-family dwelling used to stand and complexes at Sall and Dale. He stated the increased traffic and increased demand oa City services have not been properly addressed; and that there are a lot of apartments for rent in Anaheim and he did not see the need for these units. Kathleen 3ohnsoa, 2735 W. Tola Avenue, stated she lives in one of the homes that backs up to the drainage ditch. She stated there are a lot of apartments already on Lincoln and in the summer there is a lot of noise and fighting in the parking lot, and one neighbor has had a bullet hole in his home and she did not want more people there. She noted they have a very narrow back yard 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anril_2~. 1988 88-564 and with a 2-story agartment there, the tenants would be looking right down at them all of the time. She also noted the school now has a very transient school population which causes a lot of problems for the teachers. She also voiced concern with building over the drainage ditch and stated 80 feet is not very far from her back yard and she did not want this type project behind her house. Faye Molina, 223 Renoke Street, stated the proposed apartments are right behind her neighborhood. She stated the slides made the streets look very spacious and the buildings very pretty and the developer is saying how it would enhance the appearance of the area but she did not think that is correct, because the street is very narrow with a 3-story apartment on one side and a 2-story apartment on the other. She stated when she walks in her neighborhood now, she feels all the buildings do not enhance anything. She explained they did get a letter regarding the meeting the developer mentioned, but were out of town and the other neighbors did not get the letter. Jay Cowan, 3030 Breakers Drive, Corona del Mar, owner of property immediately north of the site, stated the property he cwns is developed with an RV park and the people living is the park are primarily retired people; and that next to him is a mobilehome park with older people living there, and his concern is low-income housing being built on the property. Chairman Messe interrupted saying he believed the request for affordable housing was deleted and Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, clarified that the affordable housing has been deleted. Mr. Cowan noted the staff report shoxs a density of 74i while the code requirement is S5~ maximum, and he felt that is a very high density for that piece of property. He stated he felt they need at least an 8-foot high fence between his property and the site because of the low-income type of people who would be living there, and that he is concerned about security for the residents on his property. He ?.udicated because of the slope of the land, the floodwater flows across his property and across the adjacent property to the rear to the flood control channel, and noted there would need to be drainage holes through the fence to allow flood water to go through. Lawrence Lindsay, 2059 Tola Avenue, stated he has resided there for 25 years and they are very concerned because this has been a very law risk security area and they are afraid of what this might bring in. He stated the carports are going to back up to his yard and he was concerned about exhaust from starting and stopping of cars. Mary Woods, 2726 W. Lincoln, indicated she had never received any notice of any kind and she is adjoining the property, and that her neighbors did not get notices either. Chairman Messe asked if she was the owner of the property, to which she replied that she was, and Greq Hastings indicated he would check the file. Ms. Woods stated she was concerned about noise and privacy. She noted it would be easy for people to hop the fence and to cut through to go to Lincoln. She stated she is on the end of the project and is is favor of an eight-foot high fence. She stated she is also concerned about the placement of the trash containers. 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-565 Steve Mikuls, 2749 W. To'a, stated he is concerned about this and would have attende3 the meeting that was held had he really understood what the letter was for. He stated his property borders the fence that would be adjacent to this property and on the other side of the fence is where the people would be parking their cars, and where the dumpsters would be located, etc., and their bedrooms are on that side of the house, and he thought the noise from the starting of cars would be waking them up in the morning. He stated is the past he had a problem with kids running through his yard, and making holes in the fence to get down into that flood control channel, and that he sees that as a potential problem. Mr. Mikuls stated a major problem is that he will lose a great deal of the privacy he now enjoys and that he probably xould not have purchased his home had he known this might happen. He stated he is not against growth but does not feel the building of this complex is going to enhance the pronerty. He stated he believes it will detract from the properties that border it. RESUTTAL• Al Marshall stated the maximum site coverage refers to the old site coverage, which has changed and also the affordable was taken out. He stated their ac*_ual site coverage is 55~. He said the maximwn under the RM-1200 would be 36 units to the acre and this project is for 28 units to the acre. He stated he did not understand unless the flood control channel surface xas calculated, and that is where the driveway is located. Greg Hastings stated staff reviewed the coverage and came up with 74i.. Chairman Messe informed Mr. Marshall that they are still at 740 and it is still listed as a waiver. Mr. Marshall stated they would recalculate that or change it so that it meets Code, because with 28 units to the acre, be did not know how they could go over the 55l. Mr. Marshall referred to the line of sight, and pointed out they had pitched the roofs on the carports to eliminate any visual intrusion into the single-family backyards. He stated the mobilehome park is closer and they are certainly willing to go along with an 8-foot fence there if permitted. He noted that since 64 of these units are 1-bedroom and the rest bachelor units, the occupancy in the units would be very low, because there is a limit of 2 adults per bedroom and that would keep the density very low in the project. Replying to Chairman Messe, he stated the 16 bachelor units are 1-story. He stated the project is not very visible from Dale Street, and that from the back yards of the homes, they would basically see the roof line of the carports behind, and the project would not be a direct visual intrusion into the neighborhood at all. Mr. Marshall noted also that the buildings would serve as an excellent buffer between the neighborhood and the noise from Lincoln Avenue and the noise from the apartments referred to. He stated the water runoff would be taken care of and that the Flood Control District would not allow anything else to happen. 4/25/88 urmrrrg ATIAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMICCTON April 25 1988 _ 88-5E6 Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Marshall stated there could be an 8-foot wall on both the north and south boundaries. Chairman Messe noted that someone had been concerned about the trash enclosures and Mr. Marshall stated they would be relocated oa the property, adjacent to the street and would not be up against neighboring fences or against their property, and would be buffered by the distance of the carport which is 20 feet, plus a setback of 5 feet, plus the eight foot wall. Magdy Hanna, agent, stated the property was difficult to design and that they understood the concerns of the neighbors, and that one of the concerns was traffic, and that the City Traffic Engineer could address that issue, but that he has stated Dale Avenue could accommodate the additional traffic generated by this project,. Mr. Hanna apologized to any person who did not receive a letter, and explained they did ask the title company to provide them with a list of names of all the property owners within the 300 foot radius and it was done automatically by computer. He stated they did eliminate the affordable housing and that they would be willing to revise the plans and reduce the site coverage if the Commisson will grant them a continuance and that they would be happy to provide the B-foot high fence. He noted the slope for the drainage would be maintained and they would find a way to take the water straight to the flood control channel. Mr. Hanna referred to the concern about crime and stated by no means would that type of people be living there; pointing out that people living there would be making 52,000 to 53,000 per month, and that would be monitored through their management company. He stated the trash location would be addressed in revised plans and they would try to locate it in an area that would not concern the neighbors. He stated the concerns about children playing in the flood control channel would be minimized and, in fact, they are studying the possibility of putting up security gates. THE PUBLIC HEARIN~WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Souas asked if this would have to be readvertised for as 8-foot wall and Greg Hastings replied that it would, since it requires a variance. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Marshall stated the back wall of the carport is 8 feet high and the peak of the roof is approximately 12 feet, and that the back of the carport would be a solid wall. Commissioner Herbst stated in his opinion this is not a good design for apartments. He stated he is very mucY. opposed to taking an existing open space and building apartmenits; and because of the length. 'this will appear as a barrack-looking building; and that the units would block the view of the neighbors and probably block some of their air and sun. He noted this would be the longest cul-de-sac 3,n Anaheim and he felt even the Fire Department might have problems with t2te design, and they usually reject anything over 500 feet. He stated he recogn?izes the site has been used or zoned commercially, at least part of it, but p;srt of it is zoned for open space, even though it is 4/25/88 IHUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLA.~:dING COMMISSION AP3i1 25 1988 BB-567 not shown, but that is what it was intended for because of the flood control channel. He stated density is one thing he is very much concerned about; and that Anaheim cannot keep increasing density on land not intended for this density because it does create problems throughout with gridlock. He stated the traffic study says commercial property creates more traffic than apartments, but in reviewing this particular property, it will never be commercial or used for anything ezcept what it is being used for now. He stated he is very much opposed to covering the channel and using it for garages right against someone's property and noted the neighbors bought their homes years ago and in looking behind them, thought the ditch would remain there. Chairman Messe stated there would not be apartments built there unless the Commission changes the General Plan, and asked staff to address the General Plan Amendment. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, stated the General Plan now designates the property fear general commercial land use, as well as flood control. He anted Exhibit A is the petitioner's request to amend the GP for medium density designation. He stated Exhibit B is staff's alternative for low medium density residential land use for the subject study area. Chairman Messe stated Commission has to address the General Plan Amendment before they can address the request for the reclassification for the apartments. Commissioner Carusillo asked if staff is suggesting RM-2400 and Mr. McGhee stated staff is just presenting an alternative for a less dense use than the petitioner's request for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Hanna asked if it is the desire of the Commission to see RM-2400 on the site. Chairman Messe replied this property is zoned commercial, and that he could not see anything commercial going on there :: asictd the other Commissioners to state their feelings. Commissioner Bouas stated she agreed with Commissioner Herbst and she did not feel the property was meant to be developed residentially. She stated she did not know that it was meant to be developed with anything, and that she would hate to see a property owner own a parcel that they cannot develop, but that she believed this would be impacting the area too much. She added she did not feel that an RM-2400 development and covering the ditch in an effort to try and make this piece of property really usable as residential is the answer, and that she believed it really needs to be kept open space. She noted that developer had done a fantastic job with what they had to work with there and knew they were willing to go back to the drawing board and work with the neighbors but she did not think it would do any good. Mr. Hanna stated everyone has the right to develop their property and that it could not be left as open space. Commissioner Souas stated the flood channel could be left as open space. Mr. Hanna indicated the site could be developed as mini storage or some other similar type of development. Commissioner Bouas noted that mini storage could go on there but she did not know if the 4/25/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1988 88-568 neighbors would want that either and stated she agrees that one has a right to develop their property, but she thought to cover the flood control channel in order to develop apartments there is not the answer. Mr. Hanna noted commercial zoning would allow them to qo up as high as sir stories if they wanted to do that, and stated they are trying to propose a compromise. Commissioner Feldhaus asked Mr. Hanna if he wasted to try and mitigate the problems and objections of the people and if he would accept the results if the neighbors came back to the next meeting and still objected to the plans. Mr. Hanna stated he would like to develop something the neighbors are happy with. Commissioner Carusillo stated two stories and the carports are a problem and that perhaps with RM-2900, and the density cut is half, and pushing the carports back, the project might be more palatable. Mr. Hanna said he could redesign the rroject under RM-2400 and come back with more of the items addressed and present something more compatible. Chairman Messe stated he would like to see what could be done with an RM-2400 design. 'Commissioner Herbst asked if the property could be developed without covering the ditch and Mr. Hanna saiii that would require more variances because they would thin have a width problem. Commissioner Herbst stated that is just his point and this site is aoc suitable for residential use without using the open space that was there, anal he is opposed to that. Commissioner Feldhaus stated he did not believe Mr. Hanna would be able to talk to the people in a two-week period. Commissioner Herbst anted from review of the staff report, that they have worked with the Flood Control people, and asked what kind of conversation they have had since they are apparently waiting for some type of action from the Planning Commission before the developer will be given the right to cover the ditch and added he xas concerned with wasting rveryone's time, if the Flood Control people say "no." Mr. Hanna said he has an agreement with them, and his communication with them is in writing, sad they wanted the project approved and then they would work with developer to get the plans approved. He stated the Flood Control was in agreement to cover the ditch, as long as they satisfy the engineering requirements. ACTIN: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst voting NO) that subject petition be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting oa May 23, 1989, in order for the petitioner to redesign with an RM-2400 design. Commissioner McBurney stated he felt covering the channel is a better means of getting rid of the open channels throughout the City. He added he feels the channe?:: are a nuisance, not only from a safety standpoint with kids plaY'ng in them, but also because of mosquito abatement and everything else, and that he thought Mr. Hanna should be given the opportunity to review the project and see what he can do with it and try to satisfy the neighbors. 4/25/88 INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anril 2 1 Chairman Messe stated he hoped Mr. Hanna would get together with the neighbors and discuss the new plans. Freq Hastings, Senior Planner, stated the meeting would be on May 23, 1988, and no notice would be sent out unless there are other waivers. Commissianer Boydstun asked if staff would check to see if everyone received their notices before, sine there may be a need to renotify and it appears some people did not receive the first one. Mr. Hastings stated in checking the file, Ms. Woods was missed, but the property was posted and we did put notice in the newspaper. Commissioner Bouas inquired if the 8-foot wall was to go in, would it have to be readvertised and Mr. Hastings stated that it would. Commissioner Bouas noted that no matter what goes on that site, there would be an 8-foot wall. She suggested in meeting with the neighbors that Mr. Hanna could point out what commercial uses could go in there, which they might not want to have. Commissioner Carusillo stated if they reduce the project to 42 units, they could move the carports to the north adjacent to the units with some landscaping between the area, which may not require the B-faot wall. Chairman Messe stated the matter has been continued for four weeks and he wanted to remind the neighborhood that if Mr. Hanna does not come in with an 8-foot fence, this may not be readvertised, and suggested the neighbors should check with the Planning Department. Mr. Hanna stated he would like the City to readvertise this because he would come back with an 8-foot fence. Commissioner Herbst asked staff to check if notices were seat to the tenants at the mobilehome park, or if they were just seat to the owner of the park. Mr. Hastings stated in this particular case, staff just notified the property owner. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought the people abutting the property in their mobilehomes, should not be forgotten and there is a need to find out if Che property owner actually notified them. Commissioner Boydstun asked for addresses of some of the properties Mr. Hanna had done in Anaheim which are completed for her to visit. Mr. Hanna said he had one project completed at 3160 W. Ball Road. Commissioner Feldhaus asked for assurance that Ms. Wood would be contacted. Ms. Molina asked Commission to define RM-2400. Chairman Messe informed her that RM-2400 meant half the density that was proposed at RM-1200, and according to Code, Mr. Hanna would have to come up with a development which is designed at about 50~ of the density. Mr. Marshall stated in order not to mislead anyone, that although they are requesting RM-1200, they were not at the maximum, and with the RM-2400, they would be closer to 60 units. 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON April 25 1988 88-570 ITEM NO 3 - RECLASSIFICATION NO 87-88-52; VARIANCE N0. 3782. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: MOHAMMAD RZAFAR AND PARVIN RIAFAR, 300 N. Tustin Avenue, #201, Santa Ana, CA 92705; LOCATION: Property is approximately .33 acre located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Anna Drive. Request: CL to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. 7;aivers of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage and (d) permitted encroachments to construct a 14-unit, 3-story, affordable apartment complex. Commissioner Messe noted petitioner has requested subject petition be continued to the May 9, 1988, meeting. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner Feldhaus offered a motion, s•~conded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 9, 1988. ITEM NO 4 - CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• VARIANCE NO 3783. Py~je.IC HEARING: OWNERS: M.C.P. FOODS, INC., 424 S. Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 gad SZAYER 6 FINCH LEASING CO., et. al. AGENT: MC LEAN AND SCHULTZ, 2000 E. Chapman, Fullerton, CA 92631; LOCATION: 424 So. Atchison Street. Request: Waiver of (a) minimum structural setback, (b) minimum number of p»rking spaces to construct a warehouse/office building. 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. Chet Schultz, 2000 E. Chapman Avenue, Fu]lerton, architect/engineer for the project stated the railroad referred to that goes across Atchison Street has no crossing signs and it is not even noted as a railroad crossing since it is vary inactive. He stated they now have 59 employees for M.C.P. who have been is the same vicinity for over 60 years and they are adding 8 new employees; gad they have a total of 80 parking stalls, including the 40 new ones proposed, as stated in the traffic report. He notud the existing building to the south is M.C.P. He stated they have no problems with the railroad, and the escrow says they will have the right to cross the railroad property which is a narrow strip of land adjacent to Atchison Street to get to this problem property. He noted this is a problem piece of property, which is why they are asking for the variances. He stated none of the buildings on Atchison block have any setback. 