PC 2014/01/13
City of Anaheim
Planning Commission
Agenda
Monday, January 13, 2014
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
• Chair: Victoria Ramirez
• Chair Pro-Tempore: Harry Persaud
• Commissioners: Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell
Michelle Lieberman, John Seymour
• Call To Order - 5:00 p.m.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
• Public Comments
• Public Hearing Items
• Commission Updates
• Discussion
• Adjournment
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the
agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary.
A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department,
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also
available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday,
January 9, 2014, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the
Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally
exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the
Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
California, during regular business hours.
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 2 of 9
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications,
Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations,
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission
action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written
form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City
Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for
public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by
the City Clerk of said hearing.
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M.
Public Comments:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the
exception of public hearing items.
01/13/14
Page 3 of 9
Public Hearing Items
ITEM NO. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
VARIANCE NO. 2012-04917 & VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
(DEV2009-00042A)
Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Request: To reconsider the findings for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008-05372A and Variance No. 2012-04917
related to the proposed construction of a 10,000 square
foot commercial building in order to permit the construction
of an approximately 3,900 square foot drive-through
restaurant in conjunction with a 4,875 square foot retail
building with fewer parking spaces than required by the
Zoning Code. The Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and denied in
part and approved in part Variance No. 2012-04917 at its
January 14, 2013 meeting. The Planning Commission’s
action was subsequently appealed to the City Council
which upheld the Planning Commission's action and,
following the denial of a request for rehearing, directed the
Planning Commission to reconsider the findings for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and Variance
No. 2012-04917 as such entitlements related to the parking
spaces to be provided for the project. Reconsideration of
the above-referenced entitlements may result in
modification or revocation thereof.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 3 (New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures) Categorical Exemption,
and, specifically, Section 15303 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations.
Continued from the November 4, 2013 and December 16,
2013 Planning Commission meetings.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Scott Koehm
skoehm@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 4 of 9
ITEM NO. 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844
(DEV2013-00125)
Location: 611 South Brookhurst Street
Request: To amend a previously-approved conditional use
permit by deleting a condition of approval establishing an
expiration date relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages at
an existing pharmacy.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
vnorwood@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 4
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05705
(DEV2013-00111)
Location: 2410 East Katella Avenue
Request: To permit beer and wine sales for on-site
consumption in conjunction with a proposed restaurant in
an existing retail center.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Andy Nogal
anogal@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 5 of 9
ITEM NO. 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092A
(DEV2013-00068)
Location: 400 South Euclid Street
Request: To permit a banquet facility and the sale of
alcoholic beverages in conjunction within an existing
restaurant.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Continued from the December 2, 2013 Planning Commission
meeting.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
vnorwood@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717
VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
(DEV2012-00146)
Location: 513-1/2 South Brookhurst Street
Request: To permit an outdoor smoking lounge in
conjunction with an existing restaurant located less than 200
feet from a single-family residential zone and less than 1,000
feet from a school and with fewer parking spaces than
required by Code.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Andy Nogal
anogal@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 6 of 9
ITEM NO. 7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694
VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
(DEV2013-00094)
Location: 1112 North Brookhurst Street
Request: To permit a smoking lounge in a commercial tenant
space located less than 200 feet from a residential zone and
less than 1,000 feet from a school and with fewer parking
spaces than required by Code.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Andy Nogal
anogal@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 8
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1215C
(DEV2013-00110)
Location: 3200 East Carpenter Avenue
Request: To amend a previously-approved conditional use
permit to permit a new bumper boat attraction at an existing
miniature golf facility.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption.
Motion
Request for Continuance
to February 10, 2014
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 7 of 9
ITEM NO. 9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05695
(DEV2013-00095)
Location: 1168 South State College Boulevard
Request: To demolish a former restaurant building and
construct a new drive through restaurant.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 2 (Replacement or
Reconstruction) Categorical Exemption.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
David See
dsee@anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 10
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687
(DEV2013-00083)
Location: 1531-1627 East Lincoln Avenue
Request: A allow a 76-unit condominium complex with
modified landscape setback and building separation
requirements. This project also includes a request to
approve a tentative tract map to establish a 14 lot, 76-unit
condominium subdivision.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission
will consider if Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
No. 346 (Previously-Certified) is the appropriate
environmental determination for this project.
Resolution No. ______
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Vanessa Norwood
vnorwood@anaheim.net
01/13/14
Page 8 of 9
ITEM NO. 11
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
(DEV2013-00132)
Location: City-wide
Request: To recommend City Council adoption the 2014-
2021 Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan.
Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will
consider if Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No.
346 (Previously-Certified) is the appropriate environmental
determination for this project.
Resolution No. ______
Project Planner:
Andy Nogal
anogal@anaheim.net
Adjourn to Monday, January 27, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.
01/13/14
Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:45 p.m. January 8, 2014
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED:
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all
members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative
formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted
in implementation thereof.
Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary
aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification,
accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later
than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting.
La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a
todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color
u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal.
Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos
apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de
Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y
reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo.
Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios
auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha
modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la
Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono
al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión
programada.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372A,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414, AND
VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
LOCATION: 5635 East La Palma Avenue (Cinema City).
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mike Snyder representing
Ware Malcomb and the property owner is Daniel Akarakian.
REQUEST: This is a request to modify the parking requirements to allow fewer
parking spaces than required by Code. This is also a request that the Planning
Commission reconsider the findings for Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and Variance No. 2009-04795 related to the
proposed construction of a 10,000 square foot commercial building and subsequent
modification to permit the construction of an approximately 3,900 square foot drive-
through restaurant in conjunction with a 4,875 square foot commercial building with
fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. The applicant is also
requesting a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3414, which relates to the
existing theater complex and parking structure, to remove a restriction on the required
number of parking spaces and a requirement for securing parking agreements with
adjacent property owners to satisfy the parking requirements for the proposed project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolutions, determining that a Class 3 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate
environmental determination for this request and (1) deleting Conditions Nos. 28, 29 and
30 of Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 relating to the theater complex and parking
structure; and, (2) modifying and adding conditions of approval relating to the
commercial project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and Variance No. 2009-04795.
BACKGROUND: This hearing was continued from the December 16, 2013 Planning
Commission meeting due to a 3-3 vote. Following this vote, the Commission decided to
continue this item for a full vote by the Commission rather than referring the item to the
City Council as a result of the tie vote. The public hearing was closed prior to the
Commission’s action and, as a result, no additional public testimony will be taken on
this matter unless the public hearing is first reopened by the Commission Chair.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 6
The 5.52-acre project site is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 5 –
Commercial (SP94-1, DA5) zone and the property is designated for General Commercial land uses
by the General Plan. The site is developed with a 1,795 seat multi-screen movie theater and a 190-
space parking structure. Surrounding land uses include retail centers to the east and south across La
Palma Avenue, office uses and a church to the west, and a railroad right-of-way to the north.
Previous Entitlements: In 2009, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a request to
permit a 10,000 square foot commercial building with up to seven tenant spaces and a 1,500 square
foot outdoor dining area in the existing surface parking area in front of the movie theater
(Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372). A parking variance was also approved to permit fewer
parking spaces than required by Code (Variance No. 2009-04795). On January 14, 2013, the
Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and approved, in part,
Variance No. 2012-04917 to modify the project and permit the construction of a 3,591 square foot
McDonald’s drive-through restaurant in conjunction with a 4,375 square foot commercial building
with 500 square feet of outdoor dining area and to modify the existing freestanding sign. The
Planning Commission’s decision was appealed to the City Council, which upheld the Planning
Commission's action on March 5, 2013. On April 16, 2013, the City Council denied a subsequent
request for rehearing and directed the Planning Commission to reconsider the findings for the
original parking variance granted for the theater and parking structure and for the commercial
project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372, as amended by Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008-05372A, and Variance No. 2009-04795, as such entitlements related to the parking
spaces to be provided for the project. The direction for reconsideration of the findings was as a
result of the loss of parking spaces at the adjacent bank property, which were originally considered
available for use when the parking variance was approved.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting the elimination of all conditions of approval
contained in the original entitlements for the theater complex and for the commercial project that
required or permitted the use of off-site parking spaces to satisfy the Code-required parking
demand. Instead, the applicant wishes to have the Planning Commission consider whether the
parking study entitled Parking Study Update for Cinema City, dated November 11, 2013, as
prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers (Parking Study), is sufficient, based upon
the operational characteristics of the theater complex, parking structure and commercial uses on
the site, to satisfy the findings required for the approval of a parking variance in accordance with
Section 18.42.110 of the Zoning Code. Based upon the applicant's request, staff recommends
that three conditions of approval be deleted from Conditional Use Permit 3414 (approving the
theater complex and parking structure) and that certain conditions of approval that were required
in connection with the commercial project approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-
05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and Variance No. 2009-04795 be modified
and additional conditions of approval be included as a part of those entitlements.
ANALYSIS: Following is a description of the requested actions. The findings necessary to
support staff’s recommendation are summarized below and described in greater detail in the
attached resolutions.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 6
Conditional Use Permit: Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 (CUP 3414), which was first
approved by the Planning Commission in 1991 and subsequently amended by the Planning
Commission and upheld upon appeal by the City Council in 1992, permitted the expansion of the
movie theater and construction of the parking structure, and allowed a reduction in the number of
required parking spaces so long as the available parking spaces for the theater complex,
consisting of both on- and off-site spaces, would at all times comprise 80% of the minimum
number of Code-required parking spaces. CUP 3414 was amended in 1992 to require the
petitioner to submit a plan to the City showing the number, location and size of all existing on-
and off-site parking spaces together with parking agreements committing off-site parking spaces
for use by the theater complex subject to the requirement that the total combined number of
spaces would be at least 80% of the minimum then required by the Code for all the seats in the
theater. The approvals provided that the number of seats in the theater complex would be
reduced if the 80% requirement could not be achieved. The three conditions of approval (28, 29
and 30) are included on pages 2 and 3 of the attached resolution. If the Planning Commission
approves staff's recommendation, those three conditions of approval would be deleted from CUP
3414.
On December 8, 2009, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372 and
Variance No. 2009-04795 (2009 Commercial Entitlements) to permit the construction of a
10,000 square foot commercial building with fewer parking spaces than required by the Code.
The 2009 Commercial Entitlements were predicated upon the existence of a license agreement
between the adjacent bank property and the site, which purported to allow 49 parking spaces on
the bank property to be included in the total of available parking spaces.
Earlier this year, the petitioner applied for an amendment to the 2009 Commercial Entitlements
in the form of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372 to permit the
construction of a 3,591 square foot drive-through McDonald's restaurant in conjunction with a
4,375 square foot commercial building with a 500 square foot outdoor dining area. The
amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372 shall be referred to herein after as the
"2013 Commercial Entitlements." Following Planning Commission approval, the City Council
considered an appeal and thereafter a request for rehearing of the 2013 Commercial Entitlements,
which appeal and rehearing request were based, in part, upon the alleged viability of the off-site
parking agreement. The City Council denied the appeal and request for rehearing but directed
the Planning Commission to reconsider the findings for the original parking variance.
Because the findings involving the parking variance date back to conditions imposed upon the
original theater complex entitlements, the scope of the Planning Commission's review and the
proposed staff recommendations must address all prior entitlements relating to parking the site
for the existing uses and the uses approved by the 2013 Commercial Entitlements.
Parking Variance: The theater property currently maintains 586 parking spaces including surface
spaces and the parking structure. Assuming build-out of the site pursuant to the 2013
Commercial Entitlements, a minimum of 662 parking spaces is required by Code for all uses on
the site. However, only 456 parking spaces can be provided on-site following construction of the
2013 Commercial Entitlements, which amounts to 69% of what is required by Code.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
January 13, 2014
Page 4 of 6
The applicant conducted a parking count on the theater property in April, 2013 to determine the
current demand for parking at the theater. The counts were taken hourly from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on
a Friday and a Saturday. During this time, the greatest number of cars parked on the property
was 328 at 8 p.m. on a Saturday. The study included this observed demand and added the 85
spaces required by the Code for the McDonald’s and commercial building, for a total anticipated
demand of 413 parking spaces. The anticipated demand is 43 spaces less than what would be
provided upon completion of the 2013 Commercial Entitlements. It is anticipated that there will
be a crossover of patrons between the theater, the McDonald’s and the anticipated restaurants in
the commercial building. For this reason, the parking engineer applied the shared parking
concept published in the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking publication. Using the
shared parking model further reduces the demand for parking to 370 parking spaces. With the
proposed supply of 456 parking spaces there will be a surplus of 86 parking spaces under the
shared parking scenario.
The ULI Shared Parking publication also identifies seasonal fluctuations in theater usage with
the heaviest usage occurring during the summer and holiday months. Because the applicant’s
most recent counts were conducted in the month of April, which is considered a comparatively
slow month for theater business, the applicant’s parking engineer compared the parking counts
from a study prepared for a restaurant expansion at the adjacent Imperial Promenade property.
The parking counts for that study were conducted in December, 2011 and also analyzed parking
on the theater property. This study indicated that there was a peak use of 244 parking spaces for
the theater at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night. In order to assess theater parking demand under current
conditions, staff recently visited the theater and Imperial Promenade properties on Veteran’s Day
weekend and Thanksgiving Day weekend. During these visits, staff observed a significant
number of parking spaces available on both properties. Specifically, on Friday, November 29,
2013 at 8:30 p.m., staff observed 125 vacant spaces in the parking structure and 37 surface
parking spaces available on the theater property. On November 18, Veteran’s Day, staff visited
the site mid-day and observed that the front parking lot was completely full and approximately
half of the parking structure was in use.
When this project was approved by the Planning Commission in January 2013, a condition of
approval was added at the meeting requiring the property owner to submit a circulation plan to
staff demonstrating how the latest development proposal would address traffic and parking
congestion on the property. Wayfinding signs were previously approved to direct vehicles to the
front of the theater for drop-off and to the parking structure for long term parking. Projecting
signs were also approved on the theater building identifying the parking structure location and a
digital counter indicating the number of available spaces in the structure. In addition to these
improvements, the applicant has worked with staff to identify additional circulation
improvements to the property. Based on these discussions and testimony received at the last
Planning Commission meeting, staff is recommending the closure of the first opening on the
west side of the entry driveway that leads to the theater’s front parking lot. Closure of this
opening will eliminate a problematic intersection point and allow cars to move more freely to
and from La Palma Avenue without this point of cross traffic. It will also create space to add a
few additional parking spaces. Staff also recommends that the southbound exit drive to the
signal at La Palma Avenue be painted to delineate two lanes separating turning movements for
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
January 13, 2014
Page 5 of 6
eastbound and westbound traffic. Finally, staff recommends that a minimum of 42 parking
spaces located within the south parking lot be subject to a maximum 1-hour time limit. This
restriction would not apply to any parking spaces reserved for disabled patrons. The 42 spaces
represent the demand identified in the parking study for the restaurants during the typical peak
hours for the movie theater. This time restriction will allow dining customers to park near the
restaurants and encourage theater customers to use the parking structure. Staff has included
these recommendations as conditions of approval in the attached draft resolution.
The Code requires that certain conditions exist to demonstrate the appropriateness of approving a
parking variance. The Code defines these conditions as follows:
1. The variance will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed
use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such
use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use;
2. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
3. The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent
private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use;
4. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots
provided for the proposed use; and
5. The variance will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the
public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.
The findings in the revised parking study prepared by the applicant, the parking demand
observed in December 2011 and the observations by staff on two recent holiday weekends
demonstrate that this property will not have fewer parking spaces than are necessary to
accommodate the proposed uses; there will not be an increased demand for parking spaces upon
the public streets or on adjacent properties because a sufficient number of parking spaces will be
provided on the property; upon implementing the recommended conditions of approval,
including the closure of a driveway and installing wayfinding signs, there will not be an increase
in traffic congestion on the property; and, with the onsite improvements, this project will not
impede vehicle access from adjacent properties or upon the nearby public streets. Because this
request meets the required findings for the granting of a parking variance, staff recommends
modification of the conditions of approval for Variance No. 2009-04795 by substituting the
conditions of approval that were included in the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-
05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A, and Variance No. 2009-04795 with the
conditions of approval that are designated as Exhibit B to the draft resolution that is attached to
this report. Additionally, staff recommends that Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 be modified
to delete Conditions Nos. 28, 29 and 30, which are set forth in the attached Resolution No. 92R-
246 that accompanies this report.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3414
AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
January 13, 2014
Page 6 of 6
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the modifications to the aforementioned
entitlements, together with the inclusion of certain additional conditions, because the parking
analysis and observations have demonstrated that there will be sufficient parking for the
proposed use in conjunction with the existing theater complex.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Scott Koehm Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Project Summary
3. Previous Resolution No. 92R-246
4. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Revised Parking Study
6. Improvement Summary
7. Comments Received
8. Site Plan
9. Photos
SP 94-1 (SC)DA5CINEMACITYTHEATER
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2CANYONOFFICECENTER
SP 94-1 (SC)DA5SERVICE STATION
C-G (SC)VACANT
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2RELIGIOUS USE
SP 94-1 (SC)DA5BANK
SP 94-1 (SC)DA5RETAIL
C-G (SC)BEST WESTERNANAHEIM HILLS
SP 94-1 (SC)DA2CANYONOFFICECENTER
SP 94-1 (SC)DA 2INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 (SC)DA5RETAIL
C-G (SC)RETAIL
C-G (SC)RETAIL
RM-4 (SC)CANYON VILLAGEAPARTMENTS198 DU
E LA PALMA AVE N IMPERIAL HWYE ORANGETHORPE AVE
ES PE RA NZA RDN VIA BREVEE. LA PALMA AVE
N. IMPERIAL H
W
Y
E . S A N T A A N A C ANYO N RDE. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E . S A N TA AN A CA NY ON R D
5 6 3 5 East La P alma Avenue
D EV No. 2 0 09-00042 A
Subject Property APN: 346-281-03
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
E LA PALMA AVE N IMPERIAL HWYE ORANGETHORPE AVE
ES PE RA NZA RDN VIA BREVEE. LA PALMA AVE
N. IMPERIAL H
W
Y
E . S A N T A A N A C ANYO N RDE. ORANGETHORPE AVE
E . S A N TA AN A CA NY ON R D
5 6 3 5 East La P alma Avenue
D EV No. 2 0 09-00042 A
Subject Property APN: 346-281-03
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PARKING SUMMARY
Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372
Variance No. 2009-04795
Use Required
Parking Parking Proposed
Movie Theater:
1,838 seats and 13 theaters @ 0.3
spaces/seat and 2 spaces/theater
577
Drive-through fast food restaurant:
3,591 sf @ 10 spaces/1,000 sf 36
Fast-food Restaurant:
4,375 sf @ 10 spaces/1,000 sf
44
Outdoor Dining (fast-food restaurant):
500 sf @ 10 spaces/1,000 sf 5
Total: 662
190 (in structure)
266 (surface)
456
(69% of Code requirement)
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4
-1- PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING (1) MODIFICATIONS OF
THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3414 RELATED TO A THEATER COMPLEX
LOCATED AT 5635 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE, AND (2)
MODIFICATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND
THE ADDITION OF NEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372A, VARIANCE
NO. 2009-04795 RELATED TO A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT 5635 EAST LA PALMA
AVENUE.
(DEV2009-00042A)
(5635 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, on August 17, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim
(herein referred to as the "Planning Commission") approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2905 to
permit the construction of a 40-foot high multi-screen indoor theater complex with a waiver of
the minimum number of parking spaces then required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein
referred to as the "Code") from 712 to 478 on that certain real property located at 5635 East La
Palma Avenue in the City of Anaheim, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). On January 16, 1989, the
subject petition was re-advertised for review of revised plans, which were subsequently approved
by the Planning Commission to permit a 55-foot high, 2,500 seat multi-screen indoor theater
with a waiver of the minimum number of off-street parking spaces then required by the Code
from 757 to 526, which represented 80% of the Code-required number of off-street parking
spaces; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of its Resolution No. 91-110 on July 29, 1991, the Planning
Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3414 (herein referred to as "CUP 3414") to
permit the expansion of the aforementioned multi-screen indoor theater complex and to construct
a 29-foot high parking structure with 160 parking spaces for the purpose of meeting the Code-
required off-street parking requirements. CUP 3414 required that the number of seats in the
theater complex would not exceed a number such that the number of off-street parking spaces
provided would be less than 80% of the number of parking spaces then required by the Code
based upon the number of seats in the theater complex; and
WHEREAS, in response to the request of the then petitioner for approval of a revised site
phasing plan relating to the delayed construction of the aforementioned parking structure, the
Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. PC92-122 on October 19, 1992, approving the
construction of the expansion of the theater complex as Phase I and the construction of the
aforementioned parking structure as Phase II so long as the available parking spaces for the
theater complex, consisting of both on- and off-site spaces, would at all times comprise 80% of
the minimum number of parking spaces then required by the Code for the theater complex. The
Planning Commission also added three (3) additional conditions of approval to CUP 3414,
-2- PC2014-***
which, among other things, required the petitioner to submit a plan to the City showing the
number, location and size of all existing on- and off-site parking spaces together with parking
agreements committing off-site parking spaces for use by the theater complex subject to the
requirement that the total combined number of spaces would be at least 80% of the minimum
then required by the Code for all the seats in the theater and provided that the number of seats in
the theater complex would be reduced if the 80% requirement could not be achieved; and
WHEREAS, upon appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission contained in its
Resolution No. PC92-122, the City Council of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as the
"City Council") adopted its Resolution No. 92R-246 on December 8, 1992, amending CUP 3414
and Planning Commission Resolution No. PC91-110 which had the effect of approving a revised
site phasing plan relating to the delayed construction of the aforementioned parking structure and
adding the same three (3) conditions of approval that had been added by the Planning
Commission by the adoption of its Resolution No. PC91-110, which are set forth herein below as
follows:
"28. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the theater annex:
(a) A plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning
Department for review and approval, showing the final existing seat
counts for each theater in the multi-plex theater complex and the actual
number, location and size of all existing on-site parking spaces (the
minimum parking space width shall be eight and one half [8-1/2] feet
except that where the adjacent driveway aisle is narrower than required by
Code and/or City standards, the minimum space width shall be nine [9]
feet). Said plan shall have been prepared and certified by a registered
architect and/or certified civil engineer as to accuracy (the Planning
Department may, by field inspection, verify the accuracy of such plan).
Said plan shall show that, including any city-approved off-site parking
spaces, the total combined number of spaces is at least eighty
percent (80%) of the minimum required by Code for all the seats in the
theaters. If the minimum eighty percent (80%) parking ratio has not been
achieved, the number of seats in the theaters shall be reduced
proportionally and a new plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval.
(b) Parking agreements shall be obtained by the petitioner for any off-site
parking and said agreements shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for
review and approval by the City Attorney's office and the City Traffic and
Transportation Manager. Any future changes to the seat counts for the
theaters and/or number and/or location of required parking spaces shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for further review and approval.
29. That the petitioner shall be responsible for paying the fee for each
separate code enforcement inspection conducted by staff for the purpose
of verifying that adequate parking is being provided relative to the
number of seats in the theaters, based on at least eighty percent (80%) of
the minimum number of parking spaces required by Code being provided.
-3- PC2014-***
Such inspection(s) may be made monthly until construction of the parking
structure (Phase II) is completed and a valid determination can be made as
to the adequacy of the available parking.
30. That within a period of six (6) months from the date of this resolution,
the Planning Department will submit a "Reports and Recommendation"
staff report to the Planning Commission discussing the status of subject
multi-plex theater complex: the number of seats in the theaters, the
number of parking spaces (both on-site and off-site), whether the parking
structure is being constructed, and the status of the Imperial Promenade
development construction and its parking availability. The Planning
Commission may thereupon schedule a public hearing in connection with
the three conditional use permits which include parking waivers for
development on subject property (Nos. 2905 and 3414) and on the
adjacent commercial retail center to the east (No. 3253). The purpose of
such public hearing(s) would be to modify the condition(s) of approval or
other aspects of the use permit(s) pertaining to the parking
waiver(s). If the purpose of modifying a previously approved conditional
use permit is to further reduce the number of proposed parking spaces
(that is, increase the parking waiver), it shall be the underlying petitioner's
responsibility to file for and pay for such public hearing, and to provide
the appropriate traffic and parking studies to support such
request."
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2905, CUP 3414 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC91-110, as amended by Resolution No. 92R-246, shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Theater Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval which were the subject of the Theater
Entitlements shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Theater Conditions of Approval" and
constitute a part of the Theater Entitlements such that any reference to the Theater Entitlements
in this Resolution is deemed and construed to refer to both the Theater Entitlements and the
Theater Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Theater Entitlements, the Property was thereafter developed
and is currently improved with a 1,795-seat movie theater and 190-space parking structure,
which may sometimes be referred to in this Resolution as the "Theater Complex"; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2009, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the City
Council, by its Resolution No. 2009-174, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372 and
Variance No. 2009-04795 to permit the construction on the Property of a 10,000 square foot
commercial retail building with fewer parking spaces than required by the Code; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2013, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the
Planning Commission, by the adoption of its Resolution No. PC2013-004, approved Conditional
Use Permit No. 2008-05372A, which operated to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-
05372 and permitted the construction of a 3,591 square foot drive-through restaurant in
conjunction with a 4,375 square foot retail building with an outdoor dining area consisting of 500
-4- PC2014-***
square feet. The Planning Commission concurrently approved that portion of Variance No.
2012-04917 that permits the installation of sign cabinets on an existing legal non-conforming
freestanding sign at the Property; provided, however, that the Planning Commission denied that
portion of Variance No. 2012-04917 that would have permitted the installation of an electronic
reader-board sign in place of an existing legal non-conforming freestanding sign at the Property;
and
WHEREAS, upon appeal of the Planning Commission's action, as evidenced by the
adoption of its Resolution No. PC2013-004, and following a noticed public hearing held on
March 5, 2013, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 2013-041, which had the effect of
upholding the action of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-
05372A, Variance No. 2009-04795 and Variance No. 2012-04917 shall be referred to herein
collectively as the "Retail Entitlements"; and
WHEREAS, the uses to which the Retail Entitlements relate may sometimes be referred
to herein as the "Retail Uses"; and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval which were the subject of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008-05372 and Variance No. 2009-04795 were amended, modified and
supplemented by the adoption of Resolution No. 2013-041. Accordingly, the conditions of
approval which were the subject of Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2008-05372A, Variance No. 2009-04795 and Variance No. 2012-04917 shall be
referred to herein collectively as the "Retail Conditions of Approval" and constitute a part of the
Retail Entitlements such that any reference to the Retail Entitlements in this Resolution is
deemed and construed to refer to both the Retail Entitlements and the Retail Conditions of
Approval; and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of Resolution No. 2013-041 on March 5, 2013 and in
response to a request that the City Council rehear Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A and
Variance No. 2012-04917, the City Council denied the rehearing request at its regular meeting of
April 16, 2013 but directed the Planning Commission to reconsider the findings for the original
parking variance granted for the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.60.200 of the Code authorizes the Planning Commission, on its
motion or, as is the case here, at the direction of the City Council, to revoke or modify any
discretionary land use permit that has been granted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance on the
basis of evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing, if it finds, among other findings,
that "the use or variance for which the approval was granted has not been exercised and that,
based upon additional information or due to changed circumstances, the facts necessary to
support one or more of the required findings for the original approval of such entitlement . . . no
longer exist". The Retail Entitlements have not been exercised as of the date of this Resolution;
and
WHEREAS, said Section 18.60.200 further authorizes the Planning Commission to
modify the Theater Entitlements and/or Retail Entitlements provided that "any such
modification, including the imposition of any additional conditions, is reasonably necessary to
-5- PC2014-***
protect the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, or necessary to permit reasonable
operation under the permit as granted"; and
WHEREAS, said Section 18.60.200 further authorizes the Planning Commission to
"change conditions or add new conditions as necessary to correct problems or violations relating
to the [Theater Complex and/or Retail Uses] . . . [and/or to] modify conditions or add new
conditions to preserve the integrity and character of the zoning district, or to secure the general
purposes of the [City's] zoning ordinance and the General Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on December 16, 2013 and January 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said
public hearings having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions
of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence related to the direction given by the
City Council to the Planning Commission to reconsider the findings for the original parking
variance granted for the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Commercial Area (Development Area 5) of the
Northeast Area Specific Plan Area and is subject to the zoning and development standards of
Chapter 18.120 of the Code; and
WHEREAS, under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the City Council finds and determines that
the proposed project represented by the Retail Entitlements and modifications to the Theater
Entitlements is within that class of projects which consist of the construction and location of
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section
15303 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a
significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions
of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner for the Retail Entitlements has requested the elimination of
any and all conditions of approval contained in the Theater Entitlements and the Retail
Entitlements that required or permitted the use of off-site parking spaces to satisfy the Code-
required off-street parking requirements for both the Theater Complex and Retail Uses and,
instead, to have the Planning Commission consider whether that certain parking study entitled
Parking Study Update for Cinema City, dated November 11, 2013, as prepared by Linscott, Law
and Greenspan, Engineers (herein referred to as the "Parking Study"), is sufficient, based upon
the operational characteristics of both the Theater Complex and Retail Uses, to satisfy the
findings required for the approval of a parking variance in accordance with Section 18.42.110 of
the Code; and
WHEREAS, based upon the elimination of any and all conditions of approval contained
in the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements that required or permitted the use of off-
site parking spaces to satisfy the Code-required off-street parking requirements for both the
Theater Complex and Retail Uses and pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Section
18.60.200 of the Code, the Planning Commission after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, does find and determine the following:
-6- PC2014-***
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of off-street parking spaces:
(662 spaces required; 456 spaces proposed)
1. Based upon the justification set forth in the Parking Study, the
parking plan for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer
off-street parking spaces to be provided for the theater and commercial retail uses
than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles
attributable to the theater and commercial retail uses under the normal and
reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation thereof; and
2. The parking plan, under the conditions imposed, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the
immediate vicinity of the Property because all parking will be contained on the
Property; and
3. The parking plan, under the conditions imposed, will not increase
the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in
the immediate vicinity of the theater and commercial retail uses because all
parking will be contained on the Property; and
4. The parking plan, under the conditions imposed, will not increase
traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the
theater and commercial retail uses. The design for the commercial retail uses will
allow adequate on-site circulation for both the commercial retail uses and the
theater uses; and
5. The parking plan, under the conditions imposed, will not impede
vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in
the immediate vicinity of the theater and commercial retail uses. The parking
plan is designed to allow adequate on-site circulation for the commercial retail
and theater uses.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Section 18.60.200 of the
Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that due to changed circumstances,
the facts necessary to support one or more of the required findings for the original approval of
the Retail Entitlements no longer exist; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Section 18.60.200 of the
Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the modification of the
conditions of approval for the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements and the addition
of new conditions of approval for the Retail Uses is reasonably necessary to protect the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare, or necessary to permit reasonable operation of the
Theater Complex and the Retail Uses under the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements,
as granted, or necessary to correct problems or violations relating to the Theater Complex and/or
Retail Uses and to preserve the integrity and character of the zoning district, or to secure the
general purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan; and
-7- PC2014-***
WHEREAS, subject to the modifications or changes to the Theater Entitlements and the
Retail Entitlements as provided in this Resolution, the Planning Commission desires to confirm
and ratify all of the terms, provisions and conditions of the Theater Entitlements and the Retail
Entitlements and all of the findings previously made by both the Planning Commission and the
City Council with respect to the Theater Entitlements and the Retail Entitlements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution by this
reference and constitute a material part hereof.
Section 2. Conditions Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of the Theater Entitlements are hereby
deleted in their entirety. Except as expressly modified in this Resolution, the Theater
Entitlements and Theater Conditions of Approval shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 3. The Retail Conditions of Approval which were the subject of the Retail
Entitlements (i.e., Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-
05372A, Variance No. 2009-04795 and Variance No. 2012-04917) are hereby modified by the
substitution in their place and stead of the revised conditions of approval attached hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Commencing upon the effective date of this
Resolution, all references to the conditions of approval in the Retail Entitlements shall be to the
revised conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.
Section 4. Subject to the modifications or changes to the Theater Entitlements and
the Retail Entitlements as provided in this Resolution, the Planning Commission desires to
confirm and ratify all of the terms, provisions and conditions of the Theater Entitlements and the
Retail Entitlements and all of the findings, determinations and approvals previously made by
both the Planning Commission and the City Council with respect to the Theater Entitlements and
the Retail Entitlements are hereby confirmed and ratified; and
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the
appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code
pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of
an appeal.
____
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
___
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-8- PC2014-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January,
2014.
_____________________
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
98984-v2/TReynolds
-9- PC2014-***
- 10 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05372A
VARIANCE NO. 2009-04795
VARIANCE NO. 2012-04917
(DEV2009-00042A)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1 The property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering
to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans,
electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical
drawings and specifications.
Public
Utilities,
Electrical
Engineering
2 If required, prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall
provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions
as shown on the approved utility service plan.
Public
Utilities,
Electrical
Engineering
3 If the project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet a separate
irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with the Landscape Water
Efficiency Guidelines.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
4 A private water system with a separate water service for fire protection and
domestic water shall be provided.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
5 All existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water
Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that
does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is
necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon
any water service or fire line.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
6 The owner/developer shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground water meters
and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide easement around the fire
hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a twenty (20) foot wide easement for all
water service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering
Division. The easements shall be granted on the Water Engineering
Division of the Public Utilities Department's standard water easement deed.
The easement deeds shall include language that requires the owner to be
responsible for restoring any special surface improvements, other than
asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers,
stamped concrete, decorative hardscape, walls or landscaping that becomes
damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water
facilities. Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all
surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the responsibility
of the owner.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
- 11 - PC2014-***
7 The main southbound exit driveway at La Palma Avenue shall be restriped
to clearly delineate the left turn lane, and the associated left turn and
through-right arrows. The striping shall be shown on plans submitted for
building permits. The striping shall be installed prior to first occupancy of
the proposed uses. The striping shall be permanently maintained as shown
on said plans.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
8 The southernmost entrance to the parking area south of the theater, as
accessed via the main entry driveway from La Palma Avenue, shall be
closed and a landscaped planter connecting the existing landscaped planters
on either side of the driveway opening shall be installed. This closure and
installation of the landscaped planter shall be shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
9 In the parking lot located south of the theater there shall be a total of 42
parking spaces clearly labeled with a time limitation for parking of 60
minutes. The method for labeling these spaces shall be included on plans
submitted for building permits and shall be subject to review and approval
by Planning Department staff.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
10 The items listed in the Improvement Summary included as Attachment No.
5 to the staff report shall be included on plans submitted for building
permits.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
GENERAL
11 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516,
and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This
form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be
downloaded from the following web site:
http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678.
Police
Department
12 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the
street. Number should be illuminated during hours of darkness.
Police
Department
13 Rooftop address numbers for the police helicopter. Minimum size 4’ in
height and 2’ in width. The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6”
thick. Numbers should be spaced 12” to 18” apart. Numbers should be
painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the roofing material.
Numbers should face the street to which the structure is addressed.
Numbers are not to be visible from ground level.
Police
Department
14 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage
to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a
safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site.
Police
Department
15 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking
lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at
least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering.
Police
Department
- 12 - PC2014-***
16 All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with appropriate signs per
22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in removal of vehicles at the property
owners/managers request.
Police
Department
17 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnities concerning this permit
or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior
to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of
any condition attached thereto. The applicant’s indemnification is intended
to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against
or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including
without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses
incurred by Indemnities in connection with such proceeding.
Planning
Department.
Planning
Services
Division
18 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing
of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the
final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in
the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the
approval of this application.
Planning
Department.
Planning
Services
Division
19 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 and as
conditioned herein.
Planning
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
November 11, 2013
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
Cinemas Management, Inc.
315 Rees Street
Playa del Rey, CA 90293
LLG Reference: 2.072889.1
Subject: Parking Study Update for Cinema City
Anaheim, California
Dear Mr. Akarakian:
As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this
Parking Study Update for Cinema City, located in the City of Anaheim. This
supplements our prior reports dated September 28, 2007 and July 1, 2009 to address the
City’s latest parking study requirements related to the following:
Refinement to reduce the size of the project evaluated in our 2009 study, which
was previously 10,000 square feet (SF), and as now proposed, would add 3,591
SF for a McDonalds restaurant, and 4,875 SF (includes 500 SF of outdoor
seating) of other fast-food use to the existing 1,838-seat (1,795 regular seats
plus 43 wheelchair accessible seats), 13-screen movie theater
Parking implications of not maintaining the license for Cinema City to use 49
spaces in Zone K (parking for the bank that exists east of the primary driveway
serving Cinema City and Imperial Promenade, north of La Palma Avenue)
Results of collecting more recent parking demand counts, to update prior counts
last conducted in 2009 (initial counts were collected in 2007)
This update focuses on evaluating the parking needs for Cinema City only, and does
not analyze the adjoining property to the east (Imperial Promenade). The study
evaluates the existing parking conditions for Cinema City, calculates the number of
Code-required parking spaces, and compares parking demand to the on-site supply to
determine any parking surpluses or deficiencies under existing conditions, and future
conditions with the project.
Briefly, our findings indicate that the incremental parking needs of the project would
be adequately met by the future supply, without relying on parking spaces within the
easement (Zones J and L), and more specifically, the bank lot (Zone K). Our method
of analysis, findings, and conclusions, are described in the following pages.
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
November 11, 2013
Page 2
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
PARKING SURVEYS
In order to determine the latest existing parking characteristics of Cinema City at various
times throughout a typical day, more recent survey of actual parking utilization was
conducted on the following days:
Friday, April 26, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
The vehicles parked on-site were counted every hour, beginning at 9:00 AM and ending
at 9:00 PM.
Figure 1 illustrates the parking zones surveyed on the theater site (Zones A through I,
with Zone E as the parking structure), and on the adjoining shopping center site (Zones J
through P). Zones A through I correspond to Cinema City’s parking lots (totaling 396
surface spaces), and Zone E is the theater’s existing parking structure. At the time of the
surveys, Zone E (i.e., the parking structure on the theater site) was closed.
Zones J and L (located east of the primary driveway, just north of La Palma Avenue)
consist of 38 existing spaces available for theater site use through an easement, and
was therefore included in this study.
Although not surveyed as part of this study, Figure 1 also shows Zone K, which is the
parking area that serves the existing bank, and where the license for Cinema City to
use 49 spaces within that zone may not be maintained.
PARKING SUPPLY
Table 1 indicates that, based upon a comprehensive inventory of on-site spaces, the
existing supply for Cinema City totals 586 spaces, consisting of 396 surface spaces in
Zones A through D, and Zones F through I, plus 190 spaces in the parking structure
(Zone E). The 190-space parking structure was closed at the time of the field studies,
but it will be available prior to project completion.
In the future with the completion of the project, the on-site supply for Cinema City
would be reduced to 456 spaces.
Based on current parking agreements between Cinema City and Imperial Promenade,
theater site patrons and employees are allowed to park in Zones J and L, which are
located within the shopping center site, and east of the primary driveway, just north of
La Palma Avenue (shown on Figure 1), consisting of 38 existing spaces available for
theater site use through an easement.
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
November 11, 2013
Page 3
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
Accounting for the additional 38 spaces in the easement, on-site supply for Cinema
City could be as much as 624 spaces under existing conditions, and 494 spaces under
future conditions with the project.
CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Table 1 presents the calculation of City Code-based parking requirements for Cinema
City. The City Code ratio for movie theaters is 0.3 spaces per seat, plus 2 employee
spaces per screen, and the City Code ratio for fast-food restaurants is 10.0 spaces per
1,000 SF.
The straight application of City Code parking ratios to the existing movie theater, with
1,838 seats (1,795 regular seats plus 43 wheelchair accessible seats) and 13 screens,
yields a Code-based requirement of 577 spaces. Comparing this requirement against the
existing 586-space supply results in a surplus of 9 spaces (becomes 47 spaces if
easement spaces are accounted for).
In addition to the existing movie theater, the proposed project (3,591 SF for McDonalds,
plus 4,875 SF of additional fast-food use) would increase the Code-based requirement
for Cinema City to a total of 662 spaces in the future. Comparing this 662-space
requirement against the future supply of 456 spaces yields a Code-based shortfall of
206 spaces (that deficiency becomes 168 spaces if easement spaces are accounted
for).
Based on operational data provided by Cinema City, there are at most 10 employees
per shift, which reduces the Code requirement of 26 employee spaces to 10 employee
spaces. Table 1 shows the results of making this adjustment to the Code calculations.
The above supply-versus-Code comparisons are based on the application of City
Code ratios, and do not reflect the fact that the 1992 CUP approved lower parking
requirements for Cinema City by allowing the application of 80% of the City Code
parking rates. The latest 2009 Resolution, which provided the parking variance for
Cinema City (based on our 2009 parking study), superseded the 1992 CUP’s parking
approach and established a more realistic basis of parking demand compared to
straight Code requirements.
EXISTING PARKING DEMAND
Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the parking demand counts on Friday, April 26,
2013 and Saturday, April 27, 2013, respectively. Tables 1 and 2 indicate the parking
supply for each on-site parking area zone, the number of spaces occupied by time of
day, the percent occupancy during each observation, and a comparison of the peak
demand against supply indicating an existing parking surplus or deficiency.
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
November 11, 2013
Page 4
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
Without accounting for the demand in the easement (Zones J and L) because the
vehicles parked in these zones may not be solely attributable to Cinema City, the peak
demand of 328 spaces occurred on Saturday at 8:00 PM. These results are consistent
with the findings from our prior studies.
The observed peak demand of 328 spaces is conservative, based on a comparison
against the March 31, 2011 parking study prepared by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. for
Imperial Promenade. Based on that study, parking counts collected on December 3,
2010 (Friday) and December 4, 2010 (Saturday), resulted in a peak demand of 244
spaces for Cinema City (i.e., number of vehicles parked in Zones A through I, at 8:00
PM on Saturday). The 328-space demand used as basis in our study is 84 spaces
(34%) greater than the 244-space demand observed in the Imperial Promenade study.
PARKING DEMAND VERSUS SUPPLY
Table 1 presents the supply-versus-demand comparisons under existing and future
conditions with the project, based on empirical calculations using the 2009 counts, the
latest 2013 counts, and the 2013 counts with the concept of Shared Parking.
As indicated in Table 1, using the 2009 counts for the movie theater, the future peak
demand with the project is estimated to be 406 spaces, which corresponds to a surplus
of 50 spaces when compared against the 456-space supply for Cinema City (excludes
38 spaces in the easement and 49 licensed spaces in Zone K). Accounting for both
the demand (not solely Cinema City-related) and supply in the easement, the surplus
would be increased to 68 spaces.
Based on the most recent 2013 counts for the movie theater, the future peak demand
with the project would be 413 spaces, which translates to a surplus of 43 spaces when
compared against the 456-space supply for Cinema City (excludes 38 spaces in the
easement and 49 licensed spaces in Zone K). Accounting for both the demand (not
solely Cinema City-related) and supply in the easement, the surplus would be
increased to 53 spaces.
The above comparisons are conservative because City Code parking ratios were
applied directly to the McDonalds and other fast-food components of the project. In
reality, the parking spaces would be shared by the movie theater and fast-food
restaurants, and these two uses do not achieve their “peak” (100% occupancy) at the
same time, as represented in the City Code calculations.
By accounting for the Shared Parking concept (through application of the ULI
methodology), the bottom portion of Table 1 indicates that the future peak demand
with the project would be 370 spaces, corresponding to a surplus of 86 spaces when
compared against the 456-space supply for Cinema City (excludes 38 spaces in the
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
November 11, 2013
Page 5
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
easement and 49 licensed spaces in Zone K). Accounting for both the demand (not
solely Cinema City-related) and supply in the easement, the surplus would be
increased to 96 spaces.
The demand-versus-supply comparisons above indicate that the incremental parking
needs of the project would be adequately met by the future supply, without relying on
parking spaces within the easement (Zones J and L), and more specifically, the bank
lot (Zone K).
Per ULI’s Shared Parking publication, early December movie ticket sales correspond
to 67% of the peak ticket sales occurring in the late December holiday season. Using
this movie ticket sales trend to increase the early December 244-space demand
observed in the Imperial Promenade study to estimate “absolute peak” parking
conditions for Cinema City in late December results in an adjusted demand of 364
spaces, which exceeds our study’s demand basis of 328 spaces by 36 spaces. This
36-space difference could be fully absorbed and offset by the 86 to 96 surplus spaces
projected in the future.
ULI’s Shared Parking further indicates that movie ticket sales in July (peak month in
the summer) comprise 92% of the peak ticket sales occurring in late December. This
trend was applied to increase the early December 244-space demand observed in the
Imperial Promenade study to estimate parking conditions for Cinema City in July.
The adjusted demand reflecting July/summer peak conditions totals 335 spaces,
which exceeds our study’s demand basis of 328 spaces by only 7 spaces. This 7-
space difference could be fully accommodated within the 86 to 96 surplus spaces
projected in our study.
Although late December/holiday or July/peak summer parking demand is not an
appropriate basis for sizing parking facilities (it represents 100th percentile demand,
and solid parking design factors are based on 85th percentile demand), the above
comparisons indicate that a greater, late December or July demand could be
adequately served by Cinema City’s future supply.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO INCREASE UTILIZATION OF PARKING
STRUCTURE
Development of the project is likely to help increase the utilization of the existing
190-space parking structure on the theater site. Project construction staging areas and
the project’s footprint will cause the displacement of parking demand out from Parking
Zones A and B and into the parking structure.
Requiring theater site employees (including the future employees of the proposed
restaurants) to park in the structure, and enhancements to walkways connecting the
Mr. Daniel Akarakian
November 11, 2013
Page 6
N:\2800\2072889\2889-ltr 11-11-13.docx
theater to the parking structure, are some measures that could be implemented to
increase the use of the parking structure.
Construction of a covered awning attached to the easterly side of the theater between
the parking structure and the front entrance to the theater would benefit the use of the
parking structure. It is our understanding that improvement modifications to the
parking structure have already begun.
Providing a more direct pedestrian connection to the parking structure from the theater
could also increase the structure’s utilization. This could be accomplished by allowing
theater patrons to exit via the existing doorways located on the eastern side of the theater
building. These doorways are located closer to the existing parking structure access than
the main doorways at the front of the theater, and will make it more convenient for
patrons to leave the theater and walk to the parking structure entrance/stairways. Also,
the addition of on-site signage for the parking structure could encourage more visitors
to park there.
Per the City’s recommendation, the theater site will publicize the spaces in the
parking structure (e.g., announce when the structure is reopened, offer incentives to
its use, provide parking updates on the theater’s website and phone recording),
specifically when project construction efforts are commenced.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this update. Please call us with any questions
or comments at 949.825.6175.
Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
Trissa (de Jesus) Allen, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Description Existing (spaces) Future (spaces)
Parking Supply
Lots (Zones A-D, F-I)396 266
Parking structure (Zone E)190 190
Total (Zones A-I):586 456
Easement (Zones J, L)38 38
Total with Easement: 624 494
City Code Requirements
Existing Movie Theater (1,838 seats, 13 screens)
@ 0.3 sp per seat, plus 551 551
2 employee sp per screen 26 26
Sub-Total: 577 577
Future McDonalds (3,591 SF) @ 10 sp per 1,000 SF -- 36
Future Fast-Food (4,875 SF) @ 10 sp per 1,000 SF -- 49
Total: 577 662
Supply (w/o easement) Minus Demand 9 (206)
With Adjusted Employee Requirement [a]: 25 (190)
Supply (w/ easement) Minus Demand 47 (168)
With Adjusted Employee Requirement [a]: 63 (152)
Empirical Calculation per July 2009 Study
Observed Peak Demand for Movie Theater (8:30pm)321 321
Future McDonalds (per Code)--36
Future Fast-Food (per Code)--49
Total: 321 406
Supply (w/o easement) Minus Demand: 265 50
Observed Demand in Easement (8:30pm)20 20
Supply (w/ easement) Minus Demand: 283 68
Empirical Calculation per April 2013 Study
Observed Peak Demand for Movie Theater (8:00pm)328 328
Future McDonalds (per Code)--36
Future Fast-Food (per Code)--49
Total: 328 413
Supply (w/o easement) Minus Demand: 258 43
Observed Demand in Easement (8:00pm)28 28
Supply (w/ easement) Minus Demand: 268 53
Empirical + Shared Parking per April 2013 Study
Observed Peak Demand for Movie Theater (8:00pm)328 328
Future McDonalds (ULI Shared Parking at 8:00pm)--18
Future Fast-Food (ULI Shared Parking at 8:00pm)--24
Total: 328 370
Supply (w/o easement) Minus Demand: 258 86
Observed Demand in Easement (8:00pm)28 28
Supply (w/ easement) Minus Demand: 268 96
Note:
[a] Based on operational data from Cinema City, there are at most 10 employees per shift.
The City Code requirement of 26 spaces was adjusted to 10 spaces.
PARKING SUMMARY
TABLE 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
From:Abbott, Robert
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:FW: Cinema City Development Dispute -- Update for Meeting 1/13/2014
Date:Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:02:02 PM
Mr. Koehm,
I remain concerned that the applicant’s proposal is simply too ambitious for the site, without more
substantive efforts to mitigate congestion and overflow parking. The existing cinema use fit well
with the neighboring retail uses in that the busy hours occurred in the evenings and weekends. The
proposed uses will bring competing traffic at the same time as many of the existing businesses. The
proposed lot signage and parking time limits will have minor impact without on-site enforcement.
Even with a less ambitious proposal, I expected to see mitigation measures, including parking
attendants. Left unchecked (and particularly with a time limit), excess parking will simply spill over
into the neighboring properties.
City planning staff have proposed an alternative means of ingress/egress, closing one of the
driveways. The staff report is not clear to me as to how this will work. It does appear that Citi
customers may be required to take a circuitous route to and from the bank, so this will need
clarification.
The applicant’s proposal remains essentially unchanged from the April, 2013 submittal and has not
included significant mitigation measures. Therefore, my position remains unchanged.
Regards,
Robert Abbott
Citi Realty Services
201 W. Lexington Dr., 4th Fl.
Glendale, CA 91203
(818) 662 -2534 direct
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
From:Jonathan Borrego
To:Scott Koehm
Subject:Fw: McDonalds issue
Date:Sunday, October 20, 2013 3:46:51 PM
Fyi
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Lewis [mailto:bobandlinda755@sbcglobal.net ]
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 03:33 PM
To: Jonathan Borrego
Subject: McDonalds issue
We are greatly against the proposal for a mcDonalds and Retail center in front of the movie theater.
There is already a huge problem with getting in and out of the businesses and movie theater. Bon and
Linda Lewis
Sent from my iPhone
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
10-28-13 5NOTE: NON-EXCLUSIVE PARKING EASEMENT
AT ADJACENT CENTER 38 SPACES.
IF WEST DRIVE TO FRONT PARKING FIELD
IS CLOSED ADDITIONAL 4 SPACES
SPACES
1,838 TOTAL SEATING
(1,795 SEATS + 43 WHEELCHAIR SPACES)
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY
5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 Tel: 949.7 33.3823 Fax: 949.733.3842
January 10, 2014
Commissioner Peter Agarwal
City of Anaheim
Anaheim Planning Commission
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A; Variance No. 2012-04917
Property Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Dear Mr. Agarwal,
Over the course of the last two years, many parties have come before you to present testimony and
analysis about the proposed development for a McDonald's Drive-thru and additional retail of 4,875
square feet to take place on the front parking lot of the Cinema City site. I would like to take a
moment to concisely present to you concerns on behalf of Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates,
Owner of Imperial Promenade Shopping Center.
In the Staff Report prepared for the December 16, 2013 meeting there is a section, on page 5, which
identifies some of the requirements by Code that must be met when considering approval of a parking
variance. I would like to specifically address my concerns with Item #3 and Item #5.
"The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use."
The Cinema, in its current use, has created a material parking issue at the Shopping Center as many
movie patrons park for long periods in the spaces located in front of the retail tenants’ storefronts.
Ownership has retained the services of on-foot Security Patrol for many years in order to monitor the
parking activity so that the retail tenants’ customers have available parking. In 2013 the bills for our
security patrolmen exceeded $20,000. Eliminating a significant number of parking spaces located in a
place closest to the box office and theater entrance will absolutely increase demand on the parking
field located at the Shopping Center as it will become the most convenient and accessible parking
location for movie patrons.
Additionally, the parking study prepared by the Applicant relies upon full and optimal use of the
parking structure’s 190 spaces. There is no historical activity to warrant this assumption to be accurate
and true. The Applicant has had ample time to utilize the parking structure and present findings that
prove this assumption to be true, but no such presentation exists. I would ask you to reference a letter
dated January 10, 2014 by Cynthia Wolcott for additional commentary on this matter.
“The variance will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.”
In a parking study dated December 5, 2012, by Pirzadeh & Associates, an analysis was prepared for
the anticipated stacking of vehicles in the left hand turn lane located at the joint access point for the
two properties. The analysis anticipates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project
will result in stacking of vehicles that exceeds available capacity by 55 feet during weekdays and 140
feet during weekends. To summarize: The internal intersections between the Cinema site and
Shopping Center will be consistently blocked by the stacking of vehicles utilizing the left hand turn
lane and causing material internal circulation issues. The Trames traffic study, included in the
Applicant’s package, agrees with this forecast. Please refer to the letter written by Cynthia Wolcott for
additional comments on this issue.
Additionally, there is evidence in the Pirzadeh & Associates parking study that the intersection of La
Palma and Imperial Highway is already operating at a ‘Level of Service C & D’ during peak hours
throughout the entire week. The Trames traffic study is in agreement with this conclusion and
identifies the level of service to be at a C & D based on the site’s existing conditions. The additional
trips generated by a development of this scale will have a material impact on the already congested
intersection of La Palma and Imperial Highway.
As a fellow real estate owner and developer, I can respect an owner’s interest in identifying ways to
add value to their property. However, this proposal is not of appropriate size or use when considering
the current parking needs and traffic conditions generated by the adjacent properties. I would ask that
you seriously consider the practical application of the assumptions made in the Applicant’s proposal.
We feel that the proposed project will not meet the requirements defined by Code and that the adjacent
Shopping Center’s parking and accessibility will be materially impacted in a negative way.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany DeBeikes
DeBeikes Investment Company
Agent for Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP
CC: Scott Koehm (via email)
DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY
5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 Tel: 949.7 33.3823 Fax: 949.733.3842
January 10, 2014
Commissioner Paul Bostwick
City of Anaheim
Anaheim Planning Commission
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A; Variance No. 2012-04917
Property Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Dear Mr. Bostwick,
Over the course of the last two years, many parties have come before you to present testimony and
analysis about the proposed development for a McDonald's Drive-thru and additional retail of 4,875
square feet to take place on the front parking lot of the Cinema City site. I would like to take a
moment to concisely present to you concerns on behalf of Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates,
Owner of Imperial Promenade Shopping Center.
In the Staff Report prepared for the December 16, 2013 meeting there is a section, on page 5, which
identifies some of the requirements by Code that must be met when considering approval of a parking
variance. I would like to specifically address my concerns with Item #3 and Item #5.
"The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use."
The Cinema, in its current use, has created a material parking issue at the Shopping Center as many
movie patrons park for long periods in the spaces located in front of the retail tenants’ storefronts.
Ownership has retained the services of on-foot Security Patrol for many years in order to monitor the
parking activity so that the retail tenants’ customers have available parking. In 2013 the bills for our
security patrolmen exceeded $20,000. Eliminating a significant number of parking spaces located in a
place closest to the box office and theater entrance will absolutely increase demand on the parking
field located at the Shopping Center as it will become the most convenient and accessible parking
location for movie patrons.
Additionally, the parking study prepared by the Applicant relies upon full and optimal use of the
parking structure’s 190 spaces. There is no historical activity to warrant this assumption to be accurate
and true. The Applicant has had ample time to utilize the parking structure and present findings that
prove this assumption to be true, but no such presentation exists. I would ask you to reference a letter
dated January 10, 2014 by Cynthia Wolcott for additional commentary on this matter.
“The variance will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.”
In a parking study dated December 5, 2012, by Pirzadeh & Associates, an analysis was prepared for
the anticipated stacking of vehicles in the left hand turn lane located at the joint access point for the
two properties. The analysis anticipates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project
will result in stacking of vehicles that exceeds available capacity by 55 feet during weekdays and 140
feet during weekends. To summarize: The internal intersections between the Cinema site and
Shopping Center will be consistently blocked by the stacking of vehicles utilizing the left hand turn
lane and causing material internal circulation issues. The Trames traffic study, included in the
Applicant’s package, agrees with this forecast. Please refer to the letter written by Cynthia Wolcott for
additional comments on this issue.
Additionally, there is evidence in the Pirzadeh & Associates parking study that the intersection of La
Palma and Imperial Highway is already operating at a ‘Level of Service C & D’ during peak hours
throughout the entire week. The Trames traffic study is in agreement with this conclusion and
identifies the level of service to be at a C & D based on the site’s existing conditions. The additional
trips generated by a development of this scale will have a material impact on the already congested
intersection of La Palma and Imperial Highway.
As a fellow real estate owner and developer, I can respect an owner’s interest in identifying ways to
add value to their property. However, this proposal is not of appropriate size or use when considering
the current parking needs and traffic conditions generated by the adjacent properties. I would ask that
you seriously consider the practical application of the assumptions made in the Applicant’s proposal.
We feel that the proposed project will not meet the requirements defined by Code and that the adjacent
Shopping Center’s parking and accessibility will be materially impacted in a negative way.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany DeBeikes
DeBeikes Investment Company
Agent for Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP
CC: Scott Koehm (via email)
DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY
5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 Tel: 949.7 33.3823 Fax: 949.733.3842
January 10, 2014
Commissioner Mitchell T. Caldwell
902 West Broadway
Anaheim, CA 92805
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A; Variance No. 2012-04917
Property Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Dear Mr. Caldwell,
Over the course of the last two years, many parties have come before you to present testimony and
analysis about the proposed development for a McDonald's Drive-thru and additional retail of 4,875
square feet to take place on the front parking lot of the Cinema City site. I would like to take a
moment to concisely present to you concerns on behalf of Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates,
Owner of Imperial Promenade Shopping Center.
In the Staff Report prepared for the December 16, 2013 meeting there is a section, on page 5, which
identifies some of the requirements by Code that must be met when considering approval of a parking
variance. I would like to specifically address my concerns with Item #3 and Item #5.
"The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use."
The Cinema, in its current use, has created a material parking issue at the Shopping Center as many
movie patrons park for long periods in the spaces located in front of the retail tenants’ storefronts.
Ownership has retained the services of on-foot Security Patrol for many years in order to monitor the
parking activity so that the retail tenants’ customers have available parking. In 2013 the bills for our
security patrolmen exceeded $20,000. Eliminating a significant number of parking spaces located in a
place closest to the box office and theater entrance will absolutely increase demand on the parking
field located at the Shopping Center as it will become the most convenient and accessible parking
location for movie patrons.
Additionally, the parking study prepared by the Applicant relies upon full and optimal use of the
parking structure’s 190 spaces. There is no historical activity to warrant this assumption to be accurate
and true. The Applicant has had ample time to utilize the parking structure and present findings that
prove this assumption to be true, but no such presentation exists. I would ask you to reference a letter
dated January 10, 2014 by Cynthia Wolcott for additional commentary on this matter.
“The variance will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.”
In a parking study dated December 5, 2012, by Pirzadeh & Associates, an analysis was prepared for
the anticipated stacking of vehicles in the left hand turn lane located at the joint access point for the
two properties. The analysis anticipates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project
will result in stacking of vehicles that exceeds available capacity by 55 feet during weekdays and 140
feet during weekends. To summarize: The internal intersections between the Cinema site and
Shopping Center will be consistently blocked by the stacking of vehicles utilizing the left hand turn
lane and causing material internal circulation issues. The Trames traffic study, included in the
Applicant’s package, agrees with this forecast. Please refer to the letter written by Cynthia Wolcott for
additional comments on this issue.
Additionally, there is evidence in the Pirzadeh & Associates parking study that the intersection of La
Palma and Imperial Highway is already operating at a ‘Level of Service C & D’ during peak hours
throughout the entire week. The Trames traffic study is in agreement with this conclusion and
identifies the level of service to be at a C & D based on the site’s existing conditions. The additional
trips generated by a development of this scale will have a material impact on the already congested
intersection of La Palma and Imperial Highway.
As a fellow real estate owner and developer, I can respect an owner’s interest in identifying ways to
add value to their property. However, this proposal is not of appropriate size or use when considering
the current parking needs and traffic conditions generated by the adjacent properties. I would ask that
you seriously consider the practical application of the assumptions made in the Applicant’s proposal.
We feel that the proposed project will not meet the requirements defined by Code and that the adjacent
Shopping Center’s parking and accessibility will be materially impacted in a negative way.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany DeBeikes
DeBeikes Investment Company
Agent for Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP
CC: Scott Koehm (via email)
DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY
5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 Tel: 949.7 33.3823 Fax: 949.733.3842
January 10, 2014
Commissioner Victoria Ramirez
2548 W. Roven Street
Anaheim, California 92804
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A; Variance No. 2012-04917
Property Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Dear Ms. Ramirez,
Over the course of the last two years, many parties have come before you to present testimony and
analysis about the proposed development for a McDonald's Drive-thru and additional retail of 4,875
square feet to take place on the front parking lot of the Cinema City site. I would like to take a
moment to concisely present to you concerns on behalf of Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates,
Owner of Imperial Promenade Shopping Center.
In the Staff Report prepared for the December 16, 2013 meeting there is a section, on page 5, which
identifies some of the requirements by Code that must be met when considering approval of a parking
variance. I would like to specifically address my concerns with Item #3 and Item #5.
"The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use."
The Cinema, in its current use, has created a material parking issue at the Shopping Center as many
movie patrons park for long periods in the spaces located in front of the retail tenants’ storefronts.
Ownership has retained the services of on-foot Security Patrol for many years in order to monitor the
parking activity so that the retail tenants’ customers have available parking. In 2013 the bills for our
security patrolmen exceeded $20,000. Eliminating a significant number of parking spaces located in a
place closest to the box office and theater entrance will absolutely increase demand on the parking
field located at the Shopping Center as it will become the most convenient and accessible parking
location for movie patrons.
Additionally, the parking study prepared by the Applicant relies upon full and optimal use of the
parking structure’s 190 spaces. There is no historical activity to warrant this assumption to be accurate
and true. The Applicant has had ample time to utilize the parking structure and present findings that
prove this assumption to be true, but no such presentation exists. I would ask you to reference a letter
dated January 10, 2014 by Cynthia Wolcott for additional commentary on this matter.
“The variance will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.”
In a parking study dated December 5, 2012, by Pirzadeh & Associates, an analysis was prepared for
the anticipated stacking of vehicles in the left hand turn lane located at the joint access point for the
two properties. The analysis anticipates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project
will result in stacking of vehicles that exceeds available capacity by 55 feet during weekdays and 140
feet during weekends. To summarize: The internal intersections between the Cinema site and
Shopping Center will be consistently blocked by the stacking of vehicles utilizing the left hand turn
lane and causing material internal circulation issues. The Trames traffic study, included in the
Applicant’s package, agrees with this forecast. Please refer to the letter written by Cynthia Wolcott for
additional comments on this issue.
Additionally, there is evidence in the Pirzadeh & Associates parking study that the intersection of La
Palma and Imperial Highway is already operating at a ‘Level of Service C & D’ during peak hours
throughout the entire week. The Trames traffic study is in agreement with this conclusion and
identifies the level of service to be at a C & D based on the site’s existing conditions. The additional
trips generated by a development of this scale will have a material impact on the already congested
intersection of La Palma and Imperial Highway.
As a fellow real estate owner and developer, I can respect an owner’s interest in identifying ways to
add value to their property. However, this proposal is not of appropriate size or use when considering
the current parking needs and traffic conditions generated by the adjacent properties. I would ask that
you seriously consider the practical application of the assumptions made in the Applicant’s proposal.
We feel that the proposed project will not meet the requirements defined by Code and that the adjacent
Shopping Center’s parking and accessibility will be materially impacted in a negative way.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany DeBeikes
DeBeikes Investment Company
Agent for Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP
CC: Scott Koehm (via email)
DEBEIKES INVESTMENT COMPANY
5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 Tel: 949.7 33.3823 Fax: 949.733.3842
January 10, 2014
Commissioner John Seymour
725 S. Londerry Lane
Anaheim, California 92807
Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05372A; Variance No. 2012-04917
Property Location: 5635 East La Palma Avenue
Dear Mr. Seymour,
Over the course of the last two years, many parties have come before you to present testimony and
analysis about the proposed development for a McDonald's Drive-thru and additional retail of 4,875
square feet to take place on the front parking lot of the Cinema City site. I would like to take a
moment to concisely present to you concerns on behalf of Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates,
Owner of Imperial Promenade Shopping Center.
In the Staff Report prepared for the December 16, 2013 meeting there is a section, on page 5, which
identifies some of the requirements by Code that must be met when considering approval of a parking
variance. I would like to specifically address my concerns with Item #3 and Item #5.
"The variance will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private
property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use."
The Cinema, in its current use, has created a material parking issue at the Shopping Center as many
movie patrons park for long periods in the spaces located in front of the retail tenants’ storefronts.
Ownership has retained the services of on-foot Security Patrol for many years in order to monitor the
parking activity so that the retail tenants’ customers have available parking. In 2013 the bills for our
security patrolmen exceeded $20,000. Eliminating a significant number of parking spaces located in a
place closest to the box office and theater entrance will absolutely increase demand on the parking
field located at the Shopping Center as it will become the most convenient and accessible parking
location for movie patrons.
Additionally, the parking study prepared by the Applicant relies upon full and optimal use of the
parking structure’s 190 spaces. There is no historical activity to warrant this assumption to be accurate
and true. The Applicant has had ample time to utilize the parking structure and present findings that
prove this assumption to be true, but no such presentation exists. I would ask you to reference a letter
dated January 10, 2014 by Cynthia Wolcott for additional commentary on this matter.
“The variance will not impede vehicular ingress or egress from adjacent properties upon the public
streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use.”
In a parking study dated December 5, 2012, by Pirzadeh & Associates, an analysis was prepared for
the anticipated stacking of vehicles in the left hand turn lane located at the joint access point for the
two properties. The analysis anticipates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed project
will result in stacking of vehicles that exceeds available capacity by 55 feet during weekdays and 140
feet during weekends. To summarize: The internal intersections between the Cinema site and
Shopping Center will be consistently blocked by the stacking of vehicles utilizing the left hand turn
lane and causing material internal circulation issues. The Trames traffic study, included in the
Applicant’s package, agrees with this forecast. Please refer to the letter written by Cynthia Wolcott for
additional comments on this issue.
Additionally, there is evidence in the Pirzadeh & Associates parking study that the intersection of La
Palma and Imperial Highway is already operating at a ‘Level of Service C & D’ during peak hours
throughout the entire week. The Trames traffic study is in agreement with this conclusion and
identifies the level of service to be at a C & D based on the site’s existing conditions. The additional
trips generated by a development of this scale will have a material impact on the already congested
intersection of La Palma and Imperial Highway.
As a fellow real estate owner and developer, I can respect an owner’s interest in identifying ways to
add value to their property. However, this proposal is not of appropriate size or use when considering
the current parking needs and traffic conditions generated by the adjacent properties. I would ask that
you seriously consider the practical application of the assumptions made in the Applicant’s proposal.
We feel that the proposed project will not meet the requirements defined by Code and that the adjacent
Shopping Center’s parking and accessibility will be materially impacted in a negative way.
I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Brittany DeBeikes
DeBeikes Investment Company
Agent for Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP
CC: Scott Koehm (via email)
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844
LOCATION: 611 South Brookhurst Street (CVS Pharmacy)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Bruce Evans representing
CVS Pharmacy and the property owner is Essam Seif.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend a previously-approved
conditional use permit by deleting a condition of approval establishing a one-year
expiration date for the sales of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing
pharmacy.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class
1, Existing Facilities), and approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No.
2004-04844.
BACKGROUND: The project site is developed with a 19,838 square foot CVS
Pharmacy in the General Commercial (CG) and Brookhurst Commercial Corridor
(BCC) Overlay zones. The site is designated for Low-Medium Density Residential
land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include apartments to the
west, commercial and office uses to the south, a church and commercial center to the
north across Orange Avenue and a fast food restaurant and commercial center to the
east across Brookhurst Street.
Prior Entitlement: On June 30, 2004, the Planning Commission approved
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04844 and Determination of Public Convenience
or Necessity No. 2004-00015, permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site
consumption in conjunction with the pharmacy. On August 3, 2004, the City
Council considered an appeal and approved the project. On September 19, 2005 and
June 12, 2006, as Report and Recommendation items, the Planning Commission
reviewed and approved requests for time extensions for the overall project in order to
allow the applicant additional time to comply with conditions of approval. The store
was built in 2007, however during this time the project changed ownership. The
applicant has indicated that the time limitation condition pertaining to the sales of
alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption went undetected by new ownership
until recently. In order to address this issue, the business owner is requesting the
deletion of this condition.
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to delete a condition of approval establishing a one-
year time limit for the sales of alcoholic beverages.
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to allow the sale of alcoholic
beverages in conjunction with retail stores to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land
uses. Requests to amend conditions of approval, including time limitations, require review and
approval by the Planning Commission and are subject to the same conditional use permit
findings. When the original conditional use permit authorizing alcohol sales was approved in
2004, the Planning Commission and City Council determined that alcohol sales would be
compatible with surrounding land uses. The initial one-year time limitation was imposed as a
means to review the use at a defined point in time to ensure that it remained a compatible use.
Staff research indicates that alcohol sales have been taking place at his location for several years
without complaint from, or detriment to, the surrounding community. This drug store offers a
variety of household, personal and grocery items and the sale of alcoholic beverages is an
ancillary use. The Police Department indicates that past calls for service to this location include
reports of petty theft and vandalism. The calls for service have been minimal over the past
several years and were not related to alcohol sales; therefore, the Police Department does not
oppose the deletion of the time limitation. Further, the crime rate within the Police Reporting
District in which this property is located has decreased since the original approval of this request,
from 85 to 45 percent above the citywide average.
CONCLUSION: The request to delete the condition of approval pertaining to the time
limitation is appropriate because the sales of alcoholic beverages have been taking place at this
location for nearly seven years in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. The sale of alcohol at this location is ancillary to the business’s primary use as a
pharmacy and location to purchase general household goods. Staff recommends approval of the
applicant’s request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Resolution
3. Letter of Justification
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
4. City Council Resolution No. 2004-171
5. Site Photographs
C-G (BCC)PARKING LOT
T (BCC)SFR
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)BROOKHURSTPLAZA INN
C-G (BCC)RESTAURANT
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 DU
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4SFR
C-G (BCC)OFFICES
C-G (BCC)MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
TRELIGIOUS USE C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)PARKING LOT
C-G (BCC)BANK
C-G (BCC)OFFICES
C-G (BCC)OFFICES
C-G (BCC)POLYNESIANMOTEL
C-G (BCC)VACANT
C-G (BCC)BROOKHURSTMOTELCITY OFCITY OFCOUNTY OFCOUNTY OFO R A N G EORANGE
A N A H E I MANAHEIM
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
S BROOKHURST STW ORA NGE AVE
W NIOBE AVE
W THERESA AVE
S THISTLE RDW CLEARBROOK LN
W ORANGE AVE
S MARBEYA PLS MILLS ENDW. BALL RD
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE
S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE
6 1 1 -6 19 South Brookhu rs t Street
D EV No. 2 0 13-00125
Subject Property APN: 127-231-56127-231-59127-231-60
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
S BROOKHURST STW ORA NGE AVE
W NIOBE AVE
W THERESA AVE
S THISTLE RDW CLEARBROOK LN
W ORANGE AVE
S MARBEYA PLS MILLS ENDW. BALL RD
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE
S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE
6 1 1 -6 19 South Brookhu rs t Street
D EV No. 2 0 13-00125
Subject Property APN: 127-231-56127-231-59127-231-60
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-
04844 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00125)
(611 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET)
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2004, pursuant to the appeal of the action taken by the
Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") at its regular
meeting of June 30, 2004, the City Council of the City of Anaheim, by adoption of its Resolution
No. 2004-171, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04844 and Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 2004-00015 to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in
conjunction with a drug store (herein referred to as the "Original CUP") on that certain real
property located at 611 South Brookhurst Street in the City of Anaheim, which is generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2004-171 contained the following
condition of approval:
“1. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption shall expire one (1) year from the date of
occupancy.”
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2005 and June 12, 2006, as Report and
Recommendation items, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved requests for time
extensions for the overall project in order to allow the applicant additional time to comply with
conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.08 acres in size and is developed
with a 19,838 square foot drug store with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption
that has been operating since 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in and subject to the regulations and
development standards of the General Commercial ("C-G") Zone, except as otherwise specified
in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The Anaheim General Plan
designates the Property for Low-Medium Density Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for an
amendment to the Original CUP (herein referred to as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-
04844B") to delete the above-noted condition of approval establishing a one-year time limitation
for the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption (collectively referred to herein as
the "proposed project"); and
WHEREAS, the conditions of approval which were the subject of the Original
CUP shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Previous Conditions of Approval"; and
- 2 - PC2014-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence for and
against said proposed amendment to the Original CUP to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which
consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private
structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the
time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the
environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing pertaining to the request for an amendment to the Original CUP to delete
a condition, does find and determine the following facts:
1. The proposed amendment of the Original CUP to delete a condition of approval
pertaining to a time limitation for the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption at an
existing drug store is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Section
18.08.030 (Uses) of the Zoning Code; and
2. The proposed amendment to the Original CUP would not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because the sales of alcoholic beverages is consistent with the existing operational
characteristics of the drug store. Further, the drug store has operated with the sales of alcoholic
beverages for over six years and this approval includes additional conditions of approval that will
serve to reduce criminal activity on the property.
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the
proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety
general welfare of the public because the site can accommodate the parking, traffic flows, and
circulation without creating detrimental effects on adjacent properties. Moreover, the Property is
currently developed with a drug store with no proposed expansion of the existing building; and
4. The proposed amendment to the Original CUP will have no effect upon traffic
generated by the existing drugstore and will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area. Deletion of the time limitation
for the sales of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption will not result in an increase in the
existing volume of traffic. In addition, the number of vehicles entering and exiting the Property
is consistent with typical retail businesses that are permitted as a matter of right within the
General Commercial (C-G) Zone; and
5. The granting of the amendment to the Original CUP under the conditions imposed
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will
maintain a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
- 3 - PC2014-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04844B, thereby amending the Original CUP.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the conditions of approval attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit B amend the Previous Conditions of Approval and hereby replace the
Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety and, therefore, reflect the amendment and
restatement of the Prior Conditions of Approval and the conditions of approval attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit B shall control and govern the Property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations
on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be
processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and
18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2004-04844B constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies
with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 13, 2014. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by
a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
___
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January,
2014.
_____________________
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 5 - PC2014-***
- 6 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844B)
(DEV2013-00125)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
GENERAL
1 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area
under the control of the property owner shall be removed or painted over
within 24 hours of being applied.
Code
Enforcement
2 No display of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be located outside of the
building located on the Property or within five feet of any public entrance to
said building.
Police
3 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including
advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits. Interior displays of beer,
wine, and/or distilled spirits or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior
shall constitute a violation of this condition.
Police
4 The area of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirit displays shall not exceed 25% of
the total display area in the building occupying the Property.
Police
5 Sale of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits shall be made to customers only
when the customers are inside the building at the Property.
Police
6 The possession of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits in open containers and the
consumption of beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits are prohibited on or around
the property.
Police
7 The business owner shall police the area under their control to prevent
loitering on the property.
Police
8 There shall be no amusement machines, video game devices, or pool tables
maintained at, in or upon the building located on the property at any time,
unless all required permits are first obtained from the City.
Police
- 7 - PC2014-***
9 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings shall be maintained with lighting of sufficient wattage
to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a
safe, secure environment for all person, property, and vehicles on-site. All
exterior doors shall have their own light source, which shall adequately
illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises and provide adequate illumination for persons
exiting the building.
Planning
10 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor
storage.
Code
Enforcement
11 There shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the
building and within the control of the applicant. Code
Enforcement
12 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its
officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually
and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision,
or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition
attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but
not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by
Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding.
Planning
13 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of
this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final
invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever
occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of
required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this
application.
Code
Enforcement
14 The property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications submitted to and approved by the Anaheim City Council on
August 3, 2004, and which plans are on file with the Planning Department
marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 5, and as conditioned herein.
Planning
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05705
LOCATION: 2410 East Katella Avenue (The Shops at Stadium Towers)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Daniel Bradley and the
property owner is Starmont Shops at Stadium Towers, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow
beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed
restaurant within an existing commercial center.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05705.
BACKGROUND: The 2.39-acre project site is developed with two freestanding
commercial buildings and a freestanding restaurant in the General Commercial (C-G)
and Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay zones. The site is designated for
Mixed-Use land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include offices to
the south, west and north across Katella Avenue and the SR-57 freeway to the east.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to serve beer and wine in conjunction with a
proposed 1,580 square foot restaurant. The applicant plans only tenant improvements
within the building. The restaurant would operate seven days per week from 11:00 a.m.
to 12:00 a.m.
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires that specific findings be made prior to
approval of a conditional use permit. The complete findings are included in the
attached draft resolution. A summary of the project’s compliance with the required
findings is provided below.
The sale of beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant at this location is subject
to the approval of a conditional use permit in order to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding uses. A determination of public convenience or necessity is not
required for restaurants serving beer and wine.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05705
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
This site is within Census Tract No. 863.03 which has a population of 6,212. Based on the size of the
population, seven on-sale licenses are allowed in this census tract and there are 20 licenses existing.
The proposed restaurant would be the 21st on-sale license in the census tract. Three off-sale licenses
are also allowed in this census tract, and currently there are four such licenses. There are presently
three other restaurants with on-sale alcohol licenses within the commercial center. The proposed
restaurant with on-sale beer and wine service would be compatible with the surrounding area which
primarily consists of office, retail and entertainment uses.
The Anaheim Police Department has reviewed this request and does not oppose the project subject to
the recommended conditions of approval. This location is within Police Reporting District 2028. This
district is below the city average in crime. Within a one-quarter mile radius of this location, the crime
rate is also below the city average. The recommended conditions of approval require the applicant to
submit the business’s proposed security measures to the Police Department prior to commencement of
beer and wine service, including the provision of adequate lighting, security alarm/cameras and other
operational restrictions to prevent any impacts on surrounding uses.
The combined parking required for the proposed use and all other uses on site is 180 parking spaces
and 180 spaces are provided. The site provides 122 spaces on-site and another 58 spaces are provided
on the adjacent Stadium Towers property per a shared parking agreement between the two properties.
Therefore, ample parking is available to accommodate the proposed restaurant and the existing
businesses on the property.
CONCLUSION: The request to permit beer and wine service in conjunction with a restaurant would
complement existing nearby businesses and entertainment venues. The recommended conditions of
approval will ensure that the sale of alcohol will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff
recommends approval of this request.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Andy Nogal Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Applicant’s Letter of Operation
4. Police Department Memorandum
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Site Photographs
6. Architectural Plans (Site and Floor Plans)
C-G (PTMU)KatellaBUSINESS PARK
I (PTMU)SERVICE STATION
O-H (PTMU)OFFICES
I (PTMU)AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE
ISTADIUM PLAZABUSINESS PARK
O-L (PTMU)KatellaVACANT
O-L (PTMU)KatellaSTADIUM TOWER PLAZAOFFICE BLDG.
O-L (PTMU)KatellaSTADIUM TOWER PLAZAOFFICE BLDG.
ISTADIUM PLAZABUSINESS PARK
IINDUSTRIAL
PR (PTMU)StadiumANGEL STADIUMOF ANAHEIM
IINDUSTRIAL
57 FREEWAY57 FREEWAYE KATELLA AVES SINCLAIR ST
E HOWELL AVE
E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STE. CERRITOS AVE
E. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RDE. GENE AUTRY WAY
2 4 1 0 East Kate lla Aven ue
D EV No. 2 0 13-00111
Subject Property APN: 253-532-13253-532-09
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
57 FREEWAY57 FREEWAYE KATELLA AVES SINCLAIR ST
E H
O
W
ELL AVE
E. KATELLA AVES. LEWIS STE. CERRITOS AVE
E. ORANGEWOOD AVES. STATE COLLEGE BLVDS. SUNKIST STS. DOUGLASS RDE. GENE AUTRY WAY
2 4 1 0 East Kate lla Aven ue
D EV No. 2 0 13-00111
Subject Property APN: 253-532-13253-532-09
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05705
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00111)
(2410 EAST KATELLA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter
referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2013-05705 to permit the sale and on-site consumption of beer and wine in
conjunction with a proposed restaurant within an existing building located in a commercial center
at 2410 East Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California. The
location of the commercial center is generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 2.39-acres, is developed
with a with two freestanding commercial buildings measuring 14,942 square feet and a
freestanding restaurant measuring 6,800 square feet. The Anaheim General Plan designates the
Property for Mixed-Use land uses. The Property is subject to the zoning and development
standards of the General Commercial ("C-G") Zone as set forth in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial
Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), except as otherwise specified in the
Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone set forth in Chapter 18.20 (Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use
permit to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which
consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures
or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit beer and wine service for on-
premises consumption in conjunction with a proposed restaurant within an existing commercial
center does find and determine the following facts:
- 2 - PC2014-***
1. The request to permit beer and wine service for on-premises consumption
in conjunction with a proposed restaurant within an existing commercial center in the General
Commercial (“C-G”) Zone and Platinum Triangle Mixed-Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone is properly
one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Section 18.08.030.010 (Alcoholic
Beverage Sales On-Sale) of the Code;
2. The request to permit beer and wine service for on-premises consumption
in conjunction with a proposed restaurant would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses
and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the
property is currently developed with a commercial center and the proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding area; and
3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of
the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public because the property is currently improved with a commercial
center and there is no proposed expansion; and
4. The traffic generated by the proposed restaurant would not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site are consistent with the existing
commercial use site and the permitted businesses within the commercial center; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the
subject site is a commercial center which allows restaurant businesses and the restaurant is
compatible with the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05705 subject to the conditions of approval
described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are
hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of a portion of the Property in
order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance
with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be
amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing
is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the
modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation
of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition,
or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
- 3 - PC2014-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
___
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January,
2014.
_____________________
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05705
(DEV2013-00111)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY
1 The premises shall be equipped with a comprehensive
security alarm system (silent or audible) for the following
coverage areas: perimeter building and access route
protection and high valued storage areas within 120 days
of this permit. A Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit
application must be completed, Form APD 516, and
return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm
activation within 120 days of this permit. This form is
available at the Police Department front counter, or it can
be downloaded from the following web site:
http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
Police
Department
2 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware,
e.g. deadbolt locks. Wide-angle peepholes or other
viewing device should be installed in solid doors where
natural surveillance is compromised and any rear utility
doors. The locks shall be so constructed that both the
deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a
single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece
within 120 days of this permit.
Police
Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
3 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, or
minimum purchase required.
Police
Department
4 At all times when the premises is open for business, the
premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant
and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of
foods normally offered in such restaurant.
Police
Department
5 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type,
including advertising directed to the exterior from within,
promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic
beverages.
Police
Department
6 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be
exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor
shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as
defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions
Code.
Police
Department
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
7 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or
dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the
proper permits for a “special event” have been obtained
from the City of Anaheim.
Police
Department
8 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to
solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy
them drinks in the licensed premises under any
commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing
plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act)
Police
Department
9 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful
conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and
orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles,
and to prevent disturbances by excessive noise created by
patrons entering or leaving the premises.
Police
Department
10 Windows of restaurant shall not be covered by
advertising to the extent that the interior is not clearly
visible from the outside to enable officers responding to
potential emergency situations to observe any activity
which may be occurring inside.
Police
Department
11 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on
any adjacent area under the control of the business owner
shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Planning
Department
12 The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as
“Indemnities”) from any and all claims, actions or
proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the
Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made
prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The
applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not
be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against
or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or
litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and
other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by
Indemnities in connection with such proceeding.
Planning
Department
13 The portions of this property under control of the
business owner shall be permanently maintained in an
Code
Enforcement
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
orderly fashion through the provision of regular
landscaping maintenance, removal of trash and/or debris.
14 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses,
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided
with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate
illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises during the hours of
darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
person, property, and vehicles on-site. All exterior doors
shall have their own light source, which shall adequately
illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises and
provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the
building.
Police/
Planning
Department
15 All activities related to the use shall occur indoors, except
as may be permitted by an authorized Special Event
Permit.
Code
Enforcement
16 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise
enclosed for outdoor storage.
Code
Enforcement
17 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application
within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior
to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may
result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning
Department
18 The restaurant shall be operated in accordance with the
Letter of Operation submitted as part of this application.
Any changes to the business operation as described in the
Letter of Operation shall be subject to review and
approval by the Planning Director to determine
substantial conformance with the Letter of Operation and
to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses.
Planning
Department
19 The premises shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted to
and reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim,
which plans are on file with the Planning Department
marked as Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2
(Floor Plan).
Planning
Department
Justification For Conditional Use Permit
Planning Department: Planning Services Division
City Of Anaheim
This letter is pertaining to the following business and location:
Bradley Restaurant and Bar Corp.
Calivino Wine Pub (DBA)
C/O: Daniel Bradley
2410 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
To Whom It May Concern:
The proposed use for 2410 E Katella Ave is a restaurant, which will be serving
fine wines, craft beer, and quality foods. This is an existing structure, within an
entertainment hub of Orange County. The surrounding area has sporting events,
concert venues, and restaurants. Calivino Wine Pub will be a healthy compliment to an
already well-situated area. The Planning Counter has verified proper zoning for this
business.
The operating hours will be 11am to 12am(midnight) 7 days a week. Staff
during operating hours will consist of 4 servers and 1 cook, including myself. This will
make a total of 5 people on staff at any given time.
2410 E Katella Ave is approximately 1580 square feet. This is ample space for
the estimated housing for 60 guests. The storefront curb area is large, and can hold
any foot traffic the business generates without impeding parking lot traffic.
Residential areas in the vicinity are more than 500 feet from the site. Currently there
is ample parking for existing businesses and, additional traffic will not be a concern
due to differing operating hours. Comerica Bank, Subway, Rubio’s, and the neighboring
office buildings will be closed or closing at the time of peak operating hours.
Additionally, most of the businesses in this area such as Rubio’s and Subway are fast
service places, requiring short-term parking for patrons.
Growth of the business will be remedied through in store renovations. The
current floor plan will offer spacious lounge seating, high top tables, and bar seating.
This floor plan allows for additional future seating, thus no exterior renovations will be
undertaken. The growth of the business will not impact the surrounding area.
All food and beverage service will adhere to strict guidelines, and remain
beyond reproach of those outlined by the county, city, and state. There will also be
strict guidelines to maintain the cleanliness of the restaurant. The latest closing time
for the proposed business will be Midnight (12am). This will alleviate safety concerns,
as customers will not be able to drink during typical bar hours. Calivino’s atmosphere
will be calm with ambient music played low enough to converse. There will be no
dancing, and no hard liquor served. Safety will be the upmost concern of the staff and
servers will be trained to be conscious of alcohol consumption.
Please contact Daniel Bradley at Daniel@BradleyRBC.com, 909-576-8128, if there are
any additional questions. Thank you for your consideration.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Subject Site –Looking Southerly
Subject Site –Looking Northerly
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Subject Site –Building
Subject Site –Tenant Space
Subject Site –Tenant Space Looking Westerly
Subject Site –Looking Southerly
Subject Site –Other Commercial Building
Subject Site –Interior of Site
Subject Site –Side of Bank and ATM
Parking Area
Parking Area
Parking Area
Hooter’s Outdoor Seating
Subject Site -Hooter Restaurant
Zito’s Outdoor Seating
Subject Site –Zito’s Restaurant
Subject Site-Rubio’s Restaurant
Rubio’s Outdoor Seating
Property to the West
Property to the North across Katella
Property (57 FWY) to the East
Property to the South
Property to the Northwest Corner
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092
LOCATION: 400 South Euclid Street
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Julissa Fontes and the
property owner is Zachary Sham.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting to amend a previously-approved
conditional use permit to permit a banquet facility with sales of alcoholic beverages
in conjunction with an existing restaurant.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2092A.
BACKGROUND: The project site is developed with a 6,038 square foot restaurant
in the General Commercial (C-G) zone. The site is designated for Corridor
Residential land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include apartments
to the east, commercial businesses to the north and south and single family homes to
the west, across Euclid Street.
Previous Entitlement: In 1980, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit No. 2092, permitting the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption
within an existing restaurant.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to establish a banquet facility in
conjunction with an existing restaurant and to upgrade a Type 41 (On Sale Beer &
Wine – Eating Place) license issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) to a Type 47 (On Sale General – Eating Place) license, which
would permit the sale and consumption of beer, wine and distilled spirits. The primary
use of the building would continue to be that of a full-service restaurant; however, the
business owner seeks the ability to close the restaurant on occasion to host private
banquet events. The proposed operating hours of the restaurant and banquet facility
are from 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., seven days a week.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092A
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to authorize banquet facilities
and the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in order to ensure compatibility with
the surrounding land uses. The Zoning Code also requires that specific findings be made prior to
approval of a conditional use permit. The complete findings are included in the attached draft
resolution. A summary of the project’s compliance with the required findings is provided below.
A determination of public convenience or necessity is not required for restaurants or banquet
facilities serving alcoholic beverages.
The site contains a total of 50 parking spaces and the facility, when utilized as a restaurant,
requires 48 spaces. The applicant indicates that the banquet events would be limited to no more
than 100 attendees. When the facility is utilized as a banquet facility, for up to 100 patrons, the
parking requirement is 31 spaces based on an assumed 3.185 patrons per car, which is consistent
with the parking standard used for other banquet facilities throughout the city. In addition, the
restaurant and banquet facility will have up to 10 employees on site during peak event periods
for a total demand of 41 spaces for the banquet facility. In addition, the restaurant shares parking
with the commercial property to the north which is under common ownership. This property has
an extensive, under-utilized parking area behind the retail building and adjacent to this
restaurant. This parking area would be available for banquet or restaurant patrons during all
hours of operation. Therefore, there is ample parking available to accommodate both the
restaurant and banquet facility uses on the site. A condition of approval has been included in the
draft resolution requiring that the restaurant and banquet operations not operate simultaneously.
A condition of approval limiting banquets to no more than 100 attendees is also included. As
worded, this limit may be modified by staff if the applicant can demonstrate that adequate
parking can be provided.
The Anaheim Police Department indicates that this property is located within Census Tract No.
871.05 which has a population of 4,635. This census tract allows for five on-sale licenses and
presently there are three licenses within the tract; however, there is no additional license being
added as part of the request since the restaurant currently maintains a beer and wine license.
This location is within Reporting District 1722 which is 33 percent above the city average in
crime. As detailed in the attached Police Department memorandum, the crime rate within ¼ mile
of this property is 40 percent above the city average. The calls for service within the surrounding
area were primarily related to petty theft, simple assault, and theft from vehicle and commercial
burglaries. These calls were not related to this restaurant. There are no outstanding Code
Enforcement violations associated with the subject property. The recommended conditions of
approval include conditions that require the applicant to submit a security plan to the Police
Department prior to commencement of banquet events.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092A
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION: This site has operated as a restaurant, including alcohol sales, for several
years in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area. The requested alcohol license
upgrade and addition of banquet services is consistent with the property’s commercial zone
designation which is intended to support a variety of commercial uses that support the
surrounding community. Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment to the
conditional use permit, subject to recommended conditions of approval contained in the attached
draft resolution.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Resolution
3. Letter of Operation/Justification
4. Police Department Memorandum
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Site and Floor Plans
6. Site Photographs
C-GRESTAURANT
C-GOFFICES
C-GOFFICES
RM-4CASA FORTIN APARTMENTS88 DU
C-GRETAIL
C-GOFFICES
C-GMEDICALOFFICE
C-GRESTAURANTRS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-GSERVICESTATION
C-GRETAIL
C-GOFFICES
TLOARAELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-GSERVICESTATION
C-GRELIGIOUSUSE
C-GMEDICAL OFFICE
C-GSERVICESTATION
TNURSING HOME
RM-4LE CHATEAU APTS77 DU
C-GRETAIL
RM-4BELAGE MANOR APARTMENTS180 DU
C-GRETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EUCLID STW BROA DWAY
S FALCON STS ARDEN STW TED MAR AVE
W. BALL RD
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STS. BROOKHURST STS. WALNUT STS. M
A
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R A
V
EN. EUCLID ST4 0 0 South Euclid Street
D EV No. 2 0 13-00068
Subject Property APN: 250-051-03
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
S EUCLID STW BROA DWAY
S FALCON STS ARDEN STW TED MAR AVE
W. BALL RD
W. LINCOLN AVE
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STS. BROOKHURST STS. WALNUT STS. M
A
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R A
V
EN. EUCLID ST4 0 0 South Euclid Street
D EV No. 2 0 13-00068
Subject Property APN: 250-051-03
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00068)
(400 SOUTH EUCLID STREET)
WHEREAS, on June 30, 1980, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the
Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Commission"), by its
Resolution No. PC80-106, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2092 to permit on-site sales and
consumption of beer and wine within an existing restaurant (herein referred to as the "Original CUP")
on that certain real property located at 400 South Euclid Street in the City of Anaheim, as generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to amend the
Original CUP to permit a banquet facility in conjunction with an existing restaurant and to change the
existing Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place) license issued by the State of California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") to a Type 47 (On Sale General – Eating Place)
license, which latter license will allow for the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption
on the premises at the Property; and
WHEREAS, this Property is approximately 1.35 acres in size and is currently
developed with an existing restaurant. The Property is located in and subject to the regulations and
development standards of the General Commercial (C-G) Zone, except as otherwise specified in the
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this
Property for Corridor Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in
the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed
amendment to the Original CUP and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds
and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which consist of the repair,
maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The inclusion
of banquet facilities and the sales of alcoholic beverages within this existing restaurant is an example of
a type of project that involves no expansion of an existing land use. Therefore, pursuant to Section
15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant
effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
- 2 - PC2014-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said
hearing pertaining to the request for an amendment to the Original CUP, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. The proposed amendment of the Original CUP to permit a banquet facility within an
existing restaurant and to change the existing Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine – Eating Place) to a
Type 47 (On Sale General – Eating Place) that will permit the on-site sale and consumption of beer,
wine and distilled spirits within an existing restaurant building in the Commercial General (C-G) Zone
is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Section 18.08.030.010 of the Code;
and
2. The requested amendment of the Original CUP to allow a banquet facility within an
existing restaurant and to change the ABC license from the existing Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine
– Eating Place) license to a Type 47 (On Sale General – Eating Place) license would not adversely
affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because all activities will be conducted inside the building; and
3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of
the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area nor to the health, safety
and general welfare of the public because the Property is currently improved with a restaurant building
and there is no proposed expansion of the existing building; and
4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic
generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and
there is adequate parking on-site to accommodate the use; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use
that is compatible with the surrounding area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons
hereinabove stated, does hereby approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2092
(Conditional Use Permit No. 2092A) to permit a restaurant/banquet facility and to permit the sales of
beer, wine and distilled spirits on property located at 400 South Euclid Street, subject to the conditions
of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are
hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject Property in order to
preserve the safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with
each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be
declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then
this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
- 3 - PC2014-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the
duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in
accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated
Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2092A
constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any
other applicable City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting
of January 13, 2014. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
___
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City
Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January, 2014.
______________________
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092A
AMENDMEMT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2092
(DEV2013-00068)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BANQUET FACILITY
1. A security plan must be submitted to the Police
Department for review and approval prior to the
operation of the banquet facility.
Police
Department
2. A Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form
APD 516,shall be completed and returned to the
Police Department prior to initial alarm activation.
This form is available at the Police Department front
counter, or it can be downloaded from the following
web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
Police
Department
3. Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be
readily readable from the street. Numbers should be
illuminated during hours of darkness.
Police
Department
4. The building shall be equipped with a comprehensive
security alarm system (silent or audible) for the
perimeter building, access route protection and high
valued storage areas.
Police
Department
5. All exterior doors shall have adequate security
hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. The locks shall be so
constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking
latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside
doorknob/lever/turn piece.
Police
Department
6. Exterior, full cut-off, wall packs shall be included on
the exterior of the structure to illuminate the area
immediately surrounding the building.
Police
Department
7. All exterior doors shall have their own light source,
which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all
hours to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises and provide
adequate illumination for persons exiting the
building.
Police
Department
8. “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” shall be posted at the
entrances of parking lots/structures and located in
other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’ x
1’ in overall size, with white background and black
2” lettering.
Police
Department
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
9. All entrances to parking areas shall be posted with
appropriate signs per 22658(a) C.V.C., to assist in
removal of vehicles at the property
owner’s/manager’s request.
Police
Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
10. The restaurant/banquet facility shall be limited to a
maximum of 100 patrons. This limitation may be
modified by staff should the applicant demonstrate
that adequate parking can be provided.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
11. The restaurant may not be utilized by the general
public during banquet events.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
12. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or
on any adjacent area under the control of the property
owner shall be removed or painted over within 24
hours of being applied.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
13. At all times when the premise is open for business,
the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide
restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an
assortment of foods normally offered in such
restaurant.
Police
Department
14. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor
minimum purchase required. Police
Department
15. Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles,
passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to
buildings, shall be provided with enough lighting to
illuminate and make clearly visible the presence of
any person on or about the premises during the hours
of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment
for all persons, property, and vehicles onsite.
Police
Department
16. The business shall not employ or permit any persons to
solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to
buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any
commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing
plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5
Alcoholic Beverage Control Act)
Police
Department
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
17. Whenever a banquet or event is being held, security
personnel must be present both inside and outside the
business, roaming the parking lot, to ensure that noise
levels remain low and do not disturb the nearby
residential neighborhood.
Police
Department
18. The operation of any business under this permit shall
not be in violation of any provision of the Anaheim
Municipal Code, State or County ordinance.
Police
Department
19. No minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be
allowed to attend the dance or event, unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Police
Department
20. The floor space provided for dancing shall be free of
any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth
and safe condition.
Police
Department
21. Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control
in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about
the premises.
Police
Department
22. All employees shall be clothed in such a way as to
not expose “specified anatomical areas” as described
in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Police
Department
23. The permitted event or activity shall not create sound
levels which violate any ordinance of the City of
Anaheim.
Police
Department
24. The business owner/operator shall not share any
profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a
promoter or any other person, based upon monies
collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other
form of admission charge, including minimum drink
orders, or the sale of drinks.
Police
Department
25. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off
the premises shall be prohibited. Police
Department
26. The doors shall remain closed at all times that
entertainment is permitted, except during times of
entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries.
Police
Department
27. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be
exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor
shall the establishment be operated as a public
premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business
and Professions Code. This location shall not be
operated as a night club.
Police
Department
28. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City and its officials, officers,
Planning
Department,
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
employees and agents (collectively referred to
individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from
any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought
against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void,
or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning
this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or
determinations taken, done, or made prior to the
decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality
or validity of any condition attached thereto. The
Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include,
but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs
awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs
of suit, claim or litigation, including without
limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities
and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
Planning
Services
Division
29. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges
related to the processing of this discretionary case
application within 30 days of the issuance of the final
invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for
this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all
charges shall result in delays in the issuance of
required permits or may result in the revocation of the
approval of this application.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
30. The property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications submitted
to and reviewed by the City of Anaheim and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department and as
conditioned herein.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
November 21, 2013
Las Palomas Restaurant
400 S. Euclid Street
Anaheim, CA 92802
Re: Parking Letter - Shared Parking Lot and Spaces
Las Palomas restaurant is located on 400 S. Euclid St., Anaheim.
This restaurant shares parking spaces with the parcel to the north, which creates
additional parking spaces for customers at this restaurant during our peak parking
demand periods. The restaurant building and adjacent shopping center are owned by one
party and the owner of the property owner authorizes restaurant parking on both parcels.
The restaurant site has 50 parking spaces and the commercial center has 66 for a total of
116 spaces. The businesses in the commercial center are typically closed by 6 p.m. and
our hours of operation extend until 2 a.m. when necessary to accommodate events.
Parking for the restaurant would be adequate because banquets would not exceed 100
patrons. We anticipate at least 3 patrons per car for banquet events and the restaurant site
has 50 parking spaces which is adequate parking for the restaurant and banquet events. In
addition, if ever needed for overflow parking, we are permitted to use parking in the
commercial center to the south. We believe parking is adequate for continued restaurant
use and for future banquet events.
If there are any concerns please feel free to contact me anytime at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Julissa Fontes
City of Anaheim
INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
To: Vanessa Norwood/Planning Department
Case No.: DEV 2013-00068
La Palomas Restaurant
400 S. Euclid Street
Date: July 25, 2013
From: Lieutenant Steve Davis
Anaheim Police Department
Vice, Narcotics and Criminal Intelligence Bureau Commander
Contact: Name: S.P.S.R. Michele Irwin
Phone: 714-765-1461
Email: mmirwin@anaheim.net
The Police Department has reviewed the above case. Please see the following comments and
conditions for more information:
COMMENTS:
The Police Department has received an I.D.C. Route Sheet for DEV 2013-00068. The
applicant is requesting to upgrade an existing Type 41 (On Sale Beer and Wine)
Alcoholic Beverage Control license to a Type 47 (On Sale General) license for an
existing restaurant.
The location is in Census Tract Number 871.05 which has a population of 4,635. This
population allows for 5 on sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are
presently 3 licenses in the tract. It also allows for 2 off sale licenses and there is
presently 1 license in the tract.
This location is within Reporting District 1722 which is 33% above the city average in
crime. There have been 13 calls for service to this location in the last year and the calls
consisted of: 7 patrol check, 1 petty theft, 3 suspicious subject, 1 car fire and 1 trespass.
The ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is 40% above the city average in crime.
The calls for service primarily consisted of: 16 petty theft, 14 simple assault, 10 theft
from vehicle and 10 commercial burglaries.
General Development Standards and Fees (the following standard development requirements are
being provided to assist with project planning):
1. Managers / Owners need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and
obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training for
themselves and register employees. The contact number is 714-558-4101.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional
Use Permit:
No. Timing Condition Responsible
Department
1.
At all times when the premise is open for
business, the premise shall be maintained as a
bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu
containing an assortment of foods normally
offered in such restaurant.
Police Department
2.
There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind
or type, including advertising directed to the
exterior from within, promoting or indicating the
availability of alcoholic beverages.
Police Department
3.
That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not
be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type
license nor shall the establishment be operated
as a public premise as defined in Section 23039
of the Business and Professions Code.
Police Department
4.
There shall be no admission fee, cover charge,
nor minimum purchase required. Police Department
5.
Parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles,
passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous
to buildings, shall be provided with enough
lighting to illuminate and make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe,
secure environment for all persons, property,
and vehicles onsite.
Police Department
6.
Security measures shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to
deter unlawful conduct of employees and
patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly
and movement of persons and vehicles, and to
prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by
excessive noise created by patrons entering or
leaving the premises.
Police Department
7.
The business shall not employ or permit any
persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or
indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed
premises under any commission, percentage,
salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or
conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act)
Police Department
8.
Whenever a banquet or event is being held,
security personnel must be present both inside
and outside the business, roaming the parking lot,
to see that noise levels remain low and do not
disturb the nearby residential neighborhood.
Police Department
9.
The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption
off the premises shall be prohibited. Police Department
10.
The operation of any business under this permit
shall not be in violation of any provision of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, State or County
ordinance. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim
Municipal Code)
Police Department
11.
The number of persons attending the event shall
not exceed the maximum occupancy load as
determined by the Anaheim Fire Department.
Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted
in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near
the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a)
Uniform Fire Code)
Police Department
12.
The doors shall remain closed at all times that
entertainment is permitted, except during times of
entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. (Section
4.18.110 Anaheim Municipal Code)
Police Department
13.
No minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall
be allowed to attend the dance or event, unless
accompanied by a parent or guardian. (Section
4.16.060.010 Anaheim Municipal Code)
Police Department
14.
The floor space provided for dancing shall be free
of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a
smooth and safe condition. (Section 4.16.050.010
Anaheim Municipal Code)
Police Department
15.
Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their
control in an effort to prevent the loitering of
persons about the premises.
Police Department
16.
All employees shall be clothed in such a way as
to not expose “specified anatomical areas” as
described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
Police Department
17.
The permitted event or activity shall not create
sound levels which violate any ordinance of the
City of Anaheim. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim
Municipal Code)
Police Department
18.
Any violation of the application, or any attached
conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke
the permit. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim
Municipal Code)
Police Department
Concur:
Office of Chief of Police
f:\home\mmirwin\2013-00068 DEV 400 S Euclid La Palomas.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
LOCATION: 513-1/2 South Brookhurst Street (Dalati Plaza)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mr. Omar Khoja and the
property owner is Bill Dalati.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow
an outdoor smoking lounge in conjunction with an existing restaurant in a commercial
building located less than 200 feet from a residential zone and less than 1,000 feet
from a school. The applicant is also requesting approval of a variance to allow the
proposed use with fewer parking spaces than required by Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05717 and
Variance No. 2013-04916.
BACKGROUND: The .96-acre project site is developed with a 9,942 square foot
commercial building in the General Commercial (C-G) and Brookhurst Commercial
Corridor (BCC) Overlay zones. The site is designated for Corridor Residential land
uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include a church and auto repair shop
to the south, commercial centers to the north and to the east across Brookhurst Street,
and single family homes to the west, in unincorporated Orange County.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing an outdoor smoking lounge within an
existing 627 square foot outdoor patio area in conjunction with an existing 2,606 square
foot restaurant. The restaurant’s main entrance and smoking lounge are oriented
towards the rear parking lot of the commercial center. The proposed hours of operation
for the smoking lounge will coincide with the restaurant hours, which are 12:00 p.m. to
12:00 a.m. Tuesday through Sunday (the restaurant is closed on Mondays). The
smoking lounge area will include outdoor seating and tables with temporary canvas
canopy structures and will be surrounded by a wood-framed, six foot tall wall with
plexi-glass panels on the south, west and a portion of the north side. No expansion of
the building is proposed. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717 AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires that specific findings be made prior to approval of a
conditional use permit and parking variance. The complete findings are included in the attached draft
resolution. A summary of the project’s compliance with the required findings is described below.
Conditional Use Permit: Smoking lounges are allowed by right in this zone but require a conditional
use permit if located within 200 feet from a residential zone or 1,000 feet from a school to ensure
compatibility with these potentially sensitive uses. When located beyond these separation distances,
smoking lounges may be permitted through an administrative use permit approved by staff. Because
there are residentially zoned properties immediately abutting the site and the nearest school is located
approximately 930 feet to the west, the proposed smoking lounge is subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit. The adjacent residential zone to the west is located approximately 132 feet
from the outdoor patio area where smoking would occur. In order to reduce the likelihood of odor and
noise impacts upon the homes to the west, the applicant proposes to construct a six foot high wood and
plexiglass wall along the west, south and a portion of the north sides of the lounge area to help prevent
noise and smoke from emanating onto the adjacent properties. The rear parking lot area is also
surrounded by a five foot high block wall on the west and south property lines, separating the use from
the church to the south and the single-family homes to the west. This wall provides an additional
buffer between the uses. Although there is an elementary school located approximately 930 feet to the
west, on Orange Avenue, there are several intervening structures and no point of direct access between
the school and proposed smoking lounge; therefore, impacts to the school are not anticipated.
The proposed smoking lounge will be accessory to the existing restaurant. It is intended to provide a
service to restaurant patrons and will not operate independently to the restaurant. A condition of
approval has been added to the attached draft resolution requiring that the smoking lounge be operated
as an accessory feature to the restaurant. The restaurant and smoking lounge will close by midnight
and no music or speakers are proposed or allowed in the patio area. Staff believes that with the
proposed improvements and conditions of approval, the outdoor smoking lounge will be compatible
with the area and will have minimal, if any, impacts on the adjacent residents and other adjacent uses.
Community Outreach: The applicant has contacted the owners of the three residential properties to the
west of the site and, according to the applicant, these owners do not oppose the proposed use.
Parking Variance: The commercial center includes two restaurants, a beauty salon, a dry cleaner and
a beauty spa. A total of 81 parking spaces are required for the existing uses and the proposed
smoking lounge. Specifically, the smoking lounge area requires 11 parking space and the other uses
require 70 spaces. The site provides a total of 72 parking spaces, or nine spaces less than required by
Code. The parking areas are located at the front and rear of the building and are accessed from
Brookhurst Street. The applicant has submitted a self-prepared parking demand analysis which
reiterates that the smoking lounge will be accessory to the existing restaurant and will not operate
independently. As a result, the smoking lounge is not expected to generate a parking demand beyond
that of the restaurant. The existing businesses on the property have varying days and hours of
operation. The applicant conducted parking counts from Saturday, September 21 through Saturday,
September 28, 2013. It was determined that the highest peak parking demand occurs between the
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., during which 35 parking spaces were in use for all on-site
businesses.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717 AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Staff visited the site on Monday, December 30, 2013 between the hours of 6:15 p.m. and 7:15 p.m.
when the restaurant was not in operation and observed a peak demand of 22 parking spaces. A second
visit was conducted during the same hours on Tuesday, December 31, 2013, when the restaurant was
operating, and 33 cars were observed on the site. A third visit was conducted during the same hours on
Saturday, January 4, 2013 and up to 45 cars were observed on the site. These observations indicate
that ample parking will be available for the existing and proposed uses as the 72 parking spaces
provided on-site can more than accommodate the observed peak demand. Staff recommends approval
of the parking variance.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the addition of the outdoor smoking lounge to the existing
restaurant would be compatible with the uses in the commercial center and with the surrounding area as
the applicant has taken necessary steps to minimize impacts to surrounding sensitive uses. In addition,
the findings necessary to support the parking variance can be met, since the parking demand analysis
and staff’s observations indicate that the site that the site will provide adequate parking for the existing
and proposed uses. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit and variance.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Andy Nogal Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
3. Applicant’s Letter of Request
4. Applicant’s Parking Demand Analysis
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Site Photographs
6. Site, Floor Plan and Patio Details
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)BANK
C-G (BCC)RESTAURANT
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERM-4EL CORTEZAPARTMENTS65 DU
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RM-4SFR
TRELIGIOUS USE
C-G (BCC)MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G (BCC)OFFICES
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
T (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
C-G (BCC)RETAILS BROOKHURST STS THISTLE RDW ORANGE AVE
W THERESA AVE
W RAMM DR
W MARIAN AVE
W ORANGE AVE
S MARBEYA PLW. BALL RD
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE
S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE
5 1 3 1 /2 S Brookh urst Street
D EV No. 2 0 12-00146
Subject Property APN: 127-102-16
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
S BROOKHURST STS THISTLE RDW ORANGE AVE
W THERESA AVE
W RAMM DR
W MARIAN AVE
W ORANGE AVE
S MARBEYA PLW. BALL RD
W. BROADWAY
S. EUCLID STW. LINCOLN AVE
S. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE
5 1 3 1 /2 S Brookh urst Street
D EV No. 2 0 12-00146
Subject Property APN: 127-102-16
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717 AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2012-00146)
(513-1/2 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as
the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2013-05717 and Variance No. 2012-04916 to permit an outdoor smoking lounge in
conjunction with an existing restaurant within a commercial retail building located less than 200
feet from a residential zone and less than 1,000 feet from a school with less parking than required
by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") for that certain real property located at 513-1/2
South Brookhurst Street in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as
generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately .96 acres, is developed with a
9,942 square foot commercial retail building. The Property is located in and subject to the
regulations and development standards of the General Commercial (C-G) Zone, except as
otherwise specified in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The
Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Corridor Residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the “Code”), to hear and consider evidence for
and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05717 and Variance No. 2012-04916 and
to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which
consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures
or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request to permit a proposed outdoor smoking lounge in
conjunction with an existing restaurant, has determined that Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05717 should be approved for the following reasons, does find and determine the following
facts:
- 2 - PC2014-***
1. The proposed request to permit an outdoor smoking lounge in conjunction with an
existing restaurant in a commercial retail building in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone, under the conditions imposed, is
properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Section 18.08.030.010 of the
Code; and
2. The proposed conditional use permit to allow an outdoor smoking lounge in
conjunction with an existing restaurant in a commercial retail building, under the conditions
imposed, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the
area in which it is proposed to be located because measures will be implemented to reduce potential
noise and smoke impacts to the greatest extent possible on the adjacent single family homes, church
and commercial properties. These measures will include the construction of a six foot high wood
and plexi-glass wall along the west, south and a portion of the north sides of the lounge area to help
prevent noise and smoke from emanating onto the adjacent properties. The rear parking lot area is
also surrounded by a five foot high block wall on the west and south property lines, separating the
use from the church to the south and the single-family homes to the west. This wall provides an
additional buffer between the uses. Although there is an elementary school located approximately
930 feet to the west, on Orange Avenue, there are several intervening structures and no point of
direct access between the school and proposed smoking lounge; therefore, impacts to the school are
not anticipated; and
3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development
of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area nor to the health,
safety and general welfare of the public because the Property is currently improved with a
commercial retail building and no expansion is proposed; and
4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets and there is adequate parking on-site based on a parking demand study prepared for the
site and as verified by staff to accommodate the use; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the
request for a variance for less parking than required by Code should be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(81 spaces required; 72 spaces proposed)
1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-
street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces
necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably
foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because the smoking lounge will be accessory to
the existing restaurant and will not operate independently. As a result, the smoking lounge is not
- 3 - PC2014-***
expected to generate a parking demand beyond that of the restaurant. The applicant conducted
parking counts from Saturday, September 21 through Saturday, September 28, 2013. It was
determined that the highest peak parking demand occurs between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00
p.m., during which 35 parking spaces were in use for all on-site businesses. Staff visited the site
on Monday, December 30, 2013 between the hours of 6:15 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. when the
restaurant was not in operation and observed a peak demand of 22 parking spaces. A second
visit was conducted during the same hours on Tuesday, December 31, 2013, when the restaurant
was operating, and 33 cars were observed on the site. A third visit was conducted during the
same hours on Saturday, January 4, 2013 and up to 45 cars were observed on the site. These
observations indicate that ample parking will be available for the existing and proposed uses as
the 72 parking spaces provided on-site can more than accommodate the observed peak demand.
Therefore, staff believes that ample parking will be available for the existing uses and the
proposed smoking lounge based on the applicant’s parking demand study and as verified by staff
and no parking conflicts are expected;
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the on-site parking within the commercial retail property will
adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed outdoor smoking lounge
and restaurant and the other uses on the site; and
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the outdoor smoking lounge and
restaurant will adequately accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site; and
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the
project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow
for adequate on-site circulation; and
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are
designed to allow adequate on-site circulation, and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to
or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
outdoor smoking lounge and restaurant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05717 and Variance No. 2012-04916, contingent
upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to
the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval
may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with
conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause
provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the
condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has
demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
- 4 - PC2014-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(“Zoning Provisions - General”) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures
and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 5 - PC2014-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 6 - PC2014-***
- 7 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05717 AND VARIANCE NO. 2012-04916
(DEV2012-00146)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY
1 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful
conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and
orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles,
and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by
excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the
premises.
Police
Department
2 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses,
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided
with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate
illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises during the hours of
darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
person, property, and vehicles on-site. All exterior doors
shall have their own light source, which shall adequately
illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises and
provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the
building.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
3 In-Ground bollards or decorative security planters shall
be added in the parking lot adjacent to South and West
side of outdoor patio (Outdoor seating and Smoking
areas). These should be placed between the parking
stalls and seating areas to prevent a vehicle from
reaching the patio area. Bollards or planters shall be
rated to stop moving vehicle per applicable code.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
4 If the proposed canopies are to be permanent, they must
comply with the requirements of the 2010 California
Building Code.
Fire
Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
5 The smoking lounge shall remain as an “accessory use”
to the restaurant and at no time shall it be operated
independently of the restaurant use.
Police
Department,
Planning
Department
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
6 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on
any adjacent area under the control of the property owner
shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
7 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise
enclosed for outdoor storage.
Planning
Department
8 No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the
premises unless a conditional use permit allowing such
use is first obtained.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
9 Operation of outdoor barbecues or braziers or lighting
coals shall not be permitted.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
10 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor
minimum purchase required.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
11 Adequate ventilation shall be provided for the heating of
coals in accordance with all requirements imposed by the
Anaheim Fire Department, or as otherwise required by
state or federal laws.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
12 The occupancy shall not exceed the lesser of (i) the
occupancy limit for the premises established by the
Anaheim Fire Department or (ii) an occupancy limit
established as a condition of the permit approved
pursuant to this chapter, or any zone variance issued
pursuant to Title 18 of this Code.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
13 There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or
dancing permitted on the outdoor patio. Interior
entertainment within the restaurant shall not be allowed
unless the business owner first obtains and Entertainment
Permit.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
14 No persons under 18 years of age shall be permitted
within any area of the business premises where the
smoking of tobacco or other substances is allowed
including any outdoor seating area, and a sign shall be
posted at the entrance stating “No one under the age of
18 allowed.”
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
- 9 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
15 The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation
of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to
surrounding properties.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
16 Any violation of the application, or any attached
conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the
permit. (Section 18.16.040 Anaheim Municipal Code)
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
17 Any security officers provided shall comply with all State
and Local ordinances regulating their services, including,
without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the
California Business and Profession Code.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
18 The business shall be owner-operated or otherwise
exempt from the prohibition of smoking in the workplace
set forth in California Labor Code Section 6404.5
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
19 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees
and agents (collectively referred to individually and
collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of
the Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made
prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.
The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include,
but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses
incurred by Indemnities in connection with such
proceeding.
Planning
Department
20 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application
within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior
to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may
result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
Planning
Department
- 10 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
21 The outdoor smoking lounge shall be operated in
accordance with the Letter of Request and Parking
Demand Analysis submitted as part of this application.
Any changes to the business operation as described in
that document shall be subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director to determine substantial
conformance with the Letter of Request and Parking
Demand Analysis and to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding uses. The days and hours of operation for
the outdoor smoking lounge are limited to 12:00 p.m. to
12:00 a.m. Tuesday through Sunday and closed on
Mondays. The hours of operation may be modified
subject to prior review and approval by Planning
Director.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
22 The premises shall be developed substantially in
accordance with the plan and specifications submitted to
and reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim,
which plan is on file with the Planning Department
marked as Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan, Floor Plan and Patio
Details).
Planning
Department
513 ½ S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim CA 92804
Tel: 714-991-5000 Email: Alepposkitchen@gmail.com
12/3/13
City of Anaheim
Department of Planning
Sub: Hookah Permit
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Aleppo’s Kitchen is an upscale family restaurant that is open six days a week from noon to midnight and
closed on Mondays. Typically, our busiest time is in the evening from seven till ten.
Aleppo’s Kitchen is the first restaurant in Orange County to offer authentic homemade cooking from the
rich cuisine of the region of Aleppo in Northern Syria, considered the gastronomical capital of the
Middle East as cited by a New York Times article in December 2010. Our restaurant is endeavoring to
emulate this unique culinary experience in an elegant family setting and a relaxing atmosphere.
In a recent LA Times food column, our restaurant was featured as one of the first Syrian restaurants in
the LA basin to specialize in authentic Northern Syrian cuisine. More recently our restaurant was
featured in a rave OC Weekly review as well. Both reviews are attached.
Since our opening and as we have expected, every now and then, we get incidental requests from our
customers for Hookahs. Some of these customers would want to complement their dining experience
by enjoying a Hookah on the patio to relive the old country ambiance, and as a restaurant touting the
full experience in the old country dining; we would like to have the capability to provide our customers
that service.
For the record, our target market is family and high end customers. The way our décor was designed
and our menu were chosen reflect that. Under no circumstances would our restaurant ever be a youth
hangout as it would be detrimental to our business model.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Here is what we are proposing:
Existing patio area is around 1,500 square feet.
Dedicate a 600 square foot section of the patio exclusively for Hookah smokers.
Enclose that area with a suitable noise attenuating enclosure.
No loud music will ever be played on the patio.
No special events and/or large parties at our restaurant without prior city permits.
With that said, we request a variance be granted to our restaurant to enable us serve our customers
with this small perk if need be. We also emphasize that we are neither a café nor a Hookah lounge. The
only place where a Hookah would be served is on the patio to complement dinner.
Thank you
Hacienda Food Services LLC dba Aleppo’s Kitchen
Omar Khoja
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Subject Site – Looking West
Subject Site– Looking West
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Adjacent Night Club and Restaurant – Looking North
Adjacent Businesses Looking Further North
Businesses Across Brookhurst – Looking East
Adjacent Business to the South
Residences to the West (Rear of Subject Site)
Church to the South of Subject Site
Subject Site – Parking Lot Entry Driveway
Subject Site - Rear of Restaurant and Patio
Subject Site – Outdoor Patio Area
Subject Site – Rear Parking Area Looking West
Subject Site - Rear Parking Area Looking East
Subject Site – Front Parking Area Looking North
OFPARTIALSITE PLAN&NOTESA - 12 3
GE
O
RGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T
GEORGE BEHNAM
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109
(714)572-2384 FAX(714)572-2385
PROJECT:OWNER :DATEREVISIONS513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
...............
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
S. BROOKHURST STREETW. Orange AveW. BroadwayP:\NetDisk\Projects\Projects\2012\120701-Hacienda-Restaurant\11 05 13 CUP-12-6-12.dwg, 12/17/2013 2:49:04 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ATTACHMENT NO. 6
OFPARTIALSITE PLAN&NOTES3GE
O
RGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T
GEORGE BEHNAM
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
(714)572-2384
PROJECT:OWNER :DATEREVISIONS513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
...............
ANAHEIM, CA 92804A - 231150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109
(714)572-2384 FAX(714)572-2385
PROJECT:DATEREVISIONSP:\NetDisk\Projects\Projects\2012\120701-Hacienda-Restaurant\11 05 13 CUP-12-6-12.dwg, 12/17/2013 2:49:05 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
OFSITE PLAN&NOTESSP1 3
GE
O
RGE BEHNAMA R C H I T E C T
GEORGE BEHNAM
PLACENTIA, CA 92870
1150 E. ORANGETHORPE # 109
(714)572-2384 FAX(714)572-2385
PROJECT:OWNER :DATEREVISIONS513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
513 1/2 S. BROOKHURST STREET
...............
ANAHEIM, CA 92804
P:\NetDisk\Projects\Projects\2012\120701-Hacienda-Restaurant\11 05 13 CUP-12-6-12.dwg, 12/17/2013 2:49:04 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
ITEM NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694 AND
VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street (Hanshaw Center)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Mr. Samer Rovini and the
property owner is N&P Desai-2000 III, LP and B&G Singh-2000 III LP.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow
a smoking lounge in a commercial tenant space located less than 200 feet from a
residential zone and less than 1,000 feet from a school. The applicant is also
requesting approval of a variance to allow the smoking lounge with fewer parking
spaces than required by Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,
Existing Facilities) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05694 and
Variance No. 2013-04954.
BACKGROUND: The .90-acre project site is developed with a 10,566 square foot
commercial building in the General Commercial (C-G) and the Brookhurst
Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay zones. The site is designated for General
Commercial land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include a church
and an auto repair shop to the west across Brookhurst Street, a vacant commercial
building to the north, a vacant commercial parcel to the east, a gasoline service station
with mini-mart to the southwest, and a freeway on-ramp to the south, across La Palma
Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing a fully-enclosed smoking lounge within an
existing 2,990 square foot tenant space. The remaining 7,576 square feet of space
within the center is occupied by a variety of retail and restaurant uses. The proposed
hours of operation are 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 6:00 p.m.
to 4:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. A maximum of 108 patrons are expected. The
smoking lounge would include a front reception area, an office, a hookah pipe prep
area and restrooms. No expansion of the building is proposed, but the parking lot area
will be resurfaced and restriped and new landscaped planters along the La Palma
Avenue Street frontage will be installed. The existing landscaped planters will also be
refurbished as needed.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694 AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Code requires that specific findings be made prior to approval of a
conditional use permit and parking variance. The complete findings are included in the attached
draft resolution. A summary of the project’s compliance with the required findings is provided
below.
Conditional Use Permit: Smoking lounges are allowed in this zone subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit, if located within 200 feet of a residential zone or 1,000 feet of a school, to
ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. When located beyond these separation distances,
smoking lounges may be permitted through an administrative use permit approved by staff. The
nearest residentially zoned properties are located approximately 136 feet to the east of the site and an
elementary school exists approximately 822 feet to the east; therefore, a conditional use permit is
required to allow this smoking lounge. Staff believes that the smoking lounge will not result in noise
or odor impacts upon these uses because the smoking lounge would be operated indoors and there are
no openings along the building’s eastern elevation. The two doors that do exist on the eastern
building elevation are for emergency or employee use only and a condition of approval has been
added to the attached draft resolution requiring that they remain closed at all times.
Although the business can be operated without negatively impacting the adjacent community, staff
does not support the requested 2:00 a.m. weekday closing time and 4:00 a.m. weekend closing time.
Staff recommends that the business close no later than 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and no
later than 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Staff believes that the extended hours of operation
requested by the applicant do raise the possibility of creating noise impacts upon the adjacent
residential area because the ambient noise levels during those hours is minimal. As a result, even
small amounts of noise, such as customers coming and going to the smoking lounge, radio noise from
customer vehicles, cars leaving the parking lot or employees emptying trash containers, have the
potential to carry greater distances and impact the adjacent homes. A condition of approval reflective
of staff’s recommendation on the hours of operation has been added to the attached draft resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the recommended conditions of
approval.
Parking Variance: A total of 101 parking spaces are required for the proposed smoking lounge and
other uses in the commercial center which includes two restaurants, an office and a vacant tenant
space. The site will provide a total of 58 parking spaces, or 43 spaces less than required by Code.
The smoking lounge itself requires 51 parking spaces. The applicant submitted a parking demand
analysis which indicates that the peak period of smoking lounge use occurs in the late evening when
the peak parking demand is the lowest in the commercial center. The smoking lounge will operate
simultaneously with other uses on the site between 6 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. The existing full service
restaurant, Hatam, is open until 10:00 p.m. seven days a week and the existing Subway is open until
11:00 p.m. weekdays and until 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. The applicant conducted parking
counts of the parking lot area between Monday, August 19 and Saturday, August 31, 2013 to
determine the number of parking spaces available throughout the day and the evening overlap period.
It was determined that the highest daytime peak parking demand occurs between the hours of 1:00
p.m. and 5:00 p.m., when 25 spaces were occupied. The highest evening peak parking demand
occurs between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., when 16 parking spaces were occupied. The applicant
indicates that the peak parking demand generated by the smoking lounge, between the hours of 6:00
p.m. and 9:00 p.m., would be 15 spaces for a total parking demand of 31 spaces for the overall site.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694 AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Between the hours of 9 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. the peak demand for the other uses in the center drops
down to 5 spaces. The smoking lounge’s parking demand during this time is expected to be 40
spaces. Therefore, the peak parking demand for all uses on-site, including the proposed smoking
lounge, is estimated to be 45 spaces and 58 spaces are provided. The smoking lounge’s parking
demand is based on a two to three person per car assumption which has been the applicant’s
experience while operating another smoking lounge in Anaheim.
Staff visited the site on Monday, December 30, 2013 between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. and
observed a maximum of 26 parked cars. A second visit was conducted on Tuesday, December 31,
2013 between the same hours and a maximum of 33 cars were observed on the site. A third visit was
conducted during the same hours on Saturday, January 4, 2013 and up to 35 cars were observed on the
site. While staff’s observations showed a higher parking demand than those observed by the applicant,
staff believes that ample parking will be available based on the differences in the hours of the proposed
use and those of other businesses in the center. This is due to the fact that the smoking lounge’s peak
hours of use are expected to be between 9:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., when all other businesses in the
center are closed or experiencing minimal customer traffic. Staff recommends approval of the parking
variance.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the proposed smoking lounge would be compatible with the uses
in the commercial center and with the surrounding area due to its physical design. The recommended
conditions will minimize the use’s impacts to the surrounding area. In addition, the findings necessary
to support the parking variance can be met, since the parking demand analysis and staff’s observations
indicate that the site will provide adequate parking for the proposed smoking lounge and other uses on
the site. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit and variance.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Andy Nogal Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Resolution
3. Applicant’s Letter of Request
4. Applicant’s Parking Demand Analysis
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Site Photographs
6. Site and Floor Plan
C-G (BCC)OFFICES
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-G (BCC)AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE
C-G (BCC)RELIGIOUS USE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
SANTA ANA (5) FREEWAYSANTA ANA (5) FREEWAYC-G (BCC)MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G (BCC)SERVICESTATION
C-G (BCC)VACANT
C-G (BCC)MEDICAL OFFICE
C-G (BCC)RELIGIOUS USE
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-G (BCC)RETAIL
W LA PALMA AV EN BROOKHURST STN LOTUS STN JASMINE STW FALMOUTH AVE
W GLEN AVE
W FI R AVE
W DOGWOOD AVE
W FALMOUTH AVE
W. LA PALMA AVE
N. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVEW. CRESCENT AVE
W. ROMNEYA DR
W. CRESCENT AVE W. CRESCENT AVE
1 1 1 2 North Brookhurst Stree t
D EV No. 2 0 13-00094
Subject Property APN: 072-415-45
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
W LA PALMA AV EN BROOKHURST STN LOTUS STN JASMINE STW FALMOUTH AVE
W GLEN AVE
W FI R AVE
W DOGWOOD AVE
W FALMOUTH AVE
W. LA PALMA AVE
N. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVEW. CRESCENT AVE
W. ROMNEYA DR
W. CRESCENT AVE W. CRESCENT AVE
1 1 1 2 North Brookhurst Stree t
D EV No. 2 0 13-00094
Subject Property APN: 072-415-45
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694 AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00094)
(1112 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (herein referred to as
the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified petition to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2013-05694 and Variance No. 2013-04954 to permit a smoking lounge within an existing
commercial tenant space located less than 200 feet from a residential zone and less than 1,000
feet of a school with less parking than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code").
for that certain real property located at 1112 North Brookhurst Street in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately .90 acres, is developed with a
10,566 square foot commercial retail building. The Property is located in and subject to the
regulations and development standards of the General Commercial (C-G) Zone, except as
otherwise specified in the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The
Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for General Commercial land uses; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Code to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05694 and Variance No. 2013-04954 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations
in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that the proposed project is within that class of projects which
consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures
or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this
determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the proposed project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing with respect to the request to permit a proposed smoking lounge, has determined
that Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05694 should be approved for the following reasons, does
find and determine the following facts:
- 2 - PC2014-***
1. The proposed request to permit a smoking lounge within an existing commercial
retail building in the Commercial General (C-G) Brookhurst Corridor Overlay (BCC) zone,
under the conditions imposed, is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Section 18.08.030.010 of the Code; and
2. The proposed conditional use permit to allow a smoking lounge within an existing
commercial retail building, under the conditions imposed, would not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because all activities will be required to be conducted inside the building and the hours of
operation will be limited through conditions of approval in order to reduce potential impacts on
adjacent commercial and residential properties; and
3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development
of the proposed project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area nor to the health,
safety and general welfare of the public because the Property is currently improved with a
commercial retail building and no expansion is proposed; and
4. The traffic generated by the proposed project will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the
traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding
streets and there is adequate parking on-site based on a parking demand study prepared for the
site and as verified by staff to accommodate the use; and
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a
land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the
request for a variance for less parking than required by Code should be approved for the
following reasons:
SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces.
(101 spaces required; 58 spaces proposed)
1. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use because a parking demand analysis was prepared by the applicant
dated January 8, 2014, determining that the current number of parking spaces within the commercial
property is sufficient to accommodate all of the uses on the site including the new smoking lounge.
The parking demand analysis indicates that the peak period of smoking lounge use occurs in the late
evening when the peak parking demand is the lowest in the commercial center. The smoking lounge
will operate simultaneously with other uses on the site between 6 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. The existing
businesses on the property operate generally seven days per week between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.
The applicant conducted parking counts of the parking lot area between Monday, August 19 and
Saturday, August 31, 2013 to determine the number of parking spaces available throughout the day and
the overlap period. It was determined that the highest daytime peak parking demand occurs between
the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00, when 25 spaces were occupied. The highest nighttime peak parking
demand occurs between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., when 16 parking spaces were occupied. The
applicant indicates that a maximum peak demand generated by the smoking lounge between 6:00 p.m.
- 3 - PC2014-***
and 9:00 p.m. would be 15 spaces for a total parking demand of 31 spaces for the overall site. Between
9 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. the peak demand for the site drops down to 5 spaces. The smoking lounge’s
parking demand during this time is expected to be 40 spaces and 5 spaces for the other uses and 58 are
provided. The smoking lounge’s peak demand is based on a 2 to 3 person per car ratio based on the
applicant’s experience with other smoking lounge’s and as a pervious operator of smoking lounge in
Anaheim. Staff visited the site on Monday, December 30, 2013 between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7
p.m. and observed a maximum of 26 parked cars. A second visit was conducted on Tuesday,
December 31, 2013 between the same hours and a maximum of 33 cars were observed on the site. A
third visit was conducted during the same hours on Saturday, January 4, 2013 and up to 35 cars were
observed on the site. While staff’s observations showed a higher parking demand than those observed
by the applicant, staff believes that ample parking will be available based on the differences in the
hours of the proposed use and those of other businesses in the center; and
2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the on-site parking within the commercial retail property will
adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed smoking lounge and the
other uses on the site; and
3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the
demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the smoking lounge will adequately
accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site. The smoking lounge generates a its
highest peak parking demand of 40 spaces after 9:00 p.m. when the parking demand for the
other businesses on the property is least; and
4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic
congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the
project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow
for adequate on-site circulation; and
5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular
ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are
designed to allow adequate on-site circulation, and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to
or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the
smoking lounge.
- 4 - PC2014-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05694 and Variance No. 2013-04954, contingent
upon and subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to
the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval
may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with
conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause
provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the
condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has
demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this
permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit
Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of
the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(“Zoning Provisions - General”) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures
and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 5 - PC2014-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 6 - PC2014-***
- 7 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05694 AND VARIANCE NO. 2013-04954
(DEV2013-00094)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS
PRIOR TO FINAL OCCUPANCY
1 The premises shall be equipped with a comprehensive
security alarm system (silent or audible) for the
following coverage areas: perimeter building and access
route protection and high valued storage areas within 120
days of this permit. A Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit
application must be completed, Form APD 516, and
return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm
activation within 120 days of this permit. This form is
available at the Police Department front counter, or it can
be downloaded from the following web site:
http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
Police
Department
2 Closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras shall
be installed with the following coverage areas: building
interior entrance and exterior entrance, parking lot;
general seating area, manager’s office covering safe and
cashier’s area within 120 days of this permit. If security
cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be
placed at each camera. CCTV monitors and recorders
should be secured in a separate locked compartment to
prevent theft of, or tampering with, the tape. Digital and
wireless CCTV security systems are highly
recommended over older VHS or “Tape” recording
systems. CCTV recordings should be kept for a
minimum of 30 days before being deleted or recorded
over. If used, CCTV videotapes should not be recorded
over more than 10 items per tape.
Police
Department
3 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily
readable from the street. Numbers should be illuminated
during hours of darkness.
Police
Department
4 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware,
e.g. deadbolt locks. Wide-angle peepholes or other
viewing device should be installed in solid doors where
natural surveillance is compromised and any rear utility
doors. The locks shall be so constructed that both the
deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a
single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece
within 120 days of this permit.
Police
Department
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
5 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of
the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful
conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and
orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles,
and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by
excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the
premises.
Police
Department
6 Adequate lighting of parking lots, passageways, recesses,
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided
with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate
illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any
person on or about the premises during the hours of
darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
person, property, and vehicles on-site. All exterior doors
shall have their own light source, which shall adequately
illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible
the presence of any person on or about the premises and
provide adequate illumination for persons exiting the
building.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
7 The existing landscaped planters and setback areas
throughout the site shall be refurbished to include
evergreen, ground covers, shrubs and trees as approved
by Planning Staff. The new proposed landscaped
planters shall incorporate evergreen, ground covers,
shrubs and trees as approved by Planning Staff. All
broken curbing shall be repaired per City Standards.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for
review and approval by Planning Staff.
Planning
Department
8 The parking lot areas shall be re-slurried and re-striped
per the submitted site plan in accordance with City
Standard Detail No. 470 (attached). Disabled parking
spaces shall be provided in accordance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and City Standard Detail
No. 436-G (attached).
Planning
Department
9 The trash enclosure walls and doors shall be repainted
and properly maintained and shall incorporate creeping
vines an all sides to deter graffiti.
Planning
Department
10 The project shall comply with the requirements of an A
Occupancy as outlined in the 2010 California Building
Code.
Fire
Department
- 9 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
11 The project shall also comply with all City standards and
specifications for smoking lounges. Fire
Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
12 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on
any adjacent area under the control of the property owner
shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Planning
Department.
Code
Enforcement
13 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise
enclosed for outdoor storage.
Planning
Department
14 All activities related to the use shall occur indoors,
except as may be permitted by an authorized Special
Event Permit.
Planning
Department
15 No alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the
premises. Planning
Department,
Police
Department
16 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor
minimum purchase required. Planning
Department,
Police
Department
17 There shall be no entertainment permitted on the
premises at any time, including, but not limited to
singers, DJs, dancers, bands and comedians, unless an
Entertainment Permit is first obtained by the business
owner.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
18 All business related activities shall be conducted wholly
within the building. Operation of outdoor barbeques or
braziers or lighting coals shall not be permitted.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
19 No window coverings shall prevent visibility of the
interior of the tenant space from outside the premises
during operating hours. Any proposed window tint shall
be approved in advance by the Anaheim Police
Department.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
20 No persons under 18 years of age shall be permitted
within any area of the business premises where the
smoking of tobacco or other substances is allowed
Planning
Department,
- 10 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
including any outdoor seating area, and a sign shall be
posted at the entrance stating “No one under the age of
18 allowed.”
Police
Department
21 The interior of the business shall be maintained with
adequate illumination to make the conduct of patrons
within the premises readily discernible to persons of
normal visual acuity.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
22 No amusement devices shall be permitted anywhere
within the business unless proper permits for such
devices are first obtained from the Planning Department.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
23 Adequate ventilation shall be provided for the heating of
coals in accordance with all requirements imposed by the
Anaheim Fire Department, or as otherwise required by
state or federal laws.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
24 The occupancy shall not exceed the lesser of (i) the
occupancy limit for the premises established by the
Anaheim Fire Department or (ii) an occupancy limit
established as a condition of the permit approved
pursuant to this chapter, or any zone variance issued
pursuant to Title 18 of this Code.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
25 The activities occurring in conjunction with the operation
of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to
surrounding properties. All east-facing exterior doors
shall remain closed at all times, except as required for
maintenance or emergency access.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
26 Any violation of the application, or any attached
conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the
permit. (Section 18.16.040 Anaheim Municipal Code)
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
27 Any security officers provided shall comply with all State
and Local ordinances regulating their services, including,
without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the
California Business and Profession Code.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
28 The business shall be owner-operated or otherwise
exempt from the prohibition of smoking in the workplace
set forth in California Labor Code Section 6404.5
Planning
Department,
- 11 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
Police
Department
29 The rear access doors shall remain closed at all times and
Access to the rear walkway behind the business shall be
restricted to employees and for emergency use only.
Signs indicating “Emergency Exit Only” shall be
included on the interior of the rear doors as required by
any other applicable codes/city agencies.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
30 The subject property shall be operated as a "tobacco
shop" and a "smokers' lounge", as those terms are
defined in Section 6404.5(d)(4) of the California Labor
Code. Specifically, the smokers' lounge at the subject
property shall at all times be an enclosed area in or
attached to a retail or wholesale tobacco shop that is
dedicated to the use of tobacco products, including, but
not limited to, cigars and pipes, and for the use of
tobacco products only. The tobacco shop, itself, shall be
dedicated to the sale of tobacco products, including, but
not limited to, cigars, pipe tobacco and smoking
accessories.
Planning
Department
31 The service and consumption of food or beverages in the
tobacco shop and smokers' lounge shall be prohibited. Planning
Department
32 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees
and agents (collectively referred to individually and
collectively as “Indemnities”) from any and all claims,
actions or proceedings brought against Indemnities to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of
the Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made
prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.
The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include,
but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded
against or incurred by Indemnities and costs of suit,
claim or litigation, including without limitation
attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses
incurred by Indemnities in connection with such
proceeding.
Planning
Department
33 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application
within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior
Planning
Department
- 12 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
to the issuance of building permits for this project,
whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall
result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may
result in the revocation of the approval of this application.
34 The smoking lounge shall be operated in accordance
with the Letter of Request and Parking Demand Analysis
submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the
business operation as described in the Letter of Request
and Parking Demand Analysis shall be subject to review
and approval by the Planning Director to determine
substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and
Parking Demand Analysis and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding uses. The days and hours of
operation for the smoking lounge are limited to 6:00 p.m.
to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The hours of operation
may be modified subject to prior review and approval by
Planning Director.
Planning
Department,
Police
Department
35 The premises shall be developed substantially in
accordance with the plan and specifications submitted to
and reviewed and approved by the City of Anaheim,
which plan is on file with the Planning Department
marked as Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan and Floor Plan).
Planning
Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Subject Site – Looking East
Subject Site– Looking North
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Subject Site – Tenant Spaces
Subject Site– Side of Tenant Spaces
Subject Site – Parking Lot
Subject Site – Parking Lot
Subject Site – Subway Restaurant
Subject Site - Vacant Tenant Space
Residences to the East
Subject Site – Hatam Restaurant
Property to the South Across La Palma (FWY)
Property to the East
Property to the West Across Brookhurst
Property to the North
Property to the South
Property to the South
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1215
LOCATION: 3200 East Carpenter Avenue (Camelot Golfland)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is
Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc.
REQUEST: The applicant requests to amend a conditional use permit to permit a
bumper boat attraction at the existing Camelot Golfland miniature golf facility.
DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted a request to continue this hearing to the
February 10, 2014, Planning Commission meeting so that the request can be
amended and re-noticed to allow the applicant to charge a parking fee for customers
who visit the Camelot facility.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this hearing be continued to the
February 10, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the applicant, to
allow additional time to revise the project description and re-notice the applicant’s
request to charge a parking fee.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Applicant’s Letter of Request
SP 94-1DA3CAMELOTGOLFLAND
SP 94-1DA3INDUSTRIAL
SP 94-1DA3BUSINESS PARK
SP 94-1DA5PARKING
SP 94-1DA5AUTO SALVAGE YARD
SP 94-1DA1INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1DA1AUTO SALVAGE YARD
SP 94-1DA5AGRICULTURE SP 94-1DA3OC SOCIALSERVICESAGENCY
SP 94-1DA5BOWLING ALLEY
SP 94-1DA5STERLINGBUSINESSCOMPLEX
SP 94-1DA3BUSINESS PARK
9 1 F R E E W A Y91 F R E E W A Y
E FR O N T E R A S TN SHEPARD STE C A R P E N T E R A V E
E . L A P A L M A A V E
N
. T
US
T
I
N AVEE . M IR A L O M A A V E N.
MI
LLER STN.
BLUE
G
U
M
STE. LA P ALMA AVE3 2 0 0 East Carpenter Avenu e
D EV No. 2 0 13-00110
Subject Property APN: 345-111-08
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
9 1 F R E E W A Y91 F R E E W A Y
E FR O N T E R A S TN SHEPARD STE C A R P E N T E R A V E
E . L A P A L M A A V E
N
. T
US
T
I
N AVEE . M IR A L O M A A V E N.
MI
LLER STN.
BLUE
G
U
M
STE. LA P ALMA AVE3 2 0 0 East Carpenter Avenu e
D EV No. 2 0 13-00110
Subject Property APN: 345-111-08
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
From:Mauricio Ceron
To:David See
Subject:Redeemable Parking Fee Camelot Golfland
Date:Wednesday, January 08, 2014 4:36:23 PM
David,
We would like to continue with our redeemable parking fee Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights.
Thank you,
Mauricio.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 9
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05695
LOCATION: 1168 South State College Boulevard (former El Vaquero Restaurant)
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Katie Sanchez representing
In-N-Out Burger and the property owner is SCBA LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
construct a drive-through restaurant (In-N-Out Burger).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 2 –
Replacement or Reconstruction) and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05695.
BACKGROUND: This 1.3-acre property is developed with a 2-story restaurant
building that has been vacant for approximately four years. The property is located
within the General Commercial (C-G) zone and the property is designated for
Neighborhood Center land uses by the General Plan. Surrounding land uses include a
service station and fast food restaurant to the south; an office building to the east; a
fast food restaurant to the west across State College Boulevard; and apartments to the
north across Almont Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing vacant restaurant
building and construct an approximately 3,750 square foot drive-through restaurant
building with an approximately 1,088-square foot outdoor dining area. The
applicant also proposes to demolish the existing 6-foot high wall along the east
property line and install new landscape planters throughout the site, including an
approximately 20 to 30 foot wide landscaped planter adjacent to State College
Boulevard. The existing 6-foot high block wall adjacent to Almont Avenue would be
retained so as to provide a noise, access and visual buffer between the restaurant
property and the adjacent apartments to the north. Primary vehicular access would be
provided via a 30-foot wide driveway from State College Boulevard. Access to and
from the property would also be available through the adjacent commercial properties
to the east and south.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05695
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 2
A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed on site and Code requires 47 spaces, resulting in a surplus
of 16 parking spaces. The drive-through lane would accommodate up to 15 cars for stacking
purposes. An overflow lane for an additional eight cars is proposed adjacent to the east property
line. Sign plans indicate a new wall sign for each building elevation, directional signs at the
entrance and exits to the drive-through lane, and a menu board at the center of the drive-through
lane. The applicant proposes to reface the existing nonconforming 25-foot high pole sign adjacent
to State College Boulevard.
The proposed hours of operation are Sunday through Thursday from10:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. and
Friday and Saturday from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m.
ANALYSIS: While fast food restaurants are permitted by right within this zone, a conditional use
p ermit is required to allow a drive-through lane. The purpose of the conditional use permit is to
ensure proper design and function of the drive through lane and that the drive through lane activity
does not impact surrounding properties. The drive through lane is located along the north and east
property lines, which will ensure that drive-through lane traffic does not extend onto State College
Boulevard during peak hours of use. The proposed menu board speaker would be located
approximately 100 feet from the nearest residence on Almont Avenue, minimizing noise impacts.
The existing 6-foot high block wall would provide a noise and visual buffer between the apartments
and the proposed use. Based on these design features, staff believes that the proposed drive-
through restaurant would be compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the
conditional use permit.
CONCLUSION: The proposed drive-through restaurant is consistent with the goals of the
property’s Neighborhood Commercial General Plan designation which encourages a vibrant mix of
commercial uses to support the shopping and dining needs of the surrounding community. The
drive-through lane has been designed to minimize impacts to surrounding uses and to ensure proper
on- and off-site traffic flow. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
David See Jonathan E. Borrego
Senior Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity and Aerial Maps
2. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
3. Applicant’s Project Description
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
4. Photographs
5. Plans
C-GRESTAURANTIAUTO & TRUCKPARTS
ISERVICESTATION
C-GBUSINESSCOLLEGE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ITILEWAREHOUSE IRETAIL
ITILE STORE
C-GOFFICES
C-GRETAIL
RM-4APTS8 DU
RM-4FOURPLEX
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C-GSERVICESTATION
RM-4SU CASA ALMONT WOODSAPTS108 DU
C-GRETAIL
C-GRETAIL
ISERVICESTATION
C-GRESTAURANT
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IRETAIL
RM-4WATERRIDGEAPARTMENTS220 DU
ITILESTORE
IAUTOREPAIR/SERVICE
RM-4APTS8 DU
ICENTER POINTBUSINESS PARK
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ITILE STORE
RM-4APTS8 DU
RM-4FOURPLEX RM-4FOURPLEX
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SFRRS-2SFRRS-2SFRRS-2SFRRS-2SFRRS-2SFRRS-2SFRRM-4FOURPLEX
C-GSERVICESTATION C-GRESTAURANT
IRETAIL
E BALL RDS STATE COLLEGE BLVDE CLIFPARK WAY
E ALMONT AVES VERDE STS TORRY PLS RESEDA STE ALMONT AVE
E. BALL RD S. SUNKIST STE. CERRITOS AVES.
EAST STS.
ANAHEI
M BLVDS. LEWIS ST1 1 6 8 South State College Boulev ard
D EV No. 2 0 13-00095
Subject Property APN: 253-212-18
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
E BALL RDS STATE COLLEGE BLVDE CLIFPARK WAY
E ALMONT AVES VERDE STS TORRY PLS RESEDA STE ALMONT AVE
E. BALL RD S. SUNKIST STE. CERRITOS AVES.
EAST STS.
ANAHEI
M BLVDS. LEWIS ST1 1 6 8 South State College Boulev ard
D EV No. 2 0 13-00095
Subject Property APN: 253-212-18
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05695
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00095)
(1168 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
"Planning Commission"), did receive a verified petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-
05695 to demolish a former restaurant building and construct a new drive-through restaurant
(herein referred to as the "Proposed Project"), on that certain real property located at 1168 South
State College Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, generally depicted on the map attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), pursuant to Section
18.60.190 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 1.3-acres in size and is developed with a two
story vacant commercial building. The Property is located within the C-G (General Commercial)
zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Neighborhood Center land uses;
and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2014, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of
the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No.
2013-05695, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith;
and
WHEREAS, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission
finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects which consist of
the replacement or reconstruction of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially
the same size, purpose, and capacity, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15302 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the
environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing pertaining to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05695, does find and
determine the following facts:
1. The request to permit a drive-through restaurant is properly one for which
a conditional use permit is authorized under Section 18.08.030.010 (Restaurants – Drive
Through) of the Code.
- 2 - PC2014-***
2. The drive-through restaurant will not adversely affect the surrounding
land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located
because the project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding commercial
and residential uses because all traffic flows will be provided from two arterial highways,
the one story building will be in scale with the adjacent neighborhood, and a 6-foot high
block wall will provide a sound buffer for the nearby apartment complexes.
3. The size and shape of the site for the drive-through restaurant is adequate
to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either
the particular area or health and safety because the project has been designed to comply
with all Code requirements, including building height, signs, landscaping, and parking.
4. The traffic generated by the drive-through restaurant will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in
the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is consistent with
typical retail businesses that would be permitted as a matter of right within the C-G
(General Commercial) zone.
5. The granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05695 under the
conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does hereby
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05695 at the Property, subject to the conditions of
approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to
preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions
for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section
18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by
the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established
that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with
the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of
the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05695 are
approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and
revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment
of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the
Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05695
constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Zoning
Code of the City of Anaheim and any other applicable City, State and Federal 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.
- 3 - PC2014-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and
void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
January 13, 2014. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a resolution of
the City Council in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January,
2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
-
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05695
(DEV2013-00095)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
1 The building shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or
audible).
Police
Department
2 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable
from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of
darkness.
Police
Department
3 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form
APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial
alarm activation. This form is available at the Police
Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the
following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678
Police
Department
4 The rear doors of the premises shall be numbered with the same
address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum
height of 4 inches is recommended.
Police
Department
5 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g.
deadbolt locks.
Police
Department
6 Rooftop address numbers shall be provided for the police
helicopter. Numbers shall be a minimum size of 4 ft. by 2 ft.
The lines of the numbers are to be a minimum of 6 inches thick.
Numbers should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. Numbers
should be painted or constructed in a contrasting color to the
roofing material. Numbers should face the street to which the
structure is addressed. Rooftop numbers are not to be visible
from ground level.
Planning
Department
7 All backflow eq uipm ent shall be located above ground outside
of the street setback area i n a manner fully screened from all
public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently
installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current
standards. Any ot h er large water system equipment shall be
in sta lled to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division
outsid e of t he street setback area in a manner fu lly screened
from all pu blic streets and alleys. Said information shall be
specifically shown on pl ans a nd ap proved by Water
Engineeri ng and Cross Cormection Co ntrol Inspector.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
- 6 - PC2014-***
8 All requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or
fire lines, as well as any modi ficat ions, relocations, or
abandonments of exist ing water servi ces, backflow equi pment,
and fire lines, shall be coo rdinated and permitted through
Water Engineering Di vision of t he Anaheim Public Utilities
Department.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
9 This is a p roject wit h a landscaping area exceeding 2,500
square feet. A Landscape Documentation Package and a
Cert ification of Co mpletion are requ i red and a separat e
irrigation meter shall be in stalled in compliance wi th Chapter
10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 6160
relating to la ndscape water efficiency.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
10 All exis ti ng water services an d fire services s h a ll conform to
current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water
service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards
shall be upgraded if continued use if necessary or abandoned if
the existing service is no longer needed. Th e owner/d evel oper
shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any
water service or fire line.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
11 The existing 6 inch fire line and backflow device do not
meet current standards. The applicant shall bring the fire
line up to current standards, or abandon if fire line will not
be reused, prior to building occupancy.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
12 The applicant shall install a USC approved backflow devi ce on
the water supply to the Property per City of Anaheim
requirements. Additionally, a backflow device shall be
installed on the site irrigation system per City of Anaheim
standards. This work shall be completed prior to building
occupancy.
Public Utilities
Department,
Water
Engineering
Division
13 A plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan
for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and
approval.
Public Works-
Streets and
Sanitation
Division
14 Trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and
Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file
with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed,
located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from
adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall
be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant
materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted
on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information
shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
Public Works-
Streets and
Sanitation
Division
- 7 - PC2014-***
permits.
15 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the final water quality
management plan shall address the following items:
• The WQMP shall include additional information
infiltration trench configuration, pre-treatment of flows.
• The criteria identified in the DAMP in order to allow
infiltration to occur on a site must be evaluated and
deemed adequate for the determination to be made to
infiltrate onsite.
• The applicant shall obtain approval for infiltration from
the City and from the Orange Count y Water District.
The City will coordinate the review of this proposed
infiltration system to obtain comments.
• The WQMP and grading plans shall show that flows are
conveyed to the infiltration areas.
• The WQMP shall show the required pretreatment for any
focused infiltration. The pretreatment sys tem may be
landscape swales, filter strips or bio-retention areas (rain
gardens), prior to reaching the infiltration system.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
16 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right-of-way
construction permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever
occurs first, a Save Harmless agreement in-lieu of an
Encroachment Agreement is required to be executed, approved by
the City and recorded by the applicant on the Property for any
storm drains connecting to a City storm drain.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
17 The P roperty owner shall submit project improvement plans that
incorporate any required drainage improvements and the
mechanisms proposed in the approved Drainage Report. No
offsite run-off shall be blocked during and after grading
operations or perimeter wall construction. The street
improvement plans shall also include any other improvements
along the frontage of the project. Improvements shall conform
to the City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer.
Parkway irrigation shall be installed on the public right-of-way and
connected to the on-site irrigation system. A bond shall be posted
in an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
18 An encroachment license shall be executed by the owner and
recorded for the portion of the existing double pole mounted
sign that encroaches over the right-of-way line adjacent to State
College Boulevard.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
- 8 - PC2014-***
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
19 The developer shall improve the streets as follows: Remove and
replace any damaged existing curb, gutter, parkway landscaping
and sidewalk. Obtain a Right of Way Construction Permit from
the Development Services Division prior to commencing the
work, including the removal of the driveway on State College
Blvd., utility installations and grind and cap of existing pavement
in Almont Avenue up to the street centerline within the frontage
of the parcel.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
20 All required public street, landscaping, irrigation, utility,
sewer and drainage improvements shall be constructed prior
to final building and zoning inspections and are subject to
review and approval by the Construction Services inspector.
Public Works
Department,
Construction
Services
Division
21 All required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
22 An all-weather access road as approved by the Fire Department
shall be provided during construction.
Fire
Department
GENERAL CONDITIONS
23 Adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas,
aisles, passageways, recesses and grounds contiguous to
buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to
provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the
presence of any person on or about the premises during the
hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all
persons, property, and vehicles on-site.
Police
Department
24 No required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed
for outdoor storage.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
25 The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the area
adjacent to the premises over which they have control, in an
orderly fashion through the provision of regular maintenance
and removal of trash or debris. Any graffiti painted or marked
upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of
the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of
being applied.
Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
- 9 - PC2014-***
26 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days
of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of
building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of
required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval
of this application.
Planning
Department
27 The Property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim
by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department and as conditioned herein.
Planning
Department
28 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents
(collectively referred to individually and collectively as
“Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings
brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or
any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or
made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness,
legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The
Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be
limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or
incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation,
including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs,
liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection
with such proceeding.
Planning
Department
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
C1C2B1KEY6’-8 3/4” X 16’-0” D/F PYLON SIGN CABINETEXISTING PYLON@ 25’-0” OAH FROM GRADE.EXISTING PYLON SIGN CABINETREFURBISH/REFACE(”IN-N-OUT”).S/F 6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” INTERNALLYILLUMINATED WALL SIGN (41.6 SQ. FT.)S/F 6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” INTERNALLYILLUMINATED WALL SIGN (41.6 SQ. FT.)S/F 6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” INTERNALLYILLUMINATED WALL SIGN (41.6 SQ. FT.)S/F 6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” INTERNALLYILLUMINATED WALL SIGN (41.6 SQ. FT.)D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONALDISPLAY (”DRIVE THRU”)D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONALDISPLAY (”THANK YOU/DO NOT ENTER”)S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED MENU BOARDSITE PLANSCALE: 1” = 30’-0”D1A1B2B3B4SITE PLAN & SIGN KEYNOTED1IN-N-OUT BURGER #XXX1168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/111113456279101112809/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc2011C1D1A1B1B2B3B4C263’-5”99’-8”EXISTING PYLON SIGNREFACE/REFURBISH
SITE PLANSCALE: 1” = 60’-0”SITE PLANNOTED2IN-N-OUT BURGER #XXX1168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/111113456279101112809/06/13 GMc201109/09/13 GMc
GROUND SIGNA1NOTED3IN-N-OUT BURGER #XXX111345627910111282011SCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”REFACE EXISTING D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PYLON SIGN (25’-0” OAH FROM GRADE)1168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc16’-0” CABINET OALFLAT ACRYLIC LEXAN OR FLEX FACES WITH HANGBARS AS REQUIRED.2ND SURFACED APPLIED VINYL PER IN-N-0UT STANDARDS:YELLOW: 3620-015 ‘YELLOW’ (PMS 109C)SHADED YELLOW: 3630-125 ‘GOLDEN YELLOW’ (PMS 1235C)RED: 3630-33 ‘RED’ (PMS 186C)SHADED RED: 3630-73 ‘DARK RED’ (PMS 187C)WHITE: 3630-20 ‘WHITE’SHADED/ GRAY: 3630-51 ‘SILVER GRAY’ (430C)BLACK OUTLINEEXISTING PYLONNOTE:•EXISTING PYLON SIGN TO BE REFURBISHED TO “INO” STANDARDS.•ALL EXISTING NEON TUBING FROM PYLON SIGN TO BE REMOVED.•CABINET TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH “INO” RED.•NEW LEXAN FACES WITH “INO” STANDARD GRAPHICS.•NEW POLE COVERS INSTALLED PAINTED TO MATCH “BONE CHINA”SP 514 BY DUNN EDWARDS W/ SATIN FINISH.REFURBISHED PYLON09/09/13 GMc6’-8 3/4” CABINET OAHEXISTING D/F FACE PYLON CABINET TO BE REFACED AND PAINTED “INO” RED
EAST / RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SOUTH / FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”S/F 18” CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN.6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” CABINET/“IN-N-OUT”B299’-8”9” FROM TOP OFSIGN TO C OF LEDL3” FROM BOTTOMOF CORNICE TO COF LEDLEQ.EQ.6” O.C.63’-5”S/F 18” CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN.6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” CABINET/“IN-N-OUT”B1EQ.EQ.9” FROM TOP OFSIGN TO C OF LEDL3” FROM BOTTOMOF CORNICE TO COF LEDL6” O.C.20’-9” FROM GRADE20’-9” FROM GRADE12” NON-ILLUMINATEDADDRESS NUMERALSELEVATIONSB1 B2NOTED41113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
WEST / LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”NORTH / REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”S/F 18” CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN.6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” CABINET/“IN-N-OUT”B3B4S/F 18” CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGN.6’-3 1/8” X 10’-6 1/8” CABINET/“IN-N-OUT”9” FROM TOP OFSIGN TO C OF LEDL3” FROM BOTTOMOF CORNICE TO COF LEDL6” O.C.EQ.EQ.9” FROM TOP OFSIGN TO C OF LEDL3” FROM BOTTOMOF CORNICE TO COF LEDL6” O.C.EQ.EQ.20’-4” FROM GRADE20’-9” FROM GRADE99’-8”63’-5”ELEVATIONSB3 B4NOTED51113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
S/F 6’ X 10’ ILLUMINATED WALL SIGNSCALE: 1/2” = 1’-0”18” COPY HT.2 1/2”4”SIDE VIEWELEVATION VIEWLIGHTING COMPONENT DETAIL6’-3 1/8”10’-6 1/8”9’-7 1/2”3 1/4”COPY ILLUMINATION:SLOAN LED - LED MODULES(1) COMPACT 60 POWER SUPPLY - 120V/ 1.0 AMPARROW ILLUMINATION:GE TETRA® LED SYSTEMS - LED MODULES(1) GEP1260 POWER SUPPLY - 120V/ 1.15 AMPNOTES:ALL LIGHTING COMPONENTS TO BE U.L. LISTED WITH DISCONNECTSWITCH @ POWER SUPPLY LOCATION (REMOTE). SIGNS PROVIDED WITH3-WIRE 14 GAUGE JACK CABLE.MODIFIED ACRYLIC FACELED LIGHT SEGMENT (SEEABOVE FOR DETAILEDINFORMATION)INSULATED CONDUITPOWER SUPPLY(LOCATED IN REMOTERACEWAY/ BOX)TRIM CAPALUMINUM RETURNS ANDBACKS/ PROVIDE WEEP HOLES3/8” X 2” LAGBOLTATTACHMENT/ MIN.6” O.C. OR AS REQ’D2 1/2” 4”SECTION DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE)SIGN SPECIFICATIONS:S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERSIGN DISPLAY WITH FORMED COPY & ARROW. COLORS/ MATERIALPER BELOW:ARROW:FABRICATED CHANNEL WITH RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH “BONECHINA” SP 514 BY DUNN EDWARDS W/ SATIN FINISH. FORMEDYELLOW #2037 ACRYLIC FACES WITH 1” YELLOW TRIMCAP. LEDILLUMINATION (SEE ABOVE).COPY:FABRICATED CHANNEL WITH RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH “BONECHINA” SP 514 BY DUNN EDWARDS W/ SATIN FINISH. FORMEDRED #211-1 ACRYLIC FACES WITH 1” GOLD TRIMCAP. RED LEDILLUMINATION (SEE ABOVE).CHANNEL LETTERS TO BE 4” DEEP/ ALL SIGNS TO BE INSTALLEDONTO BUILDING AS REQUIRED.WALL SIGNSB1 B2 B3 B4NOTED6111345627910111282011SQUARE FOOTAGECALCULATIONS:UPPER ARROW:COPY:LOWER ARROW:TOTAL SIGN AREA:24.5 S.F.15.8 S.F.1.3 S.F.41.6 S.F.NOTE: GRAY INDICATESCALCULATED AREA1168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
DIRECTIONALSC1 C2NOTED71’-6”1’-6”1’-6” (TYP.)3’-0” OAH1”2’-0”8 1/4”±3” SQUARE TUBEt=0.188” MIN.1/4” X 3” X 6” W/(2) 3/8” DIA. ALL-THREADBOLTS2’-0”ELEVATION VIEWELEVATION VIEWSIDE VIEWSIDE VIEWFINISHED GRADE (VARIES)1’-6”1’-6”SIGN SPECIFICATIONS:D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM DIRECTIONAL CABINET W/FORMED FACES & ARROW. SIGN CABINET, RETAINERS PAINTED TOMATCH “BONE CHINA” SP 514 BY DUNN EDWARDS W/ SATIN FINISH.FORMED ACRYLIC PLASTIC FACES TO HAVE SECOND-SURFACE PAINTEDGRAPHICS. BACKGROUND COLOR TO BE PAINTED INO 443 RED (25%CLEAR). LETTER COLOR TO BE PAINTED WHITE. ARROW TO BE PAINTEDINO 413 YELLOW (25% CLEAR) - . SIGN CABINETS TO BEAS APPLIESILLUMINATED W/ VOLTAC HIGH OUTPUT FLUORESCENT BULBS.1’-4” V.O.1’-10” V.O.1’-6” CABINET2’-0” CABINET3’-0” OAH FROM GRADESIDE ASIDE ASIDE BSIDE BSCALE: 1” = 1'-0”D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DIRECTIONAL SIGNS@ 3 SQ. FT.C1C2PLATE DETAILSCALE: 3” = 1’-0”6” PLATE3” PLATE3/4”1 1/2” 1 1/2”4 1/2”3/4”PL3” X 6” X 1/4” 7/16” HOLES(3/8” BOLTS)1” FOR ELECT.8 1/4”±(2) VOLTARC HIGH OUTPUTFLUORESCENT BULBS.1113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
3’-2 1/4”6’-7 ½” OAH1’-5 ½”2’-11 1/4” V.O.1’-11 3/4”2’-6 1/2” O.C.1’-1”* V.O.1’-4”8”8 1/4”S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ALUMINUM MENUCABINET. SIGN CABINET, RETAINERS & SQ.SUPPORT TUBES PAINTED TO MATCH “BONECHINA” SP 514 BY DUNN EDWARDS W/ SATINFINISH. SIGN CABINETS TO BE ILLUMINATED W/VOLTARC HIGH OUTPUT FLUORESCENT BULBS.3” SQUARE TUBEJ BOX WITH DISCONNECTSWITCH* NOTE:DIMENSIONS FOR TOP CABINETMAY NOT REFLECT DRAWING DUE TOCABINET ANGLE.S/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED MENU BOARD @ 6’-7 ½” OAH(19.9 SQ. FT.)SCALE: 3/4” = 1’-0”ELEVATION VIEWSIDE VIEWWHITE ACRYLIC PLASTIC SIGN FACES &FIRST-SURFACE APPLIED GRAPHICS4’-3 1/2”4’-0 1/2” O.C.2’-11 1/4” V.O. 1’-0 1/4” V.O.1”MENU BOARDD1NOTED81113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
HALF SIZEIN-N-OUT LED BORDER DETAILLEDMOUNTING BUTTON POLYCARBONATECOVER‘SLOAN’ LED RED LIGHTING SYSTEM. ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTSTO BE UL LISTED. ATTACH TO WALL AS REQUIRED.#8 FLAT HEADSCREW @ 2’-0”O.C. (MIN.)#8 PAN HEADSCREW @ 2’-0”O.C. (MIN.)VARIES - 10’-0” MAXIMUM SECTION6” O.C.3” O.C. TO BOTTOMOF CORNICEMIN. 24” O.C.BORDER LED DETAILNOTED91113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
SCALE: 3” = 1'-0”NON-ILLUMINATED 12” ADDRESS NUMERALS1’-0”1’-0”1024 ALL-THREADFORMED ACRYLIC NUMERALEXISTING WALL (MAY VARY)SILICONE BOLTS INTOHOLESRED ACRYLIC #211-1C1COLOR SPECIFICATIONSC13”NON-ILLUMINATEDADDRESS NUMERALSNOTED101113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
INTERIOR NEON DISPLAYNOTED11S/T TECHNOLUX #17 NOVIAL GOLD COATEDEXPOSED NEON ILLUMINATION (12MM)S/T TECHNOLUX COATED RUBY REDEXPOSED NEON ILLUMINATION (12MM)4’-9”8 3/4”1’-6 5/8”8 5/8”8 3/4”S/F WALL DISPLAYSCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”PK HOUSINGFLEX CONDUIT30MA TRANSFORMER BOXNEON TUBING (SEE ABOVE)GLASS NEON STANDOFFCUT VIEW/ NOT TO SCALESAFETY DISCONNECTSWITCH/ J-BOXDETAIL NOT TO SCALENOTE: DISPLAY TO BE CENTERED TOP TOBOTTOM & LEFT TO RIGHTINSTALLED NEON DISPLAY (TYP.)1113456279101112820111168 STATE COLLEGE BLVD.ANAHEIM, CA11-9723117712GARRY WILCOXANDREW WRIGHT12/29/1109/06/13 GMc09/09/13 GMc
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
R
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 10
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657
LOCATION: 1531-1627 East Lincoln Avenue
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Lester Tucker representing
Lennar and the property owner is Slagle Properties, LLC.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to
allow a 76-unit condominium complex with modified landscape setback and building
separation standards. The applicant is also requesting approval of a tentative tract
map to establish a 14 lot, 76-unit condominium subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolutions, determining that previously-certified Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report No. 346 provides appropriate environmental documentation for Tentative
Tract Map No. 17657 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687and approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17657.
BACKGROUND: This 4.65-acre site is located in the General Commercial (C-G)
and Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay zones and is designated for Low-Medium
Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. The property is developed with a
mix of commercial and residential uses including the Yellow Cab Company and
Anaheim Screen and Glass. The easterly portion of the site consists of nine
residential units. Surrounding land uses include single family residences to the north
and east, single family residences and a church to the west and commercial uses to
the south across Lincoln Avenue.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing improvements on the
site and construct a condominium complex consisting of 13 buildings with 76
attached units. The project complies with all Code requirements with the exception
of the two modified standards described in the Analysis section of this report. The
project would include 26 two-bedroom units, 37 three-bedroom units and 13 four-
bedroom units. Each unit would include a two car garage. Unit sizes range from
1,482 to 2,034 square feet. The project would provide two driveways from Lincoln
Avenue that would be limited to right-turn in/right-turn out turning movements.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17657, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 4
The project maintains two design themes that include Spanish and Italian architectural elements
with well articulated elevation features that include metal accent railings, awnings, gable and
hipped tile roofs, window shutters, wainscot around portions of the front elevations, arched
entryways and window elements that complement each architectural theme. The building
elevations throughout the project are designed to include varied building articulation and
attractive architectural features that would be aesthetically pleasing and provide visual interest
for surrounding residential properties with views of the project.
The property’s existing Low-Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation
allows up to 18-units per acre and this project has a density of 16.4 units per acre. Code requires
197 parking spaces for this project. The project complies with parking requirements by
providing 152 garage parking spaces and 83 open spaces located around the perimeter of the
project for a total of 235 spaces. The site will remain consistent with the existing topography.
The development has a maximum one-foot grade difference along the project boundaries
adjacent to the single-family residential properties. A one-foot grade variation around the
perimeter of the property serves to help minimize visual building height impacts of the project
onto existing homes. Further, the project has been designed to assure that water will not drain
from the proposed project onto the existing single-family properties. A project summary table
has been prepared and is included as Attachment No. 9.
ANALYSIS: The property’s RO Overlay zone designation allows development of the site in
accordance with the uses and requirements of the RM-3 zone. The RM-3 zone allows
condominium developments subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. A tentative tract
map is required to subdivide the property for eventual sale to future residents. The Zoning Code
requires that specific findings be made prior to approval of a conditional use permit and tentative
tract map. The complete findings are included in the attached draft resolutions. A summary of
the project’s compliance with the required findings is provided below.
Conditional Use Permit: In the RM-3 zone, development standards, including setback and
distance separation requirements, may be modified as part of a conditional use permit when it is
determined that the modifications serve to achieve a high quality project design, privacy,
livability, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit
Development) of the Code permits the modification of, among other things, certain setback
standards through an application for a conditional use permit, rather than through an application
for a variance. The conditional use permit request includes proposed modifications to the
minimum requirements for (i) the landscaped portion of a setback for structures abutting a
single-family residential zone, and (ii) the building separation requirements between two parallel
facing walls for five of the buildings within the proposed project. Following is an analysis of the
requested modified development standards:
Modified Landscape Setback: The applicant is requesting to allow a five-foot wide landscape
setback where a 10-foot wide landscape setback would typically be required adjacent to a single-
family residential zone. The intent of the 10-foot wide landscaped setback along the interior
property lines is to ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to screen multiple-family units
from the adjacent single-family properties. The proposed condominiums are three stories and 36
feet in height. The proposed units are located a minimum of 55 feet from the adjacent single-
family residential properties. In order to minimize visual impacts of this project upon the
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17657, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 4
surrounding residential properties, the applicant proposes enhanced landscaping in the proposed
five-foot wide landscape planter along the perimeter loop street consisting of densely planted
trees. The Zoning Code requires that this setback area be planted with trees and shrubs and does
not require landscape materials to completely screen the proposed development. The applicant’s
proposed “enhanced” landscaping throughout the project exceeds code requirements in order to
minimize visual impacts on adjacent residential properties. Twenty-five 23-foot long by five-foot
wide landscape fingers are proposed in the parking lot area around the perimeter of the site.
These landscape fingers would be planted with large canopy trees that would grow tall enough to
obstruct the view of the project from residential properties. Line-of-sight drawings have been
provided to illustrate that the views from the existing residences looking toward the project will
be obstructed once these fast growing trees have matured in approximately two to three years.
Staff believes the layered, enhanced landscaping that is provided within the five-foot wide
planter, along the perimeter street and within the landscaped parking lot fingers, when combined,
will achieve or exceed the same visual screening that would be provided by a continual 10-foot
wide planter.
Modified Distance Separations Between Buildings: Code requires a minimum 40-foot separation
between buildings with parallel walls that are designated as “primary” walls. Primary walls are
building walls that contain the main unit entrance. The applicant proposes a separation of 24 to
34 feet between five of the proposed 13 buildings. The applicant has designed the opposing
building walls in a manner that ensures adequate privacy and additional landscaping between
these building walls is also proposed to provide increased visual interest. The reduced building
separation distances are adequate because the development provides architectural variety and
promotes social interaction through design which lessens the distinction between those buildings
with greater distance separation. Staff supports the request for modified building separations
because the design of the opposing building walls and increased landscaping will ensure that
privacy is achieved while maintaining overall quality project design.
Tentative Tract Map: The proposed tentative tract map includes eight numbered and six lettered
lots. The lettered lots are designated for streets and landscaped areas along the perimeter of the
project and the numbered lots are designated for the building pads and interior drive-aisles. The
development would be served by two driveway entrances into the project with a private “loop”
street which accesses five interior drive aisles leading to garage entrances for the units. The City
Engineer has approved a request by the developer for a modification to the private street in front
of units 37 through 43, which are located on the easterly portion of the project site. As
configured, units 37 through 43 are the only units that front the private street and would need to
provide a 4-foot sidewalk and 6 foot parkway adjacent to the curb. The modified street section
will allow for usable private patio/outdoor living area while still providing the required sidewalk.
Interior pedestrian access is provided by a five-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to Lincoln Avenue.
Four-foot wide interior sidewalks and paseos will create pedestrian connectivity to the units and
community amenity areas. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the RM-3 zone which
implements the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation of the Anaheim General
Plan and the recently adopted Residential Opportunity Overlay Zone. Staff recommends
approval of the tentative tract map request.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17657, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687
January 13, 2014
Page 4 of 4
Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant representatives from Lennar held a community meeting at
the Downtown Community Center on November 4, 2013. The applicant, project engineer, staff
and five residents were in attendance. Resident concerns included landscaping, privacy, security,
lighting, perimeter wall height, traffic impacts and noise. During the meeting, the Lennar
representative stated that fast growing trees to provide visual screening of the project would be
planted; an eight-foot high block wall around the perimeter of the project would be installed;
light pole fixtures would be down-lit to eliminate glare onto the residential properties; and, noted
that traffic generated from the residential project would be less than the current transit uses on
the property. Residents stated that they were not opposed to the project subject to conditions of
approval that would minimize potential impacts on their properties.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit and tentative
tract map because the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed
project would also support the housing production goals contained in the City’s adopted Housing
Element which identifies this property as a housing opportunity site. In addition, the proposed project
is designed in a manner that will provide a quality living environment for its future residents.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Vanessa Norwood Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Aerial and Vicinity Maps
2. Draft Tentative Tract Map Resolution
3. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution
4. Project Letter
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for
public review at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
5. Site, Tentative Tract and Landscape Plans
6. Elevations Plans
7. Floor Plans
8. Site Photographs
9. Project Summary Table
C -G
C O M M E R C IA L U S E S
RM-4LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
R M -4
A P A R T M E N T S
1 5 D U C-GNURSI
NG HOMEC -GVE T C -G
O F F IC E S
RS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2RETAI
LC -G
M E D IC A L O F F IC E
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C ERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCEC -G
M E D IC A L O F F IC E
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
C -GRETA IL
R S -2
O F F IC E S
R M -3
D U P L E X
C -G
T H E L E M O N T R E E H O T E L
O N L IN C O L N
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C ERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCEO-LMEDICAL OFFICERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCEO -L
O F F IC E S
C -G
F O U R P L E X
RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y R E S ID E N C E
RS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCERS-2SI
NGLE FAMI
LY RESI
DENCER S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y
R E S ID E N C E
R S -2
S IN G L E F A M IL Y
R E S ID E N C E C-GAPARTMENTS9 DUE L IN C O L N A V EN LARCH STE C E D A R S T N EVERGREEN STS DATE STN EVELYN DRN SPRUCE DRE B IR C H S T
S ELDER STE C E N T E R S T
E O A K P L
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVEN.
EAST STE. SOUTH STS.
EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y
S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDN.
ANAHEI
M BLVDN. SUNKIST STE . B R O A D W A Y
1 5 3 1 -1627 East Linc oln Avenue
D EV No. 2 0 13-00083
Subject Property APN: 035-270-26035-270-28035-270-23035-270-25035-270-22035-270-29
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
E L IN C O L N A V EN LARCH STE C E D A R S T N EVERGREEN STS DATE STN EVELYN DRN SPRUCE DRE B IR C H S T
S ELDER STE C E N T E R S T
E O A K P L
E. LINCOLN AVE
E. LA PALMA AVEN.
EAST STE. SOUTH STS.
EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y
S. STATE COLLEGE BLVDN.
ANAHEI
M BLVDN. SUNKIST STE . B R O A D W A Y
1 5 3 1 -1627 East Linc oln Avenue
D EV No. 2 0 13-00083
Subject Property APN: 035-270-26035-270-28035-270-23035-270-25035-270-22035-270-29
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
°0 50 100
Feet
Aeri al Ph oto :May 20 12
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00083)
(1531-1627 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Tentative Tract Map No. 17657 to establish a
14-lot airspace condominium subdivision to permit the construction of 76-condominium units,
including six lettered lots for non-residential purposes (the "Proposed Project"), for that certain
real property located at 1531-1627 East Lincoln Avenue in the City of Anaheim, as generally
depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17657 is proposed in conjunction with
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687; and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 4.65-acres, is currently
developed with commercial and residential uses proposed to be demolished as part of the
Proposed Project. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low-Medium Density
Residential land uses. The underlying zone of the Property is the "C-G" General Commercial
Zone; however, the Property is also located within the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay
Zone, which is consistent with the designation of the Property under the Anaheim General Plan
and provides that the Property may be developed in accordance with the uses and requirements
of the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone designation under Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-
Family Residential Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing
having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the "Code"), to hear and consider
evidence for and against the proposed Project to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346
("SEIR 346"), certified in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update program, is all that is
necessary in connection with the Proposed Project and its approval and that none of the
conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement to SEIR 346 have
occurred; and
- 2 - PC2014-***
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing pertaining to the Proposed Project, does find and determine the following
facts:
1. That the proposed tentative tract map for condominium purposes, including its
design and improvements, is consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential land use
designation of the Anaheim General Plan and the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone and
with the zoning and development standards contained in Chapters 18.06 (Multiple-Family
Residential Zone), as implemented by Chapter 18.34 (Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay
Zone), of the Code;
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and size of the Proposed Project;
3. That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No sensitive
environmental habitat has been identified on the Property.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, since any new structures and associated improvements will
be constructed on the Property in compliance with requirements of the Code; and
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does
hereby approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17657, subject to and contingent upon the approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687, now pending, and upon satisfaction of the conditions of
approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to
preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions of approval may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i)
equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s),
(ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition,
or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
- 3 - PC2014-***
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other
applicable City, State and Federal 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.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Section 17.08.104 of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of
January, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
- 5 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657
(DEV2013-00083)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT
1 The water quality management plan shall address the following
items:
• The WQMP shall include additional information such as
soils analysis, prior contamination, depth to groundwater,
etc. to determine the acceptability and capability of this
site to use infiltration.
• The criteria identified in the DAMP in order to allow
infiltration to occur on a site must be evaluated and
deemed adequate for the determination to be made to
infiltrate onsite.
• The applicant shall obtain approval for infiltration from
the City and from the Orange County Water District. The
City will coordinate the review of this proposed
infiltration system to obtain comments.
• The WQMP and grading plans shall show that flows are
conveyed to the infiltration areas.
The WQMP shall show the required pretreatment for any focused
infiltration. The pretreatment system may be landscape swales,
filter strips or bio-retention areas (rain gardens), prior to reaching
the infiltration system.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
2 The property owner shall submit project improvement plans that
incorporate the required any drainage improvements and the
mechanisms proposed in the approved Drainage Report. No offsite
run-off shall be blocked during and after grading operations or
perimeter wall construction.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
3 Prior to issuance of the grading permit and right-of-way
construction permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever
occurs first, a Save Harmless agreement in-lieu of an
Encroachment Agreement is required to be executed, approved by
the City and recorded by the applicant on the property for any
storm drains connecting to a City storm drain.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
4 That the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement
plans for Public Utilities Public Utilities, Water Engineering
review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for
providing water service to the project.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
5 That individual water service and/or fire line connections will be
required for each parcel or residential, commercial, industrial
Public
- 6 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
unit per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim’s Water Rates, Rules
and Regulations.
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL
6 All lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division.
The street names for the private streets shall be submitted to and
approved by the Building Division.
Planning
Department,
Building
Division
7 The vehicular access rights to Lincoln Avenue shall be released and
relinquished to the City of Anaheim, except at approved private
street openings.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
8 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision
Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant
shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities such as
private sewer, private street, and private storm drain improvements;
compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan; and a
maintenance exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include all
drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation on Lincoln
Avenue, the private street name signs and the Private Streets. The
covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
9 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for improvements
along the frontage of Lincoln Avenue and the private streets.
Improvements shall conform to the City Standards and as approved
by the City Engineer. Parkway landscaping and irrigation shall be
installed on the public and the private streets. Prior to final map
approval, a bond shall be posted in an amount approved by the City
Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
10 The legal property owner shall post a security and execute a
Subdivision Agreement to complete the required public
improvements at the legal owner’s expense in an amount approved
by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department, Subdivision Section for approval by the City Council.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
11 The Owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of
Anaheim (i) an easement for all large domestic above-ground
water meters and fire hydrants, including a five (5)-foot wide
easement around the fire hydrant and/or water meter pad. (ii) a
twenty (20) foot wide easement for all water service mains and
service laterals all to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division. The easements shall be granted on the
Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division of the Public
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
Utilities Department’s standard water easement deed. The
easement deeds shall include language that requires the Owner to
be responsible for restoring any special surface improvements,
other than asphalt paving, including but not limited to colored
concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete, decorative hardscape,
walls or landscaping that becomes damaged during any
excavation, repair or replacement of City owned water facilities.
Provisions for the repair, replacement and maintenance of all
surface improvements other than asphalt paving shall be the
responsibility of the Owner and included and recorded in the
Master CC & Rs for the project.
12 That the developer/owner shall submit a water system master
plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, for
Public Utilities Public Utilities, Water Engineering review and
approval. The master plan shall demonstrate the adequacy of the
proposed on-site water system to meet the project’s water
demands and fire protection requirements.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
13 That the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities
Department Public Utilities, Water Engineering Division an
estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and
peak hour water demands for the project. This information will
be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to
provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system
improvements required to serve the project shall be done in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates,
Rules, and Regulations.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
14 That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public
Utilities, Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer
and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City
of Anaheim.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
15 That water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public
Utilities, Water Engineering Division for approval and a
performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer
and form approved by City Attorney shall be posted with the City
of Anaheim.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
16 That all existing water services and fire services shall conform to
current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water
service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall
be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the
existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall
be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water
service or fire line.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
- 8 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
17 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall
obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division.
Planning
Department,
Building
Division
18 Excluding model homes, the final map shall be submitted to and
approved by the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and
the Orange County Surveyor for technical review and that all
applicable conditions of approval have been complied with and
then shall be filed in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
19 Plans shall be submitted showing stop control for both
driveways. A stop sign shall be installed and stop legend shall be
painted on both driveways in the southbound direction at Lincoln
Avenue prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in
conformance with said plans.
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
20 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for all traffic related
improvements adjacent to the project site to the Public Works
Department, Development Services Division for review and
approval. These plans will show both sides of all streets and
alleys adjacent to the property, including all driveways and utility
installations, signing and striping. All improvements shall be
installed and completed prior to the first final building and
zoning inspection.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
21 A bond shall be posted for all street and traffic related street
improvements, including, but not limited to, directional signage,
striping, and median islands as required for said project. All
improvements identified as required for the project opening shall
be completed prior to final building and zoning inspection.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
22 That curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to
prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations
shall be clearly labeled on building plans.
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
23 That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground
outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from
all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently
installed in a vault will have to be brought up to current
standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Public Utilities, Water
Engineering Division outside of the street setback area in a
manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans and approved by
Public Utilities, Water Engineering and Cross Connection
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
- 9 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
Control Inspector.
24 That all requests for new water services, backflow equipment, or
fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonments of existing water services, backflow equipment,
and fire lines, shall be coordinated and permitted through Public
Utilities, Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public
Utilities Department.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
25 That if this is a non-individual homeowner project with a
landscaping area (including pools or other Water features)
exceeding 2,500 square feet, a Landscape Documentation
Package and a Certification of Completion are required and a
separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with
Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim municipal Code and Ordinance No.
6160 relating to landscape water efficiency.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS
26 The required public improvements shall be installed prior to final
zoning and building inspection. Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
27 The developer shall improve the streets as follows: 1) improve
private streets as approved by the City Engineer, 2) improve
Lincoln Avenue per the East Lincoln Avenue Corridor Master Plan
or as approved by the City Engineer (public).
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
28 ADA compliant curb access ramps with truncated domes shall be
constructed at the intersections of Lincoln Avenue on both sides of
the private street in conformance with Public Works Standard
Detail 111-3.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
29 All required WQMP items shall be inspected and operational. Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
30 All required public street, landscaping, irrigation, sewer and
drainage improvements shall be constructed prior to final
building and zoning inspections and are subject to review and
approval by the Construction Services inspector.
Public Works
Department,
Development
Services
Division
- 10 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
31 Fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
building permits.
Public Works
Department,
Traffic
Engineering
32 That landscaping shall be provided around the above ground
large meter or fire service to shield from street view.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
GENERAL
33 The Owner shall be responsible for restoring any special surface
improvements, other than asphalt paving, within any right-of-
way, public utility easement or City easement area including but
not limited to colored concrete, bricks, pavers, stamped concrete,
walls, decorative hardscape or landscaping that becomes
damaged during any excavation, repair or replacement of City
owned water facilities. Provisions for maintenance of all said
special surface improvements shall be included in the recorded
Master C, C & R’s for the project and the City easement deeds.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
34 A minimum of two connections to public water mains and water
looping inside the project are required.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
35 The following minimum horizontal clearances shall be
maintained between proposed water main and other facilities:
- 10-feet minimum separation (outside wall-to-
outside wall) from sanitary sewer mains and
laterals
- 5-feet minimum separation from all other utilities,
including storm drains, gas, and electric
- 3 or 6-feet minimum separation from curb face
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
36 No public water main or public water facilities shall be installed
in private alleys, paseo areas, or cul-de-sacs.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
37 No public water mains or laterals allowed under parking stalls or
parking lots.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
38 All fire services 2-inch and smaller shall be metered with a UL
listed meter, Hershey Residential Fire Meter with Translator
Register, no equals.
Public
Utilities,
Water
Engineering
- 11 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
39 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively
referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnities”) from
any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against
Indemnities to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the
decision of the Indemnities concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to
the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s
indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to,
damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnities and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including
without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and
expenses incurred by Indemnities in connection with such
proceeding.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
40 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days
of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of
building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required
permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this
application.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
41 Subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated
substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which
plans are on file with the Planning Department and as
conditioned herein.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3
- 1 - PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687 AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2013-00083)
(1531-1637 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter
referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for the approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 17657 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687 with modified
landscape setback and building separation requirements to establish a 14-lot, 76-unit
condominium subdivision, including six lettered lots for non-residential purposes, (the "Proposed
Project") for that certain real property located at 1531-1637 East Lincoln Avenue in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Section 18.06.160 (Residential Planned Unit Development) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") permits the modification of, among other things, certain
setback standards through an application for a conditional use permit. The request for
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687 includes proposed modifications to the minimum
requirements for (i) the landscaped portion of a setback for structures abutting a single-family
residential zone or located within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, and (ii) the
building separation requirements between two parallel facing walls for five (5) of the buildings
within the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Property, consisting of approximately 4.65-acres, is currently
developed with commercial and residential uses proposed to be demolished as part of the
Proposed Project. The underlying zone of the Property is the "C-G" General Commercial Zone;
however, the Property is also located within the Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone,
which is consistent with the designation of the Property under the Anaheim General Plan and
provides that the Property may be developed in accordance with the uses and requirements of the
"RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone designation under Chapter 18.06 (Multiple-Family
Residential Zone) of the Code. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Low-
Medium Density residential land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 13, 2014, notice of said public hearing having been
duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the
Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687,
concurrently with proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17657, to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, as the “lead agency” under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning
Commission finds and determines that Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346
- 2 - PC2014-***
("SEIR 346"), certified in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update program, is all that is
necessary in connection with the Proposed Project and its approval and that none of the
conditions set forth in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for the
preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report or a supplement to SEIR 346 have
occurred; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request to permit the Proposed Project, with
incorporation of the following described modifications, does find and determine the following
facts:
SECTION NO. 18.06.090.040 Minimum Landscape Setback
adjacent to a single-family
residential zone.
(10 feet required; 5 feet proposed).
SECTION NO. 18.06.090.050 Minimum Setback distance between
buildings.
(40 feet required; 24 to 34 feet
proposed for 5 of the 13 buildings).
1. The proposed conditional use permit is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized under the Code;
2. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because, with the
exception of the proposed modifications, the Proposed Project will conform with the uses and
requirements of the "RM-3" Multiple-Family Residential Zone designation under Chapter 18.06
(Multiple-Family Residential Zone) of the Code and provide a compatible Lincoln Avenue street
frontage as related to the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings. Furthermore,
the Proposed Project will further the goal of the General Plan to provide a variation of residential
style and dwelling units along a major arterial while providing privacy, security, and visual
interest;
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or
health and safety because the construction of condominium units with modified landscape
setback and building separations provides adequate structural separation, enhanced landscape
screening within the perimeter setback area of the Proposed Project and adjacent to the buildings
with reduced distance separations;
4. The traffic generated by the proposed 76-unit condominium project will not
impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the
traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic
planned for the streets and highways in the area. Further, adequate vehicular and pedestrian
ingress and egress is provided via two vehicular drive-way entrances for the Proposed Project
from Lincoln Avenue and pedestrian access into and throughout the Proposed Project is provided
via a network of interconnected sidewalks and paseos; and
- 3 - PC2014-***
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission does
hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2013-05687, subject to and contingent upon the
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17657, now pending, and upon satisfaction of the
conditions of approval described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the
Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions of approval may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of
approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i)
equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the conditions,
(ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant
progress toward establishment of the use or approved development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations
on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be
processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and
18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal
Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes
approval of the Proposed Project only to the extent that it complies with the Zoning Code of the
City of Anaheim and any other applicable City, State and Federal 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's
compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition,
or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be
deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of January 13, 2014. Said Resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in
Chapter 18.60 (Zoning Provisions - General) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and
may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 4 - PC2014-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim
City Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 5 - PC2014-***
- 6 - PC2014-***
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013-05687
(DEV2013-00083)
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
GENERAL
1 An address monument and/or complex map should be positioned
to be readable from the main vehicular or pedestrian access
point(s) without causing vehicular stacking. It should be
illuminated during the hours of darkness.
Police
Department
2 Each individual building and unit should be clearly marked with
its appropriate building number and address. These should be
positioned so they are easily viewed from vehicular and
pedestrian pathways throughout the complex. Main building
numbers should be a minimum height of 12” and illuminated
during the hours of darkness.
Police
Department
3 All exterior doors shall have adequate security hardware, e.g.
deadbolt locks. Locks shall be so constructed that both the
deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action
of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece.
Police
Department
4 Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be designed
into all dwelling-unit front doors and all solid doors where
exterior visibility is compromised.
Police
Department
5 Adequate lighting of parking lots and associated carports,
circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and grounds
contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of
sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make
clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure
environment for all persons, property, and vehicles on-site.
Police
Department
6 All pole lighting shall be down-lit so not to illuminate onto
adjacent residential properties. Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
7 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrances of parking
lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must
be at least 2’ x 1’ in overall size, with white background and black
2” lettering.
Police
Department
8 All entrances to parking areas should be posted with appropriate
signs per 22658(a) C.V.C. to assist in removal of vehicles at the Police
- 7 - PC2014-***
NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW
BY
SIGNED
OFF BY
property owner’s/manager’s request. Department
9 Emergency vehicular access shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with Fire Department Specifications and
Requirements.
Police
Department
10 On-going during project operation, no required parking areas shall
be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Planning
Department,
Code
Enforcement
Division
11 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively
referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from
any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against
Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the
decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the
proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to
the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or
validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s
indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to,
damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by
Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including
without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and
expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such
proceeding.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
12 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the
processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of
the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of
building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure
to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required
permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this
application.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
13 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the
applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Division
and as conditioned herein.
Planning
Department,
Planning
Services
Division
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
SHEET
T1
DEVELOPER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER
KTGY Group, Inc .
17922 Fitch
Irvine, California 92614
ktgy.com
949 851 2133
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2013
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657
City of Anaheim
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SITE PLAN
SHEET
C3
EXISTING RESIDENTIALON LARCH STREET6" TO 18" BELOWPROJECT SITEPROPERTY LINEPROJECT BUILDINGNARROW UPRIGHT TREETO SCREEN BUILDING8' HIGH BLOCK WALLPERIMETER/ PARKINGLOT TREE WITHSHRUBSINTERIOR ALLEYEXISTING TREELINE OF SIGHTEXISTING RESIDENTIALON CEDAR STREET6" TO 18" BELOW PROJECT SITELINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINEPROJECT BUILDINGUPRIGHT EVERGREENTREE TO SCREENBUILDING8' HIGH BLOCK WALLPERIMETER/PARKINGLOT TREE WITHSHRUBSINTERIOR ALLEYEXISTING TREELINE OF SIGHTEXISTING RESIDENTIALON EVERGREEN STREET6" TO 12" ABOVEPROJECT SITE8' HIGH BLOCK WALLINTERIOR STREETPROPERTY LINEPERIMETER/PARKINGLOT TREE WITH SHRUBSPROJECT BUILDINGUPRIGHT EVERGREENTREE TO SCREENBUILDING5'18'-0"FINGER PLANTER26'-0"4'EXISTING HOUSE SET BACK VARIES(22'-48')LINCOLN SQUARE - 76 DWELLING UNITSLENNAR HOMES of CALIFORNIA04'8'16'NOVEMBER 19, 2013SCALE: 1" = 8'-0"PREPARED BY:CLARK & GREEN ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET L-2ELEVATION 'A'ELEVATION 'B'ELEVATION 'C'5'-0"LANDSCAPESETBACK18'-0"FINGER PLANTER26'-0"6'-0"PLANTINGEXISTING HOUSE SET BACK VARIES(22'-48')5'-0"LANDSCAPESETBACK'18'-0"FINGER PLANTER26'-0"4'SIDEWALKEXISTING HOUSE SET BACK VARIES(22'-48')6'-0"PLANTING5'LANDSCAPESETBACK'18'-0"FINGER PLANTER26'-0"4'SIDEWALKEXISTING HOUSE SET BACK VARIES(22'-48')55'-0" BUILDING SETBACK59'-0"(MIN. 55'-0" BUILDING SETBACK)61'-0"(MIN. 55'-0" BUILDING SETBACK)J:\P13\13-098 Lincoln Townhouse\Design Exhibits\Lincoln Sq. Landscape Exhibit_11-18-13.dwg, 11/19/2013 10:20:56 AM, 1:12 ATTACHMENT NO. 6
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17657
City of Anaheim
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
SITE PLAN
SHEET
C3
136'-10"36'-0"40'-4"136'-10"38'-0"136'-10"40'-0"138'-10"ScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comFirst FloorPlan 2Plan 1Plan 4Plan 1Plan 2Plan 3Plan 3Plan 2Plan 1Plan 2Plan 1Plan 4Plan 3Plan 2Plan 1Plan 2Plan 1Plan 4Second FloorThird FloorRoof Plan0 4 8163:12 Roof Pitch16" Overhang Typ.
ScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com1. Right Elevation2. Front ElevationKey Map n.t.s.152Key Map n.t.s.16430 2 48Matchline2. Front Elevation12 DECORATIVEGABLE END VENTSMaterial Legend1. Stucco, Light Sand Finish2. Metal Railing3. Vinyl Window4. Composite Shutter5. Concrete "S" Tile Roof6. Plaster Finish Trim or Similar7. Metal Decorative Accent8. Light Fixture9. Wainscot10. Corbel11. Fiberglass Entry Doors(Varying Panel Design as Shown12. Decorative Gable End Vents13. Address Sign14. Utility Cabinet Door(Flat Panel Paint to Match Adjacent Surface)15. Gutters & Down Spouts16. Metal Sectional Garage Door7Matchline 12141598112104
ScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.com1. Left Elevation2. Rear ElevationKey Map n.t.s.211Key Map n.t.s.6502482. Rear ElevationMatchline
Matchline
154Material Legend1. Stucco, Light Sand Finish2. Metal Railing3. Vinyl Window4. Composite Shutter5. Concrete "S" Tile Roof6. Plaster Finish Trim or Similar7. Metal Decorative Accent8. Light Fixture9. Wainscot10. Corbel11. Fiberglass Entry Doors(Varying Panel Design as Shown12. Decorative Gable End Vents13. Address Sign14. Utility Cabinet Door(Flat Panel Paint to Match Adjacent Surface)15. Gutters & Down Spouts16. Metal Sectional Garage Door1316986312229104
22'-0"29'-6"WICMasterBathDnBed 211'-9"x10'-0"Bath2MasterBed12'-4"x12'-9"Lin.Roof BelowRoof Below22'-0"34'-0"UpKitchenGreatRoom17'-0"x21'-11"Balcony10'-0"x5'-0"Pan.Pwdr.Coat22'-0"34'-0"EntryGarage21'-5"x20'-3"Den12'-5"x12'-6"TrashRecycleScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comFirst FloorPlan 12 BEDROOM+DEN / 2.5 BATH1,482 SQ. FT. NETSecond FloorThird Floor0 2 48ATTACHMENT NO. 7
22'-0"33'-2"Lin.MasterBed12'-1"x13'-6"WICMasterBathRoof BelowBed 211'-7"x12'-4"Bath 2DnLin.22'-0"36'-6"UpLau.DnGreatRoom15'-2"x22'-4"Balcony10'-9"x4'-7"Pan.CoatPwdr.Kitchen22'-0"36'-6"EntryGarage21'-5"x20'-1"Den11'-4"x9'-5"WICBath 3TrashRecycleScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comFirst FloorPlan 22 BEDROOM+DEN / 3.0 BATH1,673 SQ. FT. NETSecond FloorThird Floor0 248
24'-0"MasterBed12'-6"x12'-7"WICMasterBathRoof BelowBed 211'-6"x12'-3"Bath 2DnLau.Lin.38'-0"24'-0"KitchenLivingRoom17'-3"x16'-4"Balcony11'-3"x4'-8"CoatPan.Pwdr.DiningRoom11'-3"x17'-2"40'-4"24'-0"EntryGarage21'-5"x20'-4"UpBed 310'-3"x10'-2"Bath 336'-0"UTILITYCABINET(WHEREOCCURS)TrashRecycleScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comFirst FloorPlan 33 BEDROOM+DEN / 3.5 BATH1,804 SQ. FT. NETSecond FloorThird Floor0 248
24'-0"40'-0"MasterBed14'-6"x12'-5"MasterBathBed 310'-11"x10'-2"Bath 2WICBed 210'-2"x10'-2"Lau.24'-0"40'-0"UpKitchenGreatRoom17'-5"x28'-3"Balcony6'-2"x10'-2"CoatPan.Pwdr.DnMorningRoom9'-8"x10'-8"24'-0"36'-0"EntryGarage21'-5"x20'-4"UpBed 410'-2"x12'-2"Bath 4UTILITYCABINET(WHEREOCCURS)TrashRecycleScaleArchitecture+Planning17922 FitchIrvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comFirst FloorPlan 44 BEDROOM+DEN / 3.5 BATH2,034 SQ. FT. NETSecond FloorThird Floor0 248
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
PROJECT SUMMARY
Development Standard Proposed Project RM-3 Standards
Site Area 4.65 acres -
Site Area per Dwelling Unit 2,665 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft.
Density 16.4 du/ac 18 du/ac max.
Lot Width 578 feet 70 feet
Building Height 36 feet 40 feet
Floor Area Two Bedrooms: 1,482 - 1,673 sq. ft.
Three Bedrooms: 1,804 sq. ft.
Four Bedrooms: 2,034 sq. ft.
Two Bedrooms: 825 sq. ft.
Three Bedrooms: 1,000 sq. ft.
Four Bedrooms: 1,200 sq. ft.
Maximum Site Coverage 30% 45%
Required Structural Setback adjacent to
Single-Family Residential Zone
55 feet
55 feet
Required Landscape Setback 5 feet proposed 10 feet
Setbacks Between Buildings
Primary Wall Distance Separation
24-34 feet
40 feet
Setbacks Between Buildings
Secondary Wall Distance Separation
30+ feet 15 feet
Recreational Leisure Area 444 sq. ft./du 350 sq. ft./du
Parking
26 - 2 Bedroom Units
37 - 3 Bedroom Units
13 - 4 Bedroom Units
76 Total Bedrooms
2.25 spaces per unit and 3.0 space for 3
bedrooms units
0.5 space for each bedroom over 3
235 spaces
197 spaces required
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
ITEM NO. 11
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 13, 2014
SUBJECT: UPDATE TO THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
LOCATION: Citywide
REQUEST: This is a City-initiated request to amend the City’s General Plan by
updating its Housing Element for the 2014-2021 planning period.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
the attached resolution determining that previously-certified Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report No. 346 is the appropriate environmental
documentation for this request and recommending City Council approval of General
Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Element is a required element of the City’s General
Plan that addresses the housing needs of current and future Anaheim residents. It is
the only General Plan element that requires review and certification by the State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The
Housing Element analyzes the City’s housing needs, in the context of available
resources and existing constraints, and includes policies to meet these needs. The
current Housing Element was approved by the City Council on August 11, 2009, and
provides housing policy for the 2006-2014 planning period. In the past, State law
required that Housing Elements be updated every four years. However, recent
changes to the law extended the planning period to an eight year cycle, provided that
a city’s Housing Element is adopted by February 12, 2014. If adopted after this
deadline, then a city must revert back to a four year review cycle.
In September 2012, the City retained the services of RBF Consulting to assist in the
preparation of the Housing Element update. In spring 2013, the City commenced an
extensive public outreach effort that included a series of public workshops. Notices
for these workshops were published in a local newspaper and prominently posted at
City Hall and at local libraries. The workshops were also publicized to each of the
City’s four Neighborhood Councils and through various local service and religious
organizations. In addition, organizations that represent the interests of lower income
and special needs households, or are otherwise involved in the development of
affordable housing, were invited to participate in the public workshops. Workshop
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
January 13, 2014
Page 2 of 5
notices and materials were provided in both English and Spanish. The Planning Department also
created a Housing Element web page that included an on-line survey that allowed the community to
share its thoughts and ideas on a wide variety of housing-related issues. Input was also gathered at
other community events including the annual Cinco de Mayo festival held at La Palma Park and the
West Anaheim BBQ held at Twila Reid Park.
In March 2013, the City Council appointed a 10-member Housing Element ad hoc committee. Each
Councilmember appointed one Anaheim resident and one stakeholder, who need not reside in the
City, to the Committee. The Committee met several times over nine months and was tasked with
reviewing and providing comments on the entire draft Housing Element.
In September 2013, the City Council reviewed the Element’s draft policy program and authorized
transmittal of the Draft 2014-2021 Housing Element to HCD for its review. During the months of
November and December 2013, the City and its consultant worked with HCD to demonstrate the
document’s compliance with State law. Following its review of the Draft Housing Element, HCD
commended the City for its ongoing efforts towards facilitating the construction of affordable
housing for extremely-low income households and for special needs households. HCD also praised
the City for its efforts to promote affordable in-fill development through the recent adoption of the
Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone and by streamlining its environmental review and
permitting processes.
On December 2, 2013, HCD issued a letter indicating that the Draft Housing Element complies with
all State law requirements. This letter is included as Attachment 2 to this report. The remaining
steps necessary to achieve full HCD certification involve Planning Commission and City Council
review and approval of the General Plan Amendment necessary to adopt the 2014-2021 Housing
Element.
PROPOSAL: The requested General Plan Amendment is proposed to replace the current Housing
Element with the 2014-2021 Housing Element. The Draft Housing Element is organized into four
chapters and four appendices described as follows:
• Chapter 1: Introduction - Explains the purpose, process and contents of the Housing Element.
• Chapter 2: Housing Needs - Describes the demographic, economic and housing characteristics
of Anaheim, as well as the current and projected housing needs.
• Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints - Analyzes existing and potential governmental and non-
governmental constraints to the maintenance, preservation, conservation and development of
housing.
• Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program – Includes detailed policies and programs the City will
implement during the planning period to address the City’s housing goals.
• Appendix A: Community Outreach - Describes the citizen participation efforts used to gather
input for the Housing Element, including the efforts of the Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee.
• Appendix B: Residential Land Resources - Analyzes the City’s ability to meet Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations and preserve government assisted affordable
housing.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
January 13, 2014
Page 3 of 5
• Appendix C: Review of 2006-2014 Housing Element Performance - Evaluates the City’s
progress in implementing the goals and policies of the 2006-2014 Housing Element.
• Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms - Provides definitions for the certain terms used in the
Housing Element.
ANALYSIS: The State Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for projecting statewide
housing demand, with HCD apportioning this demand to each of the state’s regions. The Southern
California Council of Governments (SCAG), in cooperation with the various sub-regional councils
of governments, allocates the region’s projected housing to each jurisdiction. This process is called
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City of Anaheim’s RHNA allocation for
the 2014-2021 planning period is 5,702 units broken down into the following income categories:
Income Category Income Range
Anaheim Regional
Share Allocation
(Dwelling Units)
Extremely-Low
Income 0-30% MFI* <$25,590 628**
Very-Low Income 30%-50% MFI* $25,590-$42,650 1,256
Low Income 51%-80% MFI* $42,651-$68,240 907
Moderate Income 81%-120% MFI* $68,241-$102,360 1,038
Above-Moderate
Income > 120% MFI* >$102,360 2,501
*MFI Median Family Income ($85,300 for Orange County - 2012)
**50% of the units allocated to the very-low income category must be affordable to extremely low income
households (households with incomes less than 30% of the Median Family Income)
State law requires that a city demonstrate it has adequate sites to meet its allocations. An analysis
of land resources must be completed that takes into consideration zoning, development standards,
and the availability of public services and facilities to accommodate a variety of housing types and
incomes. The City must demonstrate that it has capacity or adequate sites to accommodate
projected need for housing. It is not required to ensure that these units are built. The City is only
required to ensure that the tools and policies are in place to allow such housing to be developed by
the private market during the planning period. Through its review of the Draft Housing Element,
HCD has determined that the City has satisfied this requirement, largely as a result of the recently
completed Residential Opportunities Overlay Zone program. This program allows housing
development “by-right” on over 200 parcels throughout the City at densities suitable to
accommodate both market rate and affordable housing.
In addition to providing adequate sites, the City has a clearly demonstrated record of success in
providing financial assistance, incentives, and programs to encourage and assist in the development
of housing for lower and moderate income households. As indicated in the Draft Housing Element,
the City met or exceeded its stated affordable housing production goals, or Quantified Objective,
during the 2006-2014 Planning Period. The Quantified Objective represents the number of housing
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
January 13, 2014
Page 4 of 5
units, per income category, that the City believes can be built during the planning period given its
anticipated resources and constraints. For example, in the Extremely Low Income category, the
City exceeded its goal by 335 units with a total of 455 units produced. In the Very-Low and Low
Income categories, the City came close to meeting its goal of 668 units with the construction of 661
units.
Although the City’s housing production efforts were impressive during the last planning period, the
demise of Redevelopment in California has significantly degraded the City’s ability to assist in the
production of affordable housing. However, the City will continue its efforts to seek new
alternative funding or financing mechanisms in the absence of Redevelopment funding. Given the
City’s limited available financial resources, it is expected that up to 710 affordable housing units
and 3,507 market rate units can be developed during the 2014-2021 Planning Period. The City’s
Quantified Objective for the 2014-2021 Planning Period is illustrated in the following chart:
2014-2021 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE
Income Category Income Range Dwelling Units
Extremely-Low
Income 0-30% MFI* <$25,590 146*
Very-Low Income 30%-50% MFI* $25,590-$42,650 292
Low Income 51%-80% MFI* $42,651-$68,240 378
Moderate Income 81%-120% MFI* $68,241-$102,360 40
Above-Moderate
Income > 120% MFI* >$102,360 3,507
*50% of the units allocated to the very-low income category must be affordable to extremely low income
households (households with incomes less than 30% of the Median Family Income)
The Housing Element’s policy program, included in Chapter 4 of the document, includes several
key strategies aimed at ensuring that the City is able to address its housing needs. Key strategies
include the following:
• Strategy 1A: The City will continue to explore alternative funding and financing mechanisms
on an on-going basis with an annual review of its efforts.
• Strategy 1B: The City will re-evaluate its expedited processing program for affordable housing
development, aimed at reducing housing production costs, by January 1, 2015 and implement
any necessary process refinements by June 30, 2015.
• Strategy 1L: The City will re-evaluate its emergency shelter and transitional/supportive
housing zoning standards by January 1, 2015 and implement any necessary refinements by June
30, 2015.
• Strategy 1M: The City will re-examine its residential development standards, entitlement
processes and fees to ensure their reasonableness and effectiveness in support of future
residential development by December 31, 2014.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489
January 13, 2014
Page 5 of 5
• Strategy 2D: The City will re-assess its list of Priority III and IV neighborhoods to ensure that
these neighborhoods remain properly classified. In addition, the City will seek to identify other
neighborhoods that are exhibiting blight, or that have the potential to become blighted, for
potential inclusion on the priority lists associated with the Neighborhood Improvement Program.
This effort is to be completed January 2015.
Public Comments: The Kennedy Commission, a non-profit organization that advocates for the housing
needs of Orange County’s lower income residents, has submitted two comment letters on the Draft
Housing Element. These letters, dated October 29 and December 16, 2013, are included as Attachments
3 and 4 to this report. The letters request a number of revisions and clarifications to the Draft Housing
Element. Kennedy Commission staff was invited to attend the December 5, 2013 Housing Element Ad
Hoc Committee meeting to share its comments. At the meeting, Kennedy Commission staff requested
that the Housing Element Policy Program be amended to include a commitment to renew Anaheim’s
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. This plan, which was initially adopted by the City Council in 2005
and renewed in 2009, was primarily aimed at producing new affordable rental and for-sale housing units
and rehabilitating existing affordable rental units. The construction and rehabilitation targets set by the
Strategic Plan were funded nearly exclusively by Redevelopment Housing Set Aside funds. Because
such funds no longer exist, the Strategic Plan is no longer being implemented. The Ad Hoc Committee
did not believe it was appropriate to recommend renewal of the Strategic Plan because its primary
funding source no longer exists. The Kennedy Commission also discussed its recommendation that the
City commit to utilizing the limited funding sources that still do exist for affordable housing, including
Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, or SERAF, for the production of extremely-low
income affordable rental housing. However, the Ad Hoc Committee determined that the allocation of
these limited funds should not be committed to one housing program and that decisions on where to
spend these limited funds in the future should be left to the discretion of the City’s policy makers when,
and if, such funding becomes available. Following the Kennedy Commission’s presentation, the Ad Hoc
Committee determined that it would be appropriate for the organization’s concerns to be communicated
to the City Council and took no action to further amend the Draft Housing Element. Minutes from the
December 5 Ad Hoc Committee meeting are included as Attachment 5.
CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval
of the requested General Plan Amendment. The Draft Housing Element effectively analyzes and
addresses the City’s housing needs for the 2014-2021 planning period. The policies contained within the
document reflect the City’s continued commitment towards promoting the development of housing to
meet the needs of all economic segments of the community in light of available funding resources.
Prepared by, Submitted by,
Andy Nogal Jonathan E. Borrego
Associate Planner Acting Planning Services Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. December 2, 2013 HCD Letter
3. Kennedy Commission Comments Letter Dated 10-29-13
4. Kennedy Commission Comments Letter Dated 12-16-13
5. Ad Hoc Committee Minutes for the Meeting on 12-5-13
The following attachments were provided to the Planning Commission and are available for public review
at the Planning Department at City Hall or on the City of Anaheim’s web site at
www.anaheim.net/planning.
6. Draft 2014-2021 Housing Element
[DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1
-1- PC2014-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2014-***
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DETERMINING THAT A PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2012-00346 IS THE APPROPRIATE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2013-00489 PERTAINING
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Council did adopt the Anaheim General Plan by Resolution No.
69R-644, showing the general description and extent of possible future development within the City;
and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is one of the seven General Plan elements mandated by the
State of California, as articulated in Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government Code
(“State law”); and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element identifies and analyzes existing and projected housing needs
and includes a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement and development of housing for all economic segments of the community;
and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2009, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2009-141, adopted
the current Housing Element, prepared for the 2006-2014 planning period; and
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the City Council, by its Resolution No. 2004-95, adopted a
comprehensive update of the Anaheim General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element,
which is required to be updated within the timeframes established by State law; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 proposes to amend the current
Housing Element in its entirety with the 2014-2021 Housing Element, as required by State law; and,
WHEREAS, the Housing Element is the only General Plan element that requires review and
certification by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD);
and,
WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the City Council approved transmittal of the of the Draft
2014-2021 Housing Element to HCD for its review; and,
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2013, HCD issued a letter indicating that the Draft Housing
Element complies with all State law requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Section 18.68.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires the Planning
Commission to either submit a recommendation for approval of said General Plan to the City Council,
or disapprove the amendment; and,
-2- PC2014-***
WHEREAS, before the Anaheim City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission")
recommends approval of any General Plan amendment, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence
presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) The proposed amendment maintains the internal consistency of the General Plan;
(b) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City;
(c) The proposed amendment would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and
(d) If the amendment is to the General Plan Land Use Map, the subject property is
physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modification including, but not limited to, access,
physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center, Council
Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on January 13, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against General Plan Amendment No.
2013-00489, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and
study made by itself, and after due consideration of, and based upon, all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, does hereby find:
1. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 amendment maintains the
internal consistency of the General Plan, as the proposed modifications to the General Plan are
consistent with General Plan goals related to housing and does not require any amendments to any of
the other General Plan elements and will serve the City’s growing population with future in-fill
residential development; and,
2. That proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 would not be detrimental to
the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City in that the proposed amendment
would provide housing policy, in compliance with State law, to meet the housing needs for all
economic segments of the community for the 2014-2021 planning period; and
3. That proposed t General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 would not amend the
General Plan Land Use Map; and, therefore, does not alter the balance of land uses as currently
identified in the General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed proposed General Plan Amendment No.
2013-00489 and does hereby find that the previously-certified Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report No. 2012-00346 ("FSEIR No. 346") is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation in connection with proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 upon finding
-3- PC2014-***
that FSEIR No. 346 reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered
FSEIR No. 346 together with any comments received during the public review process and further
finding on the basis of FSEIR No. 346and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that t proposed General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489 will have a significant effect on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the above findings, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Anaheim approve
General Plan Amendment No. 2013-00489, thereby amending the Housing Element of the General
Plan in its entirety with the City of Anaheim 2014-2021 Housing Element, dated December 2013, a
copy of which is on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting
of January 13, 2014. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60,
“Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures.
CHAIR, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City
Planning Commission held on January 13, 2014, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of January, 2014.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Thursday, December 5, 2013
6:30 P.M.
City Hall - Helena Room
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Thursday,
December 5, 2013 at 6:30 pm at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 7:32 pm.
Present: Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, Mike Balsamo, Phyllis Greenberg, Grant
Henninger, Je’net Kreitner, and Greg McCafferty
Absent: Kelly Buffa, Kandis Richardson, John Leos, and John O’Brien
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner Andy Nogal, and
Community Development Director John Woodhead
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman
Public Comments
Motion by Committee Member McCafferty to move public comments to after the discussion
items on the agenda since no public was present at this time. Committee Member Kreitner
seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of August 27, 2013
Committee Member Henninger motioned to approve the minutes for the August 27, 2013
meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Committee Member Abdulrahman and
carried unanimously.
Discussion Items
1. Review of Comments/Response from HCD Review
Mr. Barquist provided an overview of the HCD review process that followed the last Ad Hoc
Committee meeting. The City Council approved transmittal of the draft Housing Element to
the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on September 24,
2013. HCD reviewed the document from October 3 to December 2, 2013. City staff had
telephone and email conversations with HCD staff during the review period and revised the
draft Housing Element based on HCD’s comments. The City received a letter of substantial
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
2
compliance from HCD on December 2, 2013. A summary of HCD’s comments and the
changes to the draft document were provided on the screen for the Committee.
2. Review of Comments/Response from third party commenters
The City received a comment letter from the Kennedy Commission during the HCD review
period. Copies of the letter were provided to the Committee.
Mr. Barquist commented that item number 2 in the letter from the Kennedy Commission
discussed allocation of funds, but given the fluid nature of the funding environment it may be
premature for the City to allocate funds. Rather, the City could outreach to third parties when
the funding allocation process is underway and ask for input on identifying community
needs.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if formal action was needed to address the third party
comments. Mr. Barquist responded that the Committee members could make comments on
the draft policy program in response to third party comments if they wish.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the comments from the Kennedy Commission
have been incorporated into the draft Housing Element or if the comments would be for
future action. Mr. Barquist responded that the comments are not reflected specifically in the
document, but that City staff reviewed and considered the comments.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if HCD considered the Kennedy Commission’s
comment letter prior to providing the City with the letter of substantial compliance. Mr.
Barquist responded that HCD did receive the comment letter and discussed the comments
with City staff.
Motion by Committee Member Kreitner to close the discussion and ask for public comments.
The motion was seconded by Committee Member Henninger and carried.
Mr. Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director of the Kennedy Commission, commended the Ad
Hoc Committee for its work on the Housing Element. He asked to clarify some of the items
in the Kennedy Commission letter and suggested ways in which Ad Hoc Committee
members could make recommendations about policies to the City Council. Mr. Covarrubias
asked the Committee to recommend to the City Council that SERAF and boomerang funds
that were previously allocated for affordable housing when the Redevelopment Agency was
in place be reallocated for affordable housing.
Committee Member Balsamo asked if the boomerang fund amounts would be provided to
the City Council in the future and if they would be provided with a comparison to the
previous RDA funds. Community Development Director Woodhead said there is a trust fund
that the tax increment goes in to and the Successor Agency requests these funds based on
a recognized obligation schedule. If there is residual after debt is paid, the funds are treated
like a regular property tax distribution to all taxing entities and there is no housing set-aside.
Committee Member Henninger asked how much money would potentially come back to the
City. Community Development Director Woodhead said that the Successor Agency has
been using all of the available trust fund monies to date. In the future there will be some
amount that comes back to the City, but not in the millions of dollars.
3
Committee Member Henninger asked what the terms are for the outstanding debt.
Community Development Director Woodhead responded that some of the debt is short-term
and some has terms of 15 to 20 years.
Committee Member Henninger asked what entity is responsible for the bonded debt.
Committee Member Woodhead said it is a debt out of the Redevelopment Agency that will
be paid out of the tax increment.
Committee Member Henninger asked if the amount of former tax increment returning to the
City within the Housing Element planning period could be estimated. Community
Development Director Woodhead said he could not estimate that amount because of current
litigation that may not be resolved.
Committee Member Henninger asked what happens to the money in the trust fund while
litigation is ongoing. Community Development Director Woodhead said the money is
distributed.
Committee Member McCafferty asked to clarify if the money from the trust fund was
unencumbered after paying off outstanding debt. Community Development Director
Woodhead said yes.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if the City Council could choose to put the money
towards affordable housing. Community Development Director Woodhead said the money
would flow into the general fund and then be allocated by the City Council.
Committee Member McCafferty said he would not want to make a recommendation to the
City Council about funding at this time.
Mr. Covarrubias said he understood the comments. He commented that cities without a
strategy for spending the leftover money have less of a chance to keep the money. He
noted that the City of Anaheim previously had an affordable housing strategic plan and
recommended that this be documented in the Housing Element.
Committee Member Balsamo suggested that the Committee does not formally recommend
changes to the City Council, but that the staff report reflects reallocation of the boomerang
funds for affordable housing as an option for implementation. Mr. Barquist said this could be
added to the staff report in discussions related to Strategy 1A in the Housing Element.
Community Development Director Woodhead said new legislation, SB 341, will go into effect
on January 1, 2014 and will require a low/moderate housing fund be created using the
assets that were transferred to the housing successor agency and proceeds from those
assets.
Mr. Covarrubias suggested that SB 341 and other programs be discussed in the Housing
Element as options for decision makers.
Committee Member Henninger suggested that a strategy to explore funding affordable
housing as property tax revenue increases from the tax increment be added to the Housing
Element. Committee Member Kreitner agreed.
4
Committee Member McCafferty asked if Staff felt this strategy should be added to the
Housing Element. Principal Planner Borrego said Staff felt the issue was addressed, but that
the Committee could make changes at its pleasure.
Committee Member Balsamo motioned to recommend these items be communicated to the
City Council in the staff report or oral presentation, but that changes to the Housing Element
should not be made at this point. Committee Member McCafferty seconded the motion.
Committee Member Henninger commented that providing the information in the staff report
and presentation to the current City Council will not ensure future City Council members are
aware of it. He suggested that the Housing Element include discussion and a strategy.
Committee Member Balsamo said he would not want to bind future City Councils to a
strategy when there may be other priorities.
Committee Member McCafferty said he would be cautious in adding in a strategy at the last
minute and felt that the City Council would have flexibility to address the issue with the
current draft Housing Element. Committee Member Greenberg agreed.
Committee Member Balsamo withdrew his motion to allow for additional public comment.
Mr. Covarrubias commented that the Kennedy Commission did not receive a written
response from the City to their letter dated October 29, 2013. Committee Member Henninger
noted that he did meet with the Kennedy Commission early on in the Housing Element
update process to hear their concerns and ideas.
Mr. Covarrubias noted that the Kennedy Commission was present at other public meetings
and that the letter from HCD says the City should continue to engage the community
throughout the Housing Element process. The intent of the Kennedy Commission was not to
have dialogue only at the end of the process. He also noted that the letter provides
examples of language used in other cities in their Housing Elements. He noted that the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan was an important document and included housing for
moderate income families as well as lower income families. He said the City has been
successful in providing incentives for developers, including density bonuses.
Committee Member Greenberg asked if the Kennedy Commission would be advocating for
a waiver for more density.
Associate Planner Nogal said many of the affordable housing projects in Anaheim have not
asked for a density bonus, but have taken advantage of the other incentives in the City’s
program. Principal Planner Borrego said many projects utilize the parking reductions.
Mr. Covarrubias requested that the City look at the Platinum Triangle and other areas for
opportunities for affordable housing.
Mr. Barquist closed the public comments and asked for Committee comments.
Committee Member Greenberg expressed concerns about making last minute changes to
the document. She commented that affordable and quality housing for the whole community
is important.
5
Committee Member McCafferty noted that the density bonus requirements are part of state
law. He said he supported having the additional information about funding in the staff report.
Committee Member Abdulrahman said the Committee should not rush and should consider
reasonable recommendations.
Principal Planner Borrego said the Kennedy Commission correspondence and the minutes
from tonight’s meeting will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council when
they review the Housing Element.
Committee Member Kreitner said she was glad that the correspondence would be provided
to the Planning Commission and City Council and that she did not want the Housing
Element process to extend out longer. Committee Member Balsamo, Greenberg and
McCafferty agreed.
It was determined that there was no need for a recommendation or motion from the
Committee.
Public Comments
There were no additional public comments and no additional members of the public present.
Next Steps
Principal Planner Borrego announced that the Planning Commission will review the Housing
Element and be asked to take action on it at their meeting on January 13, 2014. The City
Council hearing is scheduled to occur in February. City staff will email the dates to the
Committee.
Principal Planner Borrego thanked the Committee on behalf of the City.
Adjournment
Mr. Barquist adjourned the meeting at 8:42 pm.
2014-2021
Housing Element
Public Review Draft
December 2013
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Table of Contents
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………… 1-1
A. Purpose and Content………………………………………………….. 1-2
B. Housing Element Update Process…………………………………….. 1-2
C. State Law and Local Planning………………………………………... 1-2
1. Consistency with State Law………………………………… 1-2
2. General Plan Consistency…………………………………… 1-4
3. Relationship to Other Plans and Programs………………….. 1-4
D. Housing Element Organization………………………………………. 1-5
E. Citizen Participation………………………………………………….. 1-5
1. Community Workshops…………………………………….. 1-6
2. Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee………………………. 1-6
3. Other Community Outreach Activities……………………... 1-6
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis……………………………………………. 2-1
A. Introduction…………………………………………………………... 2-1
B. Community Profile…………………………………………………… 2-1
1. Population Trends and Characteristics……………………… 2-1
2. Employment Trends………………………………………… 2-5
3. Household Characteristics…………………………………... 2-7
4. Housing Inventory and Market Conditions…………………. 2-11
5. Housing Costs and Rents……………………………………. 2-18
C. Housing Needs………………………………………………………... 2-23
1. Households Overpaying for Housing & Overcrowding…….. 2-23
2. 2014-2021 Growth Needs…………………………………... 2-25
3. Special Needs Populations….………………………………. 2-26
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints Analysis………………………………. 3-1
A. Introduction…………………………………………………………... 3-1
B. Governmental Constraints and Resources……………………………. 3-1
1. Land Use Controls…………………………………………... 3-2
2. Density Bonus Ordinance…………………………………… 3-20
3. Senior Citizen Housing……………………………………... 3-26
4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing and Single-Room
Occupancy Units…………………………………………….
3-27
5. Second Dwelling Units……………………………………… 3-34
6. Housing for Persons with Disabilities………………………. 3-34
7. Building Codes and Enforcement…………………………... 3-36
8. Development Fees…………………………………………... 3-38
Housing Element
Table of Contents
ii PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
9. Local Processing and Permit Procedures…………………… 3-40
10. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints…………….. 3-42
11. Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 3-45
12. Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Program……………………………………………………
3-45
13. Developer Incentive Programs...……………..……………. 3-47
14. On and Off-Site Improvements………………….………… 3-48
15. Energy Conservation…..…………………………………... 3-49
B. Non-Governmental Constraints………………………………………. 3-50
1. Vacant and Underutilized Land……………………………... 3-50
2. Land Prices………………………………………………….. 3-50
3. Construction Costs………………………………………….. 3-50
4. Financing……………………………………………………. 3-51
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program…………………………………………… 4-1
A. Key Policy Considerations…………………………………………… 4-2
B. Guiding Principles……………………………………………………. 4-4
C. Housing Strategy Areas………………………………………………. 4-5
D. Quantified Objectives………………………………………………… 4-26
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary………………………………... A-1
A. Introduction…………………………………………………………... A-1
B. Farmer’s Market ……………………………....................................... A-2
C. Workshop Series #1.………………………………………………….. A-3
D. Workshop Series #2…………………………………………………... A-7
E. Cinco De Mayo Outreach Event……………………………………… A-13
F. Wand Barbecue Outreach Event……………………………………… A-16
G. Housing Element Online Survey Summary………………………….. A-18
Appendix A-1: Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee Minutes………………. A1-1
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources……………………………………... B-1
A. Adequate Sites Analysis……………………………………………… B-1
1. Capacity to Meet Regional Share Goals……………………. B-2
B. Preservation of Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion……………….. B-12
1. Inventory of At-Risk Units…………………………………. B-12
2. Cost of Preservation Versus Replacement………………….. B-15
Housing Element
Table of Contents
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 iii
Appendix B-1: Current Projects…….………………………………………….. B1-1
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites………………………………………………. B2-1
Appendix C: Review of 2006-2014 Housing Element Performance…………. C-1
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms……………………………………… D-1
Housing Element
Table of Contents
iv PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page was intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 1-1
DRAFT
DRAFT
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The 2014-2021 Housing Element provides for the identification and analysis of existing
and projected housing needs and articulates the City’s official policies for the
preservation, conservation, improvement and production of housing within the City of
Anaheim.
The City of Anaheim has taken many positive steps to facilitate the production of housing
to meet the needs of its diverse population. In 2004, the City adopted a comprehensive
update to its General Plan that created tremendous opportunities for additional residential
development. Not only were several hundred acres of the City re-designated for
residential development, but also several policies were adopted that serve collectively to
facilitate greatly various forms of infill residential development. For example, one of the
primary objectives of the updated General Plan is to provide additional land use options
for under-utilized strip retail sites along the City’s major right-of-way corridors by
redesignating much of the City’s mid-block retail sites to a variety of residential
designations. During the General Plan review process, the City simultaneously updated
its Zoning Code. Multiple-family zones were modified to better address the infill nature
of new multiple-family housing in Anaheim. Setbacks for multiple-family housing
adjacent to single-family areas, a situation which commonly exists in Anaheim, were
modified to provide for more design flexibility. In addition, the City increased the
permitted height of multi-family development beyond the historic 2-story limit.
In 2005, the City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan with a goal of
causing development of 1,328 affordable rental housing units by the end of 2009. Two
thirds of these units will target low and very-low income households. The City Council
subsequently increased the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan goal to 1,349 units. In October
2009, the City Council extended the Strategic Plan through 2014 and increased the goal
to 2,812 units. The City Council also diversified the Strategic Plan to include affordable
for-sale housing, rehabilitation of existing structures and preservation of “At-Risk” rental
housing. Since 2005, 1,511 new rental, for-sale and rehabilitation units have been
completed with another 655 in the development pipeline for a total of 2,166 affordable
units. The City was not mandated to create the strategic plan or set this housing
production goal. Instead, the City Council was proactive in addressing this issue in
response to its identified needs. In addition to building these units, the City has provided
other incentives to further encourage the development of affordable housing, such as a
new Density Bonus ordinance to implement updated State law effective in 2005 and an
expedited City review and entitlement process for affordable housing projects.
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
1-2
A. PURPOSE AND CONTENT
The City of Anaheim’s Housing Element is a required component of the City’s General
Plan that addresses adequate housing opportunities for present and future Anaheim
residents through 2021. The Housing Element provides the primary policy guidance for
local decision-making related to housing. The Housing Element is the only General Plan
Element that requires review and certification by the State of California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of Anaheim’s demographic, economic
and housing characteristics as required by California Government Code Section 65583,
et. seq. (“State Law”). The Housing Element also provides a comprehensive evaluation of
the City’s progress in implementing the past policy and action programs related to
housing production, preservation and conservation. Based on the community’s existing
housing needs, available resources, constraints and opportunities for housing production
and preservation and past performance, the Housing Element identifies goals, objectives
and action programs that address the housing needs of present and future residents.
B. HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESS
The California State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and
suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s main housing goal.
Recognizing the important role that local planning programs play in pursuit of this goal,
the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as
part of their comprehensive General Plans (California Government Code Section
65302(c)).
It is intended that this Housing Element be reviewed annually and updated and modified
not less than every eight years in order to remain relevant and useful and reflect the
community’s changing housing needs. This Housing Element covers the planning period
from October 2013 to October 2021. The time frame of the planning period is determined
by State law, which mandates that jurisdictions within the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) region update and adopt their Housing Element by
October 15, 2013. This document represents the update required and responds to the
issues that currently face the City.
C. STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING
1. Consistency with State Law
The Housing Element is one of the seven General Plan elements mandated by the State of
California, as articulated in Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government
Code. State Law requires that each jurisdiction’s Housing Element consist of “an
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 1-3
DRAFT
DRAFT
identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of
goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled program actions for the preservation,
improvement, and development of housing.” The Housing Element plans for the
provision of housing for all segments of the population.
Section 65583, et seq. of the Government Code sets forth specific requirements regarding
the scope and content of each Housing Element. Table 1-1 summarizes these
requirements and identifies the applicable sections in the Housing Element where these
requirements are addressed.
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
A. Housing Needs Assessment
1. Analysis of population trends in Anaheim in relation to
countywide trends
Chapter 2, Page 2-3
2. Analysis of employment trends in Anaheim in relation to
regional trends
Chapter 2, Page 2-5
3. Projections and quantification of Anaheim’s existing and
projected housing needs for all income groups
Chapter 2, Page 2-23
4. Analysis and documentation of Anaheim’s housing
characteristics, including:
Chapter 2
a. Overpayment Chapter 2, Page 2-23
b. Overcrowding Chapter 2, Page 2-24
c. Housing conditions Chapter 2, Page 2-16
5. Analysis of land suitable for residential development Appendix B, Page B-1
6. Analysis of governmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3, Page 3-1
7. Analysis of nongovernmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3, Page 3-49
8. Analysis of special housing needs Chapter 2, Page 2-26
9. Analysis of emergency shelters Chapter 3, Page 3-27
10. Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation Chapter 3, Page 3-48
11. Analysis of assisted housing developments that are
eligible to change from low income housing during the
next 10 years
Appendix B, Page B-12
B. Goals and Policies
12. Identification of Anaheim’s goals, quantified objectives
and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement and
development of housing
Chapter 4, Page 4-4
C. Implementation Program
13. Identification of adequate sites which will be made
available through appropriate action to accommodate a
variety of housing types for all income levels
Appendix B, Page B-1
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
1-4
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
14. Identification of programs to assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-
income households
Chapter 4, Page 4-4
15. Identification of opportunities to remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing
Chapter 4, Page 4-4
16. Identification of opportunities to remove constraints
and/or provide reasonable accommodations for housing
for persons with disabilities
Chapter 4, Page 4-8, 4-
17, 4-22
17. Identification of opportunities to conserve and improve
the condition of the existing affordable housing stock
Chapter 4, Page 4-14
18. Identification of programs to promote housing
opportunities for all persons
Chapter 4, Page 4-12
19. Identification of programs to address the potential
conversion of assisted housing development to market-rate
housing
Chapter 4, Page 4-14
2. General Plan Consistency
State Law requires internal consistency among the various elements of a General Plan.
Section 65300.5 of the Government Code states that the General Plan’s various elements
shall provide an integrated and internally consistent and compatible statement of policy.
City staff has reviewed the other elements of the General Plan and has determined that
this Housing Element provides consistency with the other elements of the General Plan.
The City will maintain this consistency as future General Plan amendments are processed
by evaluating proposed amendments for consistency with all elements of the General
Plan.
3. Relationship to Other Plans and Programs
The Housing Element identifies goals, objectives, policies and action programs for the
next eight years that directly address the housing needs of Anaheim. There are a number
of City plans and programs that work to implement the goals, policies, objectives and
action programs of the Housing Element. These include the City’s Municipal Code,
Specific Plans and Consolidated Plan.
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 1-5
DRAFT
DRAFT
D. HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION
The City of Anaheim Housing Element is organized into four parts:
• Chapter 1: Introduction. Explains the purpose, process and contents of the
Housing Element;
• Chapter 2: Housing Needs. Describes the demographic and economic and
housing characteristics of Anaheim as well as the current and projected housing
needs;
• Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints. Analyzes the actual and potential
governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance, preservation,
conservation and development of housing; and,
• Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program. Details specific policies and programs the
City of Anaheim will carry out, or cause to be carried out, over the planning
period to address the City’s housing goals.
Given the detail and lengthy analysis in developing the Housing Element, supp orting
background material is included in the following appendices:
• Appendix A: Community Outreach;
• Appendix B: Residential Land Resources;
• Appendix C: Review of 2006-2014 Housing Element Performance; and,
• Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms.
E. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
This Housing Element was developed through the combined efforts of City staff, the
Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee, the City's Planning Commission, the City’s
Housing and Community Development Commission, the City Council, the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority. Citizen input was received
through public workshops, an online survey, written comments received by City staff and
public testimony at the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee meetings. The notices for
these workshops were published in a local newspaper, prominently posted at City Hall
and on the City’s website, announced and provided to the Neighborhood Councils,
provided at City’s public libraries, and mailed to parties that had expressed an interest in
the Housing Element update. Notices and flyers were provided in both English and
Spanish. In addition, organizations that represent the interests of lower income and
special needs households, or are otherwise involved in the development of affordable
housing, were invited to participate in the public workshops.
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
1-6
1. Community Workshops
During 2013, the City of Anaheim’s Housing Element Update team conducted a number
of community outreach activities. The following six community workshops were
advertised and open to the general public:
• Workshop Series #1
March 20, 2013 at the Brookhurst Community Center
March 21, 2013 at the Anaheim West Tower
March 23, 2013 at the East Anaheim Community Center
• Workshop Series #2
April 29, 2013 at the Downtown Community Center
May 1, 2013 at the East Anaheim Community Center
May 2, 2013 at the Brookhurst Community Center
During these workshops, participants were provided with an overview of the Housing
Element Update process and content. Participants, which included residents and other
stakeholders, identified and discussed challenges, opportunities and resources related to
housing in Anaheim.
2. Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee
The City formed a 10-member Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee. Each City Council
member appointed one Anaheim resident and one stakeholder, who need not reside in the
City, to the Committee. The Committee provided representative assistance in the review
and preparation of the updated Housing Element to help ensure that the document is an
accurate reflection of the City’s collective vision for the future of housing development
within Anaheim. Each Committee member, and the Committee as a whole, was
responsible for:
• Attending and participating in Committee meetings
• Providing recommendations on Housing Element goals and policies
• Reviewing draft Housing Element documents
The minutes from the Ad Hoc Committee meetings are provided in Appendix A1.
3. Other Community Outreach Activities
In addition to the community workshops, the City conducted a number of other outreach
activities. These included:
• Outreach booths at three community events to solicit input. At the booths, staff
provided information about the Housing Element, answered questions, and
solicited input on the housing challenges and opportunities in Anaheim
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 1-7
DRAFT
DRAFT
• An online survey and posting of a video of one of the community workshops so
that community members could participate virtually
• Presentations/information provided at the Neighborhood Council meetings about
the Housing Element and the community workshops.
Comments received through the community outreach activities have been considered in
the development of the Housing Policy Program provided in Chapter 4 of this document.
A summary of the comments is provided in Appendix A of this Housing Element.
Housing Element
Chapter 1: Introduction
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
1-8
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-1
CHAPTER 2:
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must evaluate both existing and
future housing needs for all income groups.
This chapter analyzes demographic and housing characteristics that influence the demand
for and availability of housing. The analyses form a foundation for establishing programs
and policies that seek to address identified housing needs. Housing needs are identified
according to income, tenure and special needs groups.
Primary data sources include the 2010 U.S. Census, 2010 and 2011 American
Community Survey (ACS), the California Department of Finance (DOF), and the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). These data sources are the
most reliable for assessing existing conditions and provide a basis for consistent
comparison with historical data and the basis for forecasts. The American Community
Survey provides an opportunity to utilize updated information for the timeframe between
the decennial censuses. The ACS provides data to illustrate trends and change in the
community. Additionally, the 2010 Census provides less data than the 2000 Census, so
ACS data is helpful in bridging the data gaps.
B. COMMUNITY PROFILE
1. Population Trends and Characteristics
The City of Anaheim is one of 34 cities within the County of Orange. DOF estimates
Orange County’s population was 3,055,792 in 2012, the third largest county population
in the state. In 2012, Los Angeles and San Diego counties had the first and second largest
county populations in the State. In 2010, Orange County had the third largest county
population in California with 3,010,232 residents. Overall, the County has experienced
rapid population growth over the last two decades. From 2000 to 2010, the County
population increased by 5.4 percent. Table 2-1 lists the counties in southern California
and their respective populations.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-1
Regional Population Trends and Characteristics 2000 – 2012
County 2000 2010 20121
Imperial County 142,361 174,528 177,441
Los Angeles County 9,519,338 9,818,605 9,884,632
Orange County 2,846,289 3,010,232 3,055,792
Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,227,577
San Bernardino County 1,709,434 2,035,210 2,063,919
San Diego County 2,813,833 3,095,313 3,143,429
Ventura County 753,197 823,318 832,970
Notes:
1DOF E1, 2011-2012
Source: U.S. Census 2000 SF1 P001, U.S. Census 2010 SF1 DP-1.
According to the U.S. Census and DOF, the population in Anaheim was 328,014 in 2000;
336,265 in 2010; and 343,793 in 2012. Anaheim experienced a 23 percent population
increase between 2000 and 2010, and a 1.5 percent increase between 2010 and 2012. As
indicated in Figure 2-1, the Center for Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton
forecasts a leveling population growth rate over the next 20 years with a forecast
population of approximately 397,563 in 2030.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a metropolitan planning
organization representing six counties and 191 cities and is charged with planning for
growth and sustainability within the region. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a
long-range transportation plan that is developed and updated by SCAG every four years.
The RTP provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using
growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20 -year period, the RTP
considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental,
and quality-of-life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to
address our mobility needs. The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a newly
required element of the RTP. The SCS will integrate land use and transportation
strategies that will achieve Air Resources Board (ARB) emissions reduction targets.
Population projections and demographic research from the 2010 U.S. Census and 2005-
2009 American Community Survey are compiled by and approved by SCAG and made
available on SCAG’s website.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-3
Table 2-2
Population Growth 2000 – 2012
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 20121
2000-2010 Growth 2010-2012 Growth
Number % Number %
City of Anaheim 328,014 336,265 343,793 8,251 2.5% 7,528 2.2%
Orange County 2,846,289 3,010,232 3,055,792 163,943 5.7% 45,560 1.5%
Notes:
1DOF E1, 2011-2012
Source: 2000 U.S. Census SF1 P001, 2010 U.S. Census SF1 DP1.
Figure 2-1
City of Anaheim
Population Growth Forecasts, 1980 – 2030
Source: California State University Fullerton Center for Demographic Research, 2012.
http://www.fullerton.edu/cdr/cities/Anaheim.pdf
a. Age Comparison
Between 2000 and 2010, Anaheim experienced growth in the percentages of the “young
adult” (20-24 years) and “senior citizen” (65+ years) populations, while the percentages
of “pre-school” (0-4 years), “school age” (5-17 years), “prime working” (25-54 years),
and “retirement” (55-64 years) populations declined. The “prime working” (25-54 years)
population remains the largest age group in the City.
219,494
266,406
328,014 336,265
369,107
397,563
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Population
Year
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-3
Age Distribution, 2000 – 2010
Age Group
2000 2010
Number % of Population1 Number % of Population1
Preschool (0-4 years) 30,206 9.2% 25,754 7.7%
School (5-19 years) 78,078 23.8% 76,725 22.8%
Young Adult (20-24 years) 25,020 7.6% 25,944 7.7%
Prime Working (25-54
years) 146,058 44.5% 145,763 43.3%
Retirement (55-64 years) 21,879 9.6% 30,857 9.2%
Senior Citizen (65+ years) 26,773 8.2% 31,222 9.3%
Total 328,014 100% 336,265 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Sources: 2000 U.S. Census SF1 DP-1, 2010 U.S. Census SF1 DP-1.
b. Race and Ethnicity
Anaheim residents are predominantly comprised of two racial/ethnic groups: White and
Hispanic. As of 2010, nearly 53 percent of Anaheim residents were of Hispanic origin
and over 27 percent were White. Between 2000 and 2010, the White population declined
by over 20 percent for a second decade in a row, while persons of Hispanic origin
increased by over 13 percent. The Asian population was the third largest ethnic group in
the city with over 14 percent of the population. The Asian population increased by over
20 percent between 2000 and 2010. The demographic changes experienced in Anaheim
represent the general trends experienced in the County.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-5
Table 2-4
Racial and Ethnic Distribution 2000 – 2010
Racial/Ethnic Group
2000 2010 2000-2010
% Change Number Percent1 Number Percent1
White 117,607 35.9% 92,362 27.5% -21.5%
Black or African American 7,939 2.4% 8,209 2.4% 3.4%
American Indian & Alaska
Native 1,049 0.3% 743 0.2% -29.2%
Asian 38,919 11.9% 49,210 14.6% 26.4%
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific
Islander 1,263 0.4% 1,437 0.4% 13.8%
Hispanic or Latino 153,374 46.8% 177,467 52.8% 15.7%
Two or More Races 7,406 2.3% 6,209 1.9% -16.2%
Other 457 0.1% 628 0.2% 37.4%
Total 328,014 100% 336,265 100% --
Notes:
1 Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Sources: 2000 U.S. Census SF PL002, 2010 U.S. Census SF1 DP-1.
2. Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by employment trends. Significant employment
opportunities within the City can lead to growth in demand for housing in proximity to
jobs. The quality and/or pay of available employment can determine the need for various
housing types and prices.
As shown in Table 2-5, in 2011, 18.3% of Anaheim residents were employed in
educational services, and health care and social assistance; 15.2% were employed in
Manufacturing; 13.4 percent were employed in retail trade; 11.6 percent were employed
in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services; and 10.8 percent
were employed in professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste
management services.
Data from the past Housing Element shows that from 2000 to 2011, Anaheim residents
employed in manufacturing has decreased almost 5 percent while employment in
educational services, and health care and social assistance has increased over 4 percent;
retail trade increase by 2 percent; and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and
food services increased by a little over one percent.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-5
Employment by Industry in 2011
Industry
City of
Anaheim %
County of
Orange %
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0.5% 0.5%
Construction 6.6% 5.3%
Manufacturing 15.2% 13.2%
Wholesale Trade 3.7% 3.8%
Retail Trade 13.4% 11.5%
Transportation and Warehousing, and utilities 3.3% 3.3%
Information 1.7% 2.0%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 6.2% 8.6%
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste
management services 10.8% 14.0%
Educational services, and health care and social assistance 18.3% 18.8%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 11.6% 10.0%
Other services, except public administration 6.1% 5.7%
Public administration 2.8% 3.1%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey DP03.
As shown in Table 2-6, the Disneyland Resort is the largest single employer in Anaheim
with 22,200 employees in 2011 (a decrease in employees from 2007). Other large
employers in Anaheim include Kaiser Permanente Hospital and Anaheim Medical Center
with over 9,100 employees combined and the City of Anaheim with 2,200 employees.
Table 2-6
City of Anaheim - Major Non-Manufacturing Employers, 2011
Employer Number of Employees
Disneyland Resort and Associated Businesses 22,200
Kaiser Permanente Hospital 5,400
Kaiser Permanente Anaheim Medical Center 3,700
City of Anaheim 2,200
Northgate Gonzalez Markets 1,900
AHMC Anaheim Regional Medical Center 1,200
AT&T Inc. 1,000
Source: City of Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, At a Glance 2011.
As shown in Table 2-7, Anaheim’s labor force increased from 171,900 in 2005 to
176,100 in 2011. According to the California Employment Development Department, the
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-7
unemployment rate in Anaheim for 2011 was 11.1 percent. The unemployment rate for
Anaheim was higher than the County’s unemployment rate of 8.7 percent in 2011.
Table 2-7
City of Anaheim - Labor Force Trends 2005-2011
Year Labor Force Employed Unemployed
Unemployment
Rate
2005 171,900 163,500 8,400 4.9
2006 173,100 165,400 7,700 4.4
2007 174,100 165,300 8,800 5.1
2008 175,900 163,900 12,000 6.8
2009 174,600 154,800 19,800 11.3
2010 175,200 154,000 21,200 12.1
2011 176,100 156,500 19,600 11.1
Notes:
1 Labor Force defined as all people in the population of working age (16 years and above) by the U.S.
Census Bureau.
Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD), 2011.
3. Household Characteristics
This section describes Anaheim’s household characteristics. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines a household as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they are
related. One person living alone is considered a household, as is a group of unrelated
people living in a single housing unit. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as related
persons living within a single housing unit.
a. Household Formation and Composition
In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 98,294 households in Anaheim, a 1.4 percent
increase from 2000. In comparison, total households in Orange County increased by 5.8
percent between 2000 and 2010 and total households in California increased by 8.5
percent. DOF provides data on occupied housing units, which correspond to total
households. DOF reports 99,633 occupied housing units in Anaheim as of January 2012,
a 1.3 percent increase since April 2010.1
1 DOF. Table 2 - E-5 2010 and 2012.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-8
Total Households, 2000 - 2011
Area 2000 2010
Percent
Increase
2000-20101 2011
Percent
Increase
2010-20111
City of Anaheim 96,969 98,294 1.35% 98,586 0.30%
Orange County 935,287 992,781 5.79% 992,855 0.01%
California 11,502,870 12,577,498 8.54% 12,468,743 -0.87%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau SF1 DP-1 and 2010 SF1 DP-1, 2011 American Community Survey
DP02.
The average number of persons per household in Anaheim was 3.38 in 2010. The
American Community Survey estimates that in 2011 persons per household increased to
3.41. As shown in Table 2-9, the average number of persons per household in Anaheim
continues to be higher than the County average. A number of factors contribute to the
formation of households and household size, including but not limited to cultural
preferences, economic conditions, and personal need.
Table 2-9
Average Persons per Household, 2010-2011
Jurisdiction 20101 20112
City of Anaheim 3.38 3.41
Orange County 2.99 3.04
Source: 1 2010 U.S. Census Bureau SF1. 2 2011 American Community Survey DP02.
As shown in Table 2-10, households of two-persons made up the largest segments of both
owner- and renter-occupied households in 2011. Approximately 26 percent of renter
households and 29 percent of owner households had 2 persons. One-person households
made up the next largest group of total households, followed by three-person households.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-9
Table 2-10
Household Size Distribution 2010
Household
Size
Total
Number of
Households % of Total
Renter
Households % of Total
Owner
Households % of Total
1 Person 18,788 19.1% 10,902 20.6% 7,886 17.3%
2 Persons 26,705 27.1% 13,643 25.8% 13,062 28.6%
3 Persons 16,895 17.1% 8,763 16.5% 8,132 17.8%
4 Persons 14,725 14.9% 7,839 14.8% 6,886 15.1%
5 Persons 10,586 10.7% 5,877 11.1% 4,709 10.3%
6 Persons 5,253 5.3% 3,116 5.9% 2,137 4.7%
7 + Persons 5,634 5.7% 2,830 5.3% 2,804 6.1%
Total 98,586 100% 52,970 100% 45,616 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25009.
b. Household Income
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publishes an annual
median family income for the purpose of determining program eligibility. The 2012
median family income (MFI) for Orange County is $85,300.
The State of California uses five income categories to determine housing affordability.
These categories are as follows:
• Extremely Low Income: 30% or less of the median family income;
• Very Low Income: 31% to 50% of the median family income;
• Low Income: 51% to 80% of the median family income;
• Moderate Income: 81% to 120% of the median family income;
• Above Moderate Income: Greater than 120% of the median family income.
Table 2-11 shows the State-defined income ranges for each income category based on the
2012 HUD MFI for Orange County. The State-defined income limits for the Extremely
Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income categories equals those defined by the HUD for use
in its Section 8 Program. The Section 8 Program provides rental assistance for
households earning 50 percent less than the median family income. The State then sets
the Moderate-Income limits at 120 percent of the median figure. Through the Housing
Element, the State-defined income limits are used for consistency unless otherwise noted.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-11
State Income Limits for Orange County - 2012
Affordability Category Percent of County Median1 Income Range($)2
Extremely Low Income ≤30% ≤ $25,590
Very Low Income 31% - 50% $26,443 - $42,650
Low Income 51% - 80% $43,503 - $68,240
Moderate Income 81% - 120% $69,093 - $102,360
Above Moderate Income >120% > $102,360
Notes:
1 Based on HCD income categories.
2 Based on FY 2012 HUD MFI of $85,300 (family of 4-persons) for Orange County.
Source: HCD. State Income Limits for 2012. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/inc2k12.pdf.
Based on 2011 ACS data for the City of Anaheim shown in Table 1-13, seven percent of
owner-occupied households and 13.3 percent of renter-occupied households earned less
than $35,000 in 2011. These households were within the Very Low-Income and
Extremely Low-Income categories. Approximately 17 percent of owner-occupied
households and 21 percent of renter-occupied households were within the Extremely
Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income categories.
Table 2-12
Estimated Household Income by Tenure, in 2011
Income Owner Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Number %1 Number %1 Number %1
Less than $5,000 601 1.3% 2,249 4.2% 2,850 2.9%
$5,000 to $9,999 265 0.6% 1,504 2.8% 1,769 1.8%
$10,000 to $14,999 1,131 2.5% 4,242 8.0% 5,373 5.5%
$15,000 to $19,999 1,207 2.6% 3,706 7.0% 4,913 5.0%
$20,000 to $24,999 1,422 3.1% 3,920 7.4% 5,342 5.4%
$25,000 to $34,999 1,963 4.3% 7,274 13.7% 9,237 9.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 5,374 11.8% 7,869 14.9% 13,243 13.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 7,778 17.1% 10,875 20.5% 18,653 18.9%
$75,000 to $99,999 8,124 17.8% 6,678 12.6% 14,802 15.0%
$100,000 to $149,999 9,745 21.4% 3,549 6.7% 13,294 13.5%
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-11
$150,000 or more 8,006 17.6% 1,104 2.1% 9,110 9.2%
Total 45,616 100% 52,970 100% 98,586 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25118.
As shown in Table 2-13, the ACS estimates the median household income of $54,157 for
the City of Anaheim in 2010, which was less than the median household income for the
County. For the City, the median household income for owner-occupied households
($83,159) was higher than the median household income for renter-occupied households
($37,428).
Table 2-13
2010 Median Household Income by Tenure
Jurisdiction 2010 Median Income
City of Anaheim $54,157
Owner-Occupied Households $83,159
Renter-Occupied Households $37,428
Orange County $70,880
Source: 2010 American Community Survey B25119.
4. Housing Inventory and Market Conditions
This section describes the housing stock and market conditions in the City of Anaheim.
By analyzing past and current housing trends, future housing needs can be anticipated
and planned for.
a. Housing Stock Profile
According to the 2000 and 2010 US Census and 2011 American Community Survey,
approximately ten percent of Orange County’s housing units fall within Anaheim’s city
limits. As shown in Table 2-14, in 2000 the City of Anaheim had 99,719 housing units.
By 2010, the City experienced a 4 percent increase in the total number of housing units.
The County experienced a slightly larger increase of 7.5 percent during that same decade.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-14
Number of Housing Units
City of Anaheim and Orange County, 2000 – 2010
Year City of Anaheim Orange County
City of Anaheim as a % of
Total Orange County Units1
2000 99,719 969,484 10.3%
2010 104,237 1,048,907 9.9%
2011 104,356 1,050,907 9.9%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau SF1 DP-1 and 2010 SF1 DP-1, 2011 American Community Survey
DP04.
As shown in Table 2-15, in 2011 the majority of renter-occupied units were two bedroom
units accounting for 48.3 percent of total housing units. The second largest category of
renter-occupied units were one-bedroom units accounting for 29.4 percent of total
housing units. Approximately 46 percent of owner-occupied units had three bedrooms
and 32.5 percent had 4 bedrooms.
Table 2-15
Estimated Unit Size by Tenure, 2011
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total Occupied
Housing Unites
Units %1 Units %1 Units %1
Studio/No Bedroom 26 0.1% 1,650 3.1% 1,676 1.7%
1 bedroom 792 1.7% 15,549 29.4% 16,341 16.6%
2 bedrooms 5,382 11.8% 25,561 48.3% 30,943 31.4%
3 bedrooms 21,148 46.4% 7,422 14.0% 28,570 29.0%
4 bedrooms 14,823 32.5% 2,473 4.7% 17,296 17.5%
5 or more bedrooms 3,445 7.6% 315 0.6% 3,760 3.8%
Total 45,616 100% 52,970 100% 98,586 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25042.
The 2010 US Census shows that Single Family, detached housing was the largest housing
type in the City of Anaheim with 47,059 units, accounting for 43.8 percent of total
housing units. Multifamily housing units were a close second with 46,759 units
accounting for 43.6 percent of total housing units. From 2000 to 2011, the number of
mobile homes and “other” (Boats, RV’s, etc.) housing units decreased.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-13
Table 2-16
Housing Inventory by Unit Type, 2000 – 2011
Housing Type 2000
% of
Total1 2010
% of
Total1 2011
% of
Total1
2000-
2011 %
change
Single Family, detached 42,874 43.0% 47,059 43.8% 44,703 42.8% 4.3%
Single Family, attached 8,912 8.9% 9,380 8.7% 9,199 8.8% 3.2%
Multi-Family 43,428 43.6% 46,759 43.6% 46,449 44.5% 7.0%
Mobile Homes 4,076 4.1% 3,955 3.7% 3,947 3.8% -3.2%
Other (Boats, RVs, etc.) 302 0.3% 210 0.2% 58 0.1% -80.8%
Total 99,592 100% 107,363 100% 104,356 100% 4.8%
Notes:
Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau SF3 H030, 2010 American Community Survey B25024, 2011 American
Community Survey B25024.
The majority of owner-occupied units were single-family detached units, comprising just
over 77 percent of all owner-occupied units. Renter-occupied units were mostly multi-
family units, five or more units each accounting for approximately 58 percent of all
renter-occupied units.
Table 2-17
Estimated Unit Type by Tenure, 2011
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total Occupied
Housing Units
Units %1 Units %1 Units %1
Single Family,
detached 35,211 77.2% 8,320 15.7% 43,531 44.2%
Single Family, attached 5,874 12.9% 2,971 5.6% 8,845 9.0%
Multi-Family (2-4
units) 707 1.5% 9,709 18.3% 10,416 10.6%
Multi-Family (5+ units) 1,403 3.1% 30,875 58.3% 32,278 32.7%
Mobile Homes 2,421 5.3% 1,037 2.0% 3,458 3.5%
Other (Boats, RVs,
etc.) 0 0.0% 58 0.1% 58 0.1%
Total 45,616 100% 52,970 100% 98,586 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25032.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
b. Tenure
In 2011, 46 percent of the City’s housing units were owner-occupied and 54 percent were
renter-occupied. As shown in Table 2-18, the percentage of renter-occupied units in the
City of Anaheim was more that the County and the State.
Table 2-18
Estimated Occupied Units by Tenure, 2011
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
# %1 # %1 #
City of Anaheim 45,616 46.3% 52,970 53.7% 98,586
Orange County 581,991 58.6% 410,864 41.4% 992,855
California 6,843,369 54.9% 5,625,374 45.1% 12,468,743
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25003
c. Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are an indicator of housing supply and housing demand. Low vacancy
rates influence greater upward price pressures and suggest households may have trouble
finding housing with an affordable monthly payment. A higher vacancy rate indicates
downward price pressure and may suggest an over supply of housing units. A four to
five percent vacancy rate is considered “healthy.” As shown in Table 2-19, in 2010 the
vacancy rate in the City of Anaheim was 6.5 percent. In 2011, the vacancy rate in the
City lowered to 5.5 percent.
Table 2-19
Occupancy Status, 2010 – 2011
2010 Percent1 2011 Percent1
Occupied Housing Units 100,404 93.5% 98,586 94.5%
Vacant Housing Units 6,959 6.5% 5,770 5.5%
Total Housing Units 107,363 100% 104,356 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2010 and 2011 American Community Survey B25002.
d. Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing
that is 30 years or older may be in need of repairs based on the resilience of the materials
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-15
used. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need
for major repairs.
Table 2-20 categorizes the City of Anaheim’s housing units by year of construction.
According to the American Community Survey, over 70 percent of the housing units in
the City were built before 1980 and 27.8 percent were built before 1960. In the years
between 1950 and 1980, the City of Anaheim experienced the highest period of housing
construction accounting for 65 percent of the housing stock. Two percent of the City’s
housing stock was built prior to 1939.
Table 2-20
Housing Stock by Year Built
Year Built Units Percent
2005 or later 4,920 4.7%
2000 - 2004 4,116 3.9%
1990 – 1999 9,069 8.7%
1980 – 1989 12,867 12.3%
1970 – 1979 25,585 24.5%
1960 – 1969 19,267 18.5%
1950 – 1959 23,217 22.2%
1940 – 1949 3,725 3.6%
Built 1939 or earlier 2,040 2.0%
Total 104,356 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25034.
The ACS also provides data on housing tenure by age of housing stock. Approximately
74 percent of owner-occupied units in the City were built before 1980 and about 33.4
percent were built before 1960. Of the renter-occupied units, 68.2 percent were built
before 1980 and 22.8 percent were built before 1960. Table 2-21 provides a summary of
tenure by age of housing stock.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-21
Tenure by Age of Housing Stock, 2011
Year Built
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Total Occupied Housing
Units
Units % Units % Units %
2008 or later 203 0.4% 3,040 5.7% 3,243 3.3%
2000 - 2007 2,367 5.2% 2,701 5.1% 5,068 5.1%
1990 – 1999 4,868 10.7% 4,201 7.9% 9,069 9.2%
1980 – 1989 4,506 9.9% 6,902 13.0% 11,408 11.6%
1970 – 1979 10,746 23.6% 13,572 25.6% 24,318 24.7%
1960 – 1969 7,721 16.9% 10,503 19.8% 18,224 18.5%
1950 – 1959 13,410 29.4% 8,672 16.4% 22,082 22.4%
1940 – 1949 897 2.0% 2,237 4.2% 3,134 3.2%
Built 1939 or earlier 898 2.0% 1,142 2.2% 2,040 2.1%
Total 45,616 100% 52,970 100% 98,586 100%
Notes:
1 Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25028.
e. Housing Conditions
Housing is considered substandard when conditions are found to be below the minimum
standard of living conditions defined in Section 17920.3 of the California Health and
Safety Code. Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of
housing assistance due to the threat of such conditions to their health and safety.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities
often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. As shown in Table 2-22, the
ACS identified 432 occupied units in the City of Anaheim that lacked complete plumbing
facilities. Complete plumbing facilities include: hot or cold piped water, a flush toilet,
and a bathtub or shower. All three types of facilities must be located within the housing
unit. Of these units, 56 were owner-occupied and 376 were renter-occupied. The ACS
also reported that 1,548 units in the City of Anaheim lacked complete kitchen facilities.
Of these units, 101 were owner-occupied and 1,447 were renter-occupied. It should be
noted that there may be some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as
some units may lack both complete plumbing and kitchen facilities.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-17
Table 2-22
Units Lacking Plumbing or Complete Kitchen Facilities in 2010
Units Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Lacking Plumbing
Facilities1 56 376 432
Lacking Complete
Kitchen Facilities2 101 1,447 1,548
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B250491 and B250532.
Anaheim neighborhoods are designated for planning purposes as Levels I through IV.
Each level designation identifies the characteristics or conditions of the neighborhood as
well as responses by City departments to address these conditions. The City has identified
five Level IV neighborhoods and six Level III neighborhoods. The City has not
specifically identified neighborhoods that meet the criteria for Level I or Level II
neighborhoods.
Level I neighborhoods are characterized as very sound neighborhoods experiencing few,
if any, quality of life issues and infrequent requests for Police and Code Enforcement
services.
Level II neighborhoods are characterized as fundamentally sound neighborhoods that are
beginning to show signs of decline. Generally, housing structures are lacking
maintenance and in single-family neighborhoods, there number of homes occupied by
their owners is decreasing. The Police Department and Code Enforcement Division are
receiving an increase in calls for service.
Level III neighborhoods are characterized by moderate to substantial decline. Many of
the housing structures within these neighborhoods are deteriorated. In single-family
areas, many houses have transitioned from being owner-occupied to rentals. In addition,
these neighborhoods may lack key essentials such as streetlights, sidewalks, curbs and
gutters and have an increasing number of calls for Police and Code Enforcement services.
Level IV neighborhoods are characterized by severe social, economic and physical
decline. Housing structures are severely deteriorated and the entire neighborhood lacks
characteristics which contribute to a safe overall neighborhood living environment.
Police and Code Enforcement continue to receive high volume of calls for service.
There are approximately 2,811 dwelling units within the Level III neighborhoods and 560
dwelling units within the Level IV neighborhoods. Of the units in the Level III
neighborhoods, the City estimates 70 percent are substandard units and are in need of
rehabilitation or replacement. Of those units in the Level IV neighborhoods, the City
estimates 90 percent are substandard units and need rehabilitation or replacement. The
neighborhoods that have been identified as Level III and IV neighborhoods are shown in
Exhibit 2-1.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
5. Housing Costs and Rents
This section evaluates housing costs in the City of Anaheim for both rental and owner-
occupied units.
a. Existing and New Home Price Trends
In 2011, the median market value for all owner -occupied units in the City of Anaheim
was $373,000. As shown in Table 2-23, 6.6 percent of owner-occupied units were valued
below $100,000. Data indicates that 4 percent of owner-occupied units were valued
between $100,000 and $199,999; 10.8 percent were valued between $200,000 and
$299,999; and almost 79 percent were valued at $300,000 or more.
?»
A¾!"^$
?»
?l
?k
BALL
LA PALMA
LINCOLN
ORANGE
EUCLIDEASTDALEMAGNOLIAGILBERTMI RALOMA
ANAHEIMTUSTINCRESCENT
HARBORSTATE COLLEGEKATELLAKNOTTBROADWAYBEACH IMPERIALNO HL RANCH
ORANGEWOODNINTHWESTERNSYCAMORE
SA NTA ANA
SUNKISTCHAPMANWALNUT SERRANOLEWISCERRITOS
RI VERDALE
CANYON
R
I
M
RIO VISTABROOKHURSTNUTWOODLAKEVIEWMI
LLERF
A
I
R
M
O
N
T
OLIVE
LA JOLLA
HASTERROMNEYA
ACACIADISNEYLANDBLUE GUMKELLOGGFR ONTERA
CROWTHER
RAYMONDVER MONT
OA K CANYON
PLACENTIAGLASSELLLEMONVAN BURENANAHEIM HILLSROYAL OAKCLEMENTINEDOUGLASSRICHFIELDDALELEWIS5
NO RTH
CHAPMAN
CERRITOS
LA PALMA
CERRITOSDALE
EUCLIDORANGETHORPEORANGETHORPE
LINCOLN
CERRITOS
BR OADWAY SUNKISTSO UTH
LA HABRA BREA
FU LLERTON YORBA
LINDA
PLACENTIA
BUENA
PARK
CYPRESS
CYPRESS ORANGE
VILLA
PARK
STANTON
GARDEN
GROVE
SANTA
ANA
WESTMINSTER
WESTMINSTER
TUSTINTUSTIN
TUSTIN
HUNTINGTON
BEACH IRVINE
M:\Mdata\10105703\GIS\Ex21_Neighborhoods.mxd 09/16/13 -- SS JM KO
Anaheim Housing Needs Assessment
0 6,500 13,0003,250
Feet
Legend
Level 3 Neighborhoods
Level 4 Neighborhoods
City Boundary
Neighborhood Levels
Exhibit 2-1!
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-21
Table 2-23
Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units in 2011
Price Range Number of Units Percent of Total
Less than $50,000 1,708 3.70%
$50,000 to $99,999 1,318 2.90%
$100,000 to $149,999 756 1.70%
$150,000 to $199,999 1,032 2.30%
$200,000 to $299,999 4,904 10.80%
$300,000 to $499,999 23,177 50.80%
$500,000 to $999,999 11,902 26.10%
$1,000,000 or more 819 1.80%
Total Owner-occupied units 45,616 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey DP04.
As shown in Table 2-24, the median sales price for new and resale homes in the City of
Anaheim is $373,000 as of November 2012. This represents an 8.6% percent increase
from the median sales price in November 2011, higher than the percentage change for the
median sales prices in the County as a whole. The median sales price in the City of
Anaheim is less than the median sales price for the County as a whole.
Table 2-24
Median Sales Price
Jurisdiction November 2011 November 2012 % Change
Anaheim $341,000 $373,000 8.6%
Garden Grove $350,000 $382,000 8.4%
Orange $449,000 $462,000 2.8%
Stanton $281,000 $295,000 4.7%
Fullerton $406,000 $435,000 6.7%
Orange County $466,000 $496,000 6.0%
Source: www.Zillow.com, November 2012.
b. Rental Prices
As shown in Table 2-25, the Third Quarter Report for 2012 RealFacts, indicates the
average monthly rent for a studio apartment in the City of Anaheim was $1,022. The
report further indicates that average monthly rent for a one-bedroom was $1,183; a two-
bedroom, one-bath unit was $1,333; a two-bedroom, two-bath unit was $1,651; and a
three-bedroom, two-bath unit was $1,842.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-22 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-25
Average Monthly Rent by Unit Size (RealFacts)
Unit Size Average Monthly Rent
Studio $1,022
1 bedroom, 1 bath $1,183
2 bedrooms, 1 bath $1,333
2 bedrooms, 2 baths $1,651
3 bedrooms, 2 baths $1,842
All $1,365
Source: RealFacts, Third Quarter 2012.
According to the ACS, approximately 60 percent of renters spent 30 percent or more of
their household income on rent in 2011. Approximately 30 percent of renters spent 50
percent or more of their income on rent. Table 2-26 shows the number of households by
percentage of household income spent on rent in 2011.
Table 2-26
Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income
Percent of Household Income Number of Households Percentage of Households
Less than 10.0 percent 286 0.5%
10.0 to 14.9 percent 1,624 3.1%
15.0 to 19.9 percent 4,572 8.6%
20.0 to 24.9 percent 6,246 11.8%
25.0 to 29.9 percent 5,589 10.6%
30.0 to 34.9 percent 6,523 12.3%
35.0 to 39.9 percent 3,889 7.3%
40.0 to 49.9 percent 6,068 11.5%
50.0 percent or more 15,302 28.9%
Not computed 2,871 5.4%
Total 52,970 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25070.
c. Affordability Gap Analysis
The cost of home ownership and renting can be compared to a household’s ability to pay
for housing. Housing affordability is defined as paying no more than 30 percent of
household income on housing expenses. Table 2-27 summarizes affordable rents and
purchase prices by income categories based on the State-defined income limits for
Orange County. Affordable purchase price assumes a six percent interest rate with a 30-
year fully amortized mortgage.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-23
Table 2-27
Affordable Rent and Purchase Price by Income Category
Household Income
Category1
Annual Income
Range2
Affordable Monthly
Rent Payment3
Estimated Affordable
Purchase Price4
Very-Low Income ≤ $25,590 ≤ $1,204 ≤ $200,850
Low-Income $26,443 - $42,650 $1,205 - $1,926 $200,851 - $321,000
Moderate-Income $43,503 - $68,240 $1,927 - $2,133 $321,001 - $354,000
Above-Moderate Income $69,093 - $102,360 > $2,133 > $354,000
Notes:
1 Based on HCD income categories.
2 Based on FY 2012 HUD Median Family Income of $85,300 (family of 4-persons) for Orange County.
3 Affordable monthly rent payment is equal to 30% of a family’s monthly income.
4 Estimated affordable purchase price is based on an affordable monthly payment equal to 30% of a
family’s monthly income and assumes a 30-year fully amortized mortgage with a 6% annual interest rate.
d. Rental Affordability
In the third quarter of 2012, households within the Very Low-Income group would be
able to afford average monthly rent in the City of Anaheim, for a studio apartment or one
bedroom/one bathroom unit. The Low-Income group and above would be able to afford a
unit with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms or smaller based on the average rents.
e. Ownership Affordability
The median sales price for new and resale-housing units in the City of Anaheim in 2012
continues to exceed the affordability range for all income categories except Above
Moderate-Income households. Lower-Income households may have difficulty finding
housing they can afford to purchase. This indicates greater affordability pressure for
ownership housing.
C. HOUSING NEEDS
1. Households Overpaying for Housing and Overcrowding
a. Overpayment
Overpayment is defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income
on housing related expenses. This includes rent or mortgage payments and utilities. High
housing costs can cause households to spend a disproportionate percentage of their
income on housing. This may result in financial difficulties, deferred maintenance or
overcrowding.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-24 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
According to HUD, in the period between 2005 and 2009, 74.2 percent of the total
households in the City of Anaheim experience overpayment. As shown in Table 2-28, of
the owner-occupied households, approximately 87 percent experience overpayment; and,
of the renter-occupied households, approximately 63 percent experience overpayment.
Thirty percent of owner-occupied households overpaying for housing earn over 100
percent of the median income. It is important to note that some owner households may
choose to allocate a higher percentage of their disposable monthly income in housing
costs, which may explain this high percentage. Of the renter households overpaying for
housing, 38 percent are Extremely Low-Income and 34 percent are Very Low-Income.
Table 2-28
City of Anaheim - Overpayment by Tenure and Income, 2005-2009
Owners Renters Total
% of Median
Income Households
% of
Overpay-
ment Households
% of
Overpay-
ment Households
% of
Overpay-
ment
< 30% 2,395 13.1% 7,465 37.5% 9,860 25.8%
> 30 < 50% 2,765 15.2% 6,800 34.1% 9,565 25.1%
> 50 < 80% 4,750 26.0% 4,710 23.6% 9,460 24.8%
> 80 < 100% 2,820 15.5% 665 3.3% 3,485 9.1%
> 100% 5,510 30.2% 285 1.4% 5,795 15.2%
Total 18,240 100.0% 19,925 100.0% 38,165 100.0%
Source:
HUD CHAS 2005-2009 Data, Table3.
b. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as households having an average of more than one person per
room. Overcrowding can put a strain on public facilities and services, reduce the quality
of the physical environment, and create conditions that contribute to the deterioration of
the housing stock.
Tables 2-29 and 2-30 summarize American Community Survey estimates of
overcrowding in the City of Anaheim cited by the SCAG Existing Housing Needs Data
Report and HUD. Sixteen percent of the City’s total households are overcrowded.
Instances of overcrowding vary by tenure. Approximately 7.5 percent of owner
households are overcrowded and 25.6 percent of renter households are overcrowded. Of
the overcrowded owner-occupied households, 24.5 percent earn over 100 percent of the
median household income. In renter-occupied households, overcrowding is more
prevalent in the Lower-Income categories. Twenty-five percent of overcrowded renter
households are Extremely Low-Income; 29 percent are Very Low-Income; and 28.3
percent are Low-Income.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-25
Table 2-29
City of Anaheim - Overcrowding by Tenure, 2011
Owners Renters Total
Overcrowded
Households
% of
Occupied
Households
Overcrowded
Households
% of
Occupied
Households
Overcrowded
Households
% of Total
Occupied
Households
3,531 7.5% 12,434 25.6% 15,965 16.6%
Notes: Total Occupied Households: Owner = 47,369; Renter = 48,632; Total = 96,001.
Sources: SCAG Existing Housing Needs Data Report, 2012.
Table 2-30
City of Anaheim - Overcrowding by Tenure and Income, 2011
Owners Renters Total
Income Level %
of Median
Income Households
% of
Over-
crowding Households
% of
Over-
crowding Households
% of
Over-
crowding
< 30% 280 7.9% 3,710 29.8% 3,990 25.0%
> 30 < 50% 640 18.2% 3,970 31.9% 4,610 28.9%
> 50 < 80% 1,205 34.2% 3,310 26.6% 4,515 28.3%
> 80 < 100% 535 15.2% 865 7.0% 1,400 8.8%
> 100% 865 24.5% 575 4.6% 1,440 9.0%
Total 3,525 100.0% 12,430 100.0% 15,955 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS, 2005-2009
2. 2014-2021 Growth Needs
SCAG is responsible for allocating housing needs to each jurisdiction in its region. A
local jurisdiction’s “fair-share” of regional housing need is the number of additional
housing units that will need to be constructed in the jurisdiction in order to accommodate
the forecast growth in the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and
conversion of housing units to non-housing uses, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that
allows for healthy functioning of the housing market. The allocation is divided into four
income categories: Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate. The allocation is
further adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of Lower-Income households in any one
jurisdiction. Based on the requirements of AB 2634, each jurisdiction must address the
projected need of Extremely Low-Income households, defined as households earning less
than 30 percent of the County MFI. The projected Extremely Low-Income need is
assumed to be 50 percent of the Very-Low Income need.
Table 2-31 summarizes the 2014-2021 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the City
of Anaheim.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-26 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-31
City of Anaheim
Fair Share Housing Needs Allocation, 2014-2021
Total
Construction
Needed
Very Low-
Income
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above-
Moderate
Income
Number of Units 5,702 1,256 907 1,038 2,501
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG 2012.
3. Special Needs Population
Certain segments of the population have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable
housing due to their special circumstances; therefore a more focused assessment of their
needs is required. This section identifies the needs of elderly persons, large households,
female-headed households, persons with disabilities, homeless persons and farm workers.
In addition to the data from the 2010 U.S. Census and the 2011 ACS, this section also
uses data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) published by
HUD. The CHAS provides information related to households with housing problems,
including overpayment, overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen facilities and
plumbing systems. The CHAS data is based on the US Census Bureau’s 2005-2009
American Community Survey 5-year data files, but differs from the standard files by
including a variety of housing need variables split by HUD-defined income limits and
HUD-specified household types.
a. Elderly Persons
Elderly persons are considered a special needs group because most are retired and have
fixed incomes. Elderly persons often have special needs related to housing location and
construction. Because of limited mobility, elderly persons typically need to have easy
access to public facilities (e.g. medical and shopping) and public transit. In terms of
housing construction, the elderly may need ramps, handrails, elevators, lower cabinets
and counters, and special security devices to allow for greater self-sufficiency and
protection.
According to the 2011 ACS, 18.3 percent of the City of Anaheim residents were elderly
(age 65 and over). As shown in Table 2-32, elderly households comprised 24.4 percent of
owner-occupied households and 13.1 percent of renter-occupied households.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-27
Table 2-32
Estimated Householders by Tenure and Age, 2011
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Householder age % % %
15 to 24 years 0.3% 6.5% 3.6%
25 to 34 years 8.1% 28.2% 18.9%
35 to 64 years 67.2% 52.2% 59.2%
65 to 74 years 13.3% 5.5% 9.1%
75 years and over 11.1% 7.6% 9.2%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25007.
As indicated in Table 2-33, the median household income for households with a
householder age 65 years or older was $35,488 in 2009. In 2010, the median household
income for rose slightly to $36,699. In 2011, the ACS estimates that the median
household income for households 65+ years in Anaheim declined to $33,930.
Table 2-33
Senior Citizen Median Household Income, 2011
Householder Age
City of Anaheim
2009 Median Income
City of Anaheim 2010
Median Income
City of Anaheim 2011
Median Income
65 years and over $35,488 $36,699 $33,930
Source: 2009, 2010, and 2011 American Community Survey B19049.
The HUD median family income for Orange County was $85,300 in 2012. Based on
2011 ACS data shown in Table 2-34, over 50 percent of senior citizen households earned
less than $35,000, falling within the Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income categories.
And 28.3 percent earned $35,000 to $74,999 falling within the Low- and Moderate-
Income categories.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-28 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-34
Senior Citizen Household Income, 2010
Householder Age 65+ Years in 2011
Income Number %
< $25,000 7,099 39.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 2,053 11.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 2,742 15.2%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,372 13.1%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,385 7.7%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,132 6.3%
$150,000 to $199,999 662 3.7%
> $200,000 610 3.4%
Total 18,055 100%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B19037.
As shown in Table 2-35, 29.5 percent of the elderly population in the City of Anaheim
had a “self-care” or “independent living” disability based on the 2009-2011 ACS.
Persons with self-care difficulty report having difficulty dressing or bathing. Persons with
independent living difficulty report having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting
a doctor’s office or shopping. Elderly persons with disabilities limiting independent
living often need housing with modifications, such as ramps and bathroom grab bars, in
order to accommodate their physical needs. There was no disability reporting in the 2010
Census.
Table 2-35
Elderly (age 65+) with Disabilities
Limiting Independent Living, 2009-2011
Disability Type
Total persons 65+
with a disability
Percent of persons
65+1
With a hearing difficulty 3,947 12.9%
With a vision difficulty 1,979 6.4%
With a cognitive difficulty 3,134 10.2%
With an ambulatory difficulty 6,947 22.6%
With a self-care difficulty 3,558 11.6%
With an independent living difficulty 5,500 17.9%
Total persons2 10,670 34.8%
Source: 2009-2011 ACS 3-Year Estimates, S1810.
1Percentages based on Total Population 65 years and over: 30,698.
2Total persons age 65+ with a disability is not a sum of the table.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-29
According to 2005-2009 CHAS data, 68 percent of elderly renter-occupied households
and 32 percent of elderly owner-occupied households experience overpayment. The
increasing number of elderly persons in the population is creating a demand for more
affordable housing. The City will address the needs of the elderly population through the
development of policies and programs that will address affordability and special design
guidelines for the elderly. Table 2-36 provides a summary of housing problems
experienced by elderly households in the City of Anaheim.
Table 2-36
Housing Problems – Elderly Households, 2005-2009
Renters Owners
Elderly Households- Household Income < 30% MFI 2,960 - 1,610 -
with any Housing Problem1 2,430 82% 1,020 63%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 585 20% 295 18%
Cost Burden2 >50% 1,785 60% 710 44%
Elderly Households- Household Income 30% to < 50% MFI 1,430 - 1,900 -
with any Housing Problem1 1,205 84% 860 45%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 545 38% 390 21%
Cost Burden2 >50% 588 41% 475 25%
Elderly Households- Household Income >50% to < 80% MFI 571 - 2,080 -
with any Housing Problem1 465 81% 675 32%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 365 64% 385 19%
Cost Burden2 >50% 105 18% 290 14%
Elderly Households- Household Income >80% MFI 930 - 4,580 -
with any Housing Problem1 85 9% 695 15%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 60 6% 520 11%
Cost Burden2 >50% 25 3% 175 4%
Total Elderly Households3 5,891 - 10,170 -
with any Housing Problem1 4,185 71% 3,250 32%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 1,555 26% 1,590 16%
Cost Burden2 >50% 2,503 42% 1,650 16%
Notes:
1”Housing Problem” defined as any occupied housing units lacking a complete kitchen, lacking complete
plumbing, having more than 1.01 persons per room (overcrowded), or costing more than 30 percent of the
occupant household’s income.
2Percentage of household income spent on housing cost.
Source: 2005-2009 HUD CHAS data as provided by HCD.
b. Large Households
Large households are defined as having five or more persons living within the same
household. Large households are considered a special needs group because they require
larger bedroom counts. In 2011, there were 21,473 households in the City of Anaheim
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-30 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
with at least five persons, representing 21.8 percent of the total households in the City. Of
these large households, owner-occupied units and renter-occupied units were nearly
equally distributed with slightly more renter-occupied units.
Table 2-37
Large Households by Tenure, 2010
Number of Persons in Unit Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Five 4,709 5,877 10,586
Six 2,137 3,116 5,253
Seven or more 2,804 2,830 5,634
Total 9,650 11,823 21,473
Percent of Total Households 9.8% 12.0% 21.8%
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25009.
According to the 2005-2009 CHAS data, 58 percent of large renter-occupied households
and 26 percent of large owner-occupied households experience overpayment. Currently,
less than six percent of the City’s rental housing stock has four or more bedrooms (refer
to Table 2-15) resulting in a high percentage of lower-income large family households
that are forced to live in overcrowded situations. Table 2-38 provides a summary of
housing problems experienced by large households in the City of Anaheim.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-31
Table 2-38
Housing Problems – Large Households, 2005-2009
Renters Owners
Number Percent Number Percent
Large Households- Household Income < 30% MFI 2,750 - 500 -
with any Housing Problem1 2,545 93% 500 100%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 395 14% 35 7%
Cost Burden2 >50% 2,005 73% 465 93%
Large Households- Household Income 30% to 50% MFI 2,845 - 985 -
with any Housing Problem1 2,760 97% 855 87%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 1,740 61% 170 17%
Cost Burden2 >50% 620 22% 580 59%
Large Households- Household Income >50% to 80% MFI 2,695 - 2,685 -
with any Housing Problem1 2,435 90% 2,130 79%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 795 29% 860 32%
Cost Burden2 >50% 35 1% 745 28%
Large Households- Household Income >80% MFI 1,610 - 4,850 -
with any Housing Problem1 985 61% 2,290 47%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 120 7% 1,015 21%
Cost Burden2 >50% - 0% 275 6%
Total Large Households3 9,900 - 9,020 -
with any Housing Problem1 8,725 88% 5,775 64%
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 3,050 31% 2,080 23%
Cost Burden2 >50% 2,660 27% 2,065 23%
Notes:
1”Housing Problem” defined as any occupied housing units lacking a complete kitchen, lacking complete
plumbing, having more than 1.01 persons per room (overcrowded), or costing more than 30 percent of the
occupant household’s income.
2Percentage of household income spent on housing cost.
Source: 2005-2009 HUD CHAS data as provided by HCD.
c. Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households are a special needs group due to comparatively low rates of
homeownership, lower incomes, and high poverty rates. Female-headed households are
those in which the adult resident is female and there are no adult males residing in the
household. According to the 2011 ACS, there were 9,857 female-headed households with
children and 6,365 female-headed households without children in the City of Anaheim.
Approximately 16.5 percent of all occupied households are female-headed. Of the total
number of female-headed households in the City, 34 percent were owner-occupied and
nearly 66 percent were renter-occupied. Data for female-headed households is shown in
Table 2-39 and 2-40.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-32 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-39
Tenure in Female-Headed Households, 2011
Household Type
Number of
Owner-
Occupied1
% of Total
Owner-
Occupied
Number of
Renter-
Occupied2
% of Total
Renter-
Occupied Total3
% of Total
Occupied
Households
Female
householder, no
husband present,
with own children
under 18
2,143 4.7% 7,714 14.6% 9,857 10.0%
Female
householder, no
husband present,
without own
children
3,390 7.4% 2,975 5.6% 6,365 6.5%
Total 5,533 34.1% 10,689 65.8% 16,222 16.5%
Notes:
1 Total Owner-Occupied Units = 45,616
2 Total Renter-Occupied Units = 52,970
3 Total Occupied Units = 98,586
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B25115.
As shown in Table 2-21, in 2011, it was estimated that 4,225, or 13 percent, of the 16,222
female-headed households were below poverty level. Across all households in Anaheim,
12 percent were below the poverty level. Of the total number of households in Anaheim,
4.9 percent were female-headed households with children under age 18 living below the
poverty level.
Table 2-40
Poverty in Female-Headed Households, 2011
Household Type
Number
Below
Poverty
Level
% Total
Below
Poverty
Level
Number
Above
Poverty
Level
% Total
Above
Poverty
Level
Female householder, no husband present,
with own children under 18 3,661 4.9% 7,437 10.1%
Female householder, no husband present,
without own children 564 0.8% 4,560 6.2%
Total 4,225 5.7% 11,997 16.2%
Notes:
1 Total Households = 73,982
Source: 2011 American Community Survey B17012.
d. Persons with Disabilities
Access and affordability are the two major housing needs for persons with disabilities.
Access both within the home and to/from the site are important factors to consider for
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-33
persons with disabilities. This often requires specially designed dwelling units that are
located near public facilities and transit.
Table 2-41 shows the number of the City’s residents with disabilities over the age of 16.
The data categories changed between the 2000 and 2010 Census. According to the 2011
ACS, 1.8 percent of residents between the ages of 5 and 17, and 6.1 percent of residents
between the ages of 18 and 64 had at least one of these disabilities. Nearly 36 percent of
residents age 65 and up had at least one of these disabilities.
Table 2-41
Persons Reporting Physical and Self Care Disabilities, 2011
Age
Group
Hearing
Disability
Vision
Disability
Cognitive
Disability
Ambulatory
Disability
Self Care
Difficulty
Independent
Living
Difficulty Total
% of
Age
Group1
5-17 yrs. 215 208 695 225 187 N/A 1,155 1.79%
18-64 yrs. 2,269 2,471 5,337 6,848 1,899 5373 13,209 6.13%
65+ yrs. 5,114 2,748 3,683 7,712 4,084 6,432 11,876 35.92%
Total 5+
yrs. 7,598 5,427 9,715 14,785 6,170 11,805 26,240 8.38%
Notes: Total 5-17 years old: 64,636; 18-64 years old: 215,450; 65+ years: 33,060.
Source: 2011 ACS, S1810.
Table 2-42 provides a summary of housing problems experienced by households with
mobility and self-care limitation in the City of Anaheim. According to the 2005-2009
CHAS data, 57.8 percent of the total number of households with mobility and self-care
limitations experience some sort of housing problem. As previously stated, these
problems include overpayment, overcrowding and/or lack of complete kitchen facilities
and plumbing systems.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-34 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-42
Housing Problems for Households with Mobility and Self-Care Limitations, 2005-2009
Renters Owners Total
House-
holds
Extra
Elderly1 Elderly2
All Other
Households
Total
Renters
Extra
Elderly1 Elderly2
All Other
Households
Total
Owners
Household Income < 30% MFI 1,485 1,670 9,135 12,290 1,035 760 1,655 3,450 15,740
# with any Housing Problems 1,270 1,410 8,865 11,545 680 545 1455 2,680 14,225
% with any Housing Problems3 85.5% 84.4% 97.0% 93.9% 65.7% 71.7% 87.9% 77.7% 90.4%
Household Income > 30% to < 50% MFI 860 1,140 9,720 11,720 1,295 1,205 2,550 5,050 16,770
# with any Housing Problems 685 1,000 9,390 11,075 540 735 2,140 3,415 14,490
% with any Housing Problems3 79.7% 87.7% 96.6% 94.5% 41.7% 61.0% 83.9% 67.6% 86.4%
Household Income > 50% to < 80% MFI 490 1,255 10,380 12,125 1,545 1,695 6,180 9,420 21,545
# with any Housing Problems 350 695 7,180 8,225 480 895 4,580 5,955 14,180
% with any Housing Problems3 71.4% 55.4% 69.2% 67.8% 31.1% 52.8% 74.1% 63.2% 65.8%
Household Income > 80% MFI 330 1,020 10,685 12,035 2,585 4,605 21,345 28,535 40,570
# with any Housing Problems 45 215 2,285 2,545 480 420 8,120 9,020 11,565
% with any Housing Problems3 13.6% 21.1% 21.4% 21.1% 18.6% 9.1% 38.0% 31.6% 28.5%
Total Households 3,165 5,085 39,920 48,170 6,460 8,265 31,730 46,455 94,625
# with any Housing Problems 2,350 3,320 27,720 33,390 2,180 2,595 16,495 21,270 54,660
% with any Housing Problems3 74.2% 65.3% 69.4% 69.3% 33.7% 31.4% 52.0% 45.8% 57.8%
Notes:
1Extra Elderly: 1 or 2 persons with either person 75 years or over
2Elderly: 1 or 2 persons with either person 62 to 74 years
3”Housing Problem” defined as any occupied housing units lacking a complete kitchen, lacking complete plumbing, having 1.01 or more persons per room (overcrowded),
or costing more than 30 percent of the occupant household’s income.
Source: 2000 HUD CHAS data
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-35
SB 812, which took effect January 2011, amended State Housing Element law to require
the analysis of the disabled to include an evaluation of the special housing needs of
persons with developmental disabilities. A "developmental disability" is defined as a
disability that originates before an individual becomes 18 years old, continues, or can be
expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that
individual. This includes Mental Retardation, Cerebral Palsy, Epilepsy, and Autism. The
US Census does not have specific information regarding persons with developmental
disabilities. However, each nonprofit regional center contracted with the California
Department of Developmental Services maintains an accounting of the number of
persons served. The Regional Center of Orange County is one of 21 private non-profit
organizations contracted by the State of California to coordinate lifelong services and
support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. Through the
Lanterman Act, RCOC helps those with developmental disabilities with the appropriate
living arrangements whether in-home or in a facility. The Regional Center currently
serves 2,454 persons with developmental disabilities living in Anaheim. The largest age
group of Anaheim residents served by the Regional Center is 23 to 54 years (41.0 percent
of clients).
e. Homeless Population and Transitional Housing
Enumeration of the homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of this
population, and the existence of the “hidden homeless” or persons that move around in
temporary housing situations. Limited information is recorded during shelter intake,
making it even more difficult to determine the number of homeless. There are several
data sources for the homeless population in Anaheim. The most recent data regarding the
homeless population in Anaheim from SCAG Existing Housing Needs Data Report
reports 176 homeless persons within Anaheim from the 2010 US Census.
Table 2-43
Homeless Population in Anaheim – US Census
Category Number of Persons
Population 336,265
Housing Units 104,237
Households 98,294
Population Institutionalized Group Quarters 1 3,557
Population Non-institutionalized Group Quarter 2,020
Homeless 176
Notes:
1 Includes correctional facilities, skilled nursing facilities, other health care facilities, college/student
dormitories, and military group quarters.
Source: SCAG Local Housing Element Assistance: Housing Needs Data Report, Homeless Counts from
2010 Census.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-36 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 2-44 shows data from the Orange County 2012 Housing Inventory Count (HIC)
and Point in Time Count (PIT) which also estimate the homeless population. On January
27, 2012, the HIC reported 315 beds and 292 homeless people sheltered. On January 27,
2011, the HIC reported 224 beds and 207 homeless people sheltered.
The 2011 Unsheltered Point in Time Count conducted on January 22, 2011 reported
4,272 homeless people in Orange County. The homeless counted were asked where they
were living before they most recently became homeless and 17.4 percent of the
unsheltered homeless answered Anaheim. The estimate of unsheltered homeless persons
on the night of January 22, 2011 who resided in Anaheim prior to becoming homeless
was 743.
Table 2-44
Anaheim Estimated Point In Time Homeless Count – OC Partnership
Category Number of Persons
Sheltered 207
Unsheltered 743
Total 950*
Source: OC Partnership, http://www.ocpartnership.net/about_us_press.htm.
*NOTE: This estimate does not include motel families. For more information about motel families, visit
this website: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=1344
Anaheim has a number of motels that serve as residences for individuals and families
who would otherwise be homeless. These “motel families” are not included in the Point -
in-Time Homeless Count as the motels are not considered shelters. The City participates
in the Collaboration to Assist Motel Families along with a number of non-profit
organizations and other public agencies. According to the Collaboration, the County of
Orange, Department of Environmental Health reports there are 483 hotels and motels in
the County of Orange; 140 of these are hotels and motels in Anaheim. The majority of
the hotels in Anaheim, particularly those near the Disneyland resort, cater to tourists, and
therefore the homeless are less likely to use these for shelter due to prohibitive costs. The
City of Anaheim estimates there are between 50 to 75 “residential motels” in Anaheim
where homeless families are likely to reside. A census of families and individuals living
in motels in Anaheim has not been conducted.
A number of service providers in the City of Anaheim provide shelter, food and other
supportive services. Numerous churches and religious organizations within Anaheim
provide food to the homeless through Food Banks.
f. Farm workers
Farm workers are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal
agricultural work. Between 2007 and 2009, an estimated 483 persons, less than one
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 2-37
percent of the City’s labor force, were employed in agriculture (or related industries). It is
assumed that only a small percentage of persons employed in this industry are involved in
active agricultural production and harvest. Therefore, there is no apparent or recognized
need for farm worker housing.
g. Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely Low-Income (ELI) is defined as households with income less than 30 percent
of the area median income. The provisions of Government Code Section 65583 (a)(1)
require quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of Extremely
Low-Income households. In 2011, 5.4 percent of Anaheim households were within the
Extremely Low-Income category (refer to Table 1-13; household income less than
$25,000).
Table 2-45 provides a summary of housing problems experienced by lower income
households in the City of Anaheim. Extremely Low-Income renter-occupied households
experience overpayment and overcrowding. According to Table 2-46, 87 percent of
Extremely Low-Income households experience at least one type of housing problem.
Table 2-45
Housing Problems by Income and Tenure
Renters Owners Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number
Household Income < 30% MFI 12,750 3,570 16,320
with any Housing Problem1 11,545 91% 2,685 75% 14,230
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 1,565 12% 465 13% 2,030
Cost Burden2 >50% 9,610 75% 2,175 61% 11,785
Household Income 30% to 50% MFI 11,720 5,055 16,775
with any Housing Problem1 11,070 94% 3,415 68% 14,485
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 6,825 58% 805 16% 7,630
Cost Burden2 >50% 3,480 30% 2,465 49% 5,945
Household Income >50% to < 80% MFI 12,125 9,430 21,555
with any Housing Problem1 8,225 68% 5,960 63% 14,185
Cost Burden2 >30% < 50% 5,190 43% 2,525 27% 7,715
Cost Burden2 >50% 470 4% 2,850 30% 3,320
Notes:
1“Housing Problem” defined as any occupied housing units lacking a complete kitchen, lacking complete
plumbing, having more than 1.01 persons per room (overcrowded), or costing more than 30 percent of the
occupant household’s income.
2Percentage of household income spent on housing cost.
Source: 2005-2009 HUD CHAS.
Housing Element
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
2-38 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-1
CHAPTER 3:
RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS
A. INTRODUCTION
State Housing Element law requires that local jurisdictions identify and analyze potential
and actual governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, or development of
housing for all income levels, including housing for persons with disabilities. The
analysis should identify specific standards and processes and evaluate their impact on the
supply and affordability of housing. The analysis should determine whether local
regulatory standards pose an actual constraint and demonstrate local efforts to remove
constraints that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing need. Local jurisdictions
must analyze potential non-governmental constraints which are primarily market -driven
and generally outside direct local government control. The Housing Element must
analyze the impacts of the cost of land, construction costs, and the availability of
funding/financing.
This chapter includes identification and description of potential governmental and non-
governmental constraints. While the local standards and processes analyzed may
influence how housing is developed, maintained or improved in Anaheim, they are not
necessarily an undue constraint on housing. The standards and processes implemented by
the City allow for the development, maintenance and improvement of housing that
contributes to quality of life in Anaheim.
This chapter also describes financial and organizational resources that support housing
development, housing maintenance and improvement and the ability of residents to afford
housing in Anaheim.
B. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements and actions imposed by
the government which affect the development and provision of housing. These
constraints may include building codes, land use controls, growth management measures,
development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs. State
and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints, however
these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not
addressed in this analysis.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Governmental resources include programs that provide funds for housing-related
activities, as well as, incentives provided by the local jurisdiction for the provision of
housing.
1. Land Use Controls
Land use controls include General Plan policies, zoning designations and regulations,
permit processing requirements and development fees.
a. General Plan
Every city in California must have a General Plan, which establishes its land use-related
goals and policies. The General Plan is the foundation of all land use controls in a
jurisdiction. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the location,
distribution and density of the land uses within the City. Residential densities are
expressed in dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Anaheim General Plan identifies six
residential land use designations and one residential mixed-use designation. Table 3-1
summarizes Anaheim’s residential land use designations and their associated acreages
and density ranges.
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Estate Custom-type single-
family, detached
dwellings on large lots
1,248 Up to 1.5 du/ac
Low Density Conventional single-
family, detached
dwellings
10,221 Up to 6.5 du/ac
Low-Medium Hillside
Density
Attached and detached
single-family dwellings
on smaller lots in hillside
areas
861 Up to 6.0 du/ac
Low-Medium Density Detached, small-lot
single-family homes,
attached single-family
homes, patio homes, zero-
lot line homes, duplexes,
townhouses and mobile
home parks
2,058 Up to 18.0
du/ac
Medium Density Multi-family units such as
townhomes and
apartments
1,946 Up to 36.0
du/ac
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-3
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Corridor Single-family, attached
housing fronting on
arterial highways and
incorporating a rear
access drive or service
alley
185 Up to 13.0
du/ac
Mixed-Use Apartments, live-work
units, townhomes,
condominiums, flats and
artist-style lofts integrated
with commercial uses.
581
Up to 100 du/ac
Source: City of Anaheim General Plan
According to the current General Plan, a total of 131,385 dwelling units are anticipated
within the City’s planning areas at build-out. As of January 2012, the State Department
of Finance (DOF) reports that 105,657 dwelling units exist in Anaheim. This leaves a
remaining capacity of 25,728 new dwelling units.
Depending on land costs, certain densities are needed to make a housing project
economically feasible for people at various income levels. The following densities
required to accommodate construction affordable to specific income levels are generally
accepted by HCD:
• Very Low- and Low Income: 30 dwelling units per acre minimum
• Moderate Income: 11-30 dwelling units per acre minimum
• Above-Moderate Income: Up to 11 dwelling units per acre
In addition to the generally accepted densities, Assembly Bill 2348 established “default”
density standards. If a local government has adopted density standards consistent with the
established population criteria, sites with those density standards are accepted as
appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s share of regional housing need for
lower income households. For jurisdictions such as Anaheim in metropolitan counties,
the “default” density is a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre.
b. Zoning Code
The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. It is designed to
protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as to promote quality
design and quality of life. The City of Anaheim’s residential zoning designations control
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
both the use and development standards of each residential parcel, thereby influencing
the development of housing.
Table 3-2 summarizes the permitted residential uses in the residential and mixed-use
zones. Single-family residential zones include three designations for hillside areas: RH-1,
RH-2, RH-3 (Single-family hillside) and four designations for other areas of the City:
RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 and RS-4 (Single-family). Single-family, detached units are permitted
by right in all of the single-family residential zones, except for RS-4 where a conditional
use permit is required.
The multi-family residential zones are RM-1, RM-2, RM-3 and RM-4. Multi-family
dwellings are permitted by right in the RM-2, RM-3 and RM-4 zones. They are subject to
a conditional use permit in the RM-1 zone. Single-family attached dwellings are
permitted by right in the RM-2 zone and require a conditional use permit in the RM-1,
RM-3 and RM-4 zones. Single-family detached units are permitted by right in the RM-2,
RM-3 and RM-4 zones when combined with single-family attached dwellings in the same
project. Single-family detached units are subject to a conditional use permit in the RM-1
zone.
The City of Anaheim has also established three mixed use overlay zones: the Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use Overlay (PTMU), the Downtown Mixed Use Overlay (DMU) and
the Mixed Use Overlay (MU). The PTMU Overlay Zone covers approximately 590 acres
within the Platinum Triangle. The DMU Overly Zone covers approximately 37 acres in
the Downtown area. The MU Overlay Zone can be used in conjunction with any
underlying zone in the City.
To implement the 2006-2014 Housing Element policy program, the City established the
Residential Opportunity (RO) Overlay Zone. This Overlay Zone can be applied to
properties that are currently zoned and/or developed with non-residential uses but
designated for multiple-family residential uses by the City’s General Plan. The Overlay
Zone is intended to serve as an implementation tool of the City’s Housing Element by
facilitating residential development on identified “housing opportunity sites.” The RO
Overlay Zone may be applied to properties that currently maintain an underlying non-
residential zone designation within the City. The RO Overlay Zone may also be applied
to properties with an existing residential zoning designation that does not yield the
maximum density allowed by a property’s General Plan designation. Parcels designated
as Medium Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element are subject to the
RM-4 zoning designation. Parcels designated as Low-Medium Density Residential in the
General Plan Land Use Element are subject to the RM-3 zoning designation.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-5
Table 3-2
Primary Uses- Residential Zones
Zone
Single Family
Detached
Single Family
Attached Multiple Family
Existing Acreage
RH-1 P -- -- 375.53
RH-2 P -- -- 675.47
RH-3 P -- -- 692.26
RS-1 P -- -- 252.51
RS-2 P -- -- 4718.19
RS-3 P -- -- 1297.53
RS-4 C -- -- 25.88
RM-1 C C C 0
RM-2 P1 P P 607.30
RM-3 P1 C P 501.27
RM-4 P1 C P 1,848.66
DMU P P P 37.32
PTMU -- P P/C2 590.06
MU C C C 9.53
P=Permitted by Right C= Conditional Use Permit Required
Notes:
1 Single-family detached units permitted by right when combined with single-family attached
dwellings in the same project.
2 Multiple-family dwelling units are subject to a conditional use permit in the Gateway
District, Sub Area B.
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18
Table 3-3 summarizes the housing types permitted by-right, conditionally permitted or
prohibited in the City by zone. Uses permitted by-right do not require discretionary
review and can be submitted directly for building plan check and permits. These projects
under go staff-level (ministerial) review by the Planning Division during the plan check
process. In addition to the housing types shown in Table 3-2, the City also permits or
conditionally permits mobile home parks, residential care facilities, convalescent and rest
homes, group care facilities, senior second units, second units and senior citizen housing
in many of the residential and non-residential zones.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Single family detached dwellings are defined as “…one dwelling unit on a single lot,
which dwelling is separated from any other dwelling unit. This use class includes
detached condominiums and detached single-family dwellings in other common interest
developments, as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code, as it may be
amended from time to time. Manufactured homes certified under the National Mobile
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, which are installed on a
permanent foundation approved by the City, are also included.” (Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.90) A manufactured/factory built house is considered to be single-family
detached dwelling.
Single family attached dwellings are defined as “one dwelling unit, on a single lot,
constructed with a common wall, with one or more single-family units located on other
lots. This use class includes attached condominiums and attached single-family
dwellings in other common interest developments, as defined in Section 1351 of the
California Civil Code, as it may be amended from time to time.” (Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.90)
Multiple family dwellings are defined as “two or more dwelling units within the same
structure, located on a single lot, each with its own kitchen and bathroom facilities.”
(Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.90)
The Zoning Code does not differentiate between owner-occupied and rental uses, with
the exception of projects utilizing the density bonus ordinance for affordable housing in
that rental units may be entitled to additional density bonus incentives.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-7
Table 3-3
Permitted Uses
Zone
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Attached
Multiple
Family
Mobile
Home
Parks
Residential
Care
Facilities
Convalescent &
Rest Homes
Group
Care
Facilities
Senior
Second
Units
Second
Units
Senior
Citizen
Housing
RH-1 P -- -- N P N C C P --
RH-2 P -- -- N P N C C P --
RH-3 P -- -- N P N C C P --
RS-1 P -- -- N P C C C P --
RS-2 P -- -- N P C C C P --
RS-3 P -- -- C P C C C P --
RS-4 C -- -- N P N C N N --
RM-1 C C C N P N C C P C
RM-2 P1 P P C P N C C P C
RM-3 P1 C P C P N C C P C
RM-4 P1 C P C P C C C P C
C-NC -- -- -- N -- N C -- -- C
C-R -- -- -- N -- N C -- -- C
C-G -- -- -- C -- C C -- -- C
O-L -- -- -- N -- N C -- -- N
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-3
Permitted Uses
Zone
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Attached
Multiple
Family
Mobile
Home
Parks
Residential
Care
Facilities
Convalescent &
Rest Homes
Group
Care
Facilities
Senior
Second
Units
Second
Units
Senior
Citizen
Housing
O-H -- -- -- N -- N C -- -- N
I -- -- -- C -- -- -- -- -- --
OS N -- -- N -- N N -- -- N
PR N -- -- N -- N C -- -- N
SP N -- -- N -- N C -- -- N
T P -- -- C -- C N -- -- C
PTMU
Overlay N P P/C2 -- -- -- -- -- -- C
BCC Overlay CUP required for all residential uses except for Senior Citizen Housing; Permitted based on underlying zone; mobile home parks are prohibited
in the O-L and C-G zones.
SABC
Overlay-
Neighborhood
Residential
District
P C Permitted based on underlying zone.
SABC
Overlay-
Boulevard
Residential
District
Permitted
based on
underlying
zone.
P Permitted based on underlying zone.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-9
Table 3-3
Permitted Uses
Zone
Single
Family
Detached
Single
Family
Attached
Multiple
Family
Mobile
Home
Parks
Residential
Care
Facilities
Convalescent &
Rest Homes
Group
Care
Facilities
Senior
Second
Units
Second
Units
Senior
Citizen
Housing
SABC
Overlay-
Neighborhood
Commercial
and
Neighborhood
Commercial
Mixed Use
District
Permitted based on underlying zone. Residential units and senior citizen housing above first floor commercial uses are permitted.
MHP Overlay -- -- -- P -- -- -- -- -- --
FP Overlay Dwellings permitted when allowed in the underlying zone.
DMU Overlay P P P -- -- C C -- -- P
MU Overlay -- C3 C3 -- -- -- -- -- -- C
RO Overlay
Residential uses permitted by-right; Parcels designated as Medium Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element shall be subject
to the (RM-4) Multiple-Family zoning designation. Parcels designated as Low-Medium Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use
Element shall be subject to the (RM-3) Multiple Family zoning designation.
P=Permitted by Right; C= Conditional Use Permit Required; N=Prohibited; "--" =Not listed for the zone
Notes:
1 Single-family detached units permitted by right when combined with single-family attached dwellings in the same project.
2 Multiple-family dwelling units are subject to a conditional use permit in the Gateway District, Sub Area B.
3 Permitted by-right on designated Housing Opportunity Sites in the most current certified General Plan Housing Element.
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-4 summarizes the single-family residential zoning designations and their
requirements. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 summarize the multi-family residential designations
and requirements. Table 3-7 summarizes the requirements for mixed-use residential
development.
The maximum number of units allowed in a multi-family residential development is
determined primarily by the minimum lot area required per dwelling unit, the maximum
allowable site coverage and the maximum permitted building height. Of these three
standards, the minimum lot area required per dwelling unit is the most important in
determining the number of units that can be developed on a site. This standard accounts
for the minimum size of the unit based on bedroom count and the necessary parking and
recreational space for each unit. Based on the numerous constructed and approved multi-
family projects in Anaheim that have been developed while adhering to these standards,
the City has not found that the development standards adversely impact the cost and
supply of the housing or the ability to achieve maximum densities.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-11
Table 3-4
Summary of Single-Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Minimum Lot
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Minimum
Floor Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum Front
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum
Interior Side
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Street
Side Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Rear
Yard (Ft.)
RH-1 43,560 N/A 1,700 25 ft./ 2
stories 20 15 15 20
RH-2 22,000 N/A 1,700 25 ft./2
stories
25 (where a tract or
minimum of one
block (one side of
the street) is to be
developed
concurrently,
average of 25 ft.,
with the minimum
of 15 ft.)
10 (min. 10 ft.
from any
private access
easement of
record)
10 (min. 10 ft.
from any private
access easement
of record)
25% depth of lot,
need not exceed
25 ft. (min. 10 ft.
from any private
access easement
of record)
RH-3 10,000 40% 1,700
25 ft./2 stories
(certain areas
subject to Sect.
18.04.070.040)
20
6 single story
building, 15’
combined for 2-
story building,
but not less than
6 ft. on a single
side (min. 10 ft.
from any
private access
easement of
record)
9 (min. 10 ft. from
any private access
easement of
record)
15 (min. 10 ft.
from any private
access easement
of record)
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-4
Summary of Single-Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Minimum Lot
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Minimum
Floor Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum Front
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum
Interior Side
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Street
Side Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Rear
Yard (Ft.)
RS-1 10,000 40% 1,700 35 ft./ 2-1/2
stories
30 or 25% of depth
of lot, whichever is
less
10% of width of
lot, except not
less than 5 ft.
and need not
exceed 10 ft.
9
25 or 25% of the
depth of the lot,
whichever is less
RS-2 7,200 40% 1,225 35 ft./ 2-1/2
stories
25 or 25% of depth
of lot, whichever is
less
5 9
25, may be
reduced to 10’
provided the
dwelling or
accessory
structures does
not occupy more
than 35% of the
required setback
RS-3 5,000 40% 1,225 30 ft./ 2
stories
15, (where a tract or
minimum of one
block (one side of
the street) is to be
developed
concurrently,
average of 15 ft.,
with the minimum
of 10 ft.)
5 to property
line or for
development of
an entire tract, 0
ft on one side
and 10 ft on the
other side,
provided a min.
10 ft. between
structures on
adj. lots
9 15
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-13
Table 3-4
Summary of Single-Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Minimum Lot
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Minimum
Floor Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum Front
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum
Interior Side
Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Street
Side Yard (Ft.)
Minimum Rear
Yard (Ft.)
RS-4 3,960 50%* 1,225* 30 ft./ 2
stories
10, setback may be
an average of 10 ft.
with a min. of 5 ft.*
5 to property
line or for
development of
an entire tract, 0
ft on one side
and 10 ft on the
other side,
provided a min.
10 ft. between
structures on
adj. lots
9
10 for single
story structures,
15 for 2-story
structures
* Modifications permitted subject to A.M.C. Section 18.04.160 (Development in the RS -4 Zone).
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-5
Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Minimum Lot Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum Lot
Coverage Minimum Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) Maximum Building Height
RM-1* 3,350/du 50% Subject to A.M.C. Section 18.06.160 40 ft.
RM-2 3,000/du 40%
Studio units: 550 sq. ft., provided however
that the number of studio units shall not
exceed 20% of the total number of units
1-bedroom units: 750 sq. ft.
2-bedroom units: 950 sq. ft.
3-bedroom units: 1,150 sq. ft.
4-bedroom units: 1,350 sq. ft.
40 ft., CUP for >40 ft. or >3 stories
RM-3* 2,400/du 45%
Studio units: 550 sq. ft., provided, however,
that the number of studio units shall not
exceed 20% of the total number of units.
1-bedroom units: 700 sq. ft.
2-bedroom units: 825 sq. ft.
3-bedroom units: 1,000 sq. ft.
>3 bedroom units: 1,000 sq. ft. plus 200 sq.
ft. for each bedroom over 3
40 ft., CUP for >40 ft. or >3 stories
RM-4* 1,200/du 55% Same as RM-3 40 ft., CUP for >40 ft. or >3 stories
* Pursuant to A.M.C. Section 18.060160 (Residential Planned Unit Development) all development in the “RM-1" Zone and any development in the “RM-3" or “RM-4" Zones
that includes single-family attached dwellings require approval by the Planning Commission of an application for a conditional use permit. Development standards may be
modified as part of the conditional use permit in order to achieve good project design, privacy, livability, and compatibilit y with surrounding uses.
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 18
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-15
Table 3-6
Summary of Multiple Family Residential Setback Requirements
Setbacks Abutting a Public Street
Arterial highway: 20 ft. average, 15 ft.
minimum
Public street other than an arterial: 15 ft.
Setbacks Abutting
Interior Property Lines: 1 story 10 ft.
2 story- Primary 15 ft.
2 story- Secondary 15 ft.
2 story- Blank 15 ft.
3 story- Primary 20 ft.
3 story- Secondary 15 ft.
3 story- Blank 15 ft.
4 story- Primary 25 ft.
4 story- Secondary 20 ft.
4 story- Blank 15 ft.
Setbacks within 150 ft. of
Single Family
Residential Zones: 1 story
20 ft.
2 story- Primary 35 ft.
2 story- Secondary 25 ft.
2 story- Blank 20 ft.
3 story- Primary 55 ft.
3 story- Secondary 45 ft.
3 story- Blank 40 ft.
4 story- Primary 75 ft.
4 story- Secondary 65 ft.
4 story- Blank 60 ft.
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 18
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-7
Summary of Mixed-Use Zoning Requirements
Overlay
Zone Project Size
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Minimum Floor Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Building
Height (Ft.)
Minimum Setback
Abutting Public
Rights-of-Way, Private
Streets and Alleys
(Ft.)
Minimum Setback
Abutting Interior
Property Lines (Ft.)
Minimum
Setback
Between
Buildings (Ft.)
PTMU 50 units
minimum 75%
Studio: 500 sq. ft.
1-bedroom: 650 sq. ft.;
2-bedroom: 825 sq. ft.;
3-bedroom: 1,000 sq.
ft.; >3-bedroom; 1,000
+ 200 sq. ft. per
additional bedroom
over 3
Arena &
Stadium
Districts:
unlimited,
All others: 100
feet (greater
heights
permitted by
conditional use
permit)
9.5 to 25 feet based on
specific street 5 ft. 20 ft.
DMU Determined as part of the planned mixed use development process.
MU
Minimum lot
size: 3 acres;
Minimum
density: 36
du/ac;
Maximum
density: 60
du/ac
N/A
Studio: 550 sq. ft.
1-bedroom: 700 sq. ft.;
2-bedroom: 825 sq. ft.;
3-bedroom: 1,000 sq.
ft.; >3-bedroom; 1,000
+ 200 sq. ft. per
additional bedroom
over 3
Based on underlying zone
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-17
Table 3-8 summarizes the minimum and maximum densities permitted by building type
in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The permitted densities are based on
the gross number of dwelling units and the gross lot size excluding public and private
streets, alley rights-of-way, and public and private easements for ingress and egress.
Table 3-8
BUILDING TYPES:
PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE
Building Type Unit Type Density Range
Units/Acre
Definition
Tuck-Under Townhomes
Flats
16-30 Residential buildings in
which individual parking
garages are located under
the living unit but still
accessed by surface
driveways
Wrapped Deck Flats 45-80 Residential buildings that
surround, or wrap around, a
freestanding (not
subterranean) parking
structure
Podium Townhomes
Flats
16-100 Residential buildings located
above a subterranean
parking structure
High-Rise Tower Flats 65-100 Residential buildings over
55 feet in height
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18
i. Downtown Mixed Use (DMU)
The Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU) Overlay Zone was adopted in 2003 in order to
introduce a mixed-use setting into a 36-acre portion of the Downtown area. The Overlay
provides maximum flexibility while encouraging consistency between the City's historic
architecture and new development. The Overlay Zone does not have any setback, height
or density requirements thereby allowing for maximum design flexibility. Development
requires approval of a Final Site Plan, which is reviewed for consistency with the
standards for the DMU Overlay Zone, including the Design Guidelines for the
Downtown Mixed Use Overlay. The guidelines allow for the use of innovative solutions
to design constraints. Approval of a Final Site Plan is required prior to approval of
grading or building plans. The Final Site Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission;
however, it does not require a public hearing. If the Final Site Plan is found in
conformance with the DMU Overlay Zone, it is approved. Development within the
DMU Overlay Zone typically falls within the environmental analysis completed by a
previously certified EIR for the existing Redevelopment Area and thus does not require
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
further environmental review, which also helps streamline the development review
process. Since its adoption, 6.5 acres have been developed or are under construction
pursuant to the DMU Overlay Zone, resulting in 129 condominium-units, 277 apartment
units, over 55,000 square feet of commercial uses and a 13,000 square foot
cultural/heritage center (the Muzeo). The densities for this development range from 44 to
102 dwelling units/acre. Because the Overlay Zone allows for maximum design creativity
and does not require public hearings for development approvals, it been a successful tool
towards introducing high density, mixed-use development to the Downtown area.
ii. Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone
The Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone was adopted in 2004 to implement the General Plan
Mixed Use land use designation in areas outside of the City's DMU Overlay Zone and
The Platinum Triangle. The MU Overlay Zone allows development at densities of up to
60 dwelling units per acre, much higher than any of the City's residential zones. Since
mixed-use development in the MU Overlay Zone is not specific to one geographic area,
project proposals will vary from project to project and location to location. The
conditional use permit process allows development flexibility for these projects as long as
the Planning Commission can determine that the development meets the following
criteria that can be supported with evidentiary findings: (1) the proposed use will not
adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located; (2) the size and shape of the site proposed for the use
is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not
detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; (3) the traffic generated by
the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways
designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and, (4) the granting of the
conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Since 2004, approximately eight
acres have been reclassified to the MU Overlay Zone. Development has included a 52-
unit apartment complex with 36 units affordable to very-low income families and 15
units affordable to low income families. Another project includes the preservation of a
historic commercial building and historic homes. Development proposals have not yet
been submitted for the remaining properties in the MU Overlay Zone.
iii. Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone
Development within Sub Area A of the Gateway District of the Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone is subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. A
conditional use permit was approved for this area in 2005 for a specific development
project (Archstone Gateway). This project encompasses the entirety of Sub Area A and
has been completed. The application for this project was submitted prior to the adoption
of the PTMU Overlay Zone. Due to the complex nature of this project (the 884-unit
apartment complex is located in two cities) and the amount of design work that was
completed prior to the adoption of the PTMU Overlay Zone; it was determined that a
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-19
conditional use permit would be the best tool to allow greater design flexibility to
accommodate the unique characteristics of this project.
c. Parking Requirements
Table 3-9 summarizes the residential parking requirements in Anaheim. Parking
requirements do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking
requirements may reduce the amount of available lot areas for residential development.
The City determines the required number of parking spaces based on the type and size of
residential unit and has found the required parking spaces to be necessary to
accommodate the number of vehicles typically associated with each residence. It should
also be noted that uncovered parking spaces, such as those allowed to meet the parking
requirements for multi-family residential development, are not included in the calculation
of lot coverage. Based on the numerous constructed and approved projects in the
Anaheim, the City has found that the parking requirements do not unduly impact the cost
and supply of housing.
Table 3-9
Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Residential Development Required Parking Spaces
(off street)
Single Family Residential
(6 or fewer bedrooms) 4 (2 in garage)
Single Family Residential
(7 or more bedrooms)
4 (2 in garage), plus 1 additional space per each bedroom over 6
bedrooms
Multi-Family Residential (Studio) 1.25 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
(1 bedroom) 2.0 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
(2 bedrooms) 2.25 per unit
Multi-Family Residential
(3 or bedrooms) 3.0 per unit (plus 0.5 space for each bedroom over 3 bedrooms)
Mobile Home Parks 2 plus 1 guest space for every 4 mobile homes
Senior Housing 1 (studio/1-bedroom unit) or 2 (2-bedroom unit)
Second Residential Units 1 (efficiency/1-bedroom unit) or 2 (2-bedroom unit)
Senior Second Units 1 per unit
PTMU (1 bedroom) 1.5 per unit
PTMU (2 bedrooms) 2.0 per unit
PTMU (3 bedrooms) 2.5 per unit
PTMU (4 bedrooms) 3.5 per unit
DMU 1 per unit; determined as part of the final plan review process
MU Determined as part of the conditional use permit process; single
family/multi-family residential parking requirements above
apply to all residential development that is not part of a mixed-
use project
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 18, Sect. 18.42 et. seq.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
2. Density Bonus Ordinance
In order to encourage the construction of affordable housing developments for very low
low and moderate income households, and in accordance with Chapter 4.3 Section 65915
et. seq. of the California Government Code, the City of Anaheim has adopted a Density
Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code). Upon request from the
applicant, the City grants a density bonus based on the percentage of affordable units,
senior housing units or transfer of land to the City for development of very-low income
housing units or the provision of child care facilities. Projects qualifying for the density
bonus also receive reduced parking requirements, concessions and other development
incentives.
a. General Density Bonus for Affordable Units
The City grants a density bonus for developments providing units affordable to and
occupied by moderate, low and very-low income persons and households. The project
must have a minimum of five units and an affordability covenant is required for at least
30 years. Table 3-10 outlines the density bonuses allowed based on the percentage of
units in each affordability category in conformity with State law.
Table 3-10
Density Bonus for Provision of Affordable Units
Percentage Very-Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
Percentage Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 20
11 21.5
12 23
13 24.5
14 26
15 27.5
16 29
17 30.5
18 32
19 33.5
20 35
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-21
Table 3-10
Density Bonus for Provision of Affordable Units
Percentage Moderate Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 5
11 6
12 7
13 8
14 9
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
33 28
34 29
35 30
36 31
37 32
38 33
39 34
40 35
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.52
b. Density Bonus for Senior Housing
Senior housing developments meeting the criteria of California Civil Code Sections 51.3
and 51.12 are granted a density bonus of 20 percent. Section A.3 of this chapter describes
the City’s Senior Citizen’s Apartment Projects Ordinance.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-22 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
c. Density Bonus for Transfer of Land
Upon application and pursuant to the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, t he City grants a
density bonus when an applicant agrees to donate land to the City for the development of
very-low income affordable units. The transferred land must be at least one net acre or of
sufficient size to develop at least 40 units. The land must also be sufficient in size to
permit construction of affordable units equal or greater than ten percent of the number of
units proposed by the associated subdivision map, parcel map or residential development
approval. The transferred land must also have the appropriate zoning and general plan
designation, be or will be served by adequate public facilities and infrastructure, and be
within the boundary of the proposed development or another acceptable area. The density
bonus is based on the percentage calculated by number affordable units to be built on the
transferred land divided by the total number of units in the proposed housing
development. Table 3-11 shows the density bonus granted based on percentage of very-
low income units. This increase is in addition to any increase in density under the density
bonus for affordable units up to a maximum combined density bonus of 35 percent.
Table 3-11
Transfer of Land D ensity Bonus
Percentage Very-Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.52
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-23
d. Density Bonus for Condominium Conversion
A density bonus, or another incentive of equivalent financial value, is granted for a
condominium conversion project when the applicant agrees to provide at least 33 percent
of the total ownership units to low or moderate income households or 15 percent to lower
income households. The density bonus is a 25 percent increase in units over the number
of units otherwise legally permitted.
e. Density Bonus for Child Care Facilities
Developments that qualify for a density bonus and include child care facilities located
on-site or adjacent to the development are granted an additional density bonus equal to or
greater than the amount of square feet of the child care facility. In lieu of the density
bonus, an additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly to the
economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facilities can be granted.
f. Density Bonus for Affordable Rental Housing
Development
The City has developed significant incentives and allows for concessions to encourage
affordable rental housing development through its Density Bonus Ordinance. The
Ordinance, which goes above and beyond State-mandated density bonus provisions, was
developed in a cooperative effort between the City and affordable housing advocacy
interests. Qualifying affordable rental housing developments are granted a density bonus
of 35 percent. A qualifying project must be at least one acre in size with at least 36 units
unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Director. A minimum of 20 percent of
the total units or five units, whichever is greater, must be affordable to very-low income
households for at least 55 years. In order to encourage development of housing suitable
for families, no more than 30 percent of the total units in the development can be one
bedroom units, unless the development is targeted for a special needs population and
approved by the Planning Director.
g. Development Incentives
Anaheim’s development incentives are organized in two tiers. Tier One Incentives are
granted through ministerial review. Tier Two Incentives are granted through a public
hearing process before the Planning Commission. The number of incentives granted is
based on the percentage of affordable units provided. Projects proposing a child care
facility that is granted a density bonus receive one additional incentive. Affordable Rental
Housing Developments receive any and all Tier One Incentives and up to three Tier Two
Incentives. Table 3 -12 lists the number of incentives granted by the level and percentage
of affordability.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-24 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-12
Number of Incentives by Level of Affordability
Level of Affordability Percentage of Affordable Units
Number of Development
Incentives
Very-low income At least 5% 1
At least 10% 2
At least 15% 3
Lower income At least 10% 1
At least 20% 2
At least 30% 3
Moderate Income (common
interest developments only) At least 10% 1
At least 20% 2
At least 30% 3
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 18, Sect. 18.58.090
Tier One incentives include the following:
• Increased allowable site coverage to a maximum of 90 percent for any fully
subterranean garage and to 65 percent for all structures;
• Decreased size for 50 percent of the required trees from 24-inch box to 15 gallon;
• Ten percent deviation of the structural setbacks for development on an irregular
lot;
• Reduced landscape setback of not less than 15 feet in depth along an arterial
highways and not less than 10 feet on all other streets for developments on lots
with multiple street frontages;
• Increased maximum allowable building height and/or stories up to four stories
when the structure is located more than 150 feet from any single-family
residential zone boundary or Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zone; and
• Reduction of a required setback as shown in Table 3-13. Each setback reduction
requested shall be counted as one incentive. A minimum 5 foot wide landscape
setback from interior lot lines shall be provided.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-25
Table 3-13
Tier One Development Incentives
Setbacks
Setbacks from Interior Property Lines
Adjacent to Single-Family
Residential Adjacent to all Other Zones
Two-Story Structures
Primary Wall 30 ft. 10 ft.
Secondary or Blank Wall 15 ft. 10 ft.
Three-Story Structures
Primary Wall 35 ft. 15 ft.
Secondary or Blank Wall 20 ft. 10 ft.
Four-Story Structures (the reduced interior lot line setback is a Tier One Incentive; an increase in
the maximum allowable building height up to four stories is a separate incentive)
Primary Wall 55 ft. 15 ft.
Secondary or Blank Wall 45 ft. 10 ft.
Setbacks Between Buildings
Wall Type Primary Secondary Blank
Two-Story Structures
Primary 25 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft.
Secondary 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Blank 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Three-Story Structures
Primary 35 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Secondary 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Blank 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.
Four-Story Structures (the reduced interior lot line setback is a Tier One Incentive; an increase in
the maximum allowable building height up to four stories is a separate incentive)
Primary 45 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft.
Secondary 30 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft.
Blank 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.52.090
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-26 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Tier Two incentives include the following:
• Reduction of right-of-way dedication or improvements;
• Increase maximum building height and/or stories to a height of four stories;
• Density bonus of more than 35 percent;
• A reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces;
• Approval of mixed-use zoning; and,
• Other regulatory incentives that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions or
avoidance.
h. Parking Ratio Reduction
In addition to the density bonus and development incentives, reduced parking
requirements are offered for projects that meet the criteria for either a density bonus or
Affordable Rental Housing Development. These parking requirements are provided in
Table 3-14.
Table 3-14
Density Bonus and Affordable Rental Housing Development
Parking Requirements
Unit Size Density Bonus
Affordable Rental Housing
Development
Studio 1.0 per unit 1.0 per unit
1 bedroom 1.0 per unit 1.0 per unit
2 bedroom 2.0 per unit 1.5 per unit
3 bedroom 2.0 per unit 2.0 per unit
4 bedroom 2.5 per unit 2.0 per unit
Source: City of Anaheim Municipal Code Title 18, Sect. 18.58.050
3. Senior Citizen Housing
The Zoning Code allows Senior Citizen Housing in all multi-family zones and the
Neighborhood (C-NC), Regional (C-R) and General (C-G) commercial zones with a
conditional use permit. Development standards for Senior Citizen Housing are found in
Chapter 18.50 (Senior Citizens’ Apartment Projects) of the Municipal Code. Projects are
reviewed for design, compatibility with existing neighborhood scale and character and a
high level of livability for senior citizens. Any proposal for a senior citizens' apartment
project shall include adequate consideration and information as to the location of the site
in relation to the proximity and accessibility to necessary services, including grocery
stores, transit stops, medical facilities and banks. As a condition of approval for a senior
citizens’ apartment project, at least 49 percent of the total dwelling units must be
affordable to very-low income households with an affordability covenant for at least 30
years.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-27
4. Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing and
Single Room Occupancy Units
a. Homeless Shelters
To accommodate its share of the region’s homeless, there are numerous non-profit
organizations within the City of Anaheim and adjacent jurisdictions that offer shelter and
services to homeless persons. Non-profit organizations that have received funding
through the City’s Emergency Shelter Grant program include: Anaheim Interfaith
Shelter, Colette’s Children’s Home, H.I.S. House, Mental Health Association, Mercy
House Transitional Living Centers, Inc., Thomas House, WISEPlace and Women’s
Transitional Living Center (WTLC). The City also participates in the Orange County
Continuum of Care Community Forum. The City works within this collaborative to help
identify needs and gaps in the housing/service needs of the region’s homeless.
State Housing Law requires that cities identify sites that are adequately zoned for
homeless shelters and transitional housing. Additionally, cities must not unduly
discourage or deter these uses. Table 3-15 provides a summary of emergency shelters and
transitional housing in Anaheim.
Table 3-15
Homeless Facilities in Anaheim
Facility Name Type of Facility Target Population
Number of Shelter
Beds
Anaheim Interfaith Shelter Transitional Families w/
children
60
Collette’s Childrens Home Transitional Women/Women
with children
24
Heritage Cottage Transitional Women with
children/Substance
Addiction
10
Heritage House North Transitional Women with
children/Substance
Addiction
16
Heritage House Village Transitional Women with
children/Substance
Addiction
40
Eli Home Transitional Women w/
children
28
Veteran’s First Transitional Veterans 24
Total 202
Source: City of Anaheim 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan
A single emergency shelter housing up to 50 occupants, or a combination of multiple
shelters with a combined capacity not to exceed 50 occupants, is permitted in the
Industrial (I) Zone or the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP 94-1) Zone,
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-28 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
excluding properties within Development area 5 or 6. However, emergency shelters are
not permitted in either zone on parcels designated by the General Plan for any residential
use, including mixed-use residential. Emergency shelters for more than 50 occupants are
subject to a conditional use permit in the Industrial Zone or the Northeast Area Specific
Plan No. 94-1 Zone. Religious institutions located within the Industrial Zone may
establish on-site Emergency Shelters for up to 50 occupants without the need to amend an
existing conditional use permit or apply for a new conditional use permit, regardless of
current combined capacity with any existing Emergency Shelters currently in operation.
Emergency shelters must comply with the following development standards:
• Stays at the facility shall be provided on a first-come first-served basis. The
facility shall be open 24 hours a day; however, clients shall only be admitted to
the facility only between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Clients must check out of the
facility by 8:00 a.m. but may remain on the premises to avail themselves of other
services offered. Clients must check in daily and have no guaranteed bed for the
next night.
• A person’s maximum length of stay at the facility shall not exceed 180 days in a
365 day period.
• Alcohol and narcotics use and consumption are prohibited both within the facility
and on the property.
• A minimum distance of 300 feet, measured from the property line, shall be
maintained from any other Emergency Shelter. A minimum distance of 1000 feet,
measured from the property line, shall be maintained from any property
designated for residential use by the Anaheim General Plan, including any mixed-
use designation that permits residential uses, any public or private school serving
a minor population, any day-care center and any assisted-living facility.
• A minimum of one (1) staff member per fifteen (15) beds shall be on active duty
when the facility is open.
• Bicycle racks or bicycle lockers shall be provided by the facility.
• Exterior lighting plans shall be provided for the entire outdoor area of the site and
shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Police Departments.
• A client waiting area shall be provided and contain a minimum of 10 square feet
per bed provided at the facility. The waiting area shall be in a location not
adjacent to the public right of way, shall be visually separated from public view
by a minimum 6-foot tall screening of mature landscaping or by a minimum 6-
foot tall decorative masonry wall, and shall provide shade and protection from the
elements.
• Any outdoor storage, including, but not limited to, items brought on -site by
clients for overnight stays, shall be screened from public view. Any outdoor
storage areas provided shall be screened from public view by a minimum 6-foot
tall wall screened by landscaping or by a minimum 6-foot tall decorative masonry
wall.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-29
• All facility improvements shall comply with Title 15 (Buildings and Housing) of
the Anaheim Municipal Code, and shall also comply with the following
requirements:
o A minimum of 1 toilet for every 8 beds per gender.
o A minimum of 1 shower for every 8 beds per gender.
o Private shower and toilet facility for each area designated for use by
individual families.
o Kitchen facilities and dining hall or designated dining area shall be
provided for the preparation and serving of meals for clients and staff.
• The facility may provide the following services in a designated area separate from
sleeping areas:
o Indoor and outdoor recreation facilities.
o A counseling center for job placement and/or educational, legal, or mental
and physical health services.
o Laundry facilities to serve the clients at the shelter.
o Client storage areas for the storage of bicycles or other personal items.
o Other similar facilities and services geared towards the needs of homeless
clients.
• An Operations Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Director and Police Chief, or their designee, prior to the operation of the
Emergency Shelter. The Plan may be required to address additional specific
needs as identified by the Director or Chief. The approved Operations Plan shall
remain active throughout the life of the facility. At a minimum, the Plan shall
contain provisions addressing the following:
o Security and safety. Twenty-four (24) hour a day security shall be
provided. Security and safety shall be addressed for both on and off-site
needs, including provisions to address the separation of male/female
sleeping areas as well as any family areas within the facility.
o Loitering control. Measures regarding off-site controls to minimize the
congregation of clients in the vicinity of the facility.
o Management for outdoor areas. A system for daily admittance and
discharge procedures, including monitoring for waiting areas, shall be
developed to minimize disruption to nearby land uses.
o Staff training. A staff training program shall be maintained that provide
adequate knowledge and skills necessary to assist clients in obtaining
permanent shelter and income.
o Communications. A communication and outreach plan shall be developed
to maintain good communication and response to operational issues which
may arise from the neighborhood, City staff, or the general public.
o Client eligibility. A screening program to determine client eligibility is
required. The facility shall also utilize the Orange County region’s current
Homeless Management Information System.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-30 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
o Counseling services. Provision of or links to counseling services are
encouraged. Identify and describe the counseling programs to be provided
as well as procedures that will be used to refer clients to outside assistance
agencies. An annual report to the City on this activity is required.
o Litter control. Litter and trash removal attributable to the clients within
the vicinity of the facility shall be provided on a continual basis.
During implementation of the 2006-2014 Housing Element, the City analyzed areas of
the City that met the locational criteria described above to identify parcels which could
accommodate emergency shelters. These “emergency shelter opportunity areas” are
shown on Exhibit 3-1. There are 1,218 parcels within the emergency shelter opportunity
areas. These parcels total 1,615 acres and the average parcel size is 2.07 acres. These
parcels include areas that are currently underutilized, or have potential for reuse.
b. Transitional and Supportive Housing
Supportive Housing, as defined by Section 50675.14 of the California Health and Safety
Code, is housing with no limit on the length of stay and that is occupied by a target
population. The target population for supportive housing includes low-income persons
having one or more disabilities. These disabilities may include mental illness, HIV or
AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions. Such housing is also linked to
on-site or off-site services that assist residents in retaining their housing, improving their
health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the
community. On and off-site services may include, but are not limited to, tutoring, child
care, and career counseling.
Transitional Housing, as defined by Section 50675.2 of the California Health and Safety
Code, is housing configured as rental housing developments, which may include multi-
family housing, single-family housing, or group homes. Such housing is operated under
State or Federal program requirements that call for termination of assistance and
recirculation of the housing unit to another eligible program recipient at some
predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Additional
services that help individuals gain necessary life skills that support independent living are
also allowed but not mandated.
State law allows a distinction in the permitting requirements for certain residential uses in
single-family homes based on whether there are six or fewer, or seven or more people
served by the housing type. This size distinction currently exists in the City’s Zoning
Code for Residential and Group Care Facilities. Residential and Group Care Facilities
provide 24-hour per day residential living accommodations in exchange for the payment
of money or other consideration, where the duration of tenancy is determined, in whole or
in part, by the individual resident's participation in group or individual activities, such as
counseling, recovery planning, or medical or therapeutic assistance. Residential or Group
Care Facilities include, but are not limited to, residential care facilities for persons with
BALL RD
LA PALMA AVE
EUCLID STKATELLA AVEHARBOR BLVDEAST STDALE AVEORANGETHORPE AVE
BROADWAY
LINCOLN AVE
NOHL RANCH RD
SUNKIST STSTATE COLLEGE BLVDMAGNOLIA AVEBROOKHURST STMIRALOMA AV
E
ORANGEWOOD AVE
SANTA ANA CANYON RD
TUSTIN AVEORANGE AVEKNOTT AVEIMP
E
R
I
A
L
H
W
Y
CHAPMAN AVEWALNUT STANAHEIM
BLVD
W
E
I
R
C
A
N
Y
O
N
R
D
LEWIS STSERRANO AVERIO VISTA STNINTH STGILBERT STCERRITOS AVE
FAI
R
M
O
N
T
B
L
V
DBLUE
GUM
ST
CROWTHER AVE
RICHFIELD RDOAK CANYON DR
M
A
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E LAKEVIEW AVEDOUGLASS RDGLA
S
S
E
L
L
S
T
BEACH BLVDCRESCENT AVE LEMON STKELLOGG DRLINCOLN AVE
CRESCENT AVE
LINCOLN AVE DALE AVECERRITOS AVE
3281_1
Emergency Shelter Opportunity Areas
°0 4,500 9,000
Feet
City of AnaheimPlanning TechnologyJanuary 25, 2012
(1,218 parcels covering 1,615 acres)
Key to Features
Emergency Shelter Opportunity Areas
Industrial Land within 1,000 Ft. Buffer
1/2 Mile Buffer of Bus Stops
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-32 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-33
chronic, life-threatening illnesses, and alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facilities. Residential Care Facilities provide residential living accommodations for six or
fewer persons and Group Care Facilities provide living accommodations for seven or
more persons.
In single-family residential zones, the City permits Supportive and Transitional Housing
for six or fewer people in the same manner as a single-family dwelling unit, consistent
with the current provisions for a Residential Care Facility. If the use is for seven or more
people, a conditional use permit is required, consistent with the requirement for a Group
Care Facility. Supportive and Transitional Housing is permitted as a matter of right
within multiple-family residential and mixed use zones, regardless of the number of
persons the housing serves.
c. Single Room Occupancy Units
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing provides an opportunity to meet the needs of
very-low income persons and households and serve the needs of the homeless population.
The Anaheim City Council adopted a Single Room Occupancy Housing Policy in 1991.
The intent of the policy is to provide development incentives to the private sector to
develop SRO housing without public subsidy. The City of Anaheim policy identifies a
SRO development as a building designed as a residential hotel consisting of at least 100
furnished single-room guest units with not more than two occupants in each unit. A SRO
unit is a unit in a SRO development designed to accommodate no more than one resident.
A Living Unit is a unit in an SRO development designed to accommodate no more than
two residents. Each unit has its own bathroom and limited kitchen facilities. Twenty
percent of the total number of units in an SRO development must be affordable to
persons earning no more than 30 percent above minimum wage and 29 percent must be
affordable to very-low income persons earning not more than 50 percent of the Orange
County median income.
SRO developments may be located in the General Commercial (C-G) and Industrial (I)
zones. SRO’s are subject to a conditional use permit and require a management plan be
developed and adhered to. Each project is reviewed and the conditional use permit is
granted by the Planning Commission. The process is not intended to deter the use of
SRO’s, but to ensure development of high quality projects located in appropriate areas
with services and facilities to assist the SRO development residents. General provisions
include requirements for locating near employment services and public transit, maximum
persons allowed to reside in each unit and minimum furnishings and amenities. Each
project is required to have a management plan based on the City’s standard management
plan to ensure consistency in the requirements from project to project.
Parking requirements are as follows:
• Minimum of 0.8 spaces per SRO unit and 1.6 spaces per Living Unit.
• Additional 1.0 space for each resident staff member and 0.5 space for all
remaining personnel.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-34 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
• Additional 0.2 space per unit for guest parking.
Parking requirements may be reduced based on the location of bus stops or provision of
mass transit incentives.
The development standards, permit procedures and standard conditions of approval
provide consistency that encourages and facilitates the development of SRO’s. Since the
adoption of the policy, the City has received two applications for SRO’s. Both of the
applications were approved by the Planning Commission. However, the developers
elected not to proceed with the projects.
5. Second Dwelling Units
Second dwelling units provide additional opportunities to provide housing for people of
all ages and economic levels, while preserving the integrity and character of single-
family residential neighborhoods. The City of Anaheim permits second units in the RH-1,
RH-2, RH-3, RS-1 and RS-2 zones, provided certain requirements are met.
Requirements for a second unit include:
• Minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet;
• Minimum total floor area of 400 square feet for an efficiency unit and 550 square
feet for a one or two-bedroom unit;
• Maximum total floor area of 30 percent of the main dwelling unit living area for
an attached second unit. If the main dwelling unit is 1,334 square feet or less in
size, a 400 square foot efficiency unit is permitted;
• Maximum total floor area of 50 percent of the main dwelling unit living area or
1,200 square feet, whichever is less, for a detached second unit;
• No more than two bedrooms;
• Minimum separation of 10 feet between the main dwelling and a detached second
unit; and,
• One off-street parking space for an efficiency or one-bedroom unit and two spaces
for a two-bedroom unit.
6. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The U.S. Census Bureau defines persons with disabilities as those with a long-lasting
physical, mental or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person
to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or
remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the
home alone or to work at a job or business.
The City of Anaheim allows, by-right, residential care facilities for 6 or fewer persons in
any residential zone. Group care facilities for seven or more persons are permitted subject
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-35
to a conditional use permit in any commercial zone as well as the Public Recreational
(PR) and Semi-public (SP) zones.
The City’s Municipal Code defines a Family as “An individual or a collective body of
persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit, in a domestic relationship based
upon birth, marriage or other domestic bond of social, economic and psychological
commitments to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying a boardinghouse,
lodging house, club, fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or any residential or group care
facility requiring a conditional use permit.” The City’s interpretation of the definition of
“family” is broad in that it includes unrelated persons living together, except in the
situations explicitly called out within the definition. This definition is consistent with
State law.
Residential care facilities are considered a residential use and are not subject to
discretionary review, provided the project meets the development standards and
requirements for the zone it is located in. These projects are administratively reviewed by
the City staff for compliance with applicable codes. The City does not have maximum
concentration requirements for residential care facilities.
Group care facilities are subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission and
require granting of a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission may establish
such conditions as it may determine to be reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect
the public health and safety, promote the general welfare, and ensure the development of
any use authorized in accordance with approved plans, provided such conditions are
reasonably related to the impacts of the use of the property for which the conditional use
permit is requested.
The City approved a conditional use permit for a group care facility in February 2008.
The conditions of approval for this project included:
• That no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor
storage uses.
• That no public telephones on the property shall be located outside the building.
• That trash storage areas shall be permanently provided in a location acceptable to
the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division.
• That final landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. Any decision made by the Planning Department may be
appealed to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item.
• That the property shall be permanently maintained in any orderly fashion through
the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and
removal of graffiti within twenty-four hours from the time of discovery.
The conditions are no different than those that would be applied to other conditionally
permitted uses in the same zone. The City also allowed the project to provide less than
the required parking spaces through a parking waiver.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-36 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Parking requirements for residential care facilities are the same as those for residential
uses in their applicable zones. Group care facilities are required to provide a minimum of
0.8 parking spaces per bed.
Based on approved projects in Anaheim, the City’s development standards and
procedures, including site planning requirements, do not constrain housing for persons
with disabilities.
The City amended the Municipal Code in 2011 to establish reasonable accommodations
procedures. A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a
disability, their representative or any entity, when the application of a zoning law or other
land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. A
request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the
rules, standards, practices and procedures regulating the siting, development or use of
housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide
a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice. An application for
a request for reasonable accommodation can be filed with the Planning Department.
a. Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
There are a number of housing types and opportunities appropriate for people living with
a developmental disability, including rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed
single-family homes, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD
housing, and SB 962 homes. SB 962 homes are licensed residential facilities for adults
with developmental disabilities who are medically fragile and require around the clock
licensed nursing support. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the
proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities are
some of the considerations that are important in serving this group. Incorporating
‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by California and
Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices
for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of
housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.
In order to assist in the housing needs for persons with developmental disabilities, the
City coordinates with the Regional Center of Orange County to promote opportunities for
supportive living services and support efforts to eliminate barriers for housing for persons
with developmental disabilities.
7. Building Codes and Enforcement
Building and safety codes are adopted to preserve public health and safety, and ensure the
construction of safe and decent housing. These codes and standards also have the
potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-37
a. Building Codes
The City of Anaheim has adopted the 2010 California Building Code and 2010 California
Residential Code, which is based on the 2009 International Building Code and 2009
International Residential code and establishes construction standards for all residential
buildings. The Code is designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
Anaheim’s residents. The City amends the Code as needed to further define requirements
based on the unique local conditions.
The City’s adopted amendments to the 2010 California Residential Code include the
following:
• Completed Table R301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria to include
information/requirements specific to the local conditions.
• Revised Section R403.1.3 by deleting the “Exception” for stem walls.
• Revised Section R405.1 by deleting the “Exception” relating to drainage systems
for foundations retaining earth.
• Revised Section R902.1 to allow only class A or B roofs.
Anaheim’s amendments to the Code are generally consistent with the amendments
adopted by other local jurisdictions in Orange County. The City requires plan check,
issues building permits and conducts inspections to ensure compliance with the building
and zoning codes.
b. Code Enforcement
Code enforcement in the City is performed both proactively and on a complaint basis.
The City responds to community-reported concerns related to zoning and building code
violations. In addition, the City has also developed a proactive, interdepartmental
program to identify neighborhoods with deteriorated housing structures and high volume
of calls for Police and Code Enforcement service (see Chapter 2, Section 4.e). The City
provides assistance in these neighborhoods to address issues and improve and maintain
the housing stock.
Based on its analysis, the City finds the Code, local amendments and building and zoning
code enforcement activities to not be constraints to the development, maintenance or
preservation of housing.
c. Americans with Disabilities Act
The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1998 (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) are federal laws intended to assist in providing safe and accessible housing. ADA
provisions include requirements for a minimum percentage of units in new developments
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-38 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
to be fully accessible for persons with physical disabilities. Compliance with these
regulations may increase the cost of housing construction as well as the cost of
rehabilitating older units, which may be required to comply with current codes. However,
the enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the discretion of the City, but is mandated
under federal law.
8. Development Fees
Various development and permit fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover
administrative processing costs associated with development. These fees ensure quality
development and the provision of adequate services. Often times, development fees are
passed through to renters and homeowners in the price/rent of housing, thus affecting the
affordability of housing.
The City of Anaheim charges the majority of environmental, planning and engineering
fees on an hourly basis. This ensures the fees are sufficient enough to cover costs
incurred by the City for processing development applications, while not burdening
developers with unnecessary fees.
Table 3-16 shows the results of the survey and provides a comparative summary for
Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions.
Table 3-16
Comparative Development Fee Summary (2011-2012)
Description Anaheim1 Santa Ana Stanton Fullerton
Environmental
Negative Declaration Included in
entitlement costs
$59,915.90 or
10% Consultant
Contract
$1,390 N/A
EIR Processing $181.10/hour;
$30,000 deposit
$95,508.50 or
10% Consultant
Contract
EIR preparation
actual cost +
$3,995 review
$5,000 +
recordation fee
Initial Determination N/A2 N/A N/A N/A
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Fee
N/A N/A N/A $10,000+ min
deposit
Traffic Impact
Analysis Fee
N/A N/A N/A $5,000+ min
deposit
Environmental
Assessment
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Categorical Exemption $181.10/hour;
$5,000 deposit
$523.70 $55 $50.00 County
recordation
Planning
General Plan
Amendment
$181.10/hour;
$12,000 deposit
$7,992.95 $2,325 $3,901.04
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-39
Table 3-16
Comparative Development Fee Summary (2011-2012)
Description Anaheim1 Santa Ana Stanton Fullerton
Zoning Map
Amendment
$181.10/hour;
$10,000 deposit
N/A $1,660 N/A
Development
Agreement
$181.10/hour;
$1,000 deposit
$11,336.35 $4,465+ fully
burdened hourly
rate
$5,200
Specific Plan
Amendment
$181.10/hour;
$12,700 deposit
$14,042.80 Actual cost $3,021.20
Zone Change $181.10/hour;
$2,500 deposit
$5,090.40 $1,510 $3,900
Tentative Tract Map $181.10/hour;
$10,700 deposit
$4,116.80+$16.2
/lot
$2,280 $3,621.28+$53/l
ot
Conditional Use
Permit (Major)
$181.10/hour;
$10,000 deposit
$5,410.85 $2,790 $3,109.60
Conditional Use
Permit (Minor)
$181.10/hour;
$5,000 deposit
$5,410.85 N/A N/A
Site Plan Review N/A $38,745.555+$0.
06/sf above
100,000 sf
$1,190 $3,540.16 major
Design Review N/A N/A N/A $3,614 major
Preliminary Plan
Review
N/A N/A $1,190 $158.00
Variance $181.10/hour;
$10,000 deposit
$4,751.70 $410-$1,490 $3,109.60
Appeals $350 - $2,300 $350-$3,518.30 $1,085 $182
Building
Permit and Inspection
Fee
$136.73/hour $1,671.83 $123,400 $1,116.32
Plan Check $172.39/hour Varies per sq. ft. $77,564.50 $781.42/unit
SMIP 0.0001% of
valuation for
single-family
0.0001 x
valuation
$1,247.50 $31.18/unit
Engineering and Subdivision
Final Tract Map $750/lot N/A $4,050 $140/hour
average
Sewer Studies Consultant
contract rates; up
to $5,350 deposit
N/A N/A Time and
materials;
approx.. 3% of
cost
Storm Drain/Water
Quality
$10/lf; $6,000
deposit
N/A $975 or 2%
offsite cost if
greater
Time and
materials;
approx.. 3% of
cost
Street Improvement $10/lf; $40,000
deposit
N/A $975 or 2%
offsite cost if
greater
Time and
materials;
approx.. 3% of
cost
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-40 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-16
Comparative Development Fee Summary (2011-2012)
Description Anaheim1 Santa Ana Stanton Fullerton
Sewer Improvement $11/lf; $22,000
deposit
N/A N/A Time and
materials;
approx.. 3% of
cost
Surface Drainage $132/hour N/A N/A N/A
Plan Check $132/hour N/A $5,200 or 5%
offsite cost if
greater
Time and
materials;
approx.. 3% of
cost
Capital Facilities and Connections
Sewer Connection $350/acre N/A $198,800 N/A
Sewer Impact $1,919/unit N/A N/A N/A
Storm Drain Impact $16,387/net acre N/A N/A N/A
Other Traffic
Impact/Road Fees
$1,743/unit N/A N/A N/A
Other Impact N/A $11,173/unit
park in-lieu
N/A
Notes: 1 The actual deposit amount required for Planning -related fees is the largest deposit amount required plus
10% of the deposit amount for each additional deposit required.
2N/A= fee not included in survey response
Source: BIA OC 2011-2012 Land Development Fee Survey
Based on recent projects (Colony Park III, Donovan Ranch and Oakhaven Circle), the
City has found development fees for single family residential development are
approximately $22,000 per unit. The development fees per unit decrease slightly as the
number of units in the project increase. Assuming the cost of land and construction for a
typical single-family unit is approximately $575,000, the development fees are
approximately 3.8% of the total development cost.
Based on recent multi-family projects (Anton Monaco, Cherry Orchard, and The Vintage
Crossings), the development fees can range from approximately $9,000 per unit to
$17,500 per unit. Assuming the cost of developing a typical 2-bedroom unit in Anaheim
is approximately $193,600, the development fees are approximately 4.6 to 9.0 percent of
the total development cost.
9. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Considerable holding costs are associated with delays in processing development
applications and plans. At times, these holding costs are passed through to renters and
homeowners in the price/rent of housing, thus affecting the affordability. The City of
Anaheim’s development process is designed to accommodate housing development
applications of various levels of complexity and requiring different entitlements. Three
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-41
levels of decision-making bodies govern the review process in Anaheim: the Zoning
Administrator, the Planning Commission and the City Council. In addition, if a project
conforms to all Code requirements, the approval can be completed at a staff level.
Certain projects, including affordable housing developments requesting density bonus
incentives, require a pre-file application and review. The pre-file process is designed to
review preliminary plans for compliance with city ordinances and standards, identify
necessary on-site or off-site improvements and to determine the adequacy of the
application. The pre-file process is intended to streamline the overall permitting process,
by providing an opportunity for the applicant to evaluate his or her compliance with
development requirements early in the process, in order to minimize the need for later
plan revisions. This process also provides an opportunity for staff to communicate any
necessary fees, exactions or dedications prior to the filing of a final development
application. Once staff has reviewed and commented on the project, the applicant then
submits a final application for any necessary entitlements.
The Planning Department offers expedited review for affordable housing projects. This
service represents a significant step that has been taken towards reducing the cost of
developing affordable housing. Table 3-17 illustrates the typical time for applications for
standard and affordable housing projects.
Table 3-17
Approximate Development Timelines
Item Standard Projects
Very-low/Low Income
Affordable Housing
Projects
Application Phase1 29 calendar days 28 calendar days
Public Hearing Phase (Zoning Entitlements
including Conditional Use Permit or Variance)2 41 calendar days 21 calendar days
Plan Check 5-20 calendar days 5-15 calendar days
Notes:
1 Approval or denial of Tier 1 Density Bonus Incentives will occur during the application phase, unless an
application is deemed incomplete.
2 This schedule applies to requests for Tier 2 Density Bonus Incentives, Conditional Use Permits and Variances. If
a development application includes a request for a zoning Reclassification, an additional four weeks will be
required for processing. The expedited public hearing schedule for low, very-low, or moderate income Affordable
Housing Projects does not apply to projects that involve a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Environmental
Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, staff is committed to expediting the review of such
applications to make the entitlement process as brief as possible. Projects that do not require Planning Director
approval or a Public Hearing may proceed directly to plan check.
Source: City of Anaheim
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-42 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
10. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
a. Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards conditions affecting housing units include seismic hazards, risk of
landslides, flooding, toxic and hazardous waste, fire hazards and noise. The following
sections describe hazards that may impact future development of residential units
generally in the city. The potential environmental impacts associated with the sites
identified to meet the City’s RHNA need have been evaluated either as part of a project
entitlement (for the current, in-the-pipeline projects) or as part of Housing Opportunity
Sites Rezoning Project Supplement Environmental Impact Report certified in September
2013. Based on the previous analyses, there are no known environmental constraints that
preclude residential development or cannot be mitigated to allow for development during
the planning period.
i. Seismic Hazards
Similar to most Southern California cities, Anaheim is located within an area considered
to be seismically active. There are no earthquake faults zoned under the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act within the City boundaries. The Alquist-Priolo Act prevents
the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active
faults. Anaheim is located between two major active fault zones- the Newport-Inglewood
fault zone and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone. The Newport-Inglewood fault passes
within seven miles of the western limits of the City. It is considered capable of generating
an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter scale. The Whittier-Elsinore fault
passes within one mile of the northeastern end of the City and is capable of generating an
earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter scale. The potential for ground rupture
due to seismic activity in the City is considered low.
ii. Landslides
Areas of landslide potential have been identified by the City. In the Hill and Canyon
areas of the City, landslides have occurred in the past. The Santiago Landslide
encompasses approximately 25 acres and became active in 1993. The City established a
Geologic Hazard abatement district to maintain, monitor and manage the dewatering
system being used as a mitigation measure in this area.
iii. Flooding
Anaheim is partially located in an alluvial plain. The Santa Ana River flows through the
eastern part of the City. Portions of the City are located in within the 100-year and 500-
year floodplains. The majority of the Hill and Canyon areas south of Santa Ana Canyon
Road are outside of the 500-year floodplain. Anaheim participates in the National Flood
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-43
Insurance Program (NFIP). The City adopts and enforces certain floodplain management
ordinances and, in return, residents can purchase Federally-backed flood insurance.
Flooding due to dam failure is also a potential hazard for Anaheim. Dam failure at
Walnut Canyon Reservoir, Prado Dam, and Carbon Canyon Dam could potentially
impact the City.
iv. Toxic and Hazardous Wastes
There are a number of land uses within the City of Anaheim whose operations include the
use of hazardous materials. The Environmental Protection Section of the Anaheim Fire
Department administers the hazardous materials program for the City. The Fire
Department has also developed a Hazardous Materials Area Plan to assist agencies in
pre-emergency planning and their emergency response role.
v. Fire Hazards
The City continues to address the need to defend persons and property from urban and
wildland fires. The central and western portions of Anaheim are highly urbanized and
relatively built-out. The Hill and Canyon area of the City are still threatened by the
potential for wildland fires due to their less developed state with more brush and natural
resources. Properties within Very High Fire Severity Zones and Special Protection Areas
have been identified by the City and are subject to specific standards and regulations to
prevent fires. New developments within high fire hazard areas are subject to Chapter 7A
requirements of the California Building Code. The City currently operates 11 fire stations
within City boundaries. Anaheim is also part of a regional coordination effort with other
Orange County cities called the Metro Cities Fire Authority.
vi. Noise
Residential land uses are generally considered to be the most sensitive to loud noises. The
principal noise sources in Anaheim are the transportation systems. Roadways are the
primary source of transportation-generated noise. There are also two Metrolink/Amtrak
stations and two railroad freight lines which generate noise. The City’s Planning
Department currently considers noise in the project review process and works with the
applicant to use site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise impacts.
b. Infrastructure Constraints
i. Water
Anaheim operates its own water utility and water treatment plant. The water system
services Anaheim, as well as, some unincorporated areas in Orange County. The City
utilizes water from two main sources: groundwater produced by City-owned wells and
imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. As of 2011,
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-44 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
the City’s water system has 18 active wells, 13 reservoirs, and 752 miles of water mains.
Recent legislation (SBx7-7) requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban
water use targets to help meet a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita use by 2020 and
an interim 10 percent reduction goal by 2015. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management
Plan describes the strategies by which the City will meet these goals. According to the
2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the City’s water system will serve a population of
nearly 433,000 people by 2035. The City is capable of providing their customers all their
demands in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 8.7
percent.
ii. Sewer
Sewage is collected by City collector facilities and conveyed to trunk sewers owned and
maintained by the Orange County Sanitation District, which then treats the sewage at
regional facilities. Small portions of Anaheim local sewer receive service from adjacent
agencies, including the Stanton County Water District and the Garden Grove Sanitation
District. The City currently maintains over 500 miles of sewer lines. The City has
identified areas with sewer deficiencies. An analysis of these deficiencies in relation to
the development of housing is provided in Appendix B-2. The deficient areas have been
identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and will be upgraded as part
of the Program to accommodate new or increased construction of residential units. Costs
associated with these improvements are funded by a sewer user charge and development
impact fees. The City's total sewer capacity, based on these planned improvements, can
accommodate the City's RHNA needs for the 2014-2021 Planning Period.
iii. Water and Sewer Prioritization Policy
The City of Anaheim established a process to prioritize water and sewer improvements
associated with affordable housing development. In 2007, the City Council adopted a
policy to grant priority for the provision of available and future resources or services to
proposed housing developments that help meet the City’s share of the regional housing
needs for lower income households as identified in the Housing Element and any
amendments to the Housing Element. If the City’s Urban Water Management Plan
identifies the need for the Public Utilities Department to allocate water supplies in the
future, priority for uncommitted water supplies will be granted to applications for water
services for proposed developments that include housing units affordable for lower
income households. In cases of insufficient sewer capacity for potential affordable
housing development sites where funding is not immediately available to correct the
deficiency, the City’s Public Works Department will work cooperatively with the
applicant and other city staff to identify alternative solutions and methods to adequately
serve the proposed project.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-45
11. Successor Agency to the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency
Prior to 2012, much of the affordable housing development in Anaheim was assisted by
the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency through funding and other incentives. Effective
February 1, 2012, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was dissolved, consistent with
the dissolution of redevelopment agencies across the state per AB 26. This legislation
provided for the establishment of a Successor Agency to administer the enforceable
obligations of the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all subject to the approval of
an Oversight Board comprised of representatives of the local agencies that serve the
redevelopment project area: the city, county, special districts, and K-14 educational
agencies. On January 10, 2012, The City Council of the City of Anaheim elected to serve
as the Successor to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. At the same time, the City
Council elected not to serve as successor agency related to the functions and management
of various housing assets, which had previously been managed by the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency. The Anaheim Housing Authority subsequently assumed housing
functions and assets. The Anaheim Housing Authority as the Successor Agency for
housing functions is charged with carrying out existing obligations and disposing of
property once owned by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. Once obligations of the
former Redevelopment Agency are met, the Successor Agency will be discontinued. The
Successor Agency cannot enter into any new contracts or other obligations.
12. Community Development Block Grant and HOME
Program
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Program funds are the
largest sources of Federal funding for housing development and housing related activities
in Anaheim. Table 3-18 lists the total CDBG allocation of $4,080,760 and the funded
activities for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-46 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table 3-18
CDBG Activity Allocations for
FY 2012-2013
Activity Description Allocation
Administration & Planning
CDBG Administration Overall program management/ monitoring/
evaluation $716,150
Fair Housing Provides fair housing services through the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County $100,000
Housing
Section 108 Loan Payment In FY 2009-2010 the City received
$15,000,000 in Section 108 Loan Guarantee
funds for priority neighborhood projects,
including the Thornton Brady Storm Drain
Improvements, Miraloma Park Site
Acquisition and Development, Packinghouse
Rehabilitation and the Anaheim Family
Justice Center Acquisition. The FY 2012-2013
budget reflects the City’s second year Section
108 loan repayment estimates.
$591,510
Historic Preservation Provides funding for the historic preservation,
operation and program implementation of
several historic venues owned and operated by
the City, and related citywide historic
preservation program activities.
$470,000
Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement Inspections Salaries and overhead costs related to code
enforcement in CDBG eligible areas $1,471,000
Code Enforcement Prosecution Provides funds for portion of cost of one City
Attorney to prosecute code enforcement cases
originating in the CDBG Target Areas
$120,000
Public Service $612,100
Source: City of Anaheim FY 2012-2013 Annual Action Plan
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-47
Table 3-19 lists the total HOME program allocation of $ 1,119,762 and the funded
activities for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
Table 3-19
HOME Program Activities
FY 2012-2013
Activity Description Allocation
Administration Management, monitoring, reporting and
planning activities $111,970
Community Housing
Development Organization
(CHDO)
Funding for non-profit organizations
(CHDO’s) to create, develop and manage
affordable housing
$168,000
Affordable Housing
Development Program
Provides funds to support affordable rental and
for-sale housing projects to be identified
during the program year.
$839,792
Source: City of Anaheim FY 2012-2013 Action Plan
13. Developer Incentive Programs
The City’s ability to offer traditional developer incentives to promote housing
development has been greatly reduced by the elimination of Redevelopment in
California. The City continues to offer incentives and concessions to promote affordable
housing development on a project-by-project basis. Incentives and concessions offered to
developers to offset increased costs associated with affordable housing program
requirements can include the following:
• Fund Development Fees: Developers may receive financial assistance to cover
the cost of various development fees.
• Land Write Downs: The City/Housing Authority may assist developers by
writing down the land cost in exchange for the developer providing affordable
units.
• Pre-Development Loans/Grants: The City may provide pre-development loans
and or grants to help developers offset the costs associated with potential housing
development projects.
• Provide Off-Site Improvements: The City may provide funds for the design and
construction of various off-site improvements.
• Density Bonus: Developers may receive various development incentives under
the City’s Density Bonus program. The Density Bonus program is intended to
promote the creation of affordable housing in return for various development
incentives, including: reduced parking standards, exterior setbacks and zoning
code variances.
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-48 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
• Bond Financing: The City may assist developers in obtaining bond financing for
projects that provide affordable housing.
15. On-site and Off-site Improvements
Site improvements required to develop specific sites vary depending on location and
existing infrastructure. As a condition of approval for a tract or parcel map, the
subdivider must dedicate all parcels within the subdivision that are needed for streets,
alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, easements, public utility
easements and other public easements. The subdivider must also agree to improve all
streets, alleys, drainage easements, public utility easements and other public and private
easements. Fees for other public facilities and services may be required if the area of the
development cannot be adequately served by existing facilities and services. For these
areas, the City determines the area of benefit and facilities plan through a public hearing
process. New private developments must provide street trees in parkways between the
sidewalk and the curb. Subdividers must provide park and recreational facilities or pay an
in-lieu fee. Requiring site improvements ensures that the necessary infrastructure is
available for the new development and is necessary to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the residents.
The City has established standard street cross sections and other design standards related
to public facilities such as roadways and infrastructure facilities. Table 3-20 summaries
the street design standards based on the City’s standard street cross sections.
Table 3-20
Street Design Standards
Street Type R.O.W. Curb to Curb Sidewalk/Parkway
Interior 60’ 36’ 12’
Collector 64’ 42’ 10-12’
Secondary 90’ 67’ 10-13’
Hillside Interior 51’ 21’ 10’
Hillside Collector 54’ 34’ 10’
Hillside Collector
(w/ parking) 65’ 45’ 10’
Hillside Secondary 75’ 55’ 10’
Public Road or Private
Lane (Peralta Hills and
Mohler Drive Areas)
40’ 28’ 6’
Private Street 46’-52’ 26-32’ 10’
Source: City of Anaheim Department of Public Works, Standard Details
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-49
16. Energy Conservation
Energy conservation remains a major goal of the City of Anaheim, as outlined in the
General Plan’s Green Element. The City continues to require compliance with Title 24 of
the California Administrative Code on the use of energy efficient appliances and
insulation. Title 24 includes the California Green Building Code (CalGreen), which
requires energy efficiency and green building technologies to be incorporated into any
new construction, or additions or alterations to existing buildings requiring a building
permit. Through compliance with Title 24, new residential development has produced
reduced energy demands.
The City, through the Anaheim Public Utilities Department, provides information,
technical assistance and incentives to residents and businesses related to energy
conservation measures. Anaheim Public Utilities has developed a Green Building
Program, which offers incentives to builders developing projects under the U.S. Green
Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), California
Green Build, or Build It Green’s Green Building Guidelines.
Anaheim currently offers incentives of up to $6,000 for residential projects meeting the
standards upon certification by USGBC (LEED), California Green Build, Build It Green
or other rating programs. The City also offers a New Construction Incentives Program
which contributes up to $15,000 for design assistance to find the most cost-effective,
energy-efficient options for the development.
Additional residential efficiency programs and incentives provided by Anaheim Utilities,
or promoted through the Utilities website include:
• Dusk to Dawn Lighting
• EV Charger Rebates
• Green Power
• Home Incentives Rebates
• Home Utility Check-Up
• Online Home Utility Check-up
• Refrigerator Recycling
• Rotating Nozzles
• Save Water - Save Money
• Solar Energy Incentives
• Southern California Gas
• SmarTimer
• TreePower
• Turf Removal
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-50 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
C . NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
1. Vacant and Underutilized Land
A thorough analysis of vacant and underutilized land within the City of Anaheim is
provided in Appendix B.
2. Land Prices
Land costs increases have a tremendous influence on the cost of housing and the
availability of affordable housing. Land prices are determined by a number of factors,
most important of which are land availability and permitted development density. As land
becomes less available, the price of land increases. Generally, the price of land also
increases as the number of units permitted on each lot increases. In Orange County,
undeveloped land is limited, and combined with a rapidly growing population, land prices
have increased.
Given the current downturn in the real estate market, land price projections are difficult
to track accurately. Development of for-sale housing has all but stopped, as the financial
markets are reluctant to provide construction and permanent loans due to the sluggish
market. At its peak, land for residential development was selling for approximately $2
million per acre in Central Anaheim.
3. Construction Costs
Construction costs are primarily determined by the costs of materials and labor. They are
also influenced by market demands and market-based changes in the cost of materials.
Construction costs depend on the type of unit being built and the quality of the product
being produced. Table 3-21 summarizes the estimated construction costs based on type of
development in Anaheim.
Table 3-21
Construction Cost Estimates
Development Type Cost per Square Foot
Single-Family Residential $100-125
Townhomes/Condominiums $150-180
Multi-family (1-3 stories) $145
Multi-family (4-7 stories) $164
Source: RBF Consulting, RS Means Online, February 2013
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 3-51
4. Financing
Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over the affordability of housing. Higher
interest rates increase a homebuyer’s monthly payment and decrease the range of housing
that a household can afford. Lower interest rates result in a lower cost and lower monthly
payments for the homebuyer.
When interest rates rise, the market typically compensates by decreasing housing prices.
Similarly, when interest rates decrease, housing prices begin to rise. There is often a lag
in the market, causing housing prices to remain high when interest rates rise until the
market catches up. Lower income households often find it most difficult to purchase a
home during this time period.
As shown in Table 3-22, the number of loan applications increases as income increases.
The percentage of persons denied for a home loan in Orange County is highest for the
very-low income (less than 50 percent of the MFI) category with 24.7 percent.
Table 3-22
Mortgage Lending Rates-2011
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine Metropolitan Division
Income Group Total
Applications
Loans Originated Applications
Denied
Percentage
Denied
<50% MFI 324 153 80 24.7%
50-79% MFI 1,681 1,037 278 16.5%
80-99% MFI 1,428 960 185 13.0%
110-119% MFI 1,126 772 136 12.1%
≥120% MFI 3,240 2,269 375 11.6%
Total 7,799 5,191 1,054 13.5%
Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2011
Housing Element
Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints
3-52 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Figure 3-1
Mortgage Rates
February 2012-January 2013
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Feb-12Mar-12Apr-12May-12Jun-12Jul-12Aug-12Sep-12Oct-12Nov-12Dec-12Jan-1330yr FRM
15yr FRM
1yr ARM
Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey
Figure 3-1 shows the average interest rates between February 2012 and January 2013.
The interest rates have generally decreased in the past year. Interest rates are determined
by national policies and economic conditions and there is little that a local government
can do to affect these rates. However, in order to extend home buying opportunities to
Lower-Income households, jurisdictions can offer interest rate write-downs. Additionally,
government insured loan programs may be available to reduce mortgage down payment
requirements
Nation-wide there has been a large increase in the number of delinquencies and
foreclosures on residential loans in the last five years. As a result, lenders have more
stringent qualifications for home loans and Lower-Income households may find it more
difficult to qualify.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-1
CHAPTER 4
HOUSING POLICY PROGRAM
This section of the Housing Element describes the Policy Program for the 2014-2021
Planning Period. The Policy Program identifies the specific policy actions necessary to
address present and future housing needs, meet the specific requirements of State law,
and consider the input by residents and stakeholders. The emphasis of the 2014-2021
Policy Program is on actions enabling the City to maintain and increase housing
opportunities affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income
households.
In developing this Policy Program, the City assessed its housing needs, evaluated the
performance of existing programs, considered the availability of existing and projected
funding resources and received input from the community through extensive outreach
efforts.
A number of the policy actions identified in the policy program are dependent upon on
variety of external funding sources, including: Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant
(ESG). These funds are used for specific policy actions and assist in the leveraging
private and public funds, such as developer equity and low income housing tax credits.
Prior to the adoption of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, the largest single source of
funds came from the Housing Set-Aside fund, which had generated approximately $14
million annually from tax increment revenues and were utilized to increase, improve and
preserve affordable housing. The demise of Redevelopment in California has
significantly degraded the City of Anaheim’s ability to assist in the provision of
affordable housing. The City must now seek alternative sources of funding/financing and
more strategically prioritize the use of CDBG, HOME and ESG funds that are allocated
annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As an
entitlement City, Anaheim is eligible to receive an automatic funding allocation as long
as it has submitted, and received approval of, its five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual
Action Plans. The most recent fiscal year allocations show a trend of reduced allocations.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
A. KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In order to develop a comprehensive strategy to preserve and expand hous ing
opportunities for extremely-low, very-low, low, and moderate income households and
address the development challenges unique to the City of Anaheim, it is important to
understand the needs of local stakeholders, the current real estate market and the type and
condition of existing housing stock. A complete overview of these factors is provided in
Chapter 2 of this Element.
Through the City’s efforts to engage its citizenry and stakeholders in the planning
process, a number of housing challenges, opportunities and resources were identified.
The Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee further identified and refined important areas
to consider in policy development. A summary of the community outreach process and its
results is provided in Appendix A.
The input from the community and the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee, in
conjunction with the needs analysis provided in Chapter 2, resulted in identifying a series
of Policy Considerations which provide the primary guidance for the 2014-2021 Planning
Period.
Policy Consideration 1.0: Financing and Funding for Housing Development
The recent downturn in housing has resulted in a number of challenges to the
development of affordable housing in Anaheim. The private sector’s ability to acquire
funding and financing has been limited by more stringent qualification guidelines for pre-
development and construction financing and the now limited ability to utilize local
government funding and assistance to create viable development opportunities.
Additionally, the demise of Redevelopment in California has resulted in a significant and
undeniable negative impact on the City’s ability to assist in creating and maintaining
affordable housing. The City of Anaheim must now evaluate alternative sources and
methods of funding and financing to bridge the gap created by the loss of Redevelopment.
Policy Consideration 2.0: Growth Needs
The City of Anaheim’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation for the 2012-2014
Housing Element is 5,702 units. In comparison to other cities in Orange County,
Anaheim’s allocation represents a large share of the County’s overall need. Limited land
resources, the loss of Redevelopment tax-increment, construction costs and other
funding/financing considerations significantly influence the ability of the private market
to provide a variety of housing choices to meet the needs for a variety of income levels.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-3
Policy Consideration 3.0: Utilization of Existing Resources for Housing
The available funding and staffing to address projected housing need is limited.
Therefore, the City must anticipate and pursue comprehensive and strategic utilization of
funding sources, prioritize programs and maximize coordinated participation between
public, private and non-profit entities.
Policy Consideration 4.0: Community Design and Sustainability
Anaheim’s community members and stakeholder groups have identified the maintenance
and enhancement of quality of life as an important factor to address when planning for
the City’s future housing needs. The preservation and enhancement of that quality of life
can be accomplished through community design and sustainability concepts that consider
the function and livability of Anaheim’s existing and planned neighborhoods and can
provide financial benefits, as well. Establishment of a holistic approach to community
design and sustainability can have a positive effect on the quality of life in Anaheim.
Policy Consideration 5.0: Affordable Housing Opportunities for Anaheim’s
Residents
Programs providing fair housing counseling, education and enforcement have been
identified as means to provide affordable housing opportunities for Anaheim’s residents.
Additionally, the loss of Redevelopment has significantly impacted the funding of these
resources provided to the community. The City of Anaheim should strategically address
the specific needs of Anaheim residents through utilization of existing resources in
combination with County, State, Federal, private and non-profit resources. Specifically,
consideration of homelessness, needs of residents with special needs, housing access,
affordability issues, and rental and for-sale housing opportunities can be best addressed
at the local level through target policies and programs sponsored and/or administered by
the City.
Policy Consideration 6.0: Community Education and Outreach
Outreach to all segments of the community and education on housing and housing -
related topics is important to the success of the City’s housing projects and programs.
Through education and outreach, especially thorough non-traditional means, the City
can ensure that information is available for interested community members and maximize
participation in housing programs.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Policy Consideration 7.0: Housing Availability and Affordability
The demand for housing in Anaheim remains high due to employment opportunities, its
strategic location and local amenities. Housing costs in Anaheim and the surrounding
region continue to remain higher than what is affordable for many households, especially
the lower-income segments of the population. Additionally, the need for housing suitable
for special needs groups is not always fulfilled by the housing options currently
available. Providing policies and programs to increase available housing for all
segments of the population will help ensure that current residents and those who work in
Anaheim have the opportunity to remain in the City.
Policy Consideration 8.0: Infill and Redevelopment
There are very few areas of undeveloped land remaining in the City and it must rely on
infill and redevelopment sites, some of which are environmentally-challenged, to
accommodate growth. Policies should allow and encourage creative solutions such as
land assemblage and environmental cleanup of “brownfield” sites to maximize the
potential in redeveloping areas of Anaheim.
B. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
To address the Policy Considerations identified above, the City has established Guiding
Principles that provide the primary policy direction to address its identified needs.
Guiding Principle A: The provision of a high quality, well maintained housing stock is a
primary contributor to quality of life in Anaheim.
Guiding Principle B: The availability of a range of housing choices for a variety of
incomes in Anaheim contributes to a balanced community and community investment.
Guiding Principle C: Persons with special housing needs should have access to a variety
of housing choices that are integrated within the community.
Guiding Principle D: Sustainable design and the efficient utilization of resources create
more livable neighborhoods and can have both environmental and financial benefits.
Guiding Principle E: Community education and outreach is of fundamental importance
to establishing a well-informed, educated community that can participate directly in the
provision, conservation and preservation of housing in Anaheim.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-5
C. HOUSING STRATEGY AREAS
The Policy Action Plan for the 2014-2021 Housing Element is organized into five core
policy strategy areas:
1. Housing Production – establishes policy actions for the production of a range of
rental and for-sale housing units in the City.
2. Housing Conservation and Preservation – establishes policy actions for the
conservation of the existing housing stock and preservation of housing opportunities
for Anaheim’s residents.
3. Housing Quality and Design – establishes policy actions for providing high-quality,
well-designed living environments for Anaheim residents.
4. Housing Rehabilitation – establishes policy actions for the rehabilitation and
improvement of existing housing.
5. Affordable Housing Opportunity – establishes policy actions for the establishment
of affordable housing opportunity for all segments of Anaheim’s populations.
Policy Strategy #1: Housing Production
Housing Production Strategy 1A: Evaluate Alternative Funding and Financing
Mechanisms
The loss of Redevelopment in California has had a devastating effect on the ability of
local agencies to provide funding and financing resources for the development of
affordable housing. The City of Anaheim has had a demonstrated successful track record
of utilizing Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds to develop affordable housing. With
the loss of this resource, the City must aggressively pursue alternative funding and
financing tools that will contribute to the development of additional affordable housing
opportunities citywide.
On March 1, 2013, across the board budget cuts, referred to as sequestration, cancelled
approximately $85 billion in budgetary resources to federal agencies. These cuts have
resulted in reduced funding levels for the CDBG, HOME, ESG and Housing Choice
Voucher programs, all critical resources needed to address local housing and community
development needs. In the Housing Choice Voucher alone, known cuts will require that
the program serve approximately 500 less families in FY 2013-2014.
Anaheim will collaborate with private, non-profit, state and federal entities to investigate
alternative methods for funding and financing the construction of new housing units and
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
rehabilitation and preservation of exiting units citywide. The City will establish
continued communication with local, state and federal legislators to encourage the
establishment of alternative funding and financing mechanisms.
Objective: Exploration of alternative funding and
financing mechanisms
Responsible Party: Community Development/Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing monitoring of alternative funding
and financing sources with review on at
least an annual basis
Housing Production Strategy 1B: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very
Low, Low and Moderate Income Housing Developments
The City shall continue to expedite discretionary entitlement and plan check processes for
lower income housing developments. The expedited processing program was initially
developed in 2009 as part of the City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and currently
provides approximately 20 days in time savings. Expedited processing is provided as an
incentive to encourage development of affordable housing projects as shorter
development timeframes results in lower housing production costs.
The City will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the expedited processing program
and modify as needed to further encourage affordable housing development. As part of
this evaluation, the City will analyze and monitor the effectiveness of inter-departmental
coordination to ensure that expedited reviews are occurring in a consistent and
coordinated manner.
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable
housing developments to reduce housing
production costs.
Responsible Party: Planning/Public Works/Public Utilities/Fire
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Re-evaluate program by January 1, 2015
and implement any necessary process
refinements by June 30, 2015.
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Affordable Senior Housing Program
The City recognizes the unique needs of its senior population. Seniors typically have
fixed incomes and unique housing needs that are not generally addressed in market rate
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-7
housing. The City currently provides incentives for affordable senior housing through
the Senior Citizens’ Apartment Project and Density Bonuses chapters of its Municipal
Code. The City shall continue to encourage the development of quality senior housing
that, when feasible, includes transportation and other appropriate supportive services
specific to this population. In addition to the above incentives, the Housing Authority’s
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program will continue to serve as a vehicle to help
low income seniors afford units of their choice available in the private market.
Objective: Senior housing development and Section 8
financial assistance
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund/HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Production Strategy 1D: Encourage the Development of Housing for
Extremely-Low Income Households
The City encourages the development of housing units for extremely-low income
households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income for Orange
County. Housing Development projects receiving an allocation of Project Based
Vouchers are required as part of the program to designate the assisted units to extremely-
low income families. In addition, the City continues to provide an expedited review
process for developers applying for Federal and State Tax Credits which requires a
percentage of units be designated to extremely-low income households. Specific
emphasis shall be placed on the provision of extremely low income households by
encouraging the development of transitional living facilities, permanent special needs
housing, and senior housing. The City currently has a number of incentives that can be
utilized to create opportunities for affordable housing development such as the Density
Bonus and Senior Citizens' Apartment Housing ordinances; down payment assistance
programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City development fees; exemption of
Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited
processing for tax credit projects. The City will continue to investigate additional
incentives and seek funding opportunities to encourage development of housing for
extremely-low income households.
Objective: Production of a minimum of 50 extremely-
low income units.
Responsible Party: Community
Development/Planning/Housing Authority
Source of Funds: General Fund/HOME/ CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing monitoring of the development of
extremely-low income units with review of
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
incentives and potential funding on at least
an annual basis
Housing Production Strategy 1E: Encourage the Development of Housing for
Special Needs Households
The City understands the need for housing to accommodate special needs households,
including persons with developmental disabilities. Historically, the City has assisted in
the development of housing projects for special needs households by providing technical
assistance with tax credit applications, and public funds, including, ESG, CDBG, and
HOME. The City shall continue to utilize available incentives to encourage and support
the development of rental housing for special needs families within future affordable
housing projects. Developers and builders of such projects will be required to
incorporate specialized social services to assist the special needs households, in exchange
for these incentives.
The City will coordinate with local developers and non-profit entities specializing in
housing for Special Needs residents to meet existing and future housing needs. The City
will also collaborate with the Orange County Regional Center and other appropriate
organizations to better understand the specialized housing requirements of residents with
special needs.
Additionally, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, specifically the set aside
pool of 100 vouchers for the Non-Elderly Disabled (NEDs), will continue to serve as a
vehicle for providing housing opportunities for special needs, low income individuals and
families.
Objective: Maintain existing and develop new units
for special needs households
Responsible Party: Housing Authority/Community
Development/ Planning
Source of Funds: ESG/CDBG/HOME
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1F: Implementation of The Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan
During this planning period, the City will continue to implement The Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan and coordinate with developers proposing projects in this area in
an effort to further encourage the production of high density housing. The Platinum
Triangle represents an opportunity to replace an older industrial area with a dynamic
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-9
mixed-use development district including higher density housing, residential-serving
retail and amenities and employment-generating commercial/office uses. The Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan was developed in conjunction with the General Plan
Update in 2004 and originally allowed for development of up to 9,825 residential units
within the 393 acres of The Platinum Triangle that are designated for mixed-use
residential development. The City Council subsequently amended the Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan in 2010 and increased the maximum number of permitted
residential units to 18,988 at densities of up to 100 units per acre.
Prior to the adoption of the master land use plan, no residential development was
permitted within this area. Development intensities are allocated to individual properties
on a first come basis through the approval of a development agreement. Since the
creation of the Master Land Use Plan, 8,463 residential units have been entitled for
development. Of these entitled units, 1,920 units have been built and permit applications
for an additional 643 units have been submitted but not yet been issued. An additional
6,543 units have been approved through development agreements. The developers of
these approved units have not applied for building permits. It is anticipated that another
3,206 residential units will be completed in the Platinum Triangle by 2021.
The development agreements approved in conjunction with these projects do not set
minimum rents or sale prices for these developments and, therefore, do not preclude the
development of units affordable to moderate and low-income families. In addition, all of
the City’s programs that encourage affordable housing can be utilized within The
Platinum Triangle, including but not limited to, the Density Bonus and Senior Citizens'
Apartment Housing ordinances; down payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs;
deferral of City development fees; exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for
Affordable Housing Developments; and expedited processing for tax credit projects.
Objective: Implementation of The Platinum Triangle
Master Land Use Plan
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Production Strategy 1G: Development of Housing Information
Clearinghouse
The City continues to refer persons interested in homeownership to Neighborhood
Housing Services, a non-profit agency that assists families with housing opportunities.
To disseminate affordable housing information to a wider audience, the City also
established an information clearinghouse accessible to the general public that provides a
“one stop” location for comprehensive information about Anaheim’s housing projects,
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
programs, policies, available funding, technical assistance, and other applicable items. In
addition to consolidating information, the City will employ a “go to them” strategy by
placing information in easily accessible locations including the City’s website, public
facilities, at public events and at locations community members frequent. The City shall
continue to maintain and update the clearinghouse as needed and make improvement that
will increase the accessibility and usability of the program.
Objective: Facilitate dissemination of housing
information
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Production Strategy 1H: Support for Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDOs)
Each year the City receives a funding allocation from the HOME Investment Partnership
Program (HOME). Historically, the City’s HOME allocation has been approximately $2
million per year; the allocation for FY 2013-2014 was $1,101,964, a significant
reduction. Per the HOME program regulations, a minimum of 15 percent of HOME
funds must be allocated to qualified Community Housing Development Organization
(CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit, community-based organization with the capacity to
develop affordable housing within the community it serves. Only projects in which the
CHDO acts as a developer, sponsor or owner of housing are eligible to receive a part of
the 15 percent of HOME fund allocation. In FY 2013-2014, the amount of HOME funds
allocated for CHDOs is $165,295. The Community Development Department has
partnered with many non-profits and CHDOs in the past to develop affordable projects,
and will continue to do so on future projects.
Objective: Continue to provide funds to qualified
CHDOs for affordable unit production
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1I: Developer Incentives Program
The City’s ability to offer traditional developer incentives to promote housing
development has been greatly reduced by the elimination of Redevelopment in
California. The incentives and concessions that can still be offered to developers to
offset increased costs associated with the production of affordable housing include:
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-11
funding of development fees; write downs of land costs; long-term ground leases of
public property; pre-development loans/grants; funding of off-site improvements; bond
financing; density bonus incentives; fee deferrals; and, assistance with tax credit
applications. Current housing production projections indicate that the Developer
Incentives Program will help create approximately 710 new and rehabilitated affordable
housing units through 2021.
For Non Housing Authority sites, the City will support and seek to utilize any emerging
State and Federal and private funding sources.
Objective: Financial incentives for developers (based
on available funds) to help facilitate the
construction of 710 new and rehabilitated
affordable housing units by 2021
Responsible Party: Community Development/Agency/
Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD/Other Sources to be Determined
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Production Strategy 1J: HOME Homebuyer Program
The HOME Homebuyer Program provides deferred payment second mortgage loans to
assist low income households in purchasing a home. This loan program offers a 3%
simple interest rate and monthly loan payments are deferred for up to 30 years.
Homebuyers are required to provide a minimum 3% down payment. To promote the
availability of the HOME Program Down Payment Assistance Program, the City will
include information, including application requirements, as part of the Housing
Information Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy 1J).
Objective: Mortgage assistance, subject to federal
funding availability and local allocation of
funds
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Production Strategy 1K: Police Residence Assistance
This program is designed to encourage local homeownership for Anaheim police officers
who wish to reside in Anaheim. Through this program, the City provides one -time, no
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
interest forgivable loans of up to $10,000 to Anaheim police officers for purchase of an
owner-occupied home within the City.
Objective: 2 households
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Production Strategy 1L: Development of Emergency Shelters/Transitional
and Supportive Housing in Compliance with SB-2
The City is in full compliance with the provisions of SB-2, establishing provisions that
permit the development of emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing “by-
right” in certain locations.
The City understands the importance of addressing the needs of the temporary and
chronically homeless. To further address this issue, it will work collaboratively with
service providers, advocacy groups and other entities to define any challenges in
providing for the temporary and long-term needs of Anaheim’s homeless. The City will
evaluate the effectiveness of current programs and entitlement procedures and determine
the feasibility of modifying standards, entitlement provisions and other methods of in-
kind and financial assistance to address any identified challenges. As part of this effort,
the City also will explore the feasibility of implementing a fee waiver or reduction
program for non-profit organizations to encourage the development of homeless shelters.
Objective: Development of emergency shelters,
transitional and supportive housing
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Re-evaluate program by January 1, 2015
and implement any necessary refinements
by June 30, 2015.
Housing Production Strategy 1M: Re-examination of Development Standards,
Entitlement Processes and Development Fees
The City understands that overly-restrictive development standards, burdensome
entitlement processes and unreasonable development fees can pose a significant barrier to
future residential development. In order to ensure that such conditions do not pose a
local barrier to future housing production, the City will re-examine its residential
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-13
development standards, entitlement processes and fees to ensure their reasonableness and
effectiveness in support of future residential development while encouraging innovation,
maintaining compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and promoting quality
housing.
Objective: Ensure reasonable development fees,
standards and processes
Responsible Party: Planning/Public Works
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Complete analysis by December 31, 2014
and monitor provisions on an ongoing basis
Housing Production Strategy 1N: Promoting Availability of Housing Opportunity
Sites
Appendix B-3, Housing Opportunity Sites, identifies properties that are designated for
residential land uses by the General Plan and have strong potential to accommodate
future affordable or market rate housing. As a follow-up item to the City’s 2006-2014
Housing Element, in 2013, these sites were re-zoned to include a Residential
Opportunities Overlay Zone that allows by-right residential development on these
properties at densities consistent with their underlying General Plan designations. The
City will continue to refer potential housing developers to these sites as a means to help
ensure that the City meets its Quantified Objectives. By mid-point of the 2014-2021
planning period, the City will also re-evaluate its Housing Opportunity sites to determine
if the Overlay Zone can be applied to additional properties as a means to further
incentivize housing development.
Objective: Promotion of Housing Opportunity Sites
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing; Re-evaluation of sites by January
2018
Housing Production Strategy 1O: Accommodating Transitional and Supportive
Housing
To accommodate transitional and supportive housing, the City will a revise definitions
for “target population”, “transitional housing” and “supportive housing” in its Municipal
Code consistent with Government Code Section 65582. In addition, the City will amend
the Municipal Code in accordance with Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) to
consider transitional housing and supportive housing as a residential use of property,
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
subject only to those development standards that apply to other residential dwellings of
the same type in the same zone.
Additionally, the City of Anaheim will review existing separation requirements and
spacing criteria for emergency shelters and revise as appropriate.
Objective: Accommodation of transitional and
supportive housing in compliance with
State law
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Within one year of Housing Element
adoption
Policy Strategy #2: Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and Preservation
of “At-Risk” Units
To ensure the continued provision of affordable units, the City will regularly monitor the
over 2,200 deed-restricted, affordable housing units that exist citywide. Of these units,
445 have been identified as having the potential of converting to market-rate units during
the planning period as a result of expiring deed restrictions. The City will provide
targeted outreach to owners of these units to encourage the extension and/or renewal of
deed restrictions and/or covenants that ensure affordability. In order to proactively
address units at-risk of conversion, the City shall develop a program to partner with non-
profit housing providers and develop a preservation strategy. The preservation strategy
will allow the City to act quickly if and when notice of conversion is received. As part of
the strategy, the City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements; conduct tenant
education and pursue funding to preserve the units.
Objective: Continual monitoring of all assisted units
with focused effort on the identified 516 at-
risk units.
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-15
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2B: Conservation of Existing
Historic Resources
The City is currently home to 271 historic homes that maintain valid Mills Act contracts.
These contracts provide a powerful incentive aimed at maintaining and preserving these
cultural resources that add tremendous value to many of the City’s neighborhoods,
including its established Historic Districts. The City shall continue to provide
opportunities for the conservation of existing historic resources through the Mills Act
Program. The City shall also provide outreach to residents within the City’s Historic
Districts and owners of historic properties outside of these districts via print media, the
City’s website and social media to inform them of the program benefits.
Objective: 80 additional Mills Act contracts
Responsible Party: Community Planning/ Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based
Neighborhood Enhancement
Continue to encourage the involvement of neighborhood-based groups in the
conservation, preservation and enhancement of neighborhood quality of life. Efforts will
focus on community participation related to planning activities, strategies and programs
that directly address quality of life in Anaheim’s neighborhoods. The City will continue
focused outreach efforts, through a variety of marketing techniques (e.g., website,
informational flyers, facilitating pre-development community meetings, providing regular
development updates to established neighborhood organizations, etc.) to encourage
additional public participation in ongoing neighborhood improvement efforts.
Objective: Enhanced community participation in
neighborhood enhancement efforts
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Development/
Police/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/CBDG
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2D: Neighborhood Improvement
The City shall continue the identification and mitigation of substandard units and
properties exhibiting deferred maintenance through the Neighborhood Improvement
Program and enhanced Code Enforcement efforts. The City shall continue to focus
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
efforts on neighborhoods exhibiting significant blight and on those “borderline”
neighborhoods that have the potential to become blighted absent focused attention. The
City shall also continue to facilitate private efforts to acquire substandard rental
properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability covenants.
During the planning period, the City will re-assess its list of Priority III and IV
neighborhoods to ensure that these neighborhoods remain properly classified. In
addition, the City will seek to identify other neighborhoods that are exhibiting blight, or
that have the potential to become blighted, for potential inclusion on the priority lists
associated with the Neighborhood Improvement Program.
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable
housing developments to reduce housing
production costs.
Responsible Party: Planning/ Community
Services/Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund/ HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing; Review of Neighborhood
Improvement Program target areas by
January 2015
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2E: Relocation and Preservation
of Historic Homes
Continue to utilize Anaheim’s “Citywide Historic Preservation Plan” guidelines to
encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of existing historic homes. This program
was historically funded by the City’s Redevelopment Agency. Given the elimination of
this funding source, the City will pursue alternative incentives or potential sources of
funding/financing to encourage the relocation and preservation of historic homes
citywide.
Objective: Relocation and preservation of historic
homes
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: Continue to seek alternative funding
sources.
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-17
Policy Strategy #3: Housing Quality and Design Strategy
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Sustainable Development/Green
Building/Efficient use of Energy Resources in Residential Development
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of limited resources and
embraces the concept of “green building” in new and existing housing developments.
The City’s Green Building Program provides technical assistance and financial incentives
subject to funding availability, for qualified housing projects incorporating sustainability
measures. To encourage “green building” practices in new and existing residential
development, the City shall continue its efforts in providing financial assistance to
projects meeting sustainability standards and third-party green building program
guidelines. The City shall continually analyze current trends and best practices and
provide an array of incentives that will facilitate and encourage the incorporation of
materials and technology that promote the development of high-efficiency, sustainable
buildings and neighborhoods.
Encourage residential developers to maximize energy conservation through proactive
site, building and systems design that exceed the provisions of Title 24 of the California
Building Code. To further promote efficient use of energy resources, the City shall
investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of offering incentives or other strategies to
further encourage energy conservation in new and existing housing.
Objective: Increased sustainable building practices/
energy conservation
Responsible Party: Public Utilities/Planning
Source of Funds: Public Utilities’ Public Benefits
Fund/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually, as funds are available
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Monitoring of Adopted Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures
The City understands the importance of providing equal housing opportunity for persons
with special needs. Persons with disabilities may require reasonable accommodations to
meet their particular housing needs. To comply with federal and state housing laws, the
City adopted reasonable accommodation procedures to provide exceptions and/or relief
from Code regulations and permitting procedures that may have a discriminatory effect
on housing for individuals with disabilities. The policy shall include procedures for
requesting accommodation, timeline for processing and appeals, criteria for determining
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
whether a requested accommodation is reasonable, and ministerial approval for minor
requests.
The City shall continue to monitor to ensure the effectiveness of reasonable
accommodation standards and procedures.
Objective: Monitoring of adopted reasonable
accommodation procedures
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Universal Design
The City recognizes that all people have varying physical abilities and that many people
will encounter temporary or permanent changes in ability to conduct the tasks necessary
for daily living throughout their lives. Universal Design Principles were adopted in 2012
and are available on the City’s Website to guide the design and construction of homes to
incorporate features that are usable by people of all abilities. These features help to
create housing that can allow residents to stay in their homes over their lifetime and
create living environments that are safer and more accessible for everyone. The Universal
Design program intends to provide development incentives which will facilitate the
building of residential spaces that include products and technology to accommodate
families of all ages and backgrounds. The City shall continue to monitor over time to
ensure implementation of Universal Design features in housing.
Objective: Monitoring of universal design principles
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3D: Parks and Open Space
The Green Element of Anaheim’s General Plan is a comprehensive plan to ensure that the
community’s recreational needs are being met. Parks and open space are important
factors that contribute to Anaheim residents’ quality of life. As the City’s housing stock
and population grows and vacant land becomes scarcer, the City will need to continue to
explore creative opportunities to provide quality parks, open space and recreational
amenities for Anaheim residents. The City will ensure consistency between the goals of
the Green Element and Housing Element to ensure a balance between the provision of
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-19
additional housing and additional recreational amenities that support the City’s growing
population.
Objective: Ensure consistency with the goals of the
Green Element
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Community Design
The Community Design Element of Anaheim’s General Plan provides policy guidance to
ensure quality design of the City’s built environment. This element addresses
community-wide design features such as gateways, landscaping, streets and public
signage, as well as special policies for specific districts within the City. Many of these
policies are also reflected in the City’s Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Municipal Code), as
well the City’s other design guidelines/plans such as the Affordable Housing Design
Guidelines; The Anaheim Colony, Vision Principles and Design Guidelines; The
Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and, the Greater Downtown of Anaheim Guide
for Development.
In order to ensure quality design of the City’s neighborhoods, the City will ensure that the
Community Design Element continues to be referenced and used during the review of
proposed housing developments. The Element will also continue to be updated to
address current development trends, as necessary.
Objective: Ensure quality design of future residential
projects
Responsible Party: Planning/Public Works/Fire
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3F: Provision of Infrastructure to Serve
Housing
The City understands the need to provide adequate infrastructure to support existing and
future housing needs. To proactively address future demand on infrastructure facilities,
the City will work collaboratively to ensure future housing demand is coordinated with
future capital planning for the City’s potable water, electrical, storm drain and sewer
infrastructure systems.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
The City shall continue to identify existing deficiencies to the water, electrical, storm
drain and sewer systems in those areas where future residential development is expected
to occur, and balance those needs with public safety, economics, efficiencies, regulatory
requirements and other Capital Improvement Plan objectives.
Objective: Provision of infrastructure to support future
housing growth
Responsible Party: Public Works/Public Utilities/Planning/
Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund/Impact Fees/Grants/Utility
Rates/User Fees
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Policy Strategy #4: Housing Rehabilitation
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
The City’s ability to maintain prior levels of acquisition and rehabilitation to create
affordable housing units has been diminished by the elimination of Redevelopment.
As a result, the City will primarily focus the use of its scarce resources in neighborhoods
previously identified as Level III and Level IV priority neighborhoods through the
Neighborhood Improvement Program. To support such efforts, the City shall continue to
provide, through regulatory incentives such as expedited processing, financial incentives
and development concessions, for the acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable
housing. Efforts shall be focused on the acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion and
accessibility of existing market -rate units to affordable units. As part of this strategy, the
City shall also consider the feasibility of acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of
motels into permanent residential uses with all of the amenities and supportive services
necessary to ensure a quality living environment for future residents.
The City Council has also continued to support the continued acquisition and
rehabilitation of apartment buildings in the Hermosa Village neighborhood in order to
create and expand long-term affordability. The City will continue to implement an
aggressive acquisitions program within this neighborhood.
Objective: A minimum of 209 very-low income units
and 11 low income units
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME, CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-21
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4B: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
The elimination of Redevelopment has significantly restricted the City’s ability to fund
single family rehabilitation activities. The City shall seek local, State and Federal
funding resources to provide rehabilitation loans for appropriate exterior and interior
improvements that enhance the quality, safety, accessibility and livability of existing
single-family homes.
Objective: Rehabilitation of Single Family Homes
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG/HOME/CalHome/Other Sources to
be Determined
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4C: Relocation Assistance
As and when required by law, the City shall provide financial relocation assistance, such
as payment of moving costs, for qualified tenants during City-assisted substantial
rehabilitation of residential units. Relocation can be temporary or permanent.
Objective: Relocation assistance, as needed
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME/CDBG/Other Sources to be
Determined
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021 (as needed)
Policy Strategy #5: Affordable Housing Strategy
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5A: Local Support of Regional Fair
Housing Efforts
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) and similar agencies provide
community education, individual counseling, mediation, and low-cost advocacy with the
expressed goal of eliminating housing discrimination and guaranteeing the rights of all
people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color,
age, family size or disability to freely choose the housing for which they qualify in the
area they desire. The City refers all inquiries for these services to the FHCOC and similar
agencies and maintains literature and informational brochures at City Hall available for
public distribution.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-22 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
To further outreach to the community, the City shall provide fair housing information as
part of the City’s Housing Information Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy
1J). Information will be provided in multiple languages and through print and electronic
media that may include the City’s website, brochures and newsletters.
Objective: Allocate annual financial allocation, based
on program funding availability. Estimated
annual allocation of $100,000.
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5B: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
The Anaheim Housing Authority provides rental assistance through the Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher Program. Under this program, families/individuals whose
annual income is below 50 percent of the HUD Area Median Income are referred to this
program. Participants pay approximately 30 percent of their adjusted gross monthly
income for rent. The Authority pays the remainder of the rent directly to the property
owner. Funding for the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program is based on Congressional
appropriations and is subject to available funds.
Objective: Estimated 5,000 Vouchers annually,
subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5C: Section 8 Mainstream Housing
Program Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities
This program provides Section 8 rental assistance to very-low income persons with
disabilities to enable them to rent private housing of their own in a non-segregated
environment. The Housing Authority screens its current Section 8 waiting list for
disabled persons who meet the eligibility requirements for this program. Once all of the
disabled applicants on the Section 8 waiting list have been identified and assisted, the
Housing Authority seeks disabled referrals from various local service providers. Housing
Authority staff works closely with these local service providers to ensure that Section 8
tenants are receiving the supportive services they require in order to live independently.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-23
Objective: Estimated 225 Vouchers annually, subject
to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5D: Section 8 Family Self Sufficiency
(FSS)
This program assists very-low income families in transitioning from living with the help
of public assistance to economic self-sufficiency. Participants are required to complete a
job training/education program and maintain suitable employment. The program creates
an “escrow account” for each participant and holds money earned by participants above
and beyond the income they received when they began participating in the FSS program.
An FSS tenant has an increase in earned income, which results in an increase in their
portion of the rent, the tenant pays the increased rent amount and holds it in an escrow
account. In order to receive the money held in the escrow account, a family must
maintain employment and be off of all public assistance (except for rental assistance) for
at least 12 months, and complete the goals outlined in their FSS contract with the
Housing Authority.
Objective: Estimated 100 participants, subject to
federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5E: Section 8 Homeless Program
Provide for Section 8 rental assistance for extremely-low and very-low income homeless
households. The Anaheim Housing Authority shall set aside vouchers specifically for
homeless households.
Objective: Estimated 91 vouchers, subject to federal
funding availability
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-24 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Project Based Voucher Program
Federal regulations allow the Housing Authority to take a portion of its Housing Choice
Voucher allocation and convert it to Project Based assistance for the purposes of
expanding housing opportunities for very-low income individual and families. Under the
PBV option, the Housing Authority can commitment rental assistance vouchers for a
period of up to 15 years to a property in exchange for the owner’s agreement to rent
predetermined units in the selected property to families coming from the Section 8
Waiting list exclusively during the commitment period. New construction units,
rehabilitated units and existing housing units qualify under this program.
Objective: Estimated 700 vouchers, subject to federal
funding availability.
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: 2014-2021
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Emergency Solutions Grant
Program
The City shall utilize federal Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds to assist people
that are homeless or those who are at-risk of becoming homeless. The City shall
distribute ESG funds to non-profit organizations that provide emergency or transitional
shelter and supportive services to people that are homeless. ESG funds are contingent
upon program funding availability.
Objective: Estimated $220,000/year in ESG Grants,
subject to federal funding availability
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: Homeless and Motel Families
The City of Anaheim understands the unique needs of the chronic and temporary
homeless. To address the unique needs of the homeless and those families living in
Motels, the City will collaborate with local advocacy groups, motel owners, police and
human service agencies and other interested parties to develop strategies and actions to
transition the chronically homeless, temporary homeless and families living in Motels
into permanent housing.
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 4-25
The City shall continue to explore opportunities for the creation of permanent housing for
homeless persons and families living in motels by providing outreach to promote
available resources and programs administered by the County of Orange Community
Services Department such as the Continuum of Care Program for the Homeless and other
available Section 8 voucher programs.
Objective: The City shall continue to identify
permanent housing opportunities for
homeless and motel families.
Responsible Party: Community Services/Community
Development/Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Housing Element
Chapter 4: Housing Policy Program
4-26 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
D. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table 4-1 summarizes the quantifiable objectives reasonably expected to be met based on
the Policy Program. The New Construction quantified objectives address the growth
needs in the City. The Rehabilitation, Conservation and Assistance Programs objectives
address the existing needs in the City identified in Chapter 2.
Table 4-1
Quantified Objectives Summary
2014-2021 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective
New Construction
Extremely Low 17
Very Low 66
Low 367
Moderate 36
Above-moderate 3,872
Total 4,358
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rehabilitation Very Low 209
Multifamily Rehabilitation Low 11
Total 220
Conservation
At Risk Units Extremely Low 0
At Risk Units Very Low 63
At Risk Units Low 230
At Risk Units Moderate 223
Historic Homes- Mills Act Contracts 80
Assistance Programs
Police Residence Assistance 2
Section 8 Rental Assistance 5,000 annually
Section 8 Mainstream 225 annually
Section 8 FSS 100 annually
Section 8 Homeless Program 91
Project Based Voucher Program 700
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-1
APPENDIX A:
COMMUNITY OUTREACH SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
During 2013, the City of Anaheim’s Housing Element Update team conducted a number
of community outreach activities. The following six community workshops were
advertised and open to the general public:
• Workshop Series #1
March 20, 2013 at the Brookhurst Community Center
March 21, 2013 at the Anaheim West Tower
March 23, 2013 at the East Anaheim Community Center
• Workshop Series #2
April 29, 2013 at the Downtown Community Center
May 1, 2013 at the East Anaheim Community Center
May 2, 2013 at the Brookhurst Community Center
During these workshops, participants were provided with an overview of the Housing
Element Update process and content. Participants, which included residents and other
stakeholders, identified and discussed challenges, opportunities and resources related to
housing in Anaheim.
In addition to the community workshops, City staff set up outreach booths at three
community events to solicit input. At the booths, staff provided information about the
Housing Element, answered questions, and solicited input on the housing challenges and
opportunities in Anaheim.
The City also provided information on scheduled community workshops and the Housing
Element Ad Hoc Committee meetings, a video of one of the community workshops and
an online survey that asked similar questions regarding challenges and opportunities in
Anaheim.
The City worked with an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of 10 residents and stakeholders
that were appointed by the City Council. The Ad Hoc Committee met eight times during
the Housing Element update process. The Committee reviewed community input,
commented on draft documents, and provided recommendations to the City Council
regarding potential housing policy directions. The minutes from the Ad Hoc Committee
meetings are provided in Appendix A-1.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
B. FARMER’S MARKET – FEBRUARY 28, 2013
On February 28, 2013, the City of Anaheim hosted an informational Community
Workshop focusing on housing challenges and opportunities at the Downtown Farmers
Market. Staff discussed the Housing Element and update process. Participants were then
asked to write the opportunities and challenges they see related to housing in Anaheim on
Post It Notes that were placed on display boards. The following were the comments
provided. The comments are provided verbatim.
What are the housing challenges In Anaheim?
• Excessive pesticide spraying.
• Homelessness.
• High cost of utilities.
• Building on top of garages/carports a health hazard due to fumes
• No high rise businesses.
• Housing causes congestion.
• Low cost housing.
• Low cost utilities.
• Low water pressure.
• Long wait list for Section 8 housing.
What are the opportunities to improve housing in the City?
• More affordable Housing.
• Lower property taxes.
• Provide warehouse facilities for homeless.
• Want banks to be more flexible with mortgages.
• More housing.
• Faster services.
• Make sign-up for section 8 wait list available at more sites.
• Lower Monthly HOA fees.
• Provide more information about housing.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-3
C. WORKSHOP SERIES #1
In March 2012, the City of Anaheim hosted a series of three Community Workshops
focusing on housing challenges and opportunities. The workshop began with a short
introduction of the Housing Element and update process. Participants were then asked to
identify and discuss the opportunities and challenges they see related to housing in
Anaheim. The following are the challenges and opportunities discussed by the groups.
March 20, 2012 Workshop
CHALLENGES
Crime/Gangs
• How do we avoid riots if we attract more gangs with low income housing?
• Crime.
• Graffiti - R.R.
• Ex. State College @ Ball Road.
• May influence decision to stay in Anaheim – Also potentially developers.
• Programs to eliminate/catch tagging.
Locations
• Finding ways to include mixed income housing so that poverty is not
concentrated.
• Low income housing is clustered in west Anaheim .
• Location.
• Community in flux such as west Anaheim.
Zoning
• Zoning issues: Too much density in certain areas.
• Zoning issues: Density of multi-unit projects is imbalanced in certain areas of
City.
• Zoning issues: Multi-family units (apartments) mixed in or adjacent to single-
family homes.
Funding
• Concentration of areas that score perfect for 9% TCAC.
• Cost funding.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
Affordability
• Need for units people who need them can afford.
• Expensive product type being built in the City.
• Alternate housing for homeless, low income bracket.
Traffic Gridlock
• Parking.
OPPORTUNITIES
Improving Economy
• Economy is beginning to improve especially in financing new construction.
City Policies/Regulations
• Ability to change City codes that drive expensive housing.
• Coordinate land uses to provide adequate housing stock.
• Waive impact fees and processing fees so 9% TCAC projects can use that
“leveraging” to increase tie-breaker score.
• Re-assess zoning & planning of City in light of housing needs.
Redeveloping Places
• Creating places where people can walk and meet i.e. integration of commercial
corridors & residential.
• Run down strip malls available for building new homes.
Housing for the Homeless/Moms with Children.
• “Flashlight walks” for crime reduction.
• Elderly.
• To provide housing for those who need it.
Graffiti Reporting & Removal Program
OTHER NOTES
• Hotel/motel
o Health Dept.- Why nothing yet?
• Need for geography/based on local housing need.
• Needs for others/ needs beyond families with children.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-5
March 21, 2012 Workshop
CHALLENGES
• Affordable housing for employees in service sector.
• Housing for elderly.
• Crime/graffiti – west Anaheim, smaller police force.
• Funding.
• Large households 10-12 ppl – Cost of housing vs. income.
• $$ & time for commute.
• Need to have multiple jobs.
• $$ to hire local employees for development.
OPPORTUNITIES
• More jobs in Anaheim & attract businesses – need awareness of great things in
Anaheim.
• Multimodal transportation – not just cars.
• Small business organization – Education, learn from each other (small chamber).
• Housing to Elderly – cost proportion to Social security – need comfort living on
own, centers for social atmosphere, transportation.
• Move low cost housing.
• Allow market to develop small units.
• Remove red tape.
• “Safe walls” for graffiti & urban art program.
• Improve appearance + public safety = raise housing appraisal.
March 23, 2012 Workshop
CHALLENGES
• How to get people involved in the process? Advanced noticed needed.
• No Redevelopment Agency.
• Housing Authority not in housing development business.
• Crime/graffiti.
• Aging housing stock (& possibly poor construction).
• Cost to live in Orange for young people.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
OPPORTUNITIES
• Better name for workshop.
• Rotary, Kiwanis, etc.
• CDBG Funds.
• Citywide - Looking beyond CDBG areas.
• Future housing needs.
• Private financing for rehab.
• Work with lenders to develop incentives for home improvements.
• Rehab rebate program.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-7
D. Workshop Series #2
In April and May 2013, the City of Anaheim hosted a second seri es of three Community
Workshops focusing on housing challenges, opportunities and policy ideas. The
workshop began with a short introduction of the Housing Element and update process.
Participants were then asked to identify and discuss the opportunities and challenges they
see related to housing in Anaheim, along with ideas for future policy direction. The
following are the challenges, opportunities and policy ideas written on Post-It Notes and
discussed by the groups. The comments are provided verbatim.
April 29, 2013 Workshop
CHALLENGES
Anaheim’s Shape
• Other cities don’t want to build more affordable housing.
Affordability
• Housing affordability.
• Affordability.
• Affordable.
Access to Afford Units
• Long waiting list.
Crime, Gangs & Graffiti
• Graffiti problems ongoing.
• Crime/gangs/graffiti.
Parking
• To many people with limited space. Example: Anna Drive, Mountain View,
Guinida.
• Over parked streets resulting from overcrowded housing.
• Lack of parking in neighborhood.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
Property Management
• Slum lords.
• Lack of compliance with minimum building codes in multi-family housing.
• Slum lords are allowing their properties to deteriorate to deplorable conditions.
• Utilities as related to housing: sewage system, electricity and water supply.
Locations & Concentration
• Housing for elderly.
• Rehabilitation of houses for seniors or low income households.
• Concentration of affordable housing in certain zip codes.
• Location problems “not in my backyard”.
• Not equal amounts of low income housing throughout the City. Most in central &
west areas.
• Location.
• Location and concentration of housing.
OPPORTUNITIES
Sources
• Finding new funding sources.
• SMAP & home loans paid off should return to more affordable purchase loans.
• Encourage lenders to promote housing rehab programs.
• Support paint your heart out for painting projects.
Reuse Opportunities
• Convert office buildings – like downtown LA did – to affordable housing.
• Placemaking that includes affordable homes.
• Create affordable housing in transit areas close to job centers.
• Using City owned sites to be used for affordable housing.
• Creating affordable homes for low income households by leveraging home CDBG.
• Convert office buildings to housing – single occupancy units.
• Promoting small business.
• Repair existing rundown apartment complexes.
• More homes less apartments.
• More Police in Benmore and Canfield neighborhood.
• City homebuyer loan payoffs as source with funding affordable housing (SMAP &
Home).
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-9
• Green building.
• Permit package.
• Redistribution of low income housing.
• Energy.
• Efficiency.
• Materials.
• Look at development among other.
POLICY IDEAS
• Do not allow variances as a matter of course (to builders).
• Enforce existing City codes.
• Enforce building and housing codes (slumlords).
• To have an ordinance requiring periodic inspections by the City of multi-family
rental units.
• Equitable distribution of new housing across zip codes.
• Proactive code enforcement & City on responsible for public areas (graffiti
cleanup).
• Identify areas throughout the “hole” City for low income housing.
• A policy that incorporates affordable housing into development of housing.
• To fairly distribute affordable housing throughout City, even if that means re-
zoning.
• Incentivize removal of blighted conditions such as ugly fencing, cemented front
yards, etc.
• Petition CA State to do away with Density Bonus law.
• Promoting gated communities.
• Allocate more programs for low-income families.
• Create a plan or vision for affordable housing goals and production.
• Increase fund for solar energy rebate program.
• Creating a policy that creates affordable housing in transit areas and specific plan
areas of growth.
• To develop effective programs to actively address problems of the nine identified
“problem” neighborhoods.
• More code enforcement more personal responsibility.
• Create a plan to use former redevelopment assets and land for all.
• To have a “move-on” program for historic houses. Identify specific sites.
• Developers must include affordable housing. No buy out or fees to opt out.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
• Requirement that all new developments include affordable housing
(inclusionaryhousing).
May 1, 2013 Workshop
CHALLENGES
• RDA ending, gap in funding affordable housing.
• Financing.
• Infrastructure upgrade needs (no RDA to help pay).
OPPORTUNITIES
• Fed $$ - Home, CDBG.
• Tax credits.
• Assessment districts/reimbursement districts.
• EB5 money.
• Fee deferral.
• City tax for affordable housing.
TOT increase to fund affordable housing.
POLICY IDEAS
• Better mechanism to replace RDA .
Need to find this!
• Public awareness program on benefits that RDA brought.
• What are other states doing?
• Waive fees.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-11
May 2, 2013 Workshop
CHALLENGES
• Acknowledgement of personal responsibilities to housing issues.
• Crime/gangs/neighborhood deterioration.
• What to do when population grows?
• Where can homeless go?
• High density / not knowing your neighbors.
• Appropriate concentrations of housing.
• Parking & traffic.
• Losing open space w/increase density.
• School aged children growing up in motels. Negatively impacts their education &
likelihood of success as adults.
• Gridlock:
o Stop high density.
o I can’t sleep at night because of helicopters.
• We have way too many sex offenders in our City and near schools.
• Quality of life is going down in Anaheim not up due to high density housing.
OPPORTUNITIES
• Individual interest/participation.
• Prevent graffiti before it occurs.
• Provide facilities for alternatives to graffiti.
• Locating Section 8 away from school sites.
§ (Traffic)
• Places for non-profits to work/resource center.
• High density housing creates more traffic on our streets that cannot accommodate it
now. Crime increases.
• Crime, gangs, helicopters all night, graffiti, traffic.
• We can’t handle current population. Why add more?
• Quality of life is going down!
• People are breaking into my car, our homes. I’m afraid to go out at night.
• Continue to encourage travel by bicycles:
o Much of Anaheim is flat.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
o Weather is great.
• Helps to mitigate parking & traffic issues related to housing & jobs.
• A small number of project based Section 8 vouchers can stabilize affordable
properties at no expense to the City.
• Give Grants to develop elderly facility and low income “not hotel developer”.
• Security companies to do watches to give police to crime.
• Idea – Stop growth.
• Let fair market take care of housing not state or local funding.
• Opportunities to be given to Anaheim residence.
• Let churches & non-profits help meat needs people in need.
RESOURCES/POLICY IDEAS
• Elder facilities / hotels living for elderly
o Ex: Armory.
o Fullerton example.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-13
E. CINCO DE MAYO OUTREACH EVENT
On May 4, 2013, the City of Anaheim participated in the Cinco De Mayo Carnival event
to seek input from the Community regarding housing challenges and opportunities.
Participants were asked to write the opportunities and challenges they see related to
housing in Anaheim on Post It Notes that were placed on display boards. The following
were the comments provided. The comments are provided verbatim.
CHALLENGES
• Overcrowded neighborhoods, provide more housing for low-income persons.
• More control/enforcement regarding illegal dumping for trash/bulky items.
Persons should be fined.
• Repair damaged streets near Romneya and East.
• Promote property maintenance in neighborhoods, maintain parks and control
crime and homeless activities in parks.
• Repair streets, maintain street lights and street trees.
• There should not be bad people that kidnap and kill little girls. (8 year old little
girl wrote this)
• Rehabilitate apartments and reduce crime in neighborhoods.
• Lower costs of utility services, such as water, electricity, etc.
• Provide programs for teenagers in the neighborhoods to keep them out of trouble.
• Property maintenance.
• Rehabilitation of neighborhoods.
• Repair sidewalks in certain areas.
• Proper maintenance of alleys and clean-up of graffiti.
• Reduction of crime and property maintenance.
• Address Crime.
• Housing for low-income residents.
• Land lords should pay more attention to who they rent to.
• Encourage apartment maintenance, not well maintained.
• Owners charge tenants for repairs that should be responsibility of the owners.
• Some apartment owners with Section 8 do not conform to the regulations.
• Persons with disabilities get last priority on funding vs. other groups.
• Address Vandalism and theft at neighborhood near Harbor and West.
• Absentee property owners not responding to resident issues in a timely manner.
• Residential rehabilitation loan program.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
• More community activities for people who live near Disneyland. Very tourist
oriented but no services for people who live there.
• High rents, long waiting lists, ongoing gang and graffiti problems.
• Kids on the streets committing cri mes, vandalism, etc.
OPPORTUNITIES
• Promote higher education for persons living in low-income neighborhoods.
• Allocate funds for the rehabilitation of single-family housing units.
• More low-income housing.
• Provide more parks, improve existing park by reducing crime and finding
alternative site for homeless persons.
• Increase affordable housing to shorten wait list for affordable housing.
• More apartments and single family homes for low-income persons.
• Housing for the elderly.
• Promote property maintenance, promote recycling in neighborhoods, too much
trash being generated in neighborhoods.
• Provide shade structures around the drop-off/pick-up areas in the schools.
• More funding for people with disabilities vs. illegal immigrants.
• Provide more housing for persons with disabilities.
• Provide after school programs in the neighborhoods.
• Provide assistance for low-income persons, affordable housing and housing for
homeless.
• Keep streets safe and reduce crime.
• Provide assistance with loan modifications.
• Create more housing for low-income persons.
• Repair streets, reduce crime and gangs.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• Reduce vandalism and more attention to street maintenance.
• Remove homeless persons from parks.
• Create housing for homeless persons.
• Priority should be given to the creation of more apartments and for-sale housing
for low-income families.
• Create housing for low-income persons.
• Create housing for the homeless.
• Implement rent control.
• Provide more services/funding for persons with disabilities.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-15
• Provide information to residents regarding “Megans Law”.
• Create more apartments and single family homes for low-income persons.
• Reduce crime and gangs.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons and more for-sale housing.
• Create more housing near transportation centers.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• More security in and around schools.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• Establish a drug and criminal rehabilitation center/facility to get persons off the
streets.
• Increase patrols to improve public safety.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• Conduct more surveys regarding community needs.
• Change laws to permit garage conversions to address overcrowding.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• Create more apartments and single family homes for low-income persons.
• Low rents.
• Educate people on ways to maintain their properties.
• Create more apartments for low-income persons.
• Create more affordable housing and housing for single mothers.
• More housing for low-income persons and more resources to address gang
problem.
• More security in schools and designate more non-smoking areas.
• Repair streets, sidewalks and street lights.
• Rehabilitate single-family homes and apartments.
• Reduce crime in neighborhoods.
• Create more housing for single mothers and victims of domestic violence.
• Combat crime and address property maintenance in neighborhoods.
• More apartments and single family homes for low-income persons.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
F. WAND BARBECUE OUTREACH EVENT
On May 11, 2013, the City of Anaheim participated in West Anaheim Neighborhood
Development Council’s (WAND) 17th Annual Western Barbecue event to seek input
from the Community regarding housing challenges and opportunities. Participants were
asked to write the opportunities and challenges they see related to housing in Anaheim on
Post It Notes that were placed on display boards. The following were the comments
provided. The comments are provided verbatim.
CHALLENGES
• High crime at Magnolia and Lincoln, recent auto thefts in that area.
• Homeless problem at the donut shop at Beach and Orange.
• Apartments at Beach and Orange need more parking.
• Too many liquor stores.
• Hotels and prostitutes are a problem and are spilling into neighborhoods.
• Problem with homelessness in West Anaheim.
• Overcrowded schools.
• Provide more sex education to control population.
OPPORTUNITIES
• More policing on Gilbert between Lincoln and Ball to address speeding and
traffic accidents.
• More affordable housing and resources for seniors.
• More Community Gardens in Downtown.
• More Dog Parks.
• Control Food/Sodas offered to students in schools.
• Provide nutritional education program for kids.
• Provide alternative places for the homeless, away from the parks.
• Relief for homeowners stuck in negative amortization loans.
• Lower utilities.
• More housing for low income persons.
• Conduct workshops for parents to learn how to communicate in public.
• More housing for low income persons.
• Education programs for kids to stay out of gangs.
• More apartments for low income persons.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-17
• Provide educational workshops for residents to learn computer and other technical
skills and to become more involved in the community.
• More housing for low income persons.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
G. HOUSING ELEMENT ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the responses to the Online Survey received through
August 27, 2013.
1. Are you a resident of Anaheim? If yes, please indicate in the box below for
how many years?
Yes: 43.9%
No: 4.5%
Average residency: 16.57 years
2. If you are a resident of Anaheim, do you
Rent your home: 22.7%
Own your home: 63.6%
3. The following is a list of housing-related challenges that Anaheim residents
and stakeholders identified during the series of Housing Element public
workshops held in March 2013. Please check the box next to any items that
you agree pose a challenge in Anaheim. If you can think of any other
housing-related issues that are not on the list, please include them in the
"Other" box located at the bottom.
Affordability of housing: 8.4%
Increased traffic and neighborhood parking impacts 45.2%
Location and concentration of housing 35.5%
Crime, gangs and graffiti 64.5%
Funding to support affordable housing 32.3%
Housing for hotel/motel families 35.5%
Housing for the elderly 38.7%
Housing for the service sector 19.4%
Housing for large households 19.4%
Long commute times and limited jobs near housing 29.0%
Engaging residents in planning for future housing 29.0%
Aging housing stock 29.0%
Other (comments provided verbatim):
• Special Needs Housing.
• Alternative sleeping location for the homeless community.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-19
• Lack of city support to enforce existing codes to improve and maintain
neighborhood areas, especially areas of older high density rental housing.
• Providing shelter and services for the growing homeless population, especially
families and youth.
• The new Housing manager is very rude & discriminate when I called to talk
on phone. She said: whether it is my way or no way.
• SINGLE level housing of ANY type is needed in ALL price ranges,- The
population is aging, generations are living together!!!!!
• Preserving Historic Homes.
• Homeless emergency shelter and multiservice center.
• Provide City Staff with Overtime Pay to quickly process Approvals and
Permits for Affordable Projects.
• Addressing needs of the 9 troubled multi-family neighborhoods. Finding sites
suitable for relocation of historic houses.
• High density in west Anaheim
• Small businesses/strip malls not renovating, updating properties. Abandoned
businesses.
4. The following is a list of housing-related opportunities that Anaheim
residents and stakeholders identified during the series of Housing Element
public workshops held in March 2013. Please check the box next to any items
that you agree pose an opportunity in Anaheim. If you can think of any
other housing-related opportunities that are not on the list, please include
them in the "Other" box located at the bottom.
An improving economy 46.4%
Ability to change City policies, regulations, policies and fees 53.6%
Redeveloping and creating special places 46.4%
Community programs such as flashlight walks 21.4%
Graffiti reporting and removal program 50.0%
Promoting awareness of great things in Anaheim 39.3%
Availability of different modes of transportation 50.0%
Ability to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds 39.3%
Existence of housing rehabilitation loans and programs 42.9%
Other (comments provided verbatim):
• Multi resource center to serve the less fortunate
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
• Please note: CDBG funds can and in the past have been used to improve
neighborhoods. That is largely no longer the case. At the same time these
funds are being used for non-neighborhood improvement things like buying
buildings to house non-profit groups. The CDBG funds have decreased yet the
city expanded the areas covered and the funding committee thus decreasing
the overall effectiveness in addressing real neighborhood blight and sub-
standard conditions.
• Are they still available- and to whom? Investors, that might want to build?
Individuals?
• Use of some of these funding resources for an emergency shelter and
multiservice center.
• Encourage Residents to propose Housing Development and other Resident
Friendly Improvements to their Community and allow them to participate in
"making them happen".
• Utilizing homeowner city pay-off loans for historic preservation and
affordable housing.
• Local transportation for elderly.
• Really looking forward to The Packing House opening.
5. If there are any other housing-related thoughts you would like to share,
please include them in the box below. (Comments provided verbatim.)
• Alternative sleeping location for the homeless community.
• We have a concentration of affordable housing in the downtown area. This
area cannot support any additional affordable housing projects. We must
enforce existing codes in high density rental housing areas where absentee
landlords do not maintain their property and people live in overcrowded, sub
standard conditions. The city should not be property owners or landlords and
should stop engaging in so called public/private partnerships to dev elop tax
subsidized, high density, affordable and/or low income projects.
• This is the first time I've heard of the flashlight walk program. Interesting.
• Most of the jobs in the city are being created around the service sector which
does not pay enough to afford rent in Anaheim, leading to long commutes,
pollution and congestion. Low wages and not enough affordable housing
create problems for everyone.
• As a Mills Act home owner in the Palms District, I would like to see an
increased amount of neighborhood and historic preservation with a high
standard for the appearance and upkeep of rental properties. Most of my
neighbors are in some sort of low-income housing with dwellings that are
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013 A-21
overcrowded and neglected by the landlords. I feel a more stringent code for
rental properties with inspections by the city or a third party entity will not
only improve the aesthetics the community, but also help the families living in
these dwellings.
• City beautification projects. Improve the landscaping along major roads in
Anaheim. Make established neighborhoods more desirable. Give them a
facelift.
• The number of homeless is increasing in Anaheim including the number of
homeless students in the schools. It is urgent an emergency shelter and multi
service center is created in Anaheim to move these residents from the street to
self-sufficiency.
• I believe that concentrating low income housing to certain areas creates
heightened crime issues. It is in the best interest of all residents to have
affordable housing spread throughout the city, including Anaheim Hills. By
spreading housing equally we are ensuring that low income households are
able to access the same high quality services as others. Additionally, we
spread children from low income families to various schools so that we don't
end up with a "bad" school as a result of high numbers of poverty. Yes, many
don't like the idea of having affordable housing in their neighborhood, but the
fact that someone is poor does not mean that they are a bad person. I believe
Anaheim has a great opportunity to implement a housing model that
adequately meets the needs of all residents.
• The City needs to identify ways to incentivize the rehabilitation of aging
single-family homes and develop a dedicated funding source to pay for the
relocation of historic homes threatened by development
• Housing/shelters for the homeless. Several local parks are currently occupied
by the homeless.
• Consider petitioning CA state to repeal density bonus law
• Townhouse and apartment building are not providing enough parking creating
a backfill in neighboring residential neighborhoods.
Housing Element
Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
A-22 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT SEPTEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Appendix A-1: Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee Minutes
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 A1-1
APPENDIX A-1:
HOUSING ELEMENT AD HOC
COMMITTEE MINUTES
The following are the approved minutes from the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee
meetings held from March 2013 through September 2013.
Housing Element
Appendix A-1: Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee MInutes
A1-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
7:00 P.M.
Helena Training Room, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on
Tuesday, March 19, 2013, in the Helena Training Room, City Hall, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, California.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist. Ad Hoc Committee
members introduced themselves.
Present: Je’net Kreitner, Grant Henniger, John Leos, John O’Brien, Kandis
Richardson, Kelly Buffa, Greg McCafferty, Mike Balsamo, Abdulmageed (AB)
Abdulrahman, and Phyllis Greenberg.
Absent: None
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego and Associate Planner Andy
Nogal.
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Susan Harden.
Discussion Items
1. Member Introductions
Mr. Barquist asked Committee Members and Staff present to give brief self-
introductions.
Mr. Barquist gave a brief overview of the meeting agenda.
2. Committee Purpose and Responsibilities
Mr. Barquist explained that the committee is not permanent and reviewed the
purpose of the committee. The committee is helping the decision makers in the City.
Responsibilities include the review of community input, attendance at workshops to
observe community interactions, familiarity with the housing profile report, and review
and comment on Goals, Policies Objectives, and Actions within the Housing
Element.
3. Establishment of Meeting Ground Rules
Mr. Barquist introduced the discussion of ground rules. Ms. Harden facilitated the
discussion.
A total of seven meetings are planned to be held at this point, plus additional
meetings. Meetings will occur monthly through September. No more than two
absences will be allowed. Only the appointee may serve and attend Ad Hoc
Committee – no substitutes.
Meetings will start and end on-time. However, notice must be given in advance if it is
projected that the meeting will go longer. Actual scheduled meeting start times to be
discussed later.
Mr. Barquist stated that the Ad Hoc Meetings are publicly noticed meeting so they
should start at the noticed time.
Meetings will be recorded. Minutes will be taken, approved by committee at
following meeting, and archived. Minutes are prepared in summary format and
approved at the following meeting.
Come prepared to meeting, having reviewed any pertinent information.
Committee should try to come to a consensus on policy issues, but that may not
always be possible. Committee can make a motion to vote or add anything to the
document.
4. Review of Brown Act
City of Anaheim Assistant City Attorney, Mr. Ted Reynolds, provided an overview of
the Brown Act.
All meetings must be transparent to the public.
This committee must abide by the Brown Act.
If six or more members are at a social gathering, it could be viewed by the public as
a meeting. Refrain from discussing the work effort of the committee and do not
deliberate. Talking about an issue to build consensus outside of meeting in not
allowed. Do not “reply all” on e-mails which can become a “discussion”.
A meeting consists of hearing, discussion, or deliberating.
Proper etiquette during meetings includes no texting.
Committee members may only speak in front of the City Council as a citizen, unless
authorized by committee to speak on behalf of committee.
The written agenda must contain all items to be discussed. Items not listed may not
be discussed, but may be added to next agenda. The agenda items must be
submitted one week before meeting and must be posted 72 hours prior to meeting.
Every agenda includes public comment only on items about the Housing Element.
Speaker cards should be provided for public commenters.
This committee will not conduct closed sessions.
Violating the Brown Act is considered a misdemeanor.
5. Overview of Committee Binder Contents
Mr. Barquist notified the committee that the previous Housing Element is on CD in
the binders provided to them. This binder is a living document and will be changing
and updated throughout the life of this committee.
The binder contains agendas and minutes for every meeting. Prior to meetings
minutes approval, members should ensure that all items deliberated are included in
the minutes.
Ground rules discussed today to be provided to committee members for their
binders.
Mr. Barquist made a motion to provide phone and contact info of all committee
members to all members of committee. Motion passed by committee.
Community workshops – multiple rounds are scheduled. City has reached out to
many organizations to boost attendance. Outreach will include booths at numerous
festivals and farmers market.
Binder contains an overview of legislation and internet resources.
The entire current Housing Element document in pdf format on CD is provided in the
back of the binder.
A five minute break will be added to ground rules.
A five minute break was then called.
6. Review of Housing Element Process/Legal Requirements/RHNA Process
Mr. Barquist introduced and gave brief descriptions of the Housing Element process,
legal requirements, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process.
Mr. Barquist explained that the Housing Element and housing need allocations
provide the context for the private market to develop. Development slowed and
market conditions have changed from the last cycle. Sites previously identified by
Housing Element that were not developed may still be utilized.
City Staff stated 9,500 units was last cycle target. This is much higher than the
projection for this planning cycle which is approximately 5,700 units.
Quantified objectives set local targets during planning period and will be discussed in
later meetings.
Ms. Richardson asked who comes up with projected numbers. Mr. Barquist
explained the process and methodology and that the numbers are allocated by
SCAG.
Mr. O’Brien commented on the statistics used to determine the RHNA numbers. A
vacancy adjustment is shown in the reduced numbers.
Ms. Kreitner asked if the numbers were determined by needs or by Section 8
housing list. Mr. Barquist explained HE is 50/50, existing and future needs. Existing
needs are separate from future growth needs. The numbers account for motel
families.
Ms. Greenberg asked if the range of projected needs was to attract people in specific
income levels. Mr. Barquist stated that the projections are not “recommended” but,
“identified projected growth needs.”
Mr. Balsamo commented that SCAG creates numbers as a result of natural
population growth as well.
Mr. Abdulrahman asked if there is an empirical equation to show the factors. Mr.
Barquist responded that there is a methodology used by SCAG.
Mr. Borrego stated that those projected numbers will not change. City Staff monitors
methodology and allocation process and believes this is a fair allocation.
Mr. Abdulrahman asked if the City reviewed the past performance from the previous
Housing Element. The City Staff responded yes, that there is an annual
review/progress report of Housing Element submitted to the State. The next annual
review is scheduled for City Council consideration at its next meeting.
The City Staff continued to explain that there are challenges to the City from the
closure of Redevelopment Agencies. This funding source for affordable housing is
now gone. The Community Development Director, John Woodhead, will be at the
next Ad Hoc meeting to discuss this issue. Redevelopment was the largest source
of funding for affordable housing in the City.
Mr. Barquist continued to speak about the needs assessment and terminology,
resources and constraints analysis (governmental and non-governmental). He also
explained that the Policy Program is the official City policy on housing.
Mr. Barquist then reviewed the five phases of the Housing Element update process.
7. Discussion of Upcoming Ad Hoc Meetings
Mr. Barquist and the City Staff initiated a discussion on setting the dates and times of
the next 6 meetings, as well as the agendas.
A motion to start all meetings at 6 pm was passed.
The group discussed and determined that the next (second) meeting will take place
on April 15, 2013 at 6:00 P.M. The location is to be determined.
A location for future meetings was discussed and locations in central Anaheim will be
considered first.
The third Ad Hoc Committee meeting was scheduled for Thursday, May 30th at 6:00
P.M.
Public Comments
Mr. Patrick Kreitner asked about housing growth. He stated that there is a
percentage for need of housing for various incomes and wanted to know how many
people fall into these categories. He also stated that it seems like the number of
lower income families are becoming greater. Mr. Barquist replied that the Housing
Needs Assessment Report will cover all the information that Mr. Kreitner was
inquiring about.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting to be held in
on April 15, 2013, at 6:00 P.M. at a location to be determined.
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Monday, April 15, 2013
6:00 P.M.
Sunkist Library
901 South Sunkist Street
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Monday,
April 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Sunkist Library, 901 S. Sunkist Street.
• Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 6:05 pm.
Present: Je’net Kreitner, Grant Henniger, John Leos, John O’Brien, Kandis Richardson,
Kelly Buffa, Greg McCafferty, Mike Balsamo, Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, and Phyllis
Greenberg.
Absent: None
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner Andy Nogal and
Community Development Director John Woodhead.
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman.
• Pledge Of Allegiance
Mr. Borrego led the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of March 19, 2013
Motion made by Committee Member Buffa, seconded by Committee Member Henniger, to
approve the March 19, 2013 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously.
• Discussion Items
1. Presentation by Community Development Department Director Regarding the
Effect that Elimination of Redevelopment will Have on Future Housing
Development
Mr. Borrego introduced John Woodhead, Community Development Director, to provide
an overview of the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the impact on future
housing production.
2
Mr. Woodhead first thanked the Ad Hoc Committee for serving and described that the
State of California had taken approximately $50 million in redevelopment funds from
Anaheim over the last decade to augment education funds. The State was poised to
take an additional $1.7 billion in a single fiscal year from redevelopment agencies
statewide and an ongoing amount in subsequent years. Under that scenario, Anaheim’s
contribution would have been $16.4 mil in the first year and $4 mil in the subsequent
years. The California State Redevelopment Agency sued to stop the State’s “ransom
request” and that legal process ended with the elimination of all redevelopment agencies
statewide as of January 2012.
In terms of its history, redevelopment had become active beginning in the late 1970’s.
During this time, approximately 6,000 housing units were developed in Anaheim through
the involvement of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). One of the requirements of
RDA’s was a housing set-aside fund where no less than 20 percent of the tax increment
revenue was required to be used for affordable housing. Anaheim opted to set aside 30
percent in conjunction with an action to extend its RDA plan for another 10 years,
making the 30 percent set aside mandatory.
In 2005, the City Council adopted a five-year Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. The
Plan was extended out to 2014 and called for the development of 2,800 affordable units.
Approximately 1,500 affordable units have been developed under the plan thus far.
The loss of redevelopment funds equates to a loss of $1.3 billion for Anaheim, including
$400 million in housing set aside funds. The direct use of public funds also induced
private investment. For example, Colony Park had approximately $25 million in net
public investment, but induced approximately $300 million in additional private
investment. Colony Park is an example of using housing development in the downtown
to generate a viable retail/commercial environment.
The Successor Agency is the City acting as “trustee” of sorts and is a separate legal
entity. Approximately 40 acres of housing development sites have been transferred to
the Successor Agency. This land is valued at approximately $25 per square foot. There
is also a loan portfolio of 350 first time homebuyer loans, totaling about $10 million.
There is also about $15 million in new loans obligations. The Successor Agency has $15
million for the Avon Dakota rehabilitation project. There is also approximately $8 million
in housing set aside funds that were loaned to the non-housing redevelopment side.
Residual receipts for housing projects will provide a $1.5 to 2 million annual income
stream.
Without redevelopment, Anaheim does not have an ongoing revenue stream that it is
able to bond against. The City will act similar to a private developer going forward,
needing to produce some revenue from future housing activities. Anaheim will probably
not provide financial assistance directly to rental projects. The primary focus will likely be
on acquisition and rehabilitation of the city’s older housing stock. Efforts will be
concentrated in one neighborhood until that neighborhood project is complete, then
move on to next neighborhood. Some housing programs will not be funded.
Committee Member Balsamo asked why the philosophy has changed from focusing on
rental to acquisition/rehabilitation. Was this direction from the City Council? Mr.
Woodhead responded that the City Council is leaning that way. There is also a large
segment of the community that recognizes the housing stock in Anaheim is older and
3
needs fixing up. The ratio of single-family to multi-family development is skewed towards
multi-family. Acquisition/rehabilitation will help address occupancy problems,
infrastructure, and things that create slums. Financing for acquisition/rehab is fairly
viable without needing a large public subsidy to make tax credits work. Avon Dakota is
an example. There will be a 55-year ground lease with a revenue stream resulting from
the project.
Committee Member O’Brien asked how much acquisition/rehab can play in meeting the
RHNA allocations. Mr. Woodhead responded that acquisition/rehab will play a very small
role in meeting the RHNA numbers. The City has some federal funds that may be
reallocated, but remaining funds for housing are limited.
Committee Member Henniger noted that rents at Avon Dakota will be fairly low, creating
affordable units.
Mr. Woodhead commented that the 40 acres owned by the Agency must be used for
affordable housing. The ability of developers to get funding to build on sites will make a
difference in development happening on those sites.
Committee Member Richardson commented that it may be more feasible to increase
public revenue through the property taxes on ownership units than rent from rental units.
Mr. Woodhead commented that some of the housing sites are not ones that developers
are willing to build for-sale properties on, unless the condo market comes back. The
product developed will also depend on how rapidly the properties need to be developed.
In the past, under RDA, five years was the limit. That rule may or may not apply.
Housing advocates will probably ask those time limits still be enforced.
Committee Member Richardson commented that she thinks the condo market is strong
and young professionals and first time homebuyers are looking for condos. Mr.
Woodhead commented that this is true, but a strong condo market isn’t consistently
seen in Anaheim right now. For example, condominiums have not taken off in the
Platinum Triangle.
Committee Member Greenberg asked what the range is for affordable housing. Mr.
Woodhead answered that affordable housing serves a wide range of incomes. The
affordability level is based on the area median income. Mr. Woodhead provided some
examples of income levels from the latest HCD income limits.
Committee Member McCafferty asked what incentives can be given to developers to
revitalize the city if redevelopment is gone. Mr. Woodhead provided examples of ways to
make the entitlement process easier, including pre-entitling property, assistance with
utilities and infrastructure by tandeming with a public works project, and streamlining the
process.
Committee Member Leos noted that one of the things young parents look at when
buying a house is the quality of the schools in the area. He commented that this will be a
challenge for some neighborhoods in Anaheim. Committee Member Henniger agreed
that schools make a big difference in the neighborhood and attracting buyers.
Committee Member Leos noted that there are not enough schools in some of the
neighborhoods and gave the Platinum Triangle as an example. Mr. Woodhead
commented that the elimination of redevelopment did not directly provide more funds for
schools.
4
Committee Member Greenberg commented that creating mixed-income communities will
help the schools by balancing the community. Mr. Woodhead responded that creating
mixed-income communities will be difficult to do with the existing housing stock. The cost
per unit increases dramatically when they are demolished and rebuilt. The cost for
rehabilitating a unit is $50-60,000. This increases to $200,000 if tearing down and
rebuilding. The City is trying to integrate the affordable housing into larger
neighborhoods to create a bigger district with a sense of identity.
Committee Member Henniger asked what are some of the best practices for meeting the
RHNA needs without redevelopment. What are other cities doing? Mr. Woodhead
responded that many cities are rezoning property to make the opportunities available,
but not proactively doing anything to try to develop numbers up to the RHNA.
Mr. Borrego commented that the City’s quantified objectives will be different than the
RHNA target. The quantified objectives are what the City considers to be feasible within
the planning period. Mr. Borrego asked Mr. Barquist what other cities are doing in terms
of setting a reasonable quantified objective.
Mr. Barquist said that cities are looking at facilitating private investment by reducing time
and uncertainty. They are looking at the approval process and also when fees are paid.
The City may look at deferral of fees to occupancy.
Committee Member Buffa commented that a policy could be to have the City go to the
State to change the RHNA process and lower numbers.
Mr. Barquist commented that the Housing Element is part of the General Plan which
typically has broad policy, but State law includes very specific requirements for the
Housing Element.
Committee Member Balsamo described the County of Orange’s by-right overlay where
100 percent affordable housing can be developed on commercial and industrial
properties. About 500 units have been built through the overlay.
Mr. Borrego explained the City of Anaheim’s housing overlay. The City has over 200
parcels identified in the current Housing Element as opportunity sites. The housing
overlay allows for by-right housing on these sites. The overlay has been created and the
preparation of CEQA documentation is in process. Hearings to apply the overlay to the
sites will occur during the summer. Most of the sites are currently developed with strip
retail and older hotels. These sites are designated for residential in the General Plan, but
currently zoned commercial.
Committee Member Leos commented that there may be community concerns with
concentrating low income housing through the overlay. Mr. Borrego clarified that the
overlay allows for all housing, not just affordable housing. The projects could be market
rate and he expects to see both affordable and market rate development at these
locations.
Committee Member Richardson commented that the City also started putting in
infrastructure to accommodate units. Mr. Woodhead confirmed this; saying over $100
million was put into infrastructure around the Anacapa development.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if the units will also be able to use density bonus.
Mr. Borrego responded yes.
5
Committee Member Balsamo suggested the City look at other standards as well.
Committee Member McCafferty commented that, coupled with making it easier to
develop, the City should look at putting in the infrastructure investment.
Mr. Borrego noted that there is currently a surcharge added to Anaheim utility bills to
make upgrades to the infrastructure. There have already been improvements made in
west and central Anaheim. Sewer capacity remains a large issue for some areas.
Committee Member McCafferty said one of the policies in the Housing Element might be
to prioritize capital improvement projects for housing opportunity sites and providing
certainty as to when the improvements will be made. Mr. Borrego commented that this
would be a great idea to include in the policy development discussions. Committee
Member Balsamo noted that the Housing Element focus is on housing and will not be
able to solve every issue.
Mr. Borrego talked about CEQA reform. CEQA can be a challenge for development right
now with the amount of time and money needed. The housing overlay zone is being
prepared under a supplemental EIR to the General Plan EIR. This will allow the City to
exempt infill development and speed up the development process.
Committee Member Henniger asked if the residual receipts to the Housing Authority
could be bonded against. Mr. Woodhead said this is not a very viable option right now,
but may be in the future.
Committee Member O’Brien asked how affordable housing development happened prior
to RDA. Mr. Woodhead responded that there was not much interest in affordable
housing in California then. The first redevelopment efforts did not even require affordable
housing.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if Anaheim receives federal assistance. Mr.
Woodhead responded yes, the City receives CDBG and HOME funds. There have been
substantial cutbacks though.
Mr. Woodhead explained that the City may have to eliminate 500 Section 8 vouchers
due to sequestration.
Committee Member Kreitner asked what the timeline is to eliminate the 500 Section 8
vouchers. Mr. Woodhead responded that the City is working with HUD to see. The
timeline was originally by the end of 2013, but that may change. The program has a
natural attrition of about 20 to 25 households per month. Committee Member Kreitner
commented that Cherry Orchard will be open in the fall and could house 45 of the
Section 8 families.
Mr. Woodhead also explained that the Housing Element will look at at-risk units. For
example, Miracle Terrace, a 200 unit senior complex, has expiring affordability
requirements.
Committee Member Kreitner asked if it would make sense to take money out of rapid
rehousing to address the Section 8 issue.
6
Committee Member Richardson commented that there may be people with Section 8
vouchers who should not be eligible. Mr. Woodhead commented that fraud is always a
concern and the Police Department investigates any fraud concerns.
Mr. Woodhead concluded the discussion by saying tools to replace redevelopment may
be available in the future. This is the first time a Housing Element has to be prepared
with a constrained fiscal environment. Looking at how to eliminate barriers for the private
sector should be a focus.
The Committee took short recess. Upon returning, Mr. Barquist noted that the library closes
at 8:00 pm. Therefore the Committee will end their meeting at 7:50 pm.
2. Review of Past and Planned Community Outreach Efforts
Mr. Barquist provided an overview of the community outreach activities to date. The City
had a booth at the farmers market in downtown. People could provide comments on
sticky notes at their convenience. The comments will be provided to the Committee at
the next meeting.
The City also had a workshop series in March. Participation rates were low. The City is
going to use the “go-to-them” strategy and have opportunities to participate at the La
Palma Park Cinco de Mayo event and other larger community events. Staff will also be
at the West Anaheim BBQ to get input.
Mr. Borrego also noted that staff is making a big push to increase attendance at the next
round of workshops. Staff will be attending the neighborhood council meetings to
announce the upcoming workshops. Staff is also updating the Housing Element
webpage to be more user-friendly and catchy. The webpage is expected to launch next
week. There will also be an online survey.
Committee Member Balsamo asked what questions will be asked of the community. Mr.
Barquist responded that the questions are related to higher order issues, what needs to
be addressed, what needs to be considered by decision makers, what is the broad
direction.
Mr. Barquist summarized the input received at the workshops related to housing
challenges and opportunities.
Challenges identified included:
o Crime/Gangs/Graffiti
o Location and Concentration of Housing
o Funding
o Affordability
o Traffic and Parking
o Hotel/Motel Families
o Housing for Elderly
o Housing for Service Sector
o Housing for Large Households
7
o Commute Time/Limited Jobs Near Housing
o Engaging Residents
o Aging Housing Stock/Quality of Construction
Opportunities identified included:
o Improving Economy
o Change City Policies/Regulations/Processes/Fees
o Redeveloping and Creating Places
o Community Programs (i.e. flashlight walks)
o Graffiti Reporting and Removal Program; “Safe Walls” and Urban Art
o Promoting Awareness of Great Things in Anaheim
o Multimodal Transportation
o Affordable Housing for Elderly with Supportive Amenities
o Development of Small Units
o CDBG Funds
o Private Financing for Rehabilitation of Housing
o Incentive Program with Lenders for Home Improvements
o Rehab Rebate Program
3. Review of Housing Element Background Report
Mr. Barquist introduced the Housing Element Background Report. Chapters 2 and 3 of
the draft Housing Element were provided to the Committee. Given time constraints, the
background report will be presented at the next Committee meeting.
4. Review of Past Performance
Mr. Barquist introduced the Review of Past Performance. The Committee has been
provided with a table showing the existing policies in the Housing Element. There is a
column where staff will provide information on progress in implementation. This will
provide information needed to discuss what should be changed. One consideration is
that RDA is listed as the funding source for many of the programs. The completed table
will be provided to the Committee prior to the next meeting.
Committee Member McCafferty asked how the review of past performance relates to the
City’s annual Housing Element report. Mr. Barquist responded that information from the
annual report will be integrated into the matrix.
• Public Comments
No members of the public present.
8
• Adjournment
Motion made by Committee Member Kreitner, seconded by Committee Member
Abdulrahman to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. to the next
scheduled meeting to be held in on May 30, 2013, at 6:00 P.M.
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Thursday, May 30, 2013
6:00 P.M.
Central Library
500 West Broadway
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Monday,
May 30, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Central Library, 500 W. Broadway.
• Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 6:10 pm.
Present: Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, Mike Balsamo, Kelly Buffa, Phyllis Greenberg,
Grant Henniger, Je’net Kreitner, John Leos, Greg McCafferty, John O’Brien, and Kandis
Richardson
Absent: None
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego and Housing Programs Manager Grace
Stepter
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman.
• Pledge of Allegiance
Committee Member Henniger led the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of April 15, 2013
Motion made by Committee Member Buffa, seconded by Committee Member Kreitner, to
approve the April 15, 2013 minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously.
• Discussion Items
Mr. Barquist requested that the Committee amend the meeting agenda to move Discussion
Item #3 Review of Past Performance before Item #2 Review of Housing Background Report
because Housing Programs Manager Grace Stepter is in attendance and can answer any of
the Committee’s questions regarding the Review of Past Performance. The Committee
agreed to hear Discussion Item #3 first.
1. Review of Past Community Outreach Efforts
Ms. Lieberman gave an overview of the community outreach activities and the input
received since the last Ad Hoc Committee meeting. These activities included Workshop
Series #2 (consisting of three community workshops), the WAND Barbeque and the Cinco
2
de Mayo festival at La Palma Park. The Consultants provided the Committee with hard
copies of the community input notes from the outreach activities to date.
Mr. Barquist explained the EB 5 program that was mentioned in the community input. The
EB 5 program is a federal program that provides foreign companies with ability to obtain
visas for employees in return for creating permanent jobs and investment in the United
States.
A committee member asked for clarification on the “move on program” for historic homes.
Principal Planner Borrego explained that the program was funded by the Redevelopment
Agency to relocate historic homes that would potentially be demolished by new construction
otherwise.
A committee member asked for clarification on the community member’s comment on
promoting gated communities. Mr. Barquist said that the community member made the
comment in the context of parking and gated complexes having higher demand for parking
within the confines of the complex versus non-gated complexes where parking spills out into
the neighborhood as well. One committee member commented that it may be related to an
overcrowding issue where there are multiple cars per apartment unit. Another committee
member noted that many people use their garages for storage instead of parking. Another
committee member said it gates may be in response to security concerns. Another
committee member said he would not advocate for including a policy promoted gated
communities in the Housing Element and that developers should be able to choose to put in
gates or not. There was general agreement amongst the committee on this. Another
committee member commented that gating communities segments the community and limits
communication.
A committee member asked for clarification on a community member’s comment regarding
petitioning the State to remove the density bonus requirement. Another committee member
asked for clarification on what the density bonus requirement entails. Mr. Barquist explained
that the density bonus requirement includes provisions that must be granted to a developer
if certain affordable units are provided. He explained that the community member’s comment
was related to the State’s purview over local government and the political dynamic of the
State in local affairs. The density bonus provisions are included in the Resources section of
the Housing Element background report.
A committee member asked if the summary of the outreach efforts would be provided in the
Housing Element. Ms. Lieberman said that the summary will be provided in the full draft
Housing Element.
A committee member asked if Staff heard a difference in the types of community comments
from area to area within the City. Principal Planner Borrego said that there were some
differences in the overall themes of the comments. At the Cinco de Mayo festival, there were
many comments about maintenance issues and absentee landlords. At the WAND
barbeque, there were many comments about crime, overconcentration of affordable housing
and homeless.
Principal Planner Borrego noted that the amount of input at the two events was greater than
the workshops, but that the second workshop series also had a higher attendance than the
first round of workshops. The City’s online survey has also had over 50 responses to date
and will remain open online.
3
A committee member asked if the community members providing input at the La Palma Park
event were primarily Hispanic. Principal Planner Borrego said that most of the community
members who spoke with staff were Hispanic.
2. Review of Past Performance
Principal Planner Borrego introduced Housing Programs Manager Grace Stepter.
A committee member asked to receive documents to review early on to allow for adequate
time for review. Principal Planner Borrego indicated that additional review time will be
provided with future documents to be reviewed by the Committee.
Ms. Lieberman read through each of the housing strategies listed in the current Housing
Element and the staff’s summary of the progress in implementing the strategy. Discussion
was as follows.
Housing Production Strategy 1A: Meet or Exceed the Production Goals of the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan – Principal Planner Borrego commented that the City is no longer
pursuing housing development under the plan, except for the projects that are already in the
pipeline. Housing Programs Manager Stepter commented that the current projects under the
plan were already underway and committed to before the Redevelopment Agency was
dissolved. A committee member asked if it would advantageous to ask the City Council to
revise the policy to reflect the numerical objectives to be in line with the achievable
outcomes of the plan. Principal Planner Borrego said that the City Council could be asked to
rescind the plan or revisit the plan since it is still official policy, but not being acted upon.
Housing Production Strategy 1B: Implementation of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone –
Principal Planner Borrego said this was included in the original Affordable Housing Strategic
Plan, but then in the development of the Housing Element the City had to identify Housing
Opportunity Sites to allow by-right residential development so the Overlay Zone became
redundant. The City is moving forward with the rezoning of the Opportunity Sites this
summer.
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very Low, Low
and Moderate Income Housing Developments – A committee member asked if the City has
received feedback about processing timelines for other projects. Principal Planner Borrego
said staff has not received specific feedback yet, but would like the committee to discuss
this item in the resources and constraints discussion at the next committee meeting. The
committee member commented that getting the pieces to work for expedited processing can
be very difficult and it may not be the best tool to incentivize development. Man y times the
applicant does not have the plans prepared to the level of detail necessary for expedited
processing, but has an expectation that the process will be expedited. Principal Planner
Borrego commented that different departments also have different capabilities to expedite
processing. Another committee member commented that he had worked on a development
that received expedited processing that saved time, but the tradeoff was that the project
itself was expensive to develop.
Housing Production Strategy 1G: Encourage the Development of Housing for Extremely-
Low Income Households - A committee member asked if these units were developed using
Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside funds. Housing Program Manager Stepter said that
there was a combination of funds used, including Section 8 Project-Based Vouchers. A
committee member asked if these projects are mixed income. Housing Program Manager
Stepter said that most of the projects involved tax credits and that the households with the
4
highest income within the projects would be households earning 60 percent of the area
median income.
A committee member asked if the City has found that the crime rate is higher in these areas.
Housing Program Manager Stepter said that the City has found that the crime rate is not
higher, and in many cases is lower. A crime study was done in the Hermosa Village area
that shows that calls for service are lower now. The income-restricted projects have
requirements for background checks on the tenants. The communities tend to be better
maintained. Active data matching occurs with the Police Department so that the Housing
Authority is notified of any criminal activity.
A committee member asked if there are any projects on the list that are still being
developed. Housing Program Manager Stepter said that Cherry Orchard is still in progress.
A committee member commented that Hermosa Village has private security and is gated,
but many residents are hesitant to complain because they do not want to be kicked out. He
commented that a good management company helps make the project better.
A committee member commented that a portion of the units at Cherry Orchard are tied to
Section 8 service vouchers so that the households agree to receive some sort of supportive
services with their housing. The project also has a community center.
Housing Program Manager Stepter explained the difference between public housing, where
all of the households pay 30 percent of what the household could afford, and affordable
housing in Anaheim where the rent is set and not tied to the specific occupant’s income.
Traditional public housing is being demolished through a federal program called Hope VI
because of the problems of large concentrations of low income housing without proper
management.
Housing Production Strategy 1H: Encourage the Development of Housing for Special
Needs Households – A committee member noted that Diamond Street has 24 units, not 25
units, for special needs households. There is one manager unit.
Housing Production Strategy 1J: Development of Housing Information Clearinghouse – A
committee member asked if the Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County is part of
the City, County or a separate entity. Ms. Lieberman explained that it is a separate
organization that is located in Anaheim. The City refers people to NHS. A committee
member asked if there are still funds going forward to support this program. Housing
Programs Manager Stepter said that the City is continuing to provide this through the
Housing Authority and growing the web presence and automated tools.
Housing Production Strategy 1O: HOME Homebuyer Program – Housing Programs
Manager Stepter commented that the majority of the City’s HOME funds are going to
prioritized acquisition and rehabilitation efforts, not to this program. A committee member
asked if there are programs looking at other aging neighborhoods in Anaheim and making
sure they do not deteriorate any further. Housing Programs Manager Stepter said that the
HOME funds are being used towards rehabilitating rental housing in the Avon Dakota
neighborhood. A committee member commented that programs to address aging single-
family neighborhoods are needed. Housing Programs Stepter said there may be future
programs that provide funding for a program.
Another committee member noted that there is a need for rehabilitation of houses with
absentee or non-responsive landlords and code enforcement could be used as a tool. There
5
are also concerns about elderly homeowners that may not be able to afford to make
improvements.
Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Compliance with SB 2- Adequate Sites for Emergency
Shelters/Transitional Housing – A committee member asked if transitional and supportive
housing requirements will be more liberal than emergency shelters. Principal Planner
Borrego responded that transitional and supportive housing will be treated more like a
single-family residential use as opposed to an institutional use.
A committee member asked if a program is no longer being funded and was not available
during the current Planning Period, would the program be removed from the future Housing
Element. Ms. Lieberman said that those specific programs would be removed. Mr. Barquist
commented that if the underlying issue or concern remained, the policy program would look
at how to address the issue and where funding could come from.
Housing Production Strategy 1R: Affordable Housing Program – A committee member noted
that Diamond Street received funds through this program.
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based Neighborhood
Enhancement – A committee member asked if Paint Your Heart Out is funded by the City.
Ms. Lieberman answered that Paint Your Heart Out is a non-profit organization and has
volunteers. The committee member asked if the Housing Element could include non-profits
in the policy program. Ms. Lieberman responded that coordination with these groups could
be part of the policy program.
A committee member asked about the number of traffic-related improvements listed and if
housing funds were used for these. Principal Planner Borrego responded that these are
through separate funds from Public Works or CDBG.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Sustainable Development/Green Building – A
committee member asked if there are funds available for this program. Principal Planner
Borrego responded that the program is primarily provided through Anaheim Utilities. A
committee asked if rebate incentives are still available for developers. Another committee
member responded that the rebate incentives have been terminated, along with the
expedited processing incentive.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Adopt Reasonable Accommodation Procedures –
A committee member asked if this waives ADA requirements. Principal Planner Borrego said
this program actually removes zoning requirements that might conflict with ADA
requirements such as the installation of a wheelchair ramp in a front setback area.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3H: Definition of Family – A committee member asked
who would be writing the Municipal Code amendment for the definition of family. Principal
Planner Borrego responded that staff would be writing the amendment in coordination with
the City Attorney and it would ultimately be adopted by the City Council. He commented that
this amendment will be looked at in conjunction with the provisions for transitional and
supportive housing.
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5B: Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – A
committee member asked for an update on the status of reducing the number of Section 8
vouchers based on federal cutbacks. Housing Programs Manager Stepter said that the
Housing Authority is working with HUD on the issue and there is a national set-aside that the
City could apply for if vouchers need to be terminated. The City plans for the fiscal year of
July to June while the HUD plan is for the calendar year of January to December.
6
A committee member asked about the Integrity House project and what program it was
funded through. Housing Programs Manager Stepter said that the project received Section 8
Project Based Vouchers.
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5J: Workforce Housing – A committee member
asked how workforce housing is defined. Housing Programs Manager Stepter said
workforce housing is generally located near a large employer and provide housing at levels
affordable to employees, like those who work at Disneyland. They are typically family units.
Mariposa Village and Diamond Street needs to be removed from the list. A committee
member asked if employers contribute to these projects. Housing Programs Manager
Stepter said they do not at this time. A committee member said that asking employers to
contribute should be considered in the new policies.
A committee member asked that a line be added to each of the programs that were
discontinued to explain why and if funding was lost.
Principal Planner Borrego said that at the next meeting, the committee will have the
opportunity to revisit the Review of Past Performance to address any follow-up questions.
• Public Comments
No members of the public present.
• Agenda Forecast
The Committee decided to hold the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on June 19th,
2013 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at the Central Library. The next agenda will include a review
of Chapter 2: Needs Assessment and Chapter 3: Resources and Constraints.
• Adjournment
Motion made by Committee Member Henniger, seconded by Committee Member Greenberg
to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. to the next scheduled
meeting to be held in on June 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Central Library.
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Thursday, June 19, 2013
6:00 P.M.
Central Library
500 West Broadway
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Thursday,
June 19, 2013 at 6:00 pm at the Central Library, 500 W. Broadway.
• Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 6:10 pm.
Present: Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, Kelly Buffa, Grant Henninger, John Leos, Greg
McCafferty, John O’Brien, and Kandis Richardson
Absent: Mike Balsamo, Phyllis Greenberg, and Je’net Kreitner,
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner Andy Nogal, and
Housing Programs Manager Grace Stepter
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman.
• Pledge of Allegiance
• Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of May 30, 2013
Motion made by Committee Member O’Brien, seconded by Committee Member Buffa, to
approve the May 30, 2013 minutes. Committee Member Henninger noted that his name was
misspelled throughout the minutes and asked that they be corrected. Motion passed
unanimously to approve the minutes as corrected.
• Discussion Items
1. Continued Review of Past Performance Document
This item was the opportunity for any additional questions or discussion on the Past
Performance document that was presented at the last meeting. The committee had no
further questions or discussion.
2. Continued Review of Housing Element Background Report (Chapters 2 and 3 of
the Draft Housing Element)
Ms. Lieberman provided an overview of Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis. This chapter
includes the following topics:
2
o Population Trends and Characteristics
o Employment Trends
o Household Characteristics
o Housing Inventory and Market Conditions
o Overpayment
o Overcrowding
o Growth Needs (RHNA)
o Special Needs Groups
There are approximately 340,000 residents in Anaheim as of 2012. Anaheim has grown
about 4.8 percent since 2000, which is lower than the overall County’s growth rate. Mr.
Barquist noted that the information from DOF (Department of Finance) is a projection based
on the 2010 Census benchmark.
Committee Member Henninger asked why Anaheim’s growth rate in the past years was
higher than the overall County’s. Ms. Lieberman responded that a number of factors
contribute to growth including housing availability and employment opportunities.
Ms. Lieberman said that between 2000 and 2010, the retirement age and senior citizen age
groups have grown. Between 2000 and 2010, the Hispanic population has grown, along with
the Asian/Pacific Islander population and the Black/African American population.
Committee Member Buffa asked why race and ethnicity are important to the Housing
Element. Mr. Barquist responded that the State requires the Housing Element to look at race
and ethnicity. Also, there may be some housing preferences related to race and culture
including multiple generations living in the same household. He provided the example of
Amerige Heights in Fullerton that has houses with granny units/second units that
accommodate families with multiple generations living together. Committee Member Buffa
commented that discussing household size would be more appropriate than discussing
race/ethnicity.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the information provided is tied to income. Mr.
Barquist responded that the information on race/ethnicity provided is not tied to income, but
could be drilled down to that level from the Census data.
Mr. Henninger asked where the Middle Eastern population is categorized in the
race/ethnicity data. He noted that there is a growing Middle Eastern population in the City,
many of which are refugees. Ms. Lieberman noted that the Census is self-reported and that
people of Middle Eastern descent may choose to report themselves in the “Other” category.
Mr. Henninger commented that there does not seem to be a way to understand the Middle
Eastern population through just looking at race in the Census data. Mr. Barquist commented
that there would have to be a separate data analysis for this. Mr. Abdulrahman commented
that most would likely choose to report themselves in the “White” category.
Ms. Lieberman said there are about 98,000 households in Anaheim. The average persons
per household is about 3.41, which is higher than the overall County average of 3.04. About
53.7 percent are renter-occupied and 46.3 percent are owner-occupied. The vacancy rate
as of 2011 is about 5.5 percent. Mr. Barquist noted that about 5 percent is a healthy
vacancy rate. Lower than 5 percent has an upward push on housing price and vice versa.
3
Ms. Lieberman showed a slide showing the industries employing the most Anaheim
residents. Manufacturing moved from being the industry employing the most Anaheim
residents in 2000 to being the second highest. Education services, health care and social
services employ the most residents as of 2011. Committee Member Buffa asked about the
significance in looking at employment data when every person needs housing, regardless of
where they are employed. Mr. Barquist responded that it is required to be included in the
Housing Element analysis under State law. The employment data also provides information
on what industries to look at if trying to provide housing close to employment opportunities.
Committee Member McCafferty asked what category the Disneyland employees would be
in. Ms. Lieberman responded that they would likely be in the “retail trade” and “arts,
entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services” categories.
Ms. Lieberman said that the unemployment rate as of 2011 was 11.1 percent. The median
income for owner-occupied households was $83,159 and $37,428 for renter-occupied
households. The overall median income was about $54,000, and lower than the overall
County median income. Committee Member O’Brien asked what the change was income
level since 2000. Ms. Lieberman responded that the overall median income in 2000 was
$47,000. The owner households’ median income was about $66,000 and the renter
households’ median income was $34,000.
Ms. Lieberman presented information about the physical housing stock in the City. She
noted that houses over 30 years old are those that are more likely to see deferred
maintenance issues or be in need of rehabilitation. Approximately 70 percent of the houses
in Anaheim were constructed prior to 1980. Approximately 2 percent were constructed prior
to 1939. These are likely to be historic homes that have had some sort of rehabilitation. The
median sales price in Anaheim as of November 2012 was $373,000 and the median rent
was $1,365. Committee Member McCafferty commented that the number of homes
constructed prior to 1980 is significant and there should be discussion on policy regarding
how to maintain and preserve that older housing. Mr. Borrego commented that the housing
age would be very similar to other areas in Central and North Orange County and that
looking at ways in which other cities have addressed older housing stock could provide
ideas for Anaheim’s Housing Element. Committee Member Henninger commented that
looking at older Los Angeles County cities, such as Lakewood, and how they have
addressed their aging housing stock will be beneficial since they have been addressing the
issue for years.
Ms. Lieberman provided information about overypayment (paying more than 30 percent of
the gross income towards housing) and overcrowding (having more than 1 person per
room). About 87 percent of owner-occupied households and 63 percent of renter-occupied
households are experiencing overpayment. Overpayment is more prevalent in lower-income
renter households and moderate/above moderate-income owner households. She noted
that people who own their houses may be willing to pay more than 30 percent of their
income towards housing in exchange for a potential return on the investment. Over 7
percent of owner-occupied households and over 25 percent of renter-occupied households
are overcrowded. Committee Member Buffa commented that in an area such as Orange
County where home prices and salaries are higher than in other parts of the country, there is
almost an expectation that a person would pay more than 30 percent of the income towards
housing. The concerns about overpayment are more relevant for lower-income households,
not households that have a larger amount of discretionary income. Committee Member
Henninger noted that many households are paying more for housing because they consider
it an investment. Committee Member O’Brien asked if the amount was pre-tax or after tax.
4
Ms. Lieberman responded that it is pre-tax. Mr. Barquist commented that qualification
standards for home loans have changed over the last few years.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the information about overpayment and
overcrowding could be broken down to show the differences in the different parts of the City
and the differences in the needs. Mr. Barquist responded that some information is available
at the Census tract level, but it is time consuming to do that. It could be done if it is
instructive to the Committee. Mr. Borrego said that Staff could potentially do a sampling of
the Census tracts to have an understanding of the needs in the various geographic areas.
Ms. Lieberman commented that some of the data is not available at the tract level, but there
may be specific tables where it would be helpful to break the data up.
Committee Member Henninger asked how overpayment changed over the past few years
and if change in employment has caused households that were paying less than 30 percent
of their income to now paying a higher percentage. Ms. Lieberman said that the data in the
current Housing Element shows overpayment as of 2007. About 27 percent of the owner-
occupied households and 26 percent of the renter-occupied households were experiencing
overpayment. Committee Member Henninger commented that over the next planning period
the overpayment numbers may go down as jobs pick up. Committee Member Abdulrahman
asked if this data is used to project what is going to be happening in the future and
commented that using data from 2010 to project for 2020 could be misleading. Mr. Barquist
responded that the State does projections. There are some economic projections done by
other parties. However, projections done a few years ago were not close to what actually
happened with the economic downturn.
Committee Member McCafferty commented that renters often cannot choose how much of
their income goes towards housing and when rents increase they compensate by living with
multiple families in one unit. The focus should be on these households.
Ms. Lieberman presented a slide with the RHNA allocations. Mr. Barquist noted that the
median family income (MFI) will change every year based on the economy. Committee
Member Buffa asked if there is somewhere in the document that shows what the affordable
housing prices are for each income category assuming 30 percent of a household income
goes to housing. Mr. Barquist responded that table 1-29 shows the affordable payment and
purchase price would be, based on the 2012 MFI. Committee Member Buffa commented
that higher income households may choose to pay more for housing and that while the
RHNA numbers allocate a certain amount to each income level, buyers may not want to
actually buy in the corresponding price ranges.
Ms. Lieberman provided information on the five special needs groups required to be
analyzed by the State- elderly, large households, homeless, farmworkers and female-
headed households. Elderly (age 65 years and older) comprise about 9 percent of Anaheim
residents. About 35 percent of the elderly have a disability. Median income is about
$33,000. About 68 percent of elderly renter households and 32 percent of elderly owner
households experience overpayment. Committee Member Richardson commented that
there may be differences in the different areas in Anaheim. In West Anaheim there are many
elderly persons and this may lead to more rentals because the homes will be left to trusts.
Committee Member Buffa asked if there is a link between the age of the housing stock and
age of the owner. She commented that there are likely many household built prior to 1970
that are lived in by the original owners.
5
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the income considers both persons in the
workforce and those receiving governmental assistance. Ms. Lieberman said it includes
both. Committee Member Henninger asked if there is information on what a person’s assets
are because an elderly person with savings is able to spend more on housing than one who
is only receiving Social Security. Ms. Lieberman said that the Census does not ask for that
information from people.
Ms. Lieberman provided information on Large Households (5 or more person). About 21.8
percent of Anaheim households have 5 or more persons. About 58 percent of renter
households and 26 percent of owner households experience overpayment. About 88
percent renter households and 64 percent of owner household have “any housing
problems”. This is defined by HUD as overpayment, overcrowding, or lacking complete
kitchen or plumbing facilities. Committee Member Richardson commented that there are a
lot of households that have even more than 5 persons. Mr. Barquist noted that the Housing
Element has information for households with 7 or more persons per household.
Approximately 7,000 households in Anaheim have 7 or more persons (Table 1-11). The
numbers of large households have increased since 2000.
Ms. Lieberman provided information on Female-Headed Households. The State requires the
Housing Element to look at Female-Headed Households because they have historically had
the highest incidence of poverty. About 16 percent of Anaheim households are female-
headed and about 13 percent are living below poverty level. Committee Member Henninger
asked if female-headed households are defined as not having an adult male living in the
house. Ms. Lieberman responded yes, that the information provided excludes female-
headed households with an adult male present. Committee Member O’Brien asked what the
city-wide percent of persons living below poverty level is and if female-headed households
in Anaheim are more likely to be below the poverty level. Ms. Lieberman said that the
consultant will add the information to the Housing Element.
Ms. Lieberman showed information on Persons with Disabilities. About 1.8 percent of
residents between ages of 5 and 17 have a disability and 6.1 percent of residents between
ages of 18 and 64 have a disability. A new requirement of Housing Elements is to look at the
needs of persons with developmental disabilities. According to the Regional Center of
Orange County, 2,454 Anaheim residents have a developmental disability. The majority are
age 23 to 54. Committee Member Richardson commented that there is a growing number of
elderly in the City that need to move out of their homes into assisted living-type facilities and
asked if there is enough of that type of housing in the City to meet the need. Mr. Barquist
commented that the draft Housing Element includes numbers and percentages of elderly
with disabilities including self -care disabilities. Committee Member Richardson asked if there
has been an increase in the number with disabilities over time. Ms. Lieberman answered
that the numbers have actually decreased from 2000 to 2011. Committee Member
Henninger asked if it was a decrease in percentage or a decrease in absolute numbers. Mr.
Barquist responded that it was a decrease in persons by about 300.
Ms. Lieberman said that farmworkers comprise less than 1 percent of the City’s workforce. It
is assumed that these people are in or looking for permanent housing and not traditional
farmworker housing because there are no large seasonal fluctuations in farming in Anaheim.
Mr. Barquist commented that this different from a large agricultural community like Salinas
where farmworkers would come in to live in the city for just part of the year.
6
Ms. Lieberman provided information on homeless persons from the 2011 County count. The
count found 207 sheltered homeless in Anaheim and 743 unsheltered homeless. This does
not include people living in motels. The preliminary data for 2013 shows the number of
homeless County-wide has gone down. Committee Member Richardson said she has not
seen a decline in West Anaheim and said that many of the parks have many homeless and
many motel families. She said that West Anaheim needs attention on this issue. Committee
Member Abdulrahman agreed. Committee Member Henninger said that addressing motel
families is important for Anaheim, both as homeless persons and also as persons in
inappropriate housing. Committee Member Richardson said that the hotels need to be
cleaned up and be held accountable. Mr. Borrego said that this could be a part of the policy
program discussion. Committee Member McCafferty noted that the City has tried to have the
hotels clean up, but the tenants at the time were concerned with being kicked out of the only
housing available to them. Committee Member Richardson said addressing homeless in
parks is important, maybe through building a place especially for them. Committee Member
Leos said that this would lead to NIMBY-ism and residents not wanting a homeless shelter
near them. He said the Housing Element may not be able to address all of these things as
they are politically challenging. Committee Member Henninger said he agreed to some
extent, but that the Housing Element should report the City’s issues related to
homelessness and motel families.
Committee Member Buffa asked for the definitions of population group quarters and
homeless and asked if the motel families are captured in any of these groups. Ms.
Lieberman answered that information comes from the Census and motel families do not
necessary receive the Census questionnaire. Committee Member Buffa said that a count of
persons living in motels is needed. Mr. Borrego said that Staff has made contact with the
task force that works with motel families and the task force has said they do not have a
count. Committee Member Buffa said that qualitative information could be provided. Ms.
Stepter commented that the City works with service providers that could provide anecdotal
information. She also said there is difference between motel families who are typically
“working poor” families with children and homeless in the parks that are mainly single and
couple adults. She said that the Community Services Department is proposing a pilot
program to provide storage bins to homeless to store their belongings while they go to a
shelter or service provider.
Mr. Borrego said that the City identified zones where a homeless shelter could be located as
a matter of right as part of implementing the current Housing Element under SB 2. The
ordinance includes detailed operational and development standards. Since the ordinance
has been adopted, there have not been any service providers that have approached the City
about opening a new shelter. There is a shelter being proposed in Fullerton close to the
Anaheim border.
Committee Member McCafferty said it is not a political issue to identify the homeless/motel
family need and the information is needed to help make recommendations for policy.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the Census includes illegal immigrants.
Committee Member Henninger said that they receive the Census questionnaire. Mr. Borrego
said that the Census does not make a distinction between legal residents and illegal
residents. Mr. Barquist said it is possible that illegal immigrants could possibly be counted in
the Census, but cannot assume that they are captured. Ms. Lieberman commented that a
household with illegal immigrants may choose to report on less than the true number of
persons living in the house.
7
Committee Member Henninger asked if the information on vacancies for rental and housing
unit sizes could be matched up. The information may help make decisions on what
constraints and resources are. Ms. Lieberman responded that the information is not
available through the Census or Department of Finance. Committee Member Henninger
asked if there was another way to get the information, maybe through a sampling of
apartments throughout the City. Mr. Barquist said this could be done, but time and money
would need to be spent to complete a survey. Committee Member Henninger said it would
useful.
Committee Member Buffa noted Table 1-17 had errors in the number additions and
percentages. She asked if the location and unit type of those summarized in Table 1-23
(units lacking plumbing and kitchen) were known. Ms. Lieberman said they do not include a
converted garage because those units would be part of the main house. Committee Member
Buffa asked if code enforcement data could be connected to this. Mr. Borrego said that Staff
has created maps of where code enforcement calls for service occurred over time. Mr.
Nogal said the maps could be shown at the next Committee meeting. Mr. Borrego said the
self-reported numbers through the Census are probably not as helpful as the City’s code
enforcement data. Committee Member Buffa asked if plumbing/kitchen data must be
reported. Mr. Barquist said that it is required and noted that in the current Housing Element
there were questions about the usefulness of the information as well. Committee Member
Richardson asked if the information should be broken out into motels, etc.
Committee Member Buffa commented that “single-parent” households have the same issues
as female-headed households and that poverty is the determining factor, not gender.
Committee Member Henninger noted that he emailed a list of comments to Staff and
provided them for any other Committee Member or the public to look at.
Committee Member Buffa commented that she marked typos and formatting issues. Mr.
Barquist said that the Committee does not need to focus on formatting and staff would like
the Committee to focus on overarching policy discussions.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the Committee will see the final version. Ms.
Lieberman said, yes, it will. Mr. Barquist said additional information on motel families, etc.
and updated data will be provided if available.
Ms. Lieberman provided an overview of the contents of Chapter 3: Resources and
Constraints Analysis. The State requires these topics to be analyzed. Constraints are the
potential constraints to housing. Governmental are the things the City has more control over.
Non-governmental includes things that the City does not necessarily have control over. The
chapter includes the following topics:
• Governmental Constraints/Resources
Land Use Controls including General Plan land use, zoning, parking
requirements, open space requirements
Density Bonus Ordinance. The City’s density bonus provides for more than the
State-required density bonus, focused on rental housing.
Provision of a Variety of Housing Types (emergency shelters, transitional
housing, housing for persons with disabilities, etc.)
8
Building Codes and Enforcement
Development Fees, including a comparison between Anaheim and neighboring
jurisdictions
Processing and Procedures
Environmental and Infrastructure including seismic, flooding and other factors
CDBG and HOME Funds
Developer Incentives
On and Off-Site Improvement Requirements including street ROW, dedications,
and other requirements for subdivisions
• Non-Governmental Constraints/Resources
Land Prices
Construction Costs
Financing
Energy Conservation including incentives and promotion
Committee Member Abdulrahman commented that energy conservation could be
considered a governmental factor since it is a function of some City programs. Ms.
Lieberman said it could be moved to that section.
Committee Member Henninger said that Chapter reads as if there are no constraints and
everything is a resource. He gave an example of unit size requirements that may drive up
housing costs because of construction costs per square foot. The language may not be
accurate and should be looked at in detail. Mr. Borrego said that almost everything could be
considered a constraint, but at what point should the City address it as an issue? He said
that generally developers say Anaheim is a good place to do business and the fees and
processes are reasonable. He would like to identify constraints that really stand out as a red
flag and should be addressed in comparison to other cities. Committee Member Henninger
said that more units could be built if some of the zoning standards were not in place, which
increases supply and drives down cost. Mr. Borrego asked that the Committee identify those
barriers and constraints that appear to be significant. Mr. Barquist said that there may not
need to be a policy to address every constraint or resource. Identifying the constraints may
be difficult when there are many layers of development standards and incentives and may
be different for each project. He said a summary of the key things to think about could be
provided at the front end.
Committee Member Richardson commented that without parking requirements there would
be more overflow into the neighborhoods.
Committee Member Henninger said that there does not have to be a change for every
factor, but that the constraints should be clearly identified.
Committee Member McCafferty said he would like to see a comparison to other cities in
Orange County to see if Anaheim is competitive. He said that the BIA would likely tell the
City if the standards were not competitive. He thinks Anaheim is more developer-focused
than other cities.
9
Committee Member Buffa said the approach should include discussion about how/why the
City chooses to have standards that may affect the cost of housing and that it is a factor that
should be acknowledged and considered.
Committee Member Buffa noted that on page 3-2 the numbers do not add up. She also
commented that on page 3-32 would be a good place to address motel families.
Committee Member McCafferty said that aging infrastructure is a large constraint to housing
development.
Mr. Borrego said that Chapter 3 will be revised to have a better discussion of constraints
versus opportunities and have a different introduction.
In response to a question by Committee Member McCafferty, Mr. Borrego said that a Public
Works staff member could present to discuss the City’s Capital Improvement Program and
infrastructure deficiencies mapping at the next Committee meeting.
Committee Member Henninger asked that a redline-strikeout version of the revised chapters
be provided.
• Public Comments
No members of the public present.
• Agenda Forecast
The Committee decided to hold the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on July 30th,
2013.
• Adjournment
Mr. Barquist adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm.
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
6:00 P.M.
City Hall - Helena Room
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Tuesday,
July 30, 2013 at 6:00 pm at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
• Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 6:06 pm.
Present: Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, Kelly Buffa, Phyllis Greenberg, Grant
Henninger, Je’net Kreitner, Greg McCafferty, John O’Brien, and Kandis Richardson
Absent: Mike Balsamo, John Leos
Staff Present: Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Associate Planner Andy Nogal, and
Housing Programs Manager Grace Stepter
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman.
• Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of June 19, 2013
Motion by Henninger, second by AB. Passed as presented
• Discussion Items
1. Review of Housing Element Background Report Supplemental Information
Staff and the consultant team provided additional background information in response to
questions the Committee had during the previous meeting.
Mr. Barquist indicated that more information on motel families will be provided by staff at
the next Committee meeting.
Principal Planner Borrego provided information on overpayment based on sampling of
Census tracks in different parts of the City (west, east and central). There were some
similarities across the City. In Anaheim Hills, approximately 45 percent of the
households are experiencing overpayment. In west Anaheim overpayment rates are in
the low 50 percent range. In central Anaheim, between 50 and 60 percent of households
are experiencing overpayment. It appears that generally areas with lower incomes have
higher rates of overpayment.
2
Mr. Barquist provided information about substandard housing and code enforcement
service calls in the city. There were 5,223 housing related complaints from June 2011 to
June 2013. Heat maps showing the number of complaints were provided to the
Committee members and shown on the screen. There were more complaints in the west
and central parts of the City than the east. Principal Planner Borrego noted that many of
the hotspots correlate to higher density neighborhoods built with apartments. He
explained that City has identified Level 1 through 4 neighborhoods. Level 4
neighborhoods have the most signs of physical decay.
Committee Member Henninger asked if there were any hotspot areas that are not
already part of a priority or Level 4 neighborhood in the City.
Principal Planner Borrego responded yes. He gave the example of a neighborhood on
the west side of Euclid, north of I-5, that had high level of service calls, but is not a Level
3 or 4 neighborhood.
Committee Member Henninger asked when the priority neighborhoods survey was
conducted.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that it was conducted about 10 years ago.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the hotspots correlate to age of housing.
Principal Planner Borrego responded yes.
Committee Member Henninger commented the hotspots seem to include some of the
City’s older neighborhoods, but not the oldest neighborhoods that have likely been
rehabilitated already.
Ms. Lieberman provided information from the BIA Development Fee Survey for 2011-
2012. A comparison of the fees in Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach and Brea was
shown.
Mr. Victor Cao from the BIA Orange County provided an additional comparison that was
recently conducted for the City of Irvine. He also said that an 8 percent hourly rate
increase is expected to be adopted by the City of Anaheim. The BIA has been in
discussions with the City about the rate increase and understands that the rate increase
is going to be used to have staffing available to keep up with the level of development
and provide the same level of customer service that Anaheim has historically provided.
2. Initial Review of Housing Element Policy Program
Mr. Barquist explained that City staff and the consultants are working on drafting edits to
the existing policies based on available funding and other resources. Those
recommended changes to the policy program will be provided at the next Committee
meeting.
Mr. Barquist asked that the Committee provide additional information tonight about some
of the items brought up for additional consideration by the Committee during prior
meetings. For each topic, the Committee was asked to discuss and provide direction
what the context is around the topic, what is the desired end state or objective, and what
are the potential strategies and techniques for addressing the issue.
3
Rehabilitation and Preservation of Older Housing Stock
Committee Member McCafferty said he wants the City to prevent more code
enforcement hotspots. He is starting to see some neighborhoods “fray around the
edges” and wants to focus on these areas where redevelopment is not going to occur to
prevent the neighborhoods from further deterioration.
Committee Member Buffa commented that the City can use code enforcement as a tool
for this and also may be able to recoup the cost.
Committee Member Greenberg said she is concerned about large homes being
subdivided into multiple units. She would like to see new development respect the
character of the existing neighborhood.
Committee Member Kreitner said the City needs to address the housing shortage while
being careful not to discourage multi-generational families living together. Her
organization encourages extended families to live together to deal with cost and
availability issues. She noted that it is hard to police multiple families living in one house.
Committee Member Greenberg said multiple people living in the same house is not the
issue as much as a single family house being divided into multiple separate dwelling
units.
Committee Member O’Brien said the granny flat concept and other zoning incentives are
key to providing economic incentives to homeowner or developer to rehab a home and
add unit.
Committee Member McCafferty said the City must allow granny flats/second units under
state law. Property owners should be required to comply with housing codes and make
sure the building is maintained.
Committee Member Buffa said the situation is allowing multi-family uses in a single
family zone.
Mr. Barquist commented that the Committee appears to want the policy to focus on how
the neighborhood feels and the quality of the neighborhood.
Committee Member Henninger commented that both the condition of individual units and
the feeling of community/neighborhood should be included. He suggested that if there
are neighborhoods with properties that are already becoming more multifamily in nature
that the entire neighborhood be encouraged to transition to multifamily.
Committee Member Richardson commented that parking will be an issue if this happens.
Committee Member McCafferty said this may create spillover into the community. He
would like to see exterior maintenance, enforcing building and zoning, and proactive
code enforcement.
Principal Planner Borrego said the City has flexible second unit guidelines in the Zoning
Code right now. The largest limitation on second units is infrastructure availability in
4
some areas of the City. Second units are also required to provide an additional parking
space.
Committee Member Richardson expressed concern about garage conversions.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that garage conversions are not allowed and it is a
comment code enforcement complaint.
Committee Member Henninger commented that the use of garages for storage causes
parking problems. He also commented that often the parkways are not irrigated or
maintained and make the neighborhood look run down.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining
the parkways. He said that the City recently amended the Municipal Code to include
clear requirements for maintaining parkways which will allow code enforcement to more
effectively act on these cases.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that unmaintained front yards are also a
problem and a deterrent from renting/owning in a neighborhood.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that homeowners are required to maintain
landscaping per the Municipal Code. The level of code enforcement is often determined
by the amount of resources provided by City Council. The current City Council is
providing more resources to code enforcement than in the past.
Committee Member Richardson commented that many people are not aware of code
enforcement or how to submit a complaint.
Committee Member McCafferty suggested having a standard reminder flyer that code
enforcement can post on doors of homes with maintenance issues so that a formal case
does not have to be opened.
Principal Planner Borrego said the City takes a cooperative approach with the property
owners for code enforcement.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked about commercial trucks parking in residential
neighborhoods overnight.
Principal Planner Borrego said there is a size/weight limit to trucks that can park in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Barquist asked if there were any comments from the Committee about resources for
code enforcement, understanding that the City can be proactive and the community can
also contribute.
Committee Member Buffa commented that some of the older HOA’s in the City do not
have much control over architectural issues and not a lot of authority to enforce
standards.
5
Committee Member Greenberg suggested a statement be made about not allowing
“McMansions” to change the character of the neighborhood and that the Planning
Commission should be responsible for not allowing deviation.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that many of the large houses do not require
Planning Commission review/action and that the City does not have design guidelines
that would cover these issues.
Committee Member O’Brien suggested ways to educate people about code enforcement
should be considered. For rehabilitation and preservation housing, neighborhoods or
older units could be identified and be eligible for permit relief or other incentives.
Mr. Cao commented that the City of Tustin had a very successful permit relief program.
Committee Member Buffa commented that Anaheim had a similar program in the past.
Committee Member Henninger suggested looking at what other Post-War cities have
done to address aging housing.
Committee Member McCafferty suggested the policy should be multi-faceted and
include code enforcement, targeted incentives, and targeting certain neighborhoods first
to maximize the effect in a shorter period of time.
Committee Member Richardson agreed with Committee Member McCafferty.
Committee Member Henninger commented that the list of priority neighborhoods should
be updated.
Motel Families
Mr. Barquist commented that the current Housing Element does not address motel
families and motel families were not a large discussion item in the last Housing Element
update.
Committee Member Richardson suggested having the Illumination Foundation speak to
the Committee and provide guidance on the topic.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that her organization has been working with
motel families for several years. May motel families are in need of help with move-in
costs and credit repair to move into permanent housing. Disney has recently approached
the organization to understand who is living the motels. She noted that the City has just
released a RFP for case management to help motel families move into permanent
housing.
Committee Member McCafferty asked what the makeup of a typical motel family is.
Committee Member Kreitner said they usually start as a 2-parent household and many
times evolve into a single-parent household. Families often move to campgrounds in the
summer, but new enforcement levels at campgrounds have prevented that this year.
Substance abuse generally occurs with single (non-family) motel occupants. Some
6
families have been in motels for as long as five years. The cost to “rent” a motel room is
about the same as the cost of an apartment, but food costs can be higher since there
are no kitchens to cook in.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if income in an ongoing issue once a motel family
is established in permanent housing.
Committee Member Kreitner responded that about 30 percent of motel families could be
placed in permanent housing if helped with security deposit and dealing with eviction
issues. The organization follows the families on a quarterly basis for a year to make sure
income is not an issue.
Committee Member McCafferty commented that the market has not filled the gap for this
type of housing needed.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that rapid rehousing is a fairly new model. HUD
is focusing on getting people out of transitional housing within 9 to 12 months and is
moving down to getting people out in 30 days, but some people may need longer to
become established.
Committee Member Greenberg commented that some motels are taking advantage of
families by not providing appropriate facilities and asked how enforcement could be
done.
Committee Member Kreitner suggested “family motels” be required to have one room
dedicated to support services. She gave the example of the El Dorado and Valencia
motels as being model facilities.
Committee Member Greenberg asked what kind of requirements for kitchens, etc. are
motels held to.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said motels are not considered housing providers,
but a business. She commented that police have limited enforcement ability. She said
that the City has some federal ESG money to provide to agencies for rapid rehousing
and rental assistance. The goal of the program is to help 20 to 45 families.
Committee Member Richardson asked if there will be monitoring of the recipients of this
fund.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said the families are required to receive supportive
services, document income every three months, and abide by house rules.
Principal Planner Borrego said the City is looking at changing ordinances for motel
operations. He asked if there enough service providers available if motels would be
required to provide space for on-site supportive services.
Committee Member Kreitner said there are many service providers including small, faith-
based providers that would be interested. She suggested that he City pay for the room
for supportive services at each motel for a year.
7
Committee Member Greenberg commented that providing a space for services is not
enough, but that the City should consider if the rest of the motel is an appropriate place
for people to live.
Committee Member Henninger commented that a motel will never be a quality living
environment.
Committee Member Greenberg expressed concern about crime in motels.
Committee Member Richardson said the new ordinance would address all motels and
include security requirements and things like requiring parking permits.
Committee Member McCafferty said having on-site services is a good idea because the
non-profit provider can be the eyes on the site for the City, including police. He also
commented that families should be getting out of motels into permanent housing as
quickly as possible. He said that the ordinance should also not give the motels
opportunity to transition to being used as housing if they are not already.
Committee Member Henninger asked if the City can do anything to encourage
apartment owners to take in motel families by loosening requirements for credit and
background checks.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said the City has had discussions with affordable
housing providers regarding this idea but with little success.
Committee Member Buffa said the City should not be involved in trying to get property
owners to accept motel families and that private and faith-based organizations should be
taking on that role.
Committee Member Henninger asked for clarification on the difference between having a
public agency help people maintain their home through funding programs versus
assisting families get into apartments.
Committee Member Buffa responded that the public agency’s role should be focused on
citing code violations.
Committee member Henninger asked if there were incentives that could be provided to
apartment owners to encourage them to accept the financial risk of allowing a motel
family to move in.
Committee Member Kreitner said there would have to be financial incentives or a
guarantee that someone would pay the rent if the tenant could.
Committee Member Buffa commented that the Housing Element should acknowledge
that motels have become defacto transitional housing, but motels also help bridge the
gap when people do not have other options.
Committee Member Kreitner agreed and also suggested the City look at designating
some motels as “family motels” that are safe environments.
8
Committee Member Richardson stressed the importance of having the pending
ordinance for motels adopted.
Committee Member Buffa commented that motels need to be recognized as businesses,
not housing providers.
Committee Member Greenberg asked for clarification on the purpose of the discussion
and the Committee’s role in drafting new policy.
Mr. Barquist responded that the Housing Element provides the framework to define and
solve issues, but the Committee does not need to actually come up with the solutions
tonight. The Committee should provide input on overarching direction and the policies
will consider available resources and participation by the City and other agencies.
Committee Member Henninger suggested that the Housing Element define the problem
as families using motels as transitional housing.
Committee Member Kreitner added that part of the problem is that the motel families are
not connected to supportive services, which would help reduce the length of
homelessness.
Committee Member Henninger summarized that the policy should focus on moving
motel families to appropriate permanent housing and providing better alternatives for
people who would otherwise move in to motels.
After a short recess, Mr. Barquist commented that the Committee will discuss
infrastructure at the next meeting and that proactive code enforcement was already
addressed in the first topic discussion.
Homelessness
Committee Member McCafferty commented that homelessness seems to be a smaller
issue compared to the other needs throughout the City.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that the homeless Point-in-Time Count is not
accurate and that rain on the day that counts were taken skewed this year’s results. She
said that the count showed a decrease in homelessness Countywide, but they know that
is not true.
Committee Member Henninger commented that people he has spoken to are noticing
more homeless because the homeless are congregating more in concentrated areas,
usually where services and meals are provide.
Committee Member McCafferty agreed that concentrated services attract more
homeless people to that spot.
Principal Planner Borrego said that the City established by-right zoning for homeless
shelters under requirements of SB 2. Many complaints about homeless shelters are
regarding loitering, but the City’s ordinance requires a shelter to be open 24 hours a day
and have supportive services to prevent loitering. The City put the zoning in place on a
9
large amount of land and worked with service providers to make sure the ordinance
worked for them.
Committee Member Kreitner asked to see a map of the areas that are zoned to permit
emergency shelters by-right.
Principal Planner Borrego said he will email a map to the group.
Committee Member McCafferty said it sounds like the City has taken all the appropriate
steps regards to homelessness and shelters.
Committee Member Henninger commented that no shelter has been proposed in
Anaheim even though land is zoned for it.
Committee Member Kreitner said there are many steps to open a shelter and it will take
time and money.
Housing Programs Manger Stepter said that the County has identified general fund
money to develop a shelter, but it will serve the larger homeless population.
Committee Member McCafferty asked if there tend to be differences between a motel
family and a homeless person/family.
Committee Member Kreitner said some homeless persons choose to live on the street
as a lifestyle and are not willing to take supportive services.
Committee Member Richardson said some homeless persons like living in the parks.
Committee Member Kreitner said that the Housing Element should support the efforts of
non-profits that propose shelters.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said that the City is developing a pilot program for
storage of belongings for homeless persons in the parks. The program will also look at
coordinating meals and steering people to supportive services.
Mr. Cao said that the BIA is involved with the issue through its sister organization
HomeAID. He said that they agree with Committee Member Kreitner that the Point-in-
Time count is inaccurate. He also stated that a small percentage of the Orange County
homeless population is chronically homeless. He also said that 60 to 70 percent of the
homeless are families.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that motel families become homeless for a
couple weeks of the year.
Mr. Barquist summarized the discussion and said the policy will include coordination and
monitoring.
Committee Member Kreitner asked if there could be a policy stating the City’s intention
to support the building of an emergency shelter.
Mr. Barquist responded that it would be something that the City Council would decide.
10
Committee Member Buffa said that “support” would need to be defined.
Committee Member Kreitner clarified that support would mean support another provider
to come in and develop the shelter.
Principal Planner Borrego said the current zoning allows for by-right development of a
shelter with up to 50 beds. There is no requirement for a public hearing.
Committee Member Henninger commented that the areas permitting shelters are all
industrial areas that may not have access to public transit, restaurants, grocery stores,
medical clinics and other services that support quality of life. The areas zoned also limit
the City’s ability to provide support though Housing Authority-owned land.
Principal Planner Borrego commented that the City did look at proximity to transportation
when identifying the areas to ensure the homeless had access to services which may
not exist in a industrial area.
Committee Member Kreitner said transportation in close proximity to the shelter is key.
Medical services and food could be brought in. She raised concerns about lighting and
unsafe street crossings from transit stops to the facilities in industrial areas. She
suggested the policy consider City support for improving these conditions with
crosswalks and lights in the public right-of-way.
Principal Planner Borrego said the goal is to present the draft policy program to the City
Council on August 20th. Staff will come back to the group with a final draft of the full
Housing Element before it goes to HCD.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
Housing Programs Manager Stepter noted that there are three developments for the
developmentally in the City. The City participated by adding Section 8 vouchers/funding
to the units.
Committee Member McCafferty recommended stating a policy to continue existing
programs.
Housing Programs Manger Stepter commented that funds for the construction of the
units are not available with the elimination of Redevelopment.
Committee Member Henninger commented that the Diamond Aisle project used other
funds besides RDA funds and that the Housing Authority has land it could provide.
Committee Member Buffa suggested that the Housing Element note the use of RDA
funds is not available although they were dependent upon in the past. She also
commented that the City’s Zoning Code allows for group homes that serve disabled
populations.
11
Employer Contribution to Workforce Housing
Mr. Barquist commented that policy might be to engage employers in identifying how
they can participate in providing housing for their workers.
Committee Member Richardson asked if the City was giving funds to house some
employees at CIM.
Associate Planner Nogal said there was a program for rental assistance at one time but
unsure of its current status.
Committee Member Kreitner asked if the policy would be looking at employers giving
funds to their employees or giving funds to build new units.
Mr. Barquist read the existing policy in the current Housing Element.
Committee Member Kreitner said the policy sounds comprehensive but asked if there
have been any results from it.
Mr. Barquist responded there has been employer interest, but no commitments.
Committee Member O’Brien said that the ability to form public-private partnerships has
diminished since Redevelopment has been eliminated. He suggested it would be
appropriate for employers to help their employees through vouchers or a matching plan,
but it would not make sense to require businesses to pay for housing. This could result
in driving business away.
Committee Member McCafferty agreed with Committee Member O’Brien.
Committee Member Henninger said he likes the existing language, but it could be
strengthened. He suggested looking at the City of Irvine’s affordable housing trust fund.
He also suggested looking at the transportation and environmental impacts of
companies that provide low wage jobs where employees have to commute a long
distance.
Committee Member O’Brien commented that new development is already required to
pay transportation impact fees.
Committee Member McCafferty commented that personal choice also plays a part in
where one lives. He noted that, in Irvine, it is easier to negotiate because there is one
large primary landowner, where Anaheim has many more landowners.
Committee Member Henninger suggested utilizing transportation fees to reduce the
impacts by providing housing closer to jobs rather than mitigating the traffic impacts that
encourage long distance commutes.
Mr. Cao said that many impact fees are programed to mitigate specific impacts and it
would be challenging to change this. He said that planning through SB 375 has looked at
providing more housing through vertical growth in certain places. He also commented
that Irvine encourages affordable housing units to be constructed before adding to the
affordable housing trust fund.
12
Mr. Barquist summarized the Committee’s discussion and said the policy will be drafted
to explore the issue and not suggest solutions right away.
Committee members McCafferty, O’Brien and Buffa said a housing tax should not be
explored.
Committee member McCafferty said he would rather incentivize the development of
housing.
Committee Member Greenberg asked if there is a requirement for affordable housing for
higher density projects
Committee Member McCafferty responded no.
Mr. Cao referenced a court case, Palmer v. Los Angeles that does not allow affordable
units to be required of high density projects.
Committee Member Buffa said the City provides density bonus incentives.
Committee Member O’Brien said that many of the incentives/tools such as
downpayment assistance have gone away with the elimination of redevelopment and the
language in the Housing Element should reflect this challenge.
Principal Planner Borrego commented that the City is seeing a slow, but steady stream
of affordable units proposed by using density bonus incentives and tax credits.
Committee Member Henninger asked that the Housing Element look at how to
encourage developers to build more housing.
Committee Member Kreitner asked about rental rates and housing prices and noted that
she has seen a large increase recently.
Committee Member Richardson said she has seen a leveling, but there are a lot of
investors purchasing and renting out homes with high rents.
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if rent control was an option.
Associate Planner Nogal said density bonus projects are required to have affordable
units for 30 to 55 years, depending on the program.
Mr. Barquist gave an example of where rent control might be applicable in another city
with mobile home parks. He said that the Housing Element cannot necessarily solve
rental rates as there are private market factors.
Committee Member Greenberg stated that she is not in favor of rent control.
Mr. Cao said that the BIA is creating a model ordinance for inclusionary housing and
Committee Member Balsamo will provide that information when available.
13
Other Items
Committee Member Abdulrahman asked if the Committee will discuss CEQA.
Mr. Barquist said the CEQA process will be streamlined and there will not be an EIR.
Principal Planner Borrego asked if there are other items the Committee would like staff
to address in the draft policies.
Committee Member Henninger asked that ideas for how to encourage development of
more housing units be included.
• Public Comments
None.
• Agenda Forecast
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 5th at 6:00 pm in the same
room. The Committee will continue discussing the Policy Program.
• Adjournment
Mr. Barquist adjourned the meeting at 8:47 pm.
1
Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee Minutes
Monday, August 5, 2013
6:00 P.M.
City Hall - Helena Room
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California
A regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee was held on Monday,
August 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
• Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. David Barquist at 6:07 pm.
Present: Kelly Buffa, Phyllis Greenberg, Grant Henninger, Je’net Kreitner, John Leos, John
O’Brien, and Kandis Richardson
Absent: Abdulmageed (AB) Abdulrahman, Mike Balsamo, and Greg McCafferty
Staff Present: Planning Director Sheri Vander Dussen, Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego,
Associate Planner Andy Nogal, and Housing Programs Manager Grace Stepter, and
Principal Engineer Raul Garcia
Consultant Present: David Barquist and Michelle Lieberman.
• Approval of Minutes for the Meeting of July 30, 2013
Committee Member Kreitner asked to clarify a comment recorded on page 9 of the minutes
regarding motel families. Her comment should read motel families may become homeless a
couple of weeks out of every month, instead of a couple weeks out of the year.
Committee Member Henninger motioned to approve the minutes as amended. The motion
was second by Committee Member Kreitner and carried. Committee Member Leos
abstained.
• Discussion Items
1. Review of Housing Element Background Report Supplemental Information
Development Fees
Planning Director Vander Dussen provided the Committee with additional information
about how City’s hourly fee for planning and building plan check and permitting was
derived. Each city can set its own fees. Some cities choose to subsidize the fees.
Approximately five years ago, the City of Anaheim switched to full cost recovery and the
fee was set at $181 per hour by the City Council. The fees cover employee salary and
2
overhead costs. There have not been any increases to the fees in the last five years,
although costs have gone up. The City subsidizes $40,000 to $500,000 in fees every
year from the General Fund. The proposed increase is not changing the planning fees.
The proposed increase is eight percent for building plan check and inspection fees. The
increase in fees will allow for an additional plans examiner and other positions to
maintain levels of customer service. The City met with the BIA and developers to discuss
the fees and have not received opposition.
Committee Member Kreitner asked if there was a possibility for rate relief for non-profit
organizations. Planning Director Vander Dussen said this has not happened yet, but the
City Council could choose to do this. Committee Member Kreitner suggested looking in
to rate relieve for non-profits seeking CUPs.
Committee Member Henninger asked how often the City returns a portion of the deposit.
Planning Director Vander Dussen said it depends on the application. CUPs without
CEQA documents typically do not exceed the deposit amount while projects with more
extensive outreach or CEQA documents usually require more than the initial deposit.
Committee Member O’Brien commented that not being able to move deposit funds
around between City departments from deposit leads to longer time and more paperwork
for the developer. Planning Director Vander Dussen said the City can look at its
practices in this area. Committee Member O’Brien noted that the City has provided good
customer service for his company in the past.
Homeless/Motel Families
Mr. Barquist showed a map of the City’s emergency shelter opportunity areas. Principal
Planner Borrego explained that the areas shown in green permit emergency shelters by-
right. The areas shown in blue are industrial areas within 1,000 feet of a residential zone
and shelters not permitted in these areas.
Committee Member Leos commented that there are no green areas around La
Palma/Imperial Highway. Principal Planner Borrego said these are industrial areas within
1,000 feet of residential zones.
Committee Member Richardson noted that there is an area that permits shelters close to
La Palma Park.
Committee Member Leos asked if there is a shelter proposed in that area. Principal
Planner Borrego responded that there was a shelter proposed near there, but in the City
of Fullerton. The County has chosen not to proceed with plans for that shelter due to
opposition.
Infrastructure
Principal Engineer Garcia gave a brief presentation on infrastructure deficiencies in the
City. The Public Works Department deals with three types of deficiencies. The first are
roadways related to traffic. In this case, the City requires roadway widening and
dedications. The second type is storm drain deficiencies. New water quality
requirements include containment on-site, but when a site is constrained and cannot
infiltrate all of the runoff, the project is required to help offset the increased demand to
the system. West Anaheim has the most storm drain constraints. The third type of
deficiency is sewer. In the past, the City identified priority sties and generated funds
3
through bonds to upsize certain sewer lines. These projects are coming to an end.
Looking forward, the City will look at where upgrades will have the biggest benefit. The
sewer in Central Anaheim has operational deficiency with smaller, 100-year old sewer
lines. There is also a capacity deficiency. Sewer impact fees help offset some of the cost
for upgrades. West and Central Anaheim are generally sewer deficient, but East
Anaheim is not. There are no deficiencies in terms of potable water and electricity. There
are also constraints if the County does not upgrade the storm channels that it controls.
Most of the sewage goes to the County sanitation district for processing, but the City is
not aware of any constraints with the County sanitation facilities.
Committee Member O’Brien suggested that the City research the means and methods to
make funding available to upgrade infrastructure that serves the housing opportunity
sites so that these sites are available without deficiencies.
Principal Engineer Garcia said the City is updating its maps of deficiencies right now
based on existing and ultimate buildout conditions. The burden will be on the developer
if a project goes beyond buildout. The City identifies deficiencies based on computer
models and also by monitoring actual sewer flows. The City also develops diversions to
spread out the flow into the sewer system and help increase capacity. If an improvement
is built by the developer, the developer is not charged the impact fee.
Committee Member Leos asked if there are any areas that are critical or emergency
cases. Principal Engineer Garcia said there are no emergency cases right now, but the
City is careful about development in the Downtown/Central Anaheim area.
Committee Member Richardson asked if the diversions are permanent. Principal
Engineer Garcia responded yes.
Committee Member Richardson asked if the apartment development on Ball Road in the
unincorporated areas were required to provide infrastructure upgrades or did the City
provide the upgrades. Principal Planner Garcia responded that if the area is serviced by
the City, the County must get approval from the City before development occurs. The
Ball Road apartments paid sewer impact fees. The storm drains in that area do not have
any additional capacity and every project must retain its storm water on site.
Committee Member Henninger asked if the City has limits for on-site stormwater
retention. Principal Engineer Garcia responded that the City provides guidance and
reviews the water quality management plan for each project. The most ideal place to
retain water is on open land, but there is no open land available. Most sites infiltrate
stormwater in the front yards. Some projects have done creative things like permeable
concrete gutters, but this can impact existing utilities such as cable.
2. Review of Housing Element Policy Program
Mr. Barquist and Principal Planner Borrego explained that Staff and the consultant will
walk through the existing 2006-2014 policy program with the Committee and talk about
whether each policy will potentially be removed or kept for the new policy program.
Committee Member Henninger said that he would like to discuss how the City can
increase the number of units being developed. He commented that while the City’s
4
zoning is generally good, it is hard to achieve the maximum densities due to parking
requirements, landscape setbacks, and other requirements.
Committee Member O’Brien commented that Anaheim’s setbacks are based on distance
between primary, secondary, and tertiary sides of buildings. This occurs in other cities in
California as well. His company has applied for a CUP to achieve compromises to the
requirements in the zoning code.
Committee Member Henninger provided an example, Diamond Aisle, where the site
configuration and setback requirements made development difficult.
Planning Director Vander Dussen said the City allows projects to modify the setbacks
and other requirements through