4/25/88 u ~`~ ,$ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ayril 25, 1988 88-571 THE PiJBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they had an agreement with the railroad for an easement across their property to the petitioner's parking lot. Mr. Schultz stated as part of the escrow, they will have access to the property and they will not impose or impact ':he railroad. Commissioner Feldhaus noted one of the concerns of the Traffic Engineer was the backing up of vehicles into the railroad right of way. He asked whether or not that property had been sold. Mr. Schultz stated he had talked to the Traffic Engineer and that the railroad spur was also a concern of applicant, and is why they had to redesign the building. He stated they would make the west elevation more attractive, if the Commission wishes, and stated he would meet with staff and satisfy any concerns. Chairman Messe stated there was one question concerning the railroad easement but backing from the parking spaces onto that easement was really the concern and not the access. He stated the parking lot plan shows in several places that a car would actually have to back up across or onto that easement. Mr. Schultz stated they would have to cross the easement but he did not think they had to back onto it. Responding to Chairman Messe, Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the Public Utilities Commission regulates railroad grade crossings and his concern was that the parked vehicles on the one row adjacent to the railroad track would have to back up onto the railroad track to pull out of a parking space, and he would question how much of that area has been designated by the Public Utilities Commission as a legal crossing. John Flocken, owner, stated there is a very narrow strip of land that is a third parcel which they cannot purchase because the railroad will not sell at this time. He stated it contained a spur that formerly served the building next door, and the spur has been abandoned, and part of their escrow instructions is that they receive that ingress and egress. He noted the area between the ATS6F and Southern Pacific is used strictly for parking. He stated after they started their study, he nested the rail cars sit there for three to four days and any time there is P train that comes across Atchison Street, it travels at a very slow rate with the switchman walking is front. He stated there is plenty of ingress and egress not involving that crossing that covers Atchison St. He stated he believed the concern was that the trucks that back into the loading dock might be backing up across that crossing on the street. Commissioner Carusillo indicated he believed a lot of people are forgetting that there has been a lot of redevelopment downtown and some day the characteristic of that whole area is going to change and he would like to see more conformance. He suggested that maybe a fence along the parking lot to prohibit backing up over the tracks, and maybe one entrance and exit closer to the truck docks, might alleviate that problem. He stated secondly, he has a concern about some landscaping and although Mr. Schultz mentioned everything along there has ao setback, he would like to see more planting. 4/25/88 ~'~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25, 1988 88-572 Mr. Flocken replied they want the facility to look good and noted the building they have was constructed in 1928, and that he has been trying to buy the property to the north of them for about 10 years. He stated he believed putting is a smaller building would not be cost effective, and that he believed this project will upgrade the area. He stated it will be a warehouse and a nice facility and they will have both sides of the street and are anxious to keep it attractive. He presented pictures taken of the area. Chairman Messe stated he would like to settle the question of the Public Utilities Commission, and Mr. Flocken stated they were out of business for a full week because they had a couple of rail cars that could not be delivered because of the condition of the track, and they had been in constant communication with Santa Fe and Southern Pacific, even reminding them if a railcar jumped the track and hit their building, the railroad company would be liable and they won't fix the track. He stated they asked them to come and take a spike out of the switch so they could use it to put the cars on their site, so the~r could unload them and go back into production. He stated they were dealing directly with the railroad at that time, not the PUC. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated we need to distinguish between a crossing at a public right-of-way or movements adjacent to the tracks. He stated if the Commission is talking about movements oa adjoining property, he did not know to what extent the PUC gets involved; however, they are obviously concerned where public traffic crosses the tracks and those definitely have to be PUC approved crossings. Commissioner Messe suggested a condition that the City approval is subject to PUC approval, if necessary, and that the Commission does not know if it is an abandoned spur. Co~mnissioner McBurney asked Mr. Singer if the_PUC were to issue a letter stating that is an abandoned spur, would it alleviate his concerns about the traffic backing into that area. Mr. Singer stated he personally does not have a problem with this, but is trying to avoid litigation or stoppage b}' the PUC of the City's action, and his concern is that it may be something that the PUC has to regulate. He stated if the PUC would issue a statement or letter indicating that the development of theproperty, as shown on the plan, meets their regulation, then he has no problem with it. Commissioner McBurney stated possibly if that written approval does not come through, then maybe the parking lot could be redesigned and a fence installed as suggested by Commissioner Carusillo, with some parallel parking along the fence, with one entrance. Mr. Flockner stated they have chain link fences around their other parking lots for security reasons. Chairman Messe clarified that Commissioner McBurney was referring to a fence along the property line on the side of the easement so the cars cannot back onto that easement. Mr. Flockner stated he did not know that it would be necessary for the PUC to issue a letter or if they even have jurisdiction. 4/25/88 +- .. ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI SION April 25 loAA 88 573 Commissioner Bou.'s etated if PUC does not have jurisdiction, they should issue a letter that ti~;~y do not. Commissioner McBurney stated that would satisfy the same thing Mr. Singer was talking about. Commissioner Carusillo stated he thought the concerns about the landscaping could be alleviated, and also that the confusion over whether the PUC gets involved or not could be resolved and with a 4-foot high fence along the railroad track, and redesigning the parking spaces to allow just ingress and egress from a driveway nearer the truck docks, he thought the project could be approved. Mr. Flockner responded they had envisioned one access, and the entrance and exit would be one. Commissionez Carusillo stated if it is left wide open, it would be simple for the people on the north side of the parking lot to just back over the tracks. Mr. Flockner stated they were going to blacktop the parking lot. Mr. Carusillo stated the plans called for some potted landscaping by the office and suggested that be continued, and Mr. Flockner st*.t~d that would require a variance because it is City property. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit construction of a warehouse/office building with waiver of minimum structural setback and minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately U.93 acre, having a frontage of approximately 195 feet on the east side of Atchison Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 124 feet and being located approximately 176 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Street and further described as 424 So. Atchison Street (MCP Foods); 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 euviroament. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC-88-107 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3783 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 is the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, adding a condition that petitioner secure a letter from the Public Utilities Commission stating that development of the property, as shown on the plans, meets their regulations, and subject to City Traffic Engineer's approval. Responding to Commissioner Carusillo, Commissioner Herbst stated he is not .including a condition requiring a fence. 4/25/88 ~~ ,,. ':. "MUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-574 Chairman Messe responded to Commissioner Feldhaus that the concern regarding the PUC is to protect the City from litigation and Mr. Singer responded he wants to make sure that the City does not get involved in any litigation with the PUC regarding a crossing that has been strictly regulated by that body. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the public's safety with backing out at the railroad track. Mr. Singer responded he did not think there is a safety problem because the trains do go very slow in that area. On rol]. call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: 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. i n 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 273 (PREV CERTIFZED)• SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0, 88-05. PUBLIC HEARING• OWNERS: PRESLEY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ATTN: DAVID GRAF, 17991 Mitchell South, Irvine, CA 92714; AGENT: ELFEND AND ASSOCIATES, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Beach, CA 92660; LOCATION: Property comprises approximately 102 acres generally located northeasterly of the intersection of Canyon Rim Road and Serrano Avenue, having frontage oa the future northerly extension of Serrano Avenue and further described as the previously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12700 and 12701 of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan Phase I develogment area. Request: For approval to remove twenty-three (23) specimen trees. There was one interested person indicating hez presence at the public hearing, and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Sonja Grewal, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coaliti,oa, 6312 E. Santa Ana Canyon Rd., stated she i3 representing Robin Rodvoldt, 7378 Siaqinq Wood Drive, who is usable to attend until later this afternoon and would like to know what size the replacement trees being proposed are and what provisions have been made to protect any bird species nesting in the trees that are going to be removed. She indicated they also understand that the Commission has discussed the possibility of moving the mature trees rather than replacing them with smaller trees and asked if that had been ruled out as an alternative and if it had been researched. 4/25/88 .,.. - z. ,. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anril 25, 1988 88-577 5. That the specimen tree removal and replacement shall be in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. 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 otehr applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other appalicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council within 22 days regarding the specimen tree removal permit. ITEM NO 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 283 (PREV CERTIFIED)• VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NOS 12987 12988 12989 12990, 12991, 12992, 129931__1299_4,_ i2g95 12996 13153 13154 13155• SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL N0. 88-04. PUBLIC HEARING: OWNER: RICHARD ALLAN WALLACE, et al, C/0 THE REGISTER, 625 N. Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92711; AGENT: WOODCREST DEVELOPMENT, 17911 Mitchell Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714. Property comprises 13 parcels totaling approximately 328.9 acres located southeast of the southerly terminus of Weir Canyon Road, bounded on the northwest by the East Hills Planned Community, on the southeast by The Summit of Anaheim Hills (formerly Oak Hills Ranch) Planned Community, and on the southwest by the Highlands at Anaheim Hills and further described as Sycamore Canyon (formerly Wallace Ranch). Request: Removal of 20 specimen trees in conjunction with the above-noted Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Site Plans to implement the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan SP88-1 Zone. There was ao one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made apart of the minutes. PRESENTATION• Frank E1'end, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660, Newport Seach, planning consultants on Sycamore Canyon project, was present to answer any questions. Mr. Elfend thanked Planning and Engineering Departments for their assistance is processing the tentative maps, particularly Mary McCloskey, Joel Fick, and Linda Rios. Mr. Elfend presented slides and noted that the Planning Commission approved the Specific Plaa for the project consisting of 1119 residential dwellings, 20 ucres of commercial land use and 133 acres (41~) of the site as general open space which included two park sites; and also, a 2.0-acre police substation facility site. He stated the Development Agreement provided the City with 4/25/88 gy, .. v.- ~ A "y ,y MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88 576 Commissioner Bouas asked what size trees the code requires. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, stated actually the code does not have a requirement on the size of the tree, and just has a requirement regarding the footage height that the tree needs to be after a period of ten years. He noted staff has typically used, by policy, 15 gallon. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Elfend if the 15 gallon size was what he had in mind to place there and Mr. Elfend replied that it was. ACTION Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 273, previously certified by City Council on June 23, 1987, for The Highlands Specific Plan (SP 87-1) is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-05. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Specimen Tree Removal Permit ::,,. 88-OS to permit the removal of twenty-three (23) specimen trees in Vesting^Tentative Tract Nos. 12700 and 12701 on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of the groperty on which the trees are located requires removal of the tree(s) whose removal is sought; and further that any specimen tree removed shall be replaced with the planting oa the same parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list indicated in Section 18.84.038.060 of the Zoning Code; and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the removed trees shall be replaced with the planting of two trees (from the specified list is Section 18.84.038 (Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code) for every one specimen tree removed. 2. That prior to Einal building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 3. That the trees shall be replaced in accordance with any applicable oak tree/riparian preservation and management program guidelines established pursuant to Condition No. 84 of Ordinance No. 4861, which states the following: "That prior to the approval of each grading plan, the Parks Recreation and Community Services Department shall have the opportunity to review an oak tree/riparian preservation and management program which incorporates development criteria necessary to maximize the protection and presservation of on-site woodland resources within upgraded areas containing oaks." 4. That the owner/developer shall incorporate measures to protect Oak Tree Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as identified on the Tree Location Plan (Exhibit No. 2), during all phases of construction. 4/25/88 ;TT MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, i\pril 25 1988 88-57 Frank Elfend, 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 660; Newport Beach, responded that the City has a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone which is Section 18.84.042 of the Development Standards and they will comply with those standards as they relate to replacement of specimen trees which requires a certain coverage within ten years. He stated the environmental effects related to removal of the trees were evaluated with the prior EIR, and at that time no trees were found to be on the site which contained any rare and endangered species located within the trees to be removed. He pointed out this project site proposes to maintain Deer Canyon and that area contains several specimen trees, all of which are of utmost importance and in excellent condition. He stated also, as a part of the Highland Specific Plan, the developer had agreed to eliminate all ridge line grading adjacent to the Weir Canyon Park for the purpose of preserving those trees. He stated this is one project where the developer has considered tree placement on the site, and the degree to which some would be maintained and some developed in conjunction with housing and the trees that are being considered are, for the most part, actually almost all in the right-of-way of Serrano. He noted they had been told by some of their biologists that replanting of Oak Trees is not always a very successful program, and the mitigation plan which has been prepared for the City, proposes a 2 to 1 replacement, greater than what the code provides for, but much less than that which has been negotiated with the Department of Fish and Game. He stated that right now they are working on completing a permit with t!~em, in which they have asked for 200 Aurora Willow Trees and 16 Black Willow Trees, so there will be a fair amount of trees planted in that area for the loss that will occur. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst inquired of Mr. Elfend what the timing was from the time the trees are taken out to the time of replanting. Mr. Elfend stated the trees would be replanted for this project, or located within the Deer Canyon area - in fact his biologist told him that the trees had to be planted within the next 90 to 120 days. He noted that when they are out there doing the work, they would not be able to do any planting along the area. Mr. Elfend said there is a condition on the staff report which indicates that prior to final zoning and building inspection that those trees have to be planted so they will be planted before the development is completed. Commissioner Herbst said he wanted to make a statement about Anaheim Hills, and that he was involved wehn development first started; and that area was very barren ground and today there are thousands of trees planted on private property and in the open spaces. He stated he felt the few trees that would be lost here would be minimal compared to the thousands of trees that would be planted on the Highlands project over the next few years and it won't be looking like a bare piece of ground. 4/25/88 1 ~f MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anril 25 1988 88-57 several essential public improvements at an earlier date, including the entire construction of the Serrano/Weir Canyon Road connection on the site prior to occupancy of the first home, accelerated funding to assist the city in the widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road from Imperial Highway to the Bauer Ranch, a fully graded police substation site; and their proportionate share cost for the construction of a street maintenance center on the Oak Hills Ranch before a single home is occupied. Mr. Elfend then presented the tentative tract maps for the project, noting the maps are identical to the tentative tract maps contained within Exhibit 13 of the approved Specific Plan. He noted a restoration and enhancement program for the removal of specimen trees in compliance with Specific Plan Condition 99. He added the developer has provided a comprehensive plan within the arroyo area to mitigate the loss of trees. Mr. Elfend noted that Development Area No. 1 (Tract 12995) is to be 231 single-family attached townhomes; Development Area No. 3 (Tract 12994) is 451 multiple-family attached units; Development Area Nos. 4, 6 and 7 (Tracts 12993, 13153, b 12987) are minimum 4,000 sq. Et. lot homes with an average lot size of 6,056 sq. ft. and interior living space ranging from 1300 - 1950 sq. ft. He stated the products presented in this single-family area are larger than what was presented during the Specific Plan process. He stated Development Area No. 8 (Tract 12998) is minimum 5,000 sq. ft. lot homes with average lot size of 7,612 sq. ft. and interior living space ranging from 2,000 - 2,700 sq. ft., with typical elevations; Development Area No. 9 (Tracts 12989, 13154 b 13155) is minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lot homes with an average lot size of 6,663 sq. ft. and interior living space ranging from 1,740 - 2,225 sq. ft.; Development Area Nos. 2 and 5 (Tracts 12991 b 12996), less the open space within the tracts themselves comprise approximately 20 acres of commercial land use. Mr. Elfend anted there are over 120 conditions on each tentative map, and asked that certain conditions be deleted or revised based on existing circumstances. He noted the Commission was just handed a list of some revisions that were agreed upon with staff and discussed prior to today's hearing, and that he would like to discuss some additional items. Chairman Messe clarified these would be is addition to what Commission was just handed and Mr. Elfend replied that was correct. Mr. Elfend stated he would like to delete those conditions of approval which have already been satisfied by the approved Development Agreement, and would defer to Mr. Fletcher because he knew the agreements had not been executed as yet but had been approved by the City Council. Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, stated by state law, the Development Agreements, are required to be adnoted by an ordinance, and the ordinance is subject to a 30-day referendum period, and only upon the successful passage of the referendum period and execution and recordation, are the agreements fully in effect and binding. He stated his recommendation would be, that if the Commission wants to defer these conditions, they should wait to make sure the 4/25/88 ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-57 referendum period passes and the contracts become effective. He responded to Chairman Messe that City Council has passed the Development Agreement, through the adoption of the ordinances. Mr. Elfend stated it would be helpful for the purposes of the hearing this date and subsequently recording the first final map, which he hopes to do in the immediate future, to at least put on the public record that pursuant to that Development Agreement, those conditions have been satisfied. He explained the conditions are Condition Nos. 11 (library site), 12 (police substation site), 17 (street maintenance center), S 79 (areawide circulation improvements), and those conditions have all been satisfied by the Development Agreement, which will be executed in the near future. Mr. Elfend referred to Condition No. 95 which states that the property owner shall furnish the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public imF:~vements required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Mr. Elfend suggested that in the approval of the Specific Plan and the Vesting Tentative Maps, there were several conditions which require similar language which is provided by Condition No. 95, and that had a lot of these improvements satisfied by the Development Agreement, and L'hey would like to delete conditions of approval which are repetitious to simplify the process of the first map to the extent possible. Mr. Fletcher stated Condition Ne. 95 reflects a section of the Subdi~:•ision Map Act which requires that if any public improvements identified in the map are not completed prior to recordation, the City must enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the developer, which will provide for completion of the improvements, and bonding for the improvements. He stated to so~::~ extent there may be repetitive conditions, but they may be covering different issues and he felt it is important that the Map Act be complied with and make sure the Subdivision Improvement Agreement is provided for and executed. Diana Hoard, Baldwin Company, representing The Summit Project, commented that Tract 12992 contains the park adjacent to The Summit project, and they are currently working with Parks and Recreation Staff to come up with a plan in that area which is mutually acceptable to everyone; and that she hoped for continued cooperation so that the park matches the City's desires. She responded to Chairman Messe that it was not final and the tract before them (Tract 12992) does not precisely correspond with what staff has asked them to consider. She stated they are proceeding with plans based on what staff has asked them to consider. Mr. Elfend stated the configuration shown on the Tentative Map is the configuration that was approved by this Planning Commission and City Council for the Specific Plan. He stated when they got the conditions of approval, and because they had some concern regarding their desire to change that particular configuration, they took a condition of approval which specifies that there has to be substantial compliance and conformance with that design shown on the Tentative Map unless, in essonce, the Sycamore Canyon developer 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25 1988 88-580 would agree otherwise. He added although it is true what Diana Hoard has said, he wanted to clarify that the configuration which is shown is consistent with what was approved with the Specific Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo asked Ms. Hoard about the mutual understanding for construction equipment access over the Sycamore Canyon property for her development, that he understood Sycamore Canyon developer was waiting on her response to remedy that agreement. He stated the Commission was told this morning that the ball was in her court and it would require some rewording to get some mutual agreement on the access, rather than as a condition stipulated to for approval. Ms. Hoard stated she thought she had done what she was supposed to, but obviously they need to communicate more on this issue. She stated as long as they are on record agreeing to work it out, she thought they could proceed, and that she believed everyone is going to be agreeable. Commissioner Bouas asked if they would stipulate that they are willing to work out any problems. Mr. Elfend said they could work out the problems. Commissioner Bouas inquired if they could work out all the problems, including the Park. Chairman Messe noted it sounded like they would have to get together, and for the best interest of the developments and the City of Anaheim, he would like to see that agreement worked out. Commissioner Bouas stated she wanted to be sure that the developers and Park and Recreation Department would all be able to work out something agreeable and that would fit both plans. Mr. Elfend stated they would work in cooperation. Joel Fick, Planning Director, stated there is one additional condition which staff would recommend, and that is in order to be consistent with the additions the Planning Commission made to the Development Agreement and is the other approvals, staff would recommend that the condition that construction access not take place from the Canyon Rim/Serrano area be incorporated into each of the tracts, and would instead, take place from Weir Canyon. Chairman Messe asked if that is the condition that had been placed on the other developers, and Mr. Fick replied it is the same and is needed in order to be consistent with the Development Agreement. Mr. Elfend stated that condition is acceptable to them. Chairman Messe asked if Mr. Elfend had reviewed all the changes, and Mr. Elfend stated he had. ~TION Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report No. 283, as previously certified by the City Council on February 9, 1988, for the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (Specific Plaa No. 88-1), is adequate to serve as the required environmental 9/25/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 25 1988 88-5~1 documentation for Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987, 12988, 12989, 12990, 12991, 12992, 12993, 12994, 12995, 12996, 13153, 13154 and 13155; Site Plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987, 12988, 12989, 12993, 12994, 12995, 13153, 13154, and 13155; and Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. SB-09. ACTION ON SITE PLANS - Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.71.030.020, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the Site Plans for Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 12987, 12968, 12989, 12993, 12994, 12995, 13153, 13154 and 13155 are consistent with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan and with the Sycamore Canyon SP 88-1 zoning and development standards. Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the proposed subdivisions, together with their design and improvement are consistent with the Anaheim City General Plan, and does hereby approve the following: A. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12987 and Site Plan for a 14.6-acre, 53-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area No. 7); B. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12988 and Site Plan for a 39.9-acre, 99-lot (plus one water tank site lot and one open space lot) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 8); C. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12989 and Site Plan for a 52.2-acre, 113-lot (plus one open space lot) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9); D. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12990 for a 33.8-acre 1-lot, open space subdivision (proposed future church site); E. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12991 for a 23.6-acre, 2-lot subdivision, including one commercial iot and one open space lot (Development Area 5); F. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12992 for a 22-acre, 3-lot subdivision, including one park site lot and two school site lots; G. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12993 and Site Plan for a 23.5-acre, 53-lot (plus two open space lots) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 4); H. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12994 and Site Plan for a 37.1-acre, 2-lot multiple-family attached residential subdivision in order to develop a 451-unit apartment complex. (Development Area 3); I. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12995 and Site Plan for a 30.2 acre, 6-lot, 231-unit air-space condominium multiple-family attached residential subdivision {plus one open space lot, one park site lot, and one police station site lot) (Development Area 1); J. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 12996 for a 27.2 acre, 3-lot subdivision including one commercial lot, one pump station lot, and one open space lot (Development Area 2); R. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 13153 and Site Plan for a 11.6-acre, 51-lot (plus two open space lots) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 6); 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 1988 88-582 L. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 13154 and Site Plan for a 7-acre, 34-lot single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9); M. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 13155 and Site Plar, for a 6.2-acre, 34-lot single-Family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9); subject to the following 104 conditions which apply to all tracts, and additional conditions which pertain to each individual tract as follows: (conditions adopted in conjunction with Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan SP 88-1 are followed by the condition number set forth in the ordinance): A. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO 12987 AND SITE PLAN for a 143.6 acre, 53-lot (plus one open space lot), single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area No. 7) 1. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for implementation of all applicable stipulations in the approved Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan (Exhibit A); and, that all future grading and development of the Sycamore Canyon project shall display the quality standards represented by the applicant is conjunction with the Specific Plan proces :' 1 in the Specific Plan document for any zoning and development standar~'~, other than the minimum standards as defined in the Zoning Code (Title 18). (q2) 2. That except as otherwise p-ovided for in the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan, all development shall comply with the requirements of the "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone", as outlined in Chapter 18.84 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (q5) 3. That any specimen tree removal shall comply with the tree preservation regulations in Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18.84 "Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone". (q8) 9. That as specified in Anaheim Municipal Coda Sections 18.84.041.012 and 18.84.062.032, na roof-mounted equipment whatsoever shall be permitted. (q10) 5. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, prior to the approval of the first final tract map or parcel map for the Sycamore Canyon project, the owner/developer will enter into an agreement with the City to form an assessment district to assure the project generates revenues to meet the assigned cost of City services on a year-by-year basis. Such assessment district shall be formed prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, and initial assessment implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Sycamore Canyon. The City shall have the right to monitor said revenues and costs. Annual assessment revenues shall not exceed an amount necessary to offset the yearly difference between costs associated with said project and the revenues generated therefrom; and when revenues reach equilibrium (defined in this case by annual taxable sales revenue to the City from sources within the Sycamore Canyon Project 4/25/88 -~, ~~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25. 1988 88-583 reaching $182,617 in 1986/87 dollars) with allocated costs and recovery of any prior unfunded costs for two consecutive years, said mechanism(s) shall be terminated by the City. The costs to establish the financial mechanism(s) shall be borne by the owner/developer by means of reimbursement to the City prior to the first final tract or parcel map approval or at such other later time as may be approved by the City Council. (#12) WATER 6. That prior to the approval of each 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. Plans indicating such conservation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department. (#15) 7. That the water supply system for the Sycamore Canyon Development shall be funded, designed and constructed is accordance with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan and Public Facilities Plan included therein which includes the Water Master Plan as Exhibit A. (#16) ENERGY CONSERVATION 8. That all building construction shall comply with the California Energy Commission conservation requirements and the standards outlined under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. (#17) 9. That subdivision, architectural and landscaping design plans for the project shall promote, to the extent possible, opportunities for maximizing solar exposure, shading and natural cooling (prevailing breezes), and solar hot water heating either directly with system installation or indirectly with provisions for accommodating future retrofitting. (#18) 10. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the property owner/developer shall confer with tze Southern California Gas Company and the City of Anaheim Building Division during the building design phases for the purposes of including further methods of energy conservation to the extent feasible for natural gas service. (#19) LI RA Y 11. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall enter into as agreement with the City of Anaheim Library Department to provide the Sycamore Canyon project's proportionate share of costs for provision of a library facility to be located on the Bauer Ranch. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department and shall be subject to approval by the Library Director and City Attorney's Office. (#20) 4/25/88 T`~ ~~ ~ f ~+ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 198 88-584 P LI E 12. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract map or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim to provide property owner/developer's proportionate share of costs to the City for the provision of an on-site satellite police facility at the location shown in Exhibit 13 of the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan; provided, however, that the City may require an irrevocable offer of dedication for the site in conjunction with the approval of Parcel Map No. 87-210. The Agreement shall provide that the owner/developer shall irrevocably offer for dedication said facility site as an in-kind land contribution. Said site shall be graded to Police Department specifications in substantial conformance with Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan and all necessary utilities shall be stubbed to the site and shall be sized to Police Department specifications. The value of such land, including cost of stubbing utilities, shall be determined by a qualified appraiser selected and paid for by the property owner/developer and approved by the City or another mutually acceptable method. If such value exceeds the property ovr.,•r%developer's proportionate share of the total costs for the facility (including the value of the land), the property owner/developer shall be entitled to receive reimbursement from other surrounding benefitting properties, through developer fees imposed by the City, provided that said reimbursement shall be paid only upon payment by benefitting developments. If such value is less than property owner/developer's proportionate share, property owner/developer shall pay to the City a fee which represents the difference between the value of the site and said proportionate share. In no event shall the Agreement provide for payment of the fee at a time later than as called for in a Police Protection Facility Plan adopted by the City Council as provided in Section 17.08.434 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (q21) 13. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of each final map, 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.). (q22) SOLID WASTE 14. That project solid waste handling provisions shall be in accordance with City codes for the screening of trash receptacle areas and access for trash pickup. (p23) UTILITIES - GENERAL 15. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall provide documentation, in a form approved by the City Attorney, of acquisition of easements for any public facility (including, but not limited to, water, electrical, sewers, drainage) that will be necessary to 4/25/88 ~. i MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING 'COMMISSION. April 25, 1988 88-585 cross the Oak Hills Ranch or Highlands Development in order to serve the needs of the Sycamore Canyon Project, 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. (p24) REIMBURSEMENTc 16. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall post a bond to secure reimbursement to the City for Sycamore Canyon's proportionate share of costs for providing Fire Station No. 10 and electrical facilities located in the Sauer Ranch but which will also serve the Sycamore Canyon project, which proportionate share of cost will be paid by property owner/developer prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Use for the first unit in the Sycamore Canyon project. The amount of said proportionate share of costs shall be determined by the adoption by the City Council of the applicable benefit area plans and related reimbursement agreements. (q25) STREET MAINTENANCE 17. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final map, 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. (,y26) 18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed as required by the Department of Maintenance and in accordance with specifications on file with said department. (q27) SANITARY EWER 19. That the sewer system located within public streets and easements shall be dedicated to the City concurrent with eha recordation of each final map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210. (q30) 20. 'With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit ;plans, including sizing requirements for the sanitary sewer systems within the tract or parcel 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. (1132) 4/25/88 T MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88 586 21. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final map, the location, phasing, and bonding details of the sewer facilities shall be determined by street configurations, lot layouts and gravity flow. (p33) 22. That the owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the following sanitary sewer-related items: (a) The acquisition of any required permits. (b) The design and construction of all local sewer line extensions and related facilities as part of the improvements for each tract or parcel map, as approved by the City Engineer. (c) A Special Maintenance District, or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City of Anaheim, for maintenance of sewer lines in private streets she?1 be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (q34) AIR QUALITY 23. That the owner/developer shall implement regular ground watering and other forms of construction dust control in accordance with City standards. (q35) PARKS 24. That the owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate 6.6 acres of parkland as shown in Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan as provided in Condition No. 1 is lieu of fees required for park acquisition costs. The dedication offer shall provide that the site be graded flat (5~ slope or less), based on the requirements of the City's parkland dedication ordinance and adopted City policies at the time of Specific Plan approval. The park dedication and development requirement shall be for the full 6.6-acre requirement (based upon the current population projections}; however, adjustments may be made with the first tentative tract map submittals should less than the anticipated population in the development actually be realized. 25. That the parks shall be developed in accordance with the following time frames: a. The owner/developer shall complete development of the park site within Tentative Tract No. 12995 within one (1) year from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 560th residential unit. b. The owner/developer shall complete development of the park site within Tentative Tract No. 12992 within one (1) year from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 1119th residential unit, or shall begin park construction within 30 days after the start of the Sycamore 4/25/88 ~. ?' MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C02+,~lISSION Ag~il 25 1988 88 587 Canyon/Oak Hills Park construction by the Oak Hills Ranch developer and complete development of the park site within one (1) year from the start of park development. The owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon shall enter into a reimbursable agreement with the owner/developer of Oak Hills Ranch for the grading and development of the Sycamore Canyon/Oak Hills Park area adjacent to Oak Hills Ranch should the construction of the Sycamore Canyon/Oak Hills Park begin prior to the time the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon is prepared to begin park grading and development of their portion of the Sycamore Canyon/Oak Hills Park obligation. Said rrcimbursemeat agreement shall reimburse the owner/developer of Oak Hills Ranch for any costs associated with the grading and development of the 3.6 acres of park are:. adjacent to the Oak Hills Ranch required for the Sycamore Canyon development, as approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. c. Bonding for development of each park shall be provided in conjunction with the recordation of final tract maps containing the 560th and 1119th residential units, respectively. (p4G) 26. That in-tract slopes (including slopes outside the park boundaries approved by the City) shall be maintained by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism approved by the City and established prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the development. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, prior to the approval of each final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall submit the final alignment of the equestrian and hiking trail within that tract or parcel map to the City Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department for final review and approval. The owner/developer shall dedicate (ia conjunction with the recordation of the final tract maps for tracts in which the trails are located) the trail rights-of-way and construct the trails (including trail access points, street crossings and signals, if necessary, signage, furnishings and other related features per City standards). Bonding for trail improvements shall be furnished as a part of in-tract improvements. All trail improvements shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services prior to the release of bonds. (U42) (M50) 27. That the trail systems shall be maintained by a special maintenance district or other financial mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for development. The special maintenance district or other financial mechanism shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (q53) 4/25/88 .! MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 25 1988 88-588 r~1LTC1RAL RESOURCES 28. That a certified paleontologist shall be retained during grading operations to provide a monitoring program for bedrock grading activities. If sufficient concentrations of significant fossils are encountered during monitoring, salvage operations shall be initiated and coordinated with the developer and grading contractor as determined appropriate by the consulting paleontologist. Should grading of the site expose subsurface archaeological remains, development shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has beer_ contacted and appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken. (1156) LANDSCAPING 29. That in conjunction with the submittal of each precise grading plan, the property owner/developer shall provide landscape plains specifying an Irrigation Management Program for the on-site landscaped areas, said plans to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The system shall ensure that irrigation rates do not exceed the infiltration of local soils and that the application of fertilizers and pesticides does not exceed appropriate levels and frequencies. The Irrigation Management Program shall specify methods for monitoring the irrigation system, and shall be designed by an irrigation engineer. (957) 30. That prior to approval of each precise grading plan, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval, a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect to integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed grading and construction schedule. Prior to occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the City of Anaheim Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed for the individual development area in accordance with the prepared plan. The plea shall include heavy emphasis on drought resistant and fire retardant vegetation and be in conformance with City requirements and standards. (958) 31. That reasonable landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be designed, financed and installed by the developer is 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 prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map (with the exception of Parcel Map 87-210) or such other later time as may be approved by the City Council. (959) 32. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 8T-210, that prior to the approval of first final tract or parcel map, or at such later time as may be approved by City Council, the owner/developer shall make provision, acceptable to the City of Anaheim, for landscaping and maintenance of the slopes within and/or created by the development of this property. (960) 4/25/88 .,. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25. 1 33. 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; znd (3) maintain liability insurance for said parkways and median islands naming the City as an additional insured. The form of said covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office and shall be recorded concurrently with the first final tract or parcel map with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210 or such other later time as may be approved by the City Council. The developer of each tract or parcel shall improve and maintain the hereiaabove 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 with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210 or such other later time as may ba approved by the City Council. (i)6I) ELECTRICAL 34. That the developer shall have the financial responsibility for the installation of underground conduit, substructures, retaining walls and for street lighting installations on all streets, public and private, at no cost to the City in accordance with the City of Anaheim Rates, Rules and Regulations. (q62) 35. That the developer shall provide and construct for the City all necessary trenches, backfill, conduits, manholes, vaults, handholes and pull boxes per City of Anaheim Rates, Rules b Regulations. The schodulinq and funding for the backbone system utility costs shall be determined during the preparation and prior to improvement plan(s) approvals. The developer shall also advance this fee to the City to complete the backbone system upon billing by the City. (q63) 36. That the electrical system and related improvements shall be installed as development occurs. Bonding for the required electrical facilities shall be provided in accordance with City codes. (it64) 37. That all facilities shall be located within public rights-of-way and easements dedicated with the recordation of final maps with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210. The conduit system with associated concrete man."ioles and vaults shall be installed underground. Switches and/or capacitors shall be in metal cabinets mounted above ground on concrete pads. (#65) 4/25/88 ~ . ~' ~.: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh~SSION Aril 25 1988 88-590 38. With the escepL•ion of Parcel Map No. $7-210, that prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide grading, sewer, water, storm drain and street improvement plans for review and approval by the Public Utilities Department so that Utilities' facilities plans are designed and coordinated with site development. (q66) 39. That the developer shall advance prior to final tract map approval a non-refundable fee far 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. (q67) 40. That all electrical service planning for the Sycamore Canyon project shall be closely coordinated with the City of Anaheim Public Utilities Department. (q68) N I E 41. That construction activities shall be limited to normal daytime hours in accordance with the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. Construction equipment shall be equipped with effective muffling devices to further reduce th!r project's short-term construction noise effects. (1169) HYDROLOGY 42. That the storm drain system for the project shall include an underground pipe for the main drainage facility. The underground pipe shall be designed consistent with City of Anaheim Engineering Department Standards as approved by the City Engineer. (t71) 43. That the design and installation of project drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the flow criteria, design standards and construction requirements of the City of Anaheim Engineering Department. The phasing of construction and final design, including erosion control measures shall be approved by the City Engineer. The backbone (Weir Canyon Road) storm drain system shall be designed for the 100-year frequency storm and the in-tract storm drains shall be designed for the 10-year frequency storm. (N72) 44. That erosion control measures shall be incorporated into the final grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in short-term erosion and sediment transport both on-site and downstream. Such measures will be provided in accordance with City requirements, including timely seeding of graded slopes gad the usu of temporary control devices, e.g. sediment traps, desilting basins, berms and perimeter sandbagging. (q73) 4/25/88 ~, ~" MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-591 45. That the owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the following items: (a) Advancement of funds for and construct the Master Plan drainage facilities. These funds shall serve to off-set the payment of drainage fees. (b) The construction of in-tract and local storm drain system improvements. (k74) 46. That the local and Master Plan storm drain system located in public streets and public easements shall be offered for dedication to the City at the time of final map recordation with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210. (75) 47. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval ~f each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide sizing requirements for storm drain systems within the tract or parcel boundaries, as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (q76) 48. That bonding for the local storm drain facilities shall be provided in conjunction with the various phases that may be approved. (q77) 49. That the phasing of is-tract improvements shall occur as final tract maps are approved for each development areas. (8783 50. That local storm drains shall be constructed as part of the improvements for each tract. (N79) 51. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map, or such other later time as may be approved by the City Council, 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 necessitated by the Sycamore Canyon development. (1180) FIRE 52. That in conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit plans delineating temporary emergency vehicular access through the Highlands Ranch from Fire Station No. 9 for paramedic service. (pee) 53. That is conjunction with the submittal of the first final tract map, the property owner/developer shall provide the City with proof of an easement across the Highlands development for a temporary emergency vehicular access road; said temporary access road shall be constructed to provide emergency vehicular access to the Sycamore Canyon development from Fire Station No. 9 prior to the placement of any combustible materials for structural framing on-site. (p82) 4/25/88 .~ ~, .r ,: MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-592 54. That prior to the issuance of each building permit, the owner/developer shall submit detailed design plans for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction features to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the placement of combustible materials for structural framing on the building site, an all weather driving surface must be grovided from the roadway system to and on the construction site. Every building constructed must be accessible to Fire Department apparatus. The width and radius of the driving surface must meet the requirements of Section 10.207(a) of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim. (q83) 55. That the water supply system for Sycamore Canyon shall be designed to provide sufficient fireflow pressure and storage in accordance with Fire Department requirements as identified in the Specific Plan. (q84) 56. That prior to commencement of structural framing on each parcel or lot, accessible fire hydrants shall be installed and charged within one hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor of each building, in conformance with City standards. Specific information on the design and implementation of the required hydrant system network for the Sycamore Canyon development may be obtained from the Fire Department. (q85} 57. That buildings shall be constructed in conformance with the fire safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code. This includes the use of fire resistant roofing and construction materials as required by the City of Anaheim for Fire 2oae 4 (Fire Administrative Order No. 76-01). Such further requirements include, but are not limited to: chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings, Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive construction of horizontal surfaces when located within two hundred (200) feet of adjacent brushland. Built-in fire protection such as sprinkler systems shall also be provided where applicable in accordance with City standards for commercial and/or residential buildings. (q86) 58. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department, and that the fuel modification program shall ba implemented as outlined in the Specific Plan. (q87) 59. That all lockable pedestrian and vehicular access gates shall be equipped with a "knox bow" device to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police and the City Fire Marshal. (q89) 60. That prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide its proportionate share of the cost of the construction of permanent Fire Station No. 9 as determined by the Director of Maintenance. (q90) 4/25/88 ~° MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25. 148E 88-593 61. The Sycamore Canyon project is within a Benefit Area that will benefit from Eire Protection Facilities (City of Anaheim Fire Station k10), constructed and financed by the East Hills development (Raufman S Broad of Southern California); as such property owner/developer shall pay to City a fee established heretofore or hereafter by the City C~~zncil pursuant to Section 17.08.435 of the Anaheim Municipal Code which •rPpresents the portion of the Fire Station costs attributable to the Syca+nore Canyon project. (q91) RADING/SOILS/LANDSCAPIN 62. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of each final parcel or tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a final grading plan prepared by a civil engineer based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of detailed soils and geologic investigations for each subdivision map area. Site-specific geotechnical studies shall provide specific feasible recommendations for mitigation of landslides, slope stabilization, liquefaction potential, soils engineering, and appropriate drains and subdrains in each area. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall be subject to a grading permit. Furthermore, grading operations in the vicinity of the Four Corners Pipeline shall include procedures proposed by the property owner/developer to ensure that pipeline operation is not interrupted or jeopardi.ed. Said procedures shall be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of any grading plan that could possible affect said pipeline. These procedures may include avoiding placement of fill over the pipeline, providing bridging or support to the pipe, and providing temporary stablilization oa slopes as required. Furthermore, grading plans shall include an erosion, siltation, and dust control plan to be approved by the City Engineer. The plan shall include provisions for measures such as immediate planting of vegetation on all exposed slopes, temporary sedimentation basins and sandbagging, if necessary, and a watering and compaction program. The plan shall ensure that discharge of surface runoff from the project during construction activities shall not result in increased erosion of siltation downstream. (~92) 63. That any grading or development of the site shall conform to the general recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, City Council Policy 211 (Hillside Grading) and the Anaheim Grading Ccde. Said recommendations shall include specifications for site preparation, landslide treatment, treatment of cut and fill, slope stability, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage, and recommendations for further study. All excavations shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer during grading and any necessary modifications made in the event unanticipated geologic conditions are revealed. (~99) 64. That in connection with the submittal of each precise gradiny plan, the property owner/developer shall provide information showing that the overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in accordance with City Council Policy 211. (R95) 4/25/88 ~... ., MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAb'NING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-594_ 65. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site. sufficient grading is required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading shall be permitted between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided to the City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefore (the costs of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through subject property to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate point of disposal prior to the issuance of the first final building inspection or occupancy permit. To the extent the developer/ owner may qualify for reimbursement from surrounding or other benefited properties, he may petition the City Council for the establishment of reimbursement agreements or benefit districts. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the owner/developer. (p97) 66. That prior to the commencement of grading activities in affected areas, a transplanting program for Dudleya multicaulis plants shall be provided for review and approval to the Planning Department and implemented. (q98) ABI AT ENHANCEMENT 67. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-7.10, that prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the owner/developer of Sycamore Canyon shall prepare a comprehensive biological restoration and enhancement plan. As described in EIR No. 283 and shown on Exhibit 22 of the Specific Plan, the plan proposes a program of planting, salvage, drainage enhancement and habitat restoration to achieve stabilization within the central drainage corridor, enhance xoodland 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 review and approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (q99) TRAFFIC 68. That the developer shall pay the Bridge Thoroughfare Fee for the Eastern Transportation Corridor in compliance with City Council Resolution No. 85-R-923. (A100) 4/25/88 ., r MINiTFS ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Agril 25 1988 88-595 69. That the property owner/developer shall provide traffic signals, in lieu of the payment of traffic signal assessment fees, at the intersections of Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road; and Serrano Avenue and "A" Street; at the four corner pipeline equestrian trail on Serrano Avenue as required by the City Traffic Engineer; and, if left-turn access is approved for the intersection approximately 1300' south of Serrano Avenue on Weir Canyon Road, the City Traffic Engineer may require a traffic signal at this intersection. (#102) 70. The precise location and phasing of these signals shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits or as deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer. All signals shall be interconnected with the City system. (#103) 71. That the property owner/developer shall provide the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) the opportunity to review site plans with respect to identification of appropriate bus stop locations and other transit amenities such as pedestrian accessibility and passenger waiting areas. The owner/developer shall provide proof that OCTD has been provided the opportunity to review site plans prior to approval of the first final map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210; and, that prior to the approval of the first final tract map, the property owner/developer shall agree to construct bus bays as deemed necessary by the OCTD and the City Traffic Engineer at no cost to the City. Written proof of said agreement shall be furnished to the Planning Department. (#104) 72. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall, in cooperation with the City of Anaheim and Orange County Transit District, prepare a coordinated study to examine methods of implementing a Transportation Systems Manageseat 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 vaapool facilities), bikeways, and other transportation demand management strategies applicable to the development site. (#105) 73. That prior to final tract map approval, street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department. (#109) 74. Thak temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been installed. (#110) 75. That no public or private street grades shall exceed 10~ except by prior approval of the Chief of khe Fire Department and the Engineering Division. (#111) 76. That all emergency parking bays be provided in conformance with City Engineering Standards No. 114 and 115. (#112) 4/25/88 ... -*. ~.~ :. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anril 25 1988 88-596 77. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the general alignment of the Sycamore Canyon road system shall be submitted for review and approval by the City, and prior to approval of each final tract or parcel map, with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, the engineering drawings for street improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. (#114) 78. That the owner/developer shall be financially responsible for the following design, financing and construction of the following: (a) Design and construction of the public and private road system. (b) Design and construction associated with landscaping of the parkways adjacent to public and private roads. (c) Maintenance of the private street system and all public and private street parkways, unless maintained by another financial mechanism approved by the City. (#115) 79. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the developer shall pay for and the City shall be responsible for conducting a study to determine a financial plan for circulation improvements listed below. Said study shall determine the cost of the improvements and assign those costs among the Highlands, Oak Hills Ranch and the Sycamore Caayoa property; any undeveloped parcels of land located within the study area from imperial Highway to Weir Canyon Road and from the southerly City limits to Orangethorpe Avenue, and including all of Sycamore Canyon Ranch, the Highlands and Oak Hills Ranch; sad, the City. The findings of the study, showing proportionate share of cost distribution, sY,all become binding upon the developments and shall be paid for at the time of issuance of building permits. Proportionate share will be determined based on impact on Santa Ana Canyon Road: (a) Widen Santa Ana Canyon Road to its ultimate siz-lane configuration between Imperial Highway and the Eauer Ranch (East Hills) improvements. (b) Restripe the eastbound off-ramp from the 91 Freeway at Weir Canyon Road to provide one right-turn ]ane and one optional left-turn and right-turn lane. (#116) The following condition applies to the construction of the Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection between Canyon Rim Road and the Bauer Ranch. 80. Concurrent with the recordation of the first final tract or parcel map, the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Project shall irrevocably offer for dedication all of the right-of-way, including any slope easements, for Serrano Avenue and Weir Canyon Road and (with the exception of Parcel Map 4/25/88 MI ~7TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-597 87-210) shall post security in an amount and form approved by the City to guarantee the completion of grading and construction of these two arterial highways within the boundary of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch. Said construction for the Weir Canyon/Serrano connection shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 601st dwelling unit. Complete construction of Weir Canyon Road south of Serrano Avenue to the southerly boundary of the Sycamore Canyon Ranch shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 601st dwelling unit or concurrently with construction of Weir Canyon Road on the Oak Hills Ranch whichever occurs first. As established in previous development approvals, prior to or at the time Sycamore Canyon records the final tract map which includes the 601st dwelling unit, the owner/developer of the Highlands Project may post security in an amount and form approved by the City for on-site grading and construction of Serrano Avenue on the Highlands property. The owner/developer of the Oak Hills Project may also post security in an amount and form approved by the City for on-site construction of Serrano Avenue on the Oak Hills property. In the event the Oak Hills Ranch fails to post security, the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Project shall post security in an amount and form approved by the City at the earlier of the approval of the final tract map containing the 601st dwelling unit on the Sycamore Canyon Project or the posting of similar security by the owner/developer of the Highlands Project as noted below to guarantee the construction of one-half of the construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch prior to the occupancy of the 601st residential unit on the Sycamore Canyon Project, provided that the owner/developer of the Highlands Project has posted similar security in as amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the final tract map on the Sycamore Canyon Project containing the 601st unit to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue between Canyon Rim Road and the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project as well as for one-half of the cost of construction of Serrano Avenue within the Oak Hills Ranch within the same time frame as set forth above. In the event the Highlands Project fails to post security as set forth above, the owner/developer of the Sycamore Canyon Project shall post security in an amount and form approved by the City at the earlier of the approval of the final tract map containing the 601st dwelling unit on the Sycamore Canyon Project or within 30 days of posting of a similar security by the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Ranch as noted below to guarantee the cost of construction of one-half of Serrano Avenue from its present terminus at Canyon Rim Road to the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project prior to the occupancy of the 601st residential unit oa the Sycamore Canyon Project, provided that the owner/developer of the Oak Hills Project posts similar security in an amount and form approved by the City prior to approval of the final tract map containing the 601st dwelling unit on the Sycamore Canyon Project to guarantee the construction of Serrano Avenue within their property as well as for one-half of the cost of construction of Serrano Avenue between Canyon Rim Road and the easterly boundary of the Highlands Project within the same time frame as set forth above. 4/25/88 . ...._._._. .................r.......,.......,..,.~._~..+..~.nw~~•~enx;v~ l~~YSCri4'Ft:ll~. „~ .A ~? ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1988 88-598 To the extent permitted by law, the City Council shall establish reimbursement agreements or benefit districts to provide reimbursement to the Sycamore Canyon Project and either the Oak Hills Ranch or the Highlands for the cost of construction within the third ranch. Costs associated with the establishment of any such districts shall be at the expense of the Sycamore Canyon property owner/developer. That in the event either Oak Hills or Highlands bond or construct the required Serrano Avenue/Weir Canyon Road connection on their property subsequent to Sycamore Canyon having posted security for said improvement, the security posted by Sycamore Canyon may be released or reduced, provided that Sycamore Canyon has made proportionate share reimbursement for the benefit provided by said construction. (#125) 81. Bonding and an irrevocable offer to dedicate all public interior streets shall be required on a tract-by-tract basis. (#126) 82. That construction of the backbone roads shall be phased in conjunction with the development of adjacent residential tracts. The property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both roadway construction and traffic signalization in the Sycamore Canyon project to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval prior to approval of the first final tract map. (#127) 83. That prior to the approval of the first final tract or parcel map, the property owner/developer shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the ultimate widening of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the associated slopes. (#128) 84. All public and private street parkways shall be maintained by the owner/developer unless maintained by another financial mechanism approved by the City. (#129) 85. That prior to approval of the first final tract map, the property owner/developer shall submit a phasing plan for both traffic signalization and roadway construction in Sycamore Canyon to the City Traffic Engineer for his review and approval. {#130) 86. That all parking requirements including size, location and number of required spaces shall be in conformance with City Engineering standards and City Codes, except as provided by Specific Plan No. 88-01. (#131) 87. That all Special Maintenance Districts or other financial mechanisms referenced in previous conditions and necessary to implement provisions of the Specific Plan shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (#132) 88. That the owner/developer shall coordinate cable facilities with the cable company which provides the cable television network system i.n the City. (#133) 4/25/88 _1 MINyTE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 25 1988 88-599 89. That the developer shall coordinate with Pacific Bell Telephone Company to ensure timely construction and placement of necessary telephone facilities. (8134) 90. The obligations of the developer as set forth in Condition Nos. 20, 21, 26, 37 and 104 f r finance No. 4910 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. (g137) 91. That prior to the approval of the first final tract map within the boundaries of Sycamore Canyon, the property owner/developer shall enter into a written agreement with the Water Engineering Division for the following: (A) Terminal Reservoir (B) 900 Zone Pump Station (C) Installation of Primary Mains (D) Installation of Transmission Mains 92. That prior to final tract map approval, final site plans indicating unit type, minimum building and fronC-on garage setbacks and building coverage for each lot shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Commission. 93. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be subject to precise design considerations and the approval of the City Engineer. 94. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 95. That the property owner shall furnish to the City of Anaheim an agreement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney agreeing to complete the public improvements required as conditions of this map at the owner's expense. Said agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final tract map and is not to be subordinate to any recorded encumbrance against the property. 96. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to the developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department and Engineering Division. Said documents, as approved, shall then be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 4/25/88 i i ~r MINUTESs ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 1988 88-600 97. That prior to 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 amity of Anaheim. 98. That all driveways adjacent to arterial highways shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer. 99. 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. 100. That all lots within subject tract shall be served by underground utilities. 101. 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 f~~rm 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. 102. 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. PAR 1C3. That the equestrian trail crossing of Weir Canyon Road shall be reviewed and coordinated with the County of Orange EMA. The owner/developer shall provide written proof that EM.\ has been provided the opportunity to review the Weir Canyon Road egi:estrian trail crossing prior to recordation of the first final tract map. The City shall have final review and approval of the trail crossing. (#51) 104. That construction access to the Sycamore Canyon project be via Heir Canyon Road vicinity and not via Canyon Rim Road or the existing Serrano Avenue south of the Highlands at Anaheim Hills project. 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim MunicipEl Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#9) 4/25/88 t ._ MI E ANAHEI ITY PLANNIN I N A ril 2 - 1 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel map, the owner/developer shall record a covenant requiring the seller to provide the purchaser of each residential dwelling with written information concerning Anahei.;n Municipal Code Section 14.32.500 pertaining to "Parking restricted to :acilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (#28) 107. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is i.n conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation is Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (#70) 108. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way). (#120) 109. That public residential streets provided in X11 single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillside Interior Street standards. (#122) 110. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 111. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and is conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction xith SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially is accordance with plans and specifications oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 14. 113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 4/25/88 ~^°'} L ~. MI~Ji7 TES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Auril 25 1988 88-602 B. VE~~".{'~.'+'^ TENTATIVE TRACT NO 12988 AND SITE PLAN for a 39.9 acre, 99-lot (pl' s one water tank site lot and one open space lot) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 8); CONDITIONS N0. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each .Final tract o: parcel map, the ow-aer/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. (#28) 107. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation maasures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents axay from roadways shall be implemented. (#70) 108. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way). (#120) 109. That public residential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillside Interior Street standards. (#122) 110. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 111. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on fi:•> with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 14. 4/25/88 ~..` 4, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25. 1988 88-603 113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. C. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12989 AND SITE PLAN for a 52.2 acre, 113-lot (plus one open space lot) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9); CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "S", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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. (#28) 107. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (#70) 108. That public residential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillside Interior Street standards. (#122) 109. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation aad nay structure. 4/25/88 4 ~ . :~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-604 110. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 111. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 15. 112. 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 nay other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. D. vvcmTNG TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12990 far a 33.8 acre, 1-lot open space subdivision (proposed future church site) CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOI-.LOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That any proposal for development of a church facility on subject property shall be subject to the requirements of application for a conditional use permit as outlined in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (#138) 106. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 7. 107. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and is confoztnance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plaa - Ordinance No. 4910). 108. 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. r, V~, TIN TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 129Q.~ for a 23.6 acre, 2-lot subdivision, including one commercial lot and one open space lot (Development Area 5); CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that in conjunction with the submittal of all residential tentative tract or parcel maps and prior to the issuance of any building permits far commercial parcels, the following informatian and/or plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for Planning Commission review and approval in conformance with Section 18.85.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code: 4/25/88 ~ .~ ,~~ ~.~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25. 1988 88-605 (a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit A (Specific Plan) and relating the tract to the overall Sycamore Canyon Project. (b) Topographic map. (c) Lot dimensions and pad sizes of all lots - sufficient to indicate the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut and fill earthwork involved. (d) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of proposed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be retained. (e) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular storage. (f) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain. The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color, material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work materials. (q) Signing plans - indicating the proposed signing program and including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs; and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of such signs. Development area identification signs shall be constructed in compliance with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern Transportation Corridor Area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. In addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such as the commercial sites, future park/school sites, residential land uses, etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility and the Planning Department for Specific Plan conformance. (q43 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to each residential tentative tract or parcel map approval, and prior to the issuance of any building permits for commercial parcels, the petitioner shall submit preliminary site plans, floor plans and building elevations to the Planning Commission for review and approval; said plans shall include building materials and colors. Final site plans, floor plans and building elevations ultimately approved by the City shall be in substantial conformance with said preliminary plans. (q6) 4/25/88 ~r MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25, 1988 88-606 107. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures for commercial development shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of adjacent and nearby residential properties. (q7) 108. That the 10-inch lines located within the Weir Canyon Road right-of-way shall be financed, designed and constructed by the owner/developer. (q31) 109. That the Sycamore Canyon Project will incorporate the alignment and other necessary provisions for development of the trail system improvements within the development. (Portion of q49) 110. That development of the riding and hiking trail system including planning, design, grading and all necessary trail improvements including those improvements mentioned in Condition No. 50 of Ordinance No. 491Q shall be the financial responsibility of the owner/developer. Trail improvements shall be installed according to plans approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Construction of the trail system shall occur simultaneously with the tract in which the trail is located. (q52) 111. That the owner/developer provide written proof that any trail alignment is consistent xith Orange County EMA's Master Plan of Riding and Hikiuy Trails and has been coordinated with the representatives from that County Agency. Written proof shall be provided in the form of a letter from the owner/developer indicating Orange County EMA's review of the trail system. (q55) 112. That Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Scenic E:pressway standards (6 lanes and 32-foot center median within a 148-foot right-of-way). (8117) 113. That the Weir Canyon Road/Serrano Avenue intersection shall incorporate double northbound, southbound and eastbound left-turn lanes. (8118) 114. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way). (8120) 115. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and is conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 116. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 7. 117. 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. 4/25/86 } MINU'S' S ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 ~a88 88-607 F. vFSTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12992 for a 22-acre, 3-lot subdivision, including one park site lot and two school site lots; CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That the 10-inch lines located within the Weir Canyon Road right-of-way shall be financed, designed and constructed by the owner/developer. (N31) 106. That the proposed parks shall be graded and developed by the Sycamore Canyon owner/developer to City park development standards, subject to City Park Department approval. The improvements will include, but shall not be limited to, irrigation, landscaping (including turf, trees and ground-covers), walkways, a children's play equipment area and picnic improvements. (q37) 107. Park Department approval for the park site development shall consist of the following: (a) Approval of Landscape Architect and other consultants used to design the park and prepare the construction documents; (b) Approval of Master Plan, schematic plans, preliminary plans and final plans, specifications, and other construction documents; and (c) Approval of all project materials and products used in constructing the park and the right of inspection by City staff. (B38) 108. That the developer/owner shall provide consultant(s) who prepared construction documents for construction observation to insure that the Barks are constructed as intended. (q39) 109. That all utilities to the park sites be provided by the owner/developer in coajunc*_ion with any required street, sewer or other infrastructure improvements within the subdivision improvements. Park maintenance will be provided by the City for the 6.6 acres of park, exclusive of any park perimeter slopes outside the net park acreage accepted by the City. (/41) 110. That the 3.6 acres of developed public parkland shall be developed by the owner/developer as shown in Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan and further described as follows: - 3.6-acres of parkland is the southern portion of the property, contiguous with park facilities proposed within the Oak Hills Ranch (The Summit), identified herein as the Sycamore Canyon/Oak Hills Park. (q43) 111. Final grades and confiyuration shall be in substantial conformance with Tentative Tract No. 12992 as shown on the composite tract map as shown on Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan, unless otherwise approved by the City Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. (1144) 4/25/88 ( yf MIh ES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aaril 25 1988 88-608 112. As required by Condition No. 1 of Ordinance No 4910, park sites shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of Parcel Map 87-210. Any changes in the precise configuration of both park areas required for dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be determined prior to the approval of subsequent final maps in which the park sites are located. (q45) 113. The owner/developer shall submit grading feasibility studies for each gsrk area to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Engineering Department for approval prior to the recordation of the final tract maps for Tract Nos. 12992 and 12995. The grading feasibility studies shall insure that both developed park areas provided by the owner/developer are graded at a 5~ or less gradient. (k46) 114. Final grading plans for both parks shall be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services to insure the parks are consistent with the standards provided by the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, and adopted City policies aC the time of Specific Plan approval, prior to the approval of final maps (xith the exception of Parcel Map No. $7-210) in which the park sites are located. (/47) 115. That permanent, paved vehicular access to the park sites shall be acceptable to the Psrks, Recreation and Community Services Department and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and be is conformance with Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan. (p48) 116. That Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Scenic Ezpressxay standards (6 lanes and 32-foot center median within a 148-foot right-of-xay). (117) 117. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 118. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 7. 119. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies xith the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulatians. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 120. That streets "A' and "S" shall he constructed to the Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way)• 4/25/88 ~T Ni1TFS ANAHEIM CITY Pr ANIiING COMMISSION AF*~~ 25 1988 _ 88-609 G, ~~p~TING TEh.ATIVE TRACT NO 12993 AND srTE PLAN for a 23.5 acre, 53-lot (plus two open space lots) single-famaly detached residential subdivision (Development Area 4); CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (q9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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. (q28) 107. That the 10-inch lines located within the Weir Canyon Road right-of-way shall be financed, designed and constructed by the owner/developer. (q31) 108. That the Sycamore Canyon Project will incorporate the alignment and other necessary provisions for development of the trail system improvements within the development. Tae development of the 3-acre park adjacent to Tract No. 12995 will include the relocation and improvement of part of the East Hills Trail which abuts said park. Any right-of-way or encroachment permits shall be provided by the City. Said relocation along the perimeter of the 3-acre park shall be considered within the park dedication acreage requirements. (/108) 109. That development of the riding and hiking trail system including planning, design, grading and all necessary trail improvements including those improvements mentioned is Condition No. 50 Q,.f ordinance No. 4910 shall '.e the financial responsibility of the owner/developer. Trail ir;,ro~~ements shall be installed according to plans approved by the Parks, &.,. .atioa and Community Services Department. Construction of the trail sys ,m shall occur simultaneously with the tract in which the trail is located. (M52) 10. That the trail to be dedicated and developed along the Four Corners Pipeline be coordinated with the Four Corners Pipeline Company to ensure their review of the improvement. Written proof of this submittal must be provided to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services prior to the recordation of the final tract maps for adjacent tracts. (q54) 4/25/88 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY Pr1~N~G COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-610 111. That the owner/developer provide written proof that any trail alignment is consistent with Orange County EMA's Master Plaa of Riding and Hiking Trails and has been coordinated with the representatives from that County Agency. Written proof shall be provided in the form of a letter from the owner/developer indicating Orange County EMA's review of the trail system. (#55) 112. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (q70) 113. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer shall submit a safety plan t~ the City Engineer. Said plan shall analyze the feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its present location and identify potential problems or hazards which may be involved and acceptable mitigation measures including relocation if deemed necessary. The plan shall be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City. Costs associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or permits associated therewith, shall not be the responsibility of the City. (#93) 114. That weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Scenic Expressway standards (6 lanes and 32-foot center median within a 148-foot right-of-way). (#117) 115. That the Weir Canyon Road/Serrano Avenue intersection shall incorporate double northbound, southbound and eastbound left-turn lanes. (#118) 116. That Serrano Avenue south of Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Hillside Secondary standards (4 lanes, 78-foot right-of-way). (#119) 117. That public residential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillside interior Street standards. (#122) 118. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 119. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 16. 4/25/88 {`. _, MINUTES. ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25. 1988 88-611 120. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the eateat 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. 121. That a view wall shall be constructed adjacent to Serrano Avenue oa Lot Nos. 20 - 24 and that any additional fencing adjacent to Serrano Avenue located in a manner which may obstruct the view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open work materials and that prior to issuance of any building permit for a wall adjacent to Serrano Avenue, that view cross sections be submitted to the Planning Department to show the final elevation of Serrano Avenue and adjacent building pads in Tract No. 12993. H. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. .12994 AND_SITE PLAN for a 37.1 acre, 2-lot multiple-family attached residential subdivision in order to develop a 451-unit apartment complex. (Development Area 3); CONDITIONS NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (#9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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 far_ilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and *_he penalty for violation. (#28) 107. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to approval of any final map that incorporates a private street, a financial mechanism, acceptable to and approved by the City, for maintenance of private streets shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (#29) 108. That the Sycamore Canyon Project will incorporate the alignment and other necessary provisions for development of the trail system improvements within the development. (Portion of #49) 4/25/88 .,.. ~~ #. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 1988 88-612 109. That development of the riding and hiking trail system including planning, design, grading and all necessary trail improvements including nancP No. 4910 those improvements mentioned in Condition No. 50 of Qrs}} shall be the financial responsibility of the owner/developer. Trail improvements shall be installed according to plans approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Construction of the trail system shall occur simultaneously with the tract in which the trail is located. ((t52) 110. That the trail to be dedicated and developed along the £our Corners Pipeline be coordinated with th° Four Corners Pipeline Company to ensure their review of the improvement. Written proof of this submittal must be provided to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services prior to the recordation of the final tract maps for adjacent tracts. {x+54) 111. That the owner/developer provide written proof that any trail alignment is consistent with Orange County EMA's Master Plan of Riding and Hikino Trails and has been coordinated with the •epresentatives froen that County Agency. Written proof shall be provided in the form of a letter from the owner/developer indicating Orange County EMA's review of the trail system. (q55) 112. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation cf the viewshed is involved as detailed is the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (q70) 113. That prior to approval of any grading plan within a development area wherein the Four Corners Pipeline exists, the property owner/developer shall submit a safety plan to the City Engineer. Said plan shall v•wlyze the feasibility of developing adjacent to the pipeline in its pres__ location and identify potential problems or hazards which may be i.r•.volved and acceptable mitigation measures including relocation if deemed necessary. The plan shall be reviewed by the Four Corners Pipeline Company and approved by the City. CostR associated with the relocation of the pipeline or other measures necessary to permit development, including any necessary easements and/or permits associated therewith, shall not be the responsibility of the City. (1193) 114. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as require3 by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (8107) 4/25/88 __•. .........~.,. .... .. ..F.. .. ...,.. a. _..+,l:,b i.. sN ,_x;i. ...c2..:iri° K]'G.. .yaYc.LeA`2L'k.1~ta.~:l:,LWJJ~: MINUTES, l~NARIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25. 1988 88-613 115. That the private street system design shall include provisions for accommodating the collection of rofuse in accordance with City requirements. (#108) 116. That Serrano Avenue south of Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Hill aide Secondary standards '4 lanes, 78-foot right-of-wxy). (#119) 117. That the east-west trending roadway ("A" Street) which provides access t~ residential neighborhoods and commercial uses from Serrano Avenue an3 connects to the Highlands street system, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards. Access shall be provided from "A" Street into Tract Nn. 12995, Tract No. 12994 and Development Area 2 as shown in Exhibit 2 in the Specific Plan. (#121) 118. That private streeY.s shall serve all other residential areas of the site which are not accessed by the public street system. These streets s5a11 be designed in accordance with City standards. (#123) 119. That all private streets shall be maintained by the owner/developer unless maintained by another finrr.~nl mechanism approved by the City. (#124) 120. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall prepare and record an unsubordinated covenant limiting occupancy of each apartment unit to nu more than trr~ (2) persc:~s (other than children under the age of two (2) years) per bedroom. Saint limitation shall be included in each lease/rental agreement. A copy of the covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be fu:::ished to the Zoning Division. 121. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (uycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 122. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 16. 123. 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, regulati.oa or requirement. 124. That a 6-foot high block wall shall be constructed along the southern property line abutting The Summit boundary in accordance with code requirements. 4/25/88 MI*nJTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25. 1988 88-614 1, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12995 AND SITE PLAN for a 30.2 acre, 6-lot, 231-unit air-space condominium multiple-family attached residential subdivision (plus one open space lot, one park site lot, and one police station site lot) (Development Area 1); CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105 That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "S", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (q9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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 "Parkin3 restricted to facilitate street sweeping." Such written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (q28) 107. With the exception :~f Parcel Mar No. 87-210, that prior to approval of any final map that incorporates a private street, a financial mechanism, acceptable to and approved by the City, for maintenance of private streets shall be established at the expense of the owner/developer. (q29) 108. That the 10-inch lines located within the Weir Canyon Road right-of-way shall be financed, designed and constructed by the owner/developer. (p31) 109. That the proposed parks shall be graded and developed by the Sycamore Canyon owner/developer to City park development standards, subject to City Park Department approval. The improvements will include, but shall not be limited to, irrigation, landscaping (including turf, trees and ground-covers), walkways, a children's play equipment area and picnic improvements. (k37) 110. Park Department approval for the park site development shall consist of the following: (a) Approval of Landscape Architect and other consultants used to design the park and prepare the construction documents; (b) Approval of Master Plan, schematic plans, preliminary plans and final plans, specifications, and other construction documents; and (c) Approval of all project materials and pc?ducts used in constructing r_he park and the right of inspection by C:ty staff. (1138) 4/25/88 .,vrcernw x.,91 25 1988 88-615 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANK"'~ " 111. That the developer/owner shall provide consultant(s) who prepared construction documents for construction observation to insure that the parks are constructed as intended. (b39) 112. That all utilities to the park sites be provided by the owner/developer in conjunction with any required street, sewer or other infrastructure improvements within the subdivision improvements. Park maintenar.Ce will be provided by the City for the 6.6 acres of park, exclusive of any park perimeter slopes outside the net park acreage accepted by the City. (q41) 113. That the 3.0 acres of developed public parkland shall be developed by the owner/developer as shown in Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan and described as follows: - A 3.0-acre park at the northwest corner of the property adjacent to the East Hills park site. Access to this park shall bewithilable through Tract No. 12995 and include pedestrian access, vehicular access provided, if feasible. Any right-of-way or encroachments permits for said park shall be provided by the City. (f143) 119. As required by Condition No. 1 of Ordina~ne.No 4910, park sites shall be irrevocably offered for dedication prior to recordation of Parcel Map 87-210. Any changes in the precise configuration of both park areas required for dedication and development by the owner/developer shall be determined prior to the approval of subsequent final maps in which the park sites are located. (q45) 115. The owner/developer shall submit grading feasibility studies for ear_h park area to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Engineering Department for approval prior to the recordation of the final tract maps for Tract Nos. 12992 and 12995. The grading feasibility studies shall insure that both developed park areas provided by the owner/developer are graded at a 5~ or .less gradient. (q46) 116. Final grading plans for both parks shall be approved by the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services to insure the parks are consistent with the standards provided by the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, and adopted City policies at the time of Specific Plan approval, prior to the approval of final maps (with the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210) in which the park sites are located. 0147) 117. That permanent, paved vehicular access to the park sites shall be acceptable to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and be is conformance with Exhibit 13 of the Specific Plan. (q48) 118. That the Sycamore Canyon Project will incorporate the alignment and other necessary provisions for development of the trail system improvements within the development. The development of the 3-acre park adjacent to 4/25/88 `~= M E AN EI I PL I MMISSION April 25 1988 88-616 Tract No. 12995 will include the relocation and improvement of part of the East Hills Trail which abuts said park. Any right-of-way or encroachment permits shall be provided by the City. Said relocation along the perimeter of the 3-acre park shall be considered within the park dedication acreage requirements. (849) 119. That development of the riding and hiking trail system including planning, design, grading and all necessary trail improvements including those improvements mentioned is Condition No. 50 Qf Ordinance No. 4910 shall be the financial responsibility of the owner/developer. Trail improvements shall be installed according to plans approved by the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Construction of the trail system shall occur simultaneously with the tract in which the trail is located. (852) 120. That the owner/developer provide written proof that any trail alignment is consistent with Orange County EMA's Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails and has been coordinated with the representatives from that County Agency. Written proof shall be provided in the form of a letter from the owner/developer indicating Orange County EMA's review of the trail system. (855) 121. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy NumbAr 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential. Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (870) 122. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of Anaheim's Standard Detail Lie. 122 for private streets, including installation of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (8107) 123. That the private street system design shall include provisions for accommodating the collection of refuse in accordance with City requirements. (8108) 124. That Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Scenic Expressway standards (6 lanes and 32-foot center median within a 148-foot right-of-way). (8117) 125. That the east-west trending roadway ("A" Street) which provides access to residential neighborhoods and cortunercial uses from Serrano Avenue and connects to ~.he Highlands street system, shall be constructed to Hillside 4125188 r'" ; ~ f. :` .~ ?ATNfTTFs ANAHEIM CITY PLANKING COMMISSION Aor'i 25 1988 88-6~7 Collector standards. Access shall be provided from "A" Street into Tract No. 12995, Tract No. 12994 and Development Area 2 as shown in Exhibit 2 in the Specific Plan. (#121) 126. That private streets shall serve all other residential areas of the site which are not accessed by the public street system. These streets shall be designed in accordance with City standards. (#123) 127. That all private streets shall be maintained by the owner/develoT~er unless maintained by another financial mechanism approved by the City. (#124) 128. That a six (6)-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the property line adjacent to Tract No. 12996 excepting the front setback where the wall height shall be three (3) feet in conformance with the composite landscape and fencing plan (Exhibit No. 3). 129. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed he>mes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 130. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 131. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specif:icatioas on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 15. 132. 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. ,7, V~,,STING TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 12996 for a 27.2 acre, 3-lot subdivision including one commercial lot, one pump station lot, and one open space lot (Development Area 2); CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that in conjunction with the submittal of all residential tentative tract or parcel maps and prior to the issuance cf any building permits for commercial parcels, the following information and/or plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for Planning Commission review and approval in conformance with Section 18.li5.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code: 4/25/88 ~; -- t ~ s z. MINUTE,$ ANA$EZh, CITY PLANNING CONQ.4ISSION Anril 25 1988 88••618 (a) Location map - drawn to the same scale as the maps in Exhibit A (Specific Plan) and relating the tract to the overall Sycamore Canyon Project. (b) Topographic map. (c) Lot dimensions and pad sizes of all lots - sufficient to indicate the relationship of the proposal to the nature and extent of the cut and fill earthwork involved. (d) Landscaping plans - indicating the extent and type of progosed landscaping and including any existing vegetation which is to be retained. (e) Vehicular circulation and parking plan - indicating the nature and extent of public and private streets, alleys and other public accessways for vehicular circulation, off-street parking, and vehicular storage. (f) Fence and wall plans - indicating the type of fencing along any lot line of a site abutting a street, creek, lake or open storm drain. The specific fence or wall location shall be shown in addition to the color, material and height. Any fencing located in a manner which may obstruct the view from a public right-of-way shall consist of decorative open-work materials. (g) Siqninq plans - indicating the proposed signing program and including, but not limited to, any identification, business or other signs; and specifying the size, height, location, color, material and lighting of such signs. Development area identification signs shall be constructed in compliance with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan. The developer shall provide signs to identify the Eastern Transportakion Corridor Area within one-half (1/2) mile of the corridor. In addition, signs shall be provided to identify proposed future land uses, such as the commercial sites, future parrJschool sites, residential land uses, etc. All signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer for vehicular and pedestrian visibility and the Flanging Department for Specific Plan conformance. (~4) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210' rovalgrand triorcto the residential tentative tract or parcel map app P issuance of any building permits for commercial parcels, the petitioner shall submit prelimi:ary site plans, floor plans and building elevations to the Planning Commission for review and approval; said plans shall include building materials and colors. Final site plans, floor plans and building elevations ultimately approved by the City shall be in substantial conformance with said preliminary plans. (k6) 4/25/88 ! ^ 01' ~ -I 88-619 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PrAHI72NG COMMISSION Aaril 25 198.6 107. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures for commercial development shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of twelve (12) feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of adjacent and nearby residential properties. (#7) 108• shalltbe financedlldesignedtandwconstructedeby theyowner/developerf w(#31) 109. That the Sycamore Canyon Project will incorporate the alignment and other necessary provisions for development of the trail systemaYkpadvacentsto within the development. The development of the 3-acre p ] Tract No. 12995 will include the relocation and improvement of part of the East Hills Trail which abuts said park. Any right-of-way or encroachment permits shall be provided by the City. Said relocation along the perimeter of the 3-acre park shall be considered within the park dedication acreage requirements. (q49) 110. That development of the riding and hiking trail system including planning, design, grading and all necessary trail improvements including those improvements mentioned in Condition No. 50 of Ordinance No 4910 shall be the financial responsibility of the owner/dpvrovedrb the1Parks, improvements shall be installed according to plans a p Y Recreation and Community Services Department. Construction of the trail system shall occur simultaneously with the tract in which the trail is located. (#52) 111. That the owar•r/developer provide written proof that any trail alignment is consistent with Orange CounL•y EMA's Master Plan of Riding and Hiking Trails and has been coordinated with the representatives from that County Agency. Written proof shall be provided in the form of a letter from the owner/developer indicating Orange County EMA's review of the trail system. (#55} 112. That Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Scenic Expressway standards (6 lanes and 32-foot center median within a 148-foot right-of-way). f#117) 113. That the Weir Canyon Road/Serrano Avenue intersection shall incorporate double northbound, southbound and eastbound left-turn lanes. (#116) 1i4. That Serrano Avenue south of Weir Canyon Road shall be constructed to Hillside Secondary standards (4 lanes, 78-foot right-of-way). (#119) 115. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes: 53-foot right-of-way). (#120) 116. That the east-west trending roadway ("!:" Street) which provides access to residential neighborhoods and commerciia?. uses from Serrano Avenue and connects to the Highlands street system, shall be constructed to Hillside 4/25/88 ~; .,~. ~~ 88-620 MI ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aoril 25 1988 Collector standards. Access shall be provided from "A" Street inty Tract No. 12995, Tract No. 12994 and Development Area 2 as shown in Exhibit 2 in the Specific Plan. (p121) 117. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 118. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 7. 119. 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. K, VEST NG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 131`3 AND SITE PLAN for a 11.6 acre. 51-lot (plus two open space lots) single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 6); CONDITIONS NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (~9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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. (q28) 107. That grior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Iaspoctor that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and witt;; Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of windox area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (k70) 4/25/86 q~ ~ m~ ~a ~~. MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-621 108. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way). (#120) 109. That public residential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillside Interior Street standards. (#122) 110. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weoded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 111. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plaa - Ordinance No. 4910). 112. That subject praperty shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 15. 113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or spproval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. L. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO 13154 AND SITE PLAN for a 7-acre, 34-lot single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9); CONDITION NO,S. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City cf Anaheim Planning Area "B", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the ezisting zoning within three hundred (300) felt of the boundaries of subject tract. (#9) 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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. (#28) 4/25/88 r. MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Anril 25. 1988 88-622 107. That prior to issuance of building parrtiits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25, ezcept when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of endow area and/or location of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (N70) 108. That Serrano Avenue, north of Weir Canyon Road, shall be constructed to Hillside Collector standards (2 lanes, 54-foot right-of-way). (8120) 109. That public xesidential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way F,er the City's Hillside Interior Street standards. (11122) 110. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 111. That the development of subject tract shall be subject to and in conformance with all applicable conditions adopted is conjunction with SP88-1 (Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 112. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications oa file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 15. 113. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City regulations. approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or appro~~al of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. M. VESTING TENTATIVE TR1CT N0. 13155 AND SITE PLAN for a 6.2 acre 34-lot, single-family detached residential subdivision (Development Area 9). CONDITION NOS. 1 THROUGH 104, PLUS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CO1silITIONS: 105. That, in accordance with the requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the initial sale of residences in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "S", the seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim General Plan and the existing zoning within three hundred (300) feet of the boundaries of subject tract. (q9) 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 86-623 106. With the exception of Parcel Map No. 87-210, that prior to recordation of each final tract or parcel 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." Sucl2 written information shall clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. (q28) 107. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects" and with Noises Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,• Title 25, except when preservation of the viewshed is involved as detailed in the Specific Plan; in such instances, additional attenuation measures such as increased window glass thickness, reduction of window area and/or Iocation of attic vents away from roadways shall be implemented. (q70) 108. That public residential streets provided in all single-family residential areas shall consist of 2 lanes and 50-foot rights-of-way per the City's Hillmide Interior Street standards. (8122) 109. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and weeded as required to establish a minimum of 100 feet of separation between flammable vegetation and any structure. 110. That the drt.~elopenenr. of subject tract shall be subject to and in conforman~:•• with all applicable conditions adopted in conjunction with SP88-1 (5;;;amore Canyon Specific Plan - Ordinance No. 4910). 111. Thar. subject property shall be developed substantially ir. accordance with plans and specifications or_ file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 - 15. 112. That approval of Lhis 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. ACTION ON SPECI~N TREE REMOVAL PERMIT N0. 88-04 - Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 88-04 on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the r_reos are located requires re~aoval of the trees whose removal is sought; that the topography of the building site renders removal reasonably necessary; and further on the basis that any specimen tree removed shall be replaced with the planting of a minimum of two 15-gallon trees for every one specimen r_rae removed from the specified list is the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, subject tc the following conditions: 4/25/88 >',~'~~' MINI TE,~~~`~AHEIM CITX_1?LANNINC COMMISSION. Av'L~.1 25 1988 88-624 1. That the removed trees shall be rFiplaced wits: the planting of two "Z) minimum 15-gallon •_rees (from the specified list in Section 18.84.Oi: (Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone) o.f the Anaheim Municipal Code) for every one specimen tree removed !in accordance with the Specimen Tree Location and Replacement Plan. 2. That prior to final building and zon;:rg inspections, Con~tition No. ]_, ybova=.aentionad, shall be compl_c;t loch. 3. That the owner/developer shill incorpaztt.e m?saures to protect Trees Noy .12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 as id~nr;fiu/S on the Specimen Tree Location and Re~l.e~.cement Plan during u?'. pha~~s of Construction. Joseph SE, Fletchat, ~oputy City Attorney, presentee! t.hc• Yaitten right to appe-.i the Plannin~x C~'•;:unission's deci~ion wi~hin 22 days to the City Council pertiiining to the tree removal permit and 10 days for the tentative tract maps. RF..CE:iS: 3:25 p.m. RF:CUNVENED: 3:40 p.m. ITEM NO 7 CFOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION• WAS"ER OF CORE REOUIREMENT• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2999• PUBLIC HEARING: OWNERS: DOROTHY LILLIAN BR'SN'SON, 1840 41st Avenue, Capitols, CA 95010. AGENT: J. H. HUNTSBERRY, 1255 Corporate Center Diive, Suite 201, Newgart Beach, CA 91754-7611. Propertiy is a rectangularly-shaped parcel o£ land conzisting of approximately 0.7 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Aveeaue and Beach Boulevard and further described as 100 S. Seach Boulevard. Request for waiver of minimum snclosed .retail sales area for off-snla bv:r n'•:;9 wine to permit as automa~:ic car e~ash and convenience market with off-s~~l;: beer, wise and gasoline sales. :ere wa:~ ao one i_udi~ating their presence in oppg3ition to subject regaest and although the staff report was not- reaA, it ;~ weEe.rred to and made apart of the minutP.s. Jim Auntsberry, agent, exPlainett:dcbi Oil i3 proposing to remove the existinz~ struc*_nre and re`.•u?ld with a new: and modern seii-service gasoline facilit; with snacks :and .: car wash. He indica'te'd they had reviewed the 22 conditions and have no objections to them, .an:: that they have worked closely with staff and believe they ha-ie come up with a nice project which meets all the City ordinances. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Bouas regarding a clar~fzcation on the snacks t~ be served, Mr. Huntsberty explained they would be selli;:g soft drinks, juices, nuts, candy bars and cigarettes, which are mostly high i•~npulse item. 4/25/86 r~.~ 4 `....._' ~_ .I MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQ,N, Aaril ,~5. 1988 88-625 Commissioner Bouas asked whether or not there wou;:d be hamburgers and a rnicrowave.ovea. Mr. Huntsberry stated there wovid b~. some pre-made sandwiches, but that there woult' be no preYaracion of food sucla as hot dogs. Chairman ddq~;se asked whether there might be some host dogs, hamburge and coffee t, be heeated in a micXmv~ave. Mr. Huntsberry confirmed taint there would be a microwave oven there for t`h:~ heati.a of some food itemu. Responding to Commiss__e~or Rooas, Greg Hastings e~cpla.np~ the ordinance adopted quite soma time: .ago requires that when ofi-5d.le bE~er and wine occurs at a service station, 3.t be i.ne~rporated into a con~ani~ance ,~~arket Hype of use which needs to have 3 minimum ,~f 1200 square feet. Commissioner Bouas indicated the applicant r~s 924 square feet and that would ~ea~. t_hat he~ did not want to sell beer and ~~. ~e. Mr. Huntsberi,y respouded they would like to :`ell beer and. wine if possible and he did not feE~l 300 square feet made that muc1: difference. He indicated they had agreed to .311 conditions. Commissioner Bouas asked about the proposed parking Qrdinance. Greg Hastings explained the ordinance would require an additional 5 parking spaces if fast food service was involved, cad i.f fast food service is involved, this particular site plan would be ase parking pace short. Mr. Huntsberry responded tk~'ey :.ould provide the additi~,no,l space, and that he i:ad not had anyone yay that thS.s was considered fast food. ,.._,.; an Messee stated there: did not seem to be any justification for granting !;H.•`_s w~.th the 92: square feet versus the Code required 1200 squa:~:e Feet. Mr. Huntsberry .responded the oaiy justification i.'s that there are c~mpeL'inq uses arouud ache area 3aG outside the City which ar.e allowed beer sod wine sales and taint this is a dealer-operated facility. He added Mobi). Oil makes no money on, baer and wine sales and the dealer wants Co sell it as a profit iT.ern; :.nd ghat ii. is a very integral part of his profit structure. Chairman Mes<a otated the City had never grartec~ a waiver for this partia;iar sectior. of th~a Code. Mr.. Huntsberry responded if the Commission can not grant the waiver, they would :ike to have it appr'ave:~ with the stipulation t2:at they would not sell beer cad wins, because it is xore important to rebuild the facility an4 sell gasoline th,.u to sell beer and wing. C::airrnan Messe stated that if there vt~s a stipulation that. no beer and wine be sold, then that waiver e:ould not be ne.:essary, and Greg Hastings acknowledged that was correct. Chairman Messe ind<_cated they would haves to allow for another parking space en3 that could be left up to the applicant ar.:! the Traffic Engineer. A TI N: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Soydstun and MOTION CARRIED that Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for waiver of minimu~ enclosed retail sales for off-sale beer and 4/25/88 -. -' 88-626_ MI E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Aaril 25. 1988 wine in order to permit an automatic car wash and convenience market with off-sale of beer and wine and gasoline sales on a rectangularly shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard having approximate frontages of 178 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 175 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and further described as 100 S. Beac~i 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 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 3ouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby DENY the requested waiver of code requirement for the off-sale of beer and wine on the basis that it does not meet the minimum size requirement of 1200 square feet, and that there are no special circumstances apglicable 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 does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC-88-108 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2999 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 0.3~, prohibiting the sale of beer and wine or auy alcoholic beverages, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendation, including that an additional parking space will be provided as approved by the Traffic Engineer. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CAp.:JSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to apaeal to the Planning Co~nission's decision within 22 days to the City Cot.._' i 3 ITEM ttJ. $_,~~' ATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER CODE REOUIR~FNT AND CONDITIONAL USE P~RM;(3'~7O. 3000 PUBLIC tiEA,RING. OWNERS: E. B. B. PROPERTIES, 303 N. Placentia, Fullerton, CA 92807. .AGENT: KRYSTAL KOCH, INC., 1281 Sunshine Way, Anaheim, CA 92806. Progert;- is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel, 0.9 acre, having a frontage of approximately 33 feet at the southwt:st terminus of Sunshine Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet and being located approximately 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue and further described as 1281 Sunshine Way. Request for waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to retain a limousine manufacturing business. 4/25/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-627 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. Jim Riaderman, agenk, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner McHurney asked how many employees they would have on site and Mr. Riaderman responded there will be 22 employees. Commissioner Bouas asked if all the work will be done inside, with no storage outside. Mr. Ri ierman responded there is storage outside during the day and that everything would be brought in at night. Commissioner Feldhaus asked if any of the square footage designated for sales and administrative offices would be used for ri:tail sales. Mr. Riaderman responded that all sales are handled in Los Angeles. A TI N: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal for waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to retain a limousine manufacturing business on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre, having a frontage of approximately 33 feet at the southwest terminus of. Sunshine Way, having a maximum depth of approximately 315 feet and being located approximately 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue and further described as 1281 Sunshine Way; 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 tha 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 Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of code requirement on the basis that the parking variance will not cause as increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses; and that the granting of the parking variance under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC-88-109 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3000 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 16.03.030.030 through 0.35, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the _oregoing re:,olution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's deci.siou with 22 days to the City Council. ~; ~} MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. April 25. 1988 88-628 ITEM N0. 9 -CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3001 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ROY D. TAYLOR, ?11 W. Imperial Hwy, Brea, CA 92621. AGENT: RESIDENTIAL SUP. OFT GROUP, iirC., ATTN: JAMES J. NUGE7.', 2855 Rounsevel Terrele, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre having a frontage of approximately 119 feet on the nor t2: side of Victor Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 124 feet and being located approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 523 West Victor Avenue. Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code Section 18.45.050.170 to retain a 15-bed residential alcohol detoxification center in an existing single-family structure. There was ao 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. James Nugent, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Messe asked staff if there had been any code enforcement problems in the last couple of years. Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, responded there have been no problems recently. A TI Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to retain a 15-bed residential alcohol detoxifi,catioa center in an existing single-family structure on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.34 acre having a frontage of approximately 119 feet on the north side of Victor Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 124 feet and being located approximately 250 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and further described as 523 West Victor Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the 2egative Declaration together xith 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 McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-110 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3001 for a period of 3 years, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030 through 0.35, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Oa roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plr~.aing Commission's decision with 22 days to the City Council. 4/25188 MT NiTTFC ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Acrii 25 1988 88 629 ITEM N0. 10 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3002 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MARY E. POOLEY, G. CLINTON POOLEY AND CARMA M. POOLEY, 5910 Courtlaad Drive, Riverside, CA 92506. AGENT: CHRISTOPHER J. NAUIGATO, 3399 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, CA 92506. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.36 scre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue having approximate frontages of 140 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 140 feet on the east side of Western Avenue and further described as 3175 W. Ball Road. Petitioner requests approval under authority of Code Section 18.03.030.010 to permit an automotive lubricating service center (Grease Monkey). There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was hat read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Christopher Nauigato, agent, 2sked the amount of the assessment fees and where he could get the information, and he was instructed to qo to the various City divisions involved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Carusillo asked about the below-grade employee office and Mr. Nauigato explained that was not as office area, and is only a storage area for uniforms, lockers, etc. and no work is done in that room and it is primarily a storage room and a place for employees to change clothes. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBuraey and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an automotive lubricating service center on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.36 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue having approximate frontages of 140 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 140 feet on the east side of Western Avenue and further described as 3175 W. Ball Road; 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. Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC88-111 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 3002 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through .035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Joseph W. Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision with 2i nays to the City Council. 4/25/88 ~i~ `.,'. ~9 -.~ MINUTES ,7.NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apr~i~ ? ITEM ,r,, li CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION' WAIVER OF CODE AMENDMENT AND ~QNDIIIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3003 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MJD PROPERTIES, ET AT, 22617 S. Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502. AGENT: TSUE PENG, 14941 Braeburn, Tustin, CA 92680. Property is as irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 5.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and western Avenue, having approximate frontages of 420 feet oa the south side of Lincoln Avenue an3 321 feet on the east side of Western Avenue and further described as 3150 W. Lincoln Avenue. Petitioner requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit under authority of Code Sections 18.44.050.010 and 18.44.050.030 to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an enclosed restaurant/public dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. and ITEM NO 12 CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION' VARIANCE N0. 3T@4 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MJD PROPERTIES, ET AL, 22617 S. Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502 and SZAYER S FINCH LEASING CO., ET AL. AGENT: JAMES ROBERTSON, 7440 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90041. Waivers of a minimum number of parking spaces to permit approximately 10,529 square feet of fast food restaurant area and 9,100 square feet of encl~~sed restaurant area in as existing shopping center. 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. Joe Peng, agent, was present to answer questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bouas asked Mr. Peng to describe the type of business proposed. Mr. Peng responded the business would be a restaurant to be opened 7 days a week and oa weekends and holidays the business hours would be from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. with ballroom sty~~ dancing and a live band. He emphasized that it was not a disco with rock and roll music and he explained the sound system is designed for clarity and not volume for ballroom dancing. Commissioner Herbst asked how he intended to separate the dance hall 6r!+m the restaurant. Mr. Peng responded the restaurant and dance hall are se~sra;`.ed by a bar, buffet area and an office. Chairman Messe pointed out the restaurant is adjacent to RS-7200 single-family homes and he was concerned about the volume of the music as there appeared to be ao acoustical treatment and the noise could cause a problem for the neighborhood. Mr. Peng stated they are careful with the type of speakers they install and they are built just for clarity. 4/25/88 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANING COMMISSION April 25 1968 88-631 Chairman Messe asked whether 2s not there was acoustical treatment on the south wall. Jim Robertson, Architect, stated that is an 8 inch thick concrete block wall and acoustical treatment could be put oa the inside of the wall. Commissioner Bouas asked about doors opening to the outside. Mr. Robertson responded the only door as that wall is a double hollow metal door, but the two doors are used for emergency exit only and the main entrance is to the parking lot to the north and the emergency doors could be alarm locked. He responded to Commissioner Bouas that the delivery door is on the south. He stated he would stipulate that these doors would be alarm locked sa the people would be able to eait through the main entrance. Responding to Commissioner Feldhaus, Mr. Robertson stated that building does have sprinklers. Commissioner Herbst stated the Commission cannot authorize dancing and that permit would have to be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Bouas asked about the 400 proposed parking spaces for the entire center. Responding to Chairman Messe, Mr. Peng stated they do have auequate air conditioning so the people who are dancing would not need to open the doors. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated both items 11 and 12 have a parking waiver requested and a parking study was conducted for the original request which was predominately for restaurant uses, a he-~lth club and a toy store in the center which would be an overwhelming amount of parking. He stated since then the developer has reduced the restaurant from 10,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet and has included this dance hall facility and removed the designation of a health club from one of the retail buildings, still leaving the toy store in place. He stated this reduction has mitigated the parking problem and the only remaining concern is the dance hall because the fire code permits as occupancy of 406 people which would generate a need for 127 parking spaces; however, it could be accommodated if the hours were not in conflict with the heavy uses of the restaurants elsewhere on the site. He explained the requirement was 600 spaces and with the new configuration is 537, so there is a reduction of some 70 parking spaces. Responding to Commissioner Boydstun, Mr. Robertson explained the other restaurant proposed on the site is a part of Item No. 12. Mr. Peng further explained on week days they only use the dining room as three is no dancing during the week, and on weekends the dancing starts at 9:00 p.m. and peaks around 10:30 p.m. and most of the businesses in the area are closed at that time. He explained weekends are Friday, Saturday, Sundays and holidays. Commissioner Bouas asked the type of food that would be served and Mr. Peng responded they would be serving Chinese food. Mr. Robertson concerning Item No. 12, stated the parking study was conducted by Justin Farmer and meetings were held with Mr. Singer because he had some problems with the proposed tenants, and that Mr. Peng is one of the proposed 9/25/88 1 tenants. He explained it hecame apparent to accommodate the proposed uses, they would need a parking variance. He stated after meeting with Mr. Singer, they omitted the health club and reduced the fast food uses to 5,300 square feet, the restaurant remains and Toy City is existing, and with these concessions, Mr. Singer was supportive of the traffic study. He stated the approval o~ the parking variance is necessary for Mr. Peng to have the restaurant as requested in Item No. 11. Commissioner Feldhaus asked the length of lease indicating the Commission may want to gut some type of time restriction on approval. Mr. Peaq responded he has a five-year lease with a five-year option. Commissioner Herbst stated he would only be concerned about the parking during the Christmas holidays if this became as active retail center, and the other stores staying open much later. Paul Singer stated the parking study consultant made as evaluation on the 20th highest demand day of the year which would be the parking demand for a typical day. He stated his staff can keep monitoring the parking and that the applicant has agreed to the reduction in restaurant area until a track record is established. Chairman Messe stated he went to a restaurant/dance hall in Garden Grove recently and there were about 140 people waiting in line to get in. Commissioner McBurney stated at 4:00 p.m. the other stores would be closed, except during the holiday. ACTION ON ITEM NO 11 ACTION: Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alcohol in conjunction with an enclosed restaurant/dance hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue, and further described as 3150 West Lincoln; 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 Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney as MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement oa the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if nay, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and further that the peak parking demand for the restaurant/dance hall is 9:00 to 10:30 p.m. on weekends and the other businesses in the center are typically closed. 4/25/88 J. , .f ixrutrrFg ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION April 25 1988 88-633 Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PC88-012 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Usie Permit No. 2003, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations, including a condition requiring acoustical treatment on the south wall of the dance hall facility. Commissioner Herbst suggested the condition require a sound study after business is in operation and if necessary, acoustical treatment could be added to the south wall. Chairman Messe a~:ced that a condition also be added req:iring the emergency doors adjacent to the homes be alarm locked. A time limit was discussed and Paul Singer stated he would monitor the use from time to time. It was noted the Commission has the right of revocation if there are complaints. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, SOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERHST, MC BUP.NEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE nrTION ON ITEM N0. 12 Commissioner Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit approzimately 5,300 square feet of fast food restaurant area and 9,100 square feet of enclosed restaurant area is an existing shopping center on property consisting of approzimately 5.4 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue, and furter described as 3148 to 3170 w. Lincoln Avenue (West Anaheim Shopping Center); 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 Carusillo offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas an MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4/25/88 c INUTES, ANAH$i~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Avril 25 1988 88-634 Commissioner Carusillo offered Resolution No. PCB8-113 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3784 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: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: 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. 4/25/88 ~- MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 25, 1988 88-635 ITEM N0. i3. TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 13130 (READVERTISED). OWNERS: PHILIP W. GANONG, E.T AL, ATTN: JANET GANONG, 2307 Myrtle Street, Bakersfield, CA 92301. AGENT: SAND DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT, ATTN: WILLIAM BLANCHARD, 17802 SKYPARK CIRCLE, SUITE 109, IRVINE, CA 92714. Property is approximately 2.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Short Street and Kellogg Drive. Request for deletion or modification of Condition Nos. 4 and 5 of Tentative Traci 'rlo. 13130 pertaining to street design and improvements. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. William Blanchard, agent, stated they are requesting that Condition Nos. 4 and 5 be amended; that Condition No. 4 Called for parking on both sides of the private street and that 7 of the lots have 3-car garages and they feel parking on one side of the street is adequate and staff agrees; that Condition No. 5 originally called for street improvements on Kellogg and Short Streets and they agree with the improvements on Kellogg, but feel Short Street should only include curbs and gutters since there would be a substantial cost to the homeowners for no benefit since the sidewalk would end at the corner of Calle Maridor and Short Street. He explained the elementary schooi vas closed last year and foot traffic should be very limited and also a sidewalk would require a retaining wall of over 300 feet on Short Street adding a cost of X60,000 to the cost of the 8 homes. He presented pictures showing there are no sidewalks beyond their property. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Arthur Daw, Deputy City Engineer, responded to Commissioner McBurney that their office is aware that the elementary school vas closed las: year; however, the elementary school is actually being used by the high school. Commissioner Carusillo stated the sidewalk requirement is a safety concern for the children's sake. Mr. Blanchard stated he has heard that the school district is considering that land as an excess parcel and it would be sold. Mr. Dav stated the City has had discussions with the school district regarding them constructing a pedestrian overcrossing at Reilogg to facilitate students going to and from school and from one school to another. Commissioner Carusillo stated he still feels the sidewalk should be instailed on Short Street and Commissioner McBurney stated the City of Yorba Linda has indicated they will never install sidewalks in order to maintain the rural atmosphere and he did not think anything would be accomplished by requiring that sidewalks be installed. Mr. Dav stated most of Short Street has existing curb and gutter located 18 to 20 feet from the centerline of the street which provides for on street parking and the Engineering staff has agreed that due to the condition of 4/25/8$ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1988 88-636 the slope, to permit the curb and gutter on Short Street to be constructed at 15 feet from the centerline and that the street be posted for "no parking" and that does not provide ,+ny room for pedestrian traffic so that is a concern for safety end the Eng.neering staff feels sidewalks should be installed to provide for that safety. Commissioner McBurney asked if providing the 3 feet of asphalt, since they do not have to provide the ultimate width, would be sufficient to offset the costs of the sidewalk. Mr. Blanchard stated the problem is not the paving, but the slope which is very severe and a retaining wall would be required and they do not see any benefit derived for that cost. Mr. Daw stated the actual slope is in the right of way and the existing berm is located approximately 15 feet from the centerline of the street and the flat area in back of the berm before the slope is only 3 feet and in order to construct the sidewalk, they would have to add to the slope to support the sidewalk. Mr. Blanchard stated the homeowners directly to the vest in the City of Yorba Linda are all against putting in a sidewalk and want to retain the semi-rural atmosphere. It vas noted the residents within 300 feet in Yorba Linda were notified of this hearing. Commissioner Herbst stated from what Mr. Dav has said about the width of the street in Yorba Linda, he did not know where the kids would walk, except in the road itself. Mr. Blanchard stated the children to the north do not attend that school and added they are willing to add as much as possible to the curb and thought two feet would make that street eider than the str>et in Yorba Linda. Mr. Dav stated the Engineering Department has agreed that the curbs and gutters could be installed 15 feet from the centerline of the street and the normal requirement is a minimum of 18 feet in that area. Hr. Blanchard answered Commissioner Houas that they are really trying to eliminate the requirement for the retaining wall and that means elimination of the sidewalk because the wall would be required to support the slope and they would also be intruding on the privacy of the neighbors in the rear and that the slope is not on their property and they do not know where they could install a screen to provide that privacy. Commissioner Herbst stated he would not vote against the Engineering Department and agreed that they are right. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mc Burney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find after review of the previously approved Negative Declaration and Intitial Study, together with any comments received during the public review process that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a 9/25/88 MINIITES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 25, 1986 88-637 significant impact on the environment, and that the previously approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as written environmenJ~al documentation for the proposed project. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas and HcBurney voting no) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby amend Condition No. 4 to read as follows: 4. "That "A" Street shall be improved in accordance with Engineering Department Standard Detail No. 122 for parking on one side of the street." and further that the request for deletion or modification to Condition No. 5 be denied, unless an acceptable agreement can be worked out and approved by the City Engineer on the basis that sidewalks are necessary to provide pedestrian safety. ITEM No. 14. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. A. VARIANCE N0. 3773 - Request from Tzider Corporation for apF~oval of specific plans. Property located at 270 S. Mohler Dzive. (Continued from meetings of March 28, and April 11, 1988.) The following action vas taken at the beginning of the meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 9, 1988. B. DONATED SPACE AGREEMENT - WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER FROM THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY, REAL ESTATE DIVISION. Request for determination that proposed use is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Property located at 250 East Cypress Street, Anaheim, CA ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered Resolution No. PC88-114 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan of the Cfty of Anaheim. On roll call,the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE C. VARIANCE N0. 3656 - Request from Everest Building Inc. for approval of a 1-year time extension on property located at 1261 W. Placentia Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one year extension of time for Variance No. 3656, to expire on May 11, 1989. 4/25/88 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 25, 1988 88••638 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2886 - Request from Stephen Merrill of S b D Paint and Body Center for approval of a one-year extension (retroactive to February 18, 1988) on property located at 554 S. Atchison Street. ANION: Commissioner Mc Burney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Souas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension of time (retroactive to February 18, 1988) on property located at 554 S. Atchison Street, to expire on February 18, 1989. E. VARIANCE N0. 3620 - Request from Douglas Scott for termination of Variance No. 3620 on property located on the east side of Hancock Street, north of Bryson Street. ACTION: Chairman Messe offered Resolution No. PC 88-115 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Variance No. 3620. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2809 - Request from Phillip R. Schwartze, Phillips Brandt Reddick, agents, for approval of a one-year extension of time on property located at 415 Anaheim Hiils Road. ACTION: Commissioner Houas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2809, to expire on July 20, 1989. G. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-30 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2676 - Request from Ron Muccino for a one year extension of time (retroactive to April 15, 1988) on property located at 1107 North Svan Street. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and NOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one year extension of time (retroacti:~ to April 15, 1988) for Reclassification No. 84-85-30 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2676, to expire on April 15, 1989. 4/25/88 1 - ~ HINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 25. 1988 88-639 H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 550 - Request from Gi=: 0. Wong and Linda Y. Wong for termination of Conditional IIse Permit No. 550 on property located at 326 South Melrose Street. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC88-116 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional use Permit No. 550. On roll call the foregoing resolution vas passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HERBST MC GURNEY, MESSE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE PUBLIC INPUT: None. ADJOIIRNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to 9:00 a.m., May 9, 1988, at Fire Station No. 10 in order to tour the Sycamore Canyon. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~4i E3~L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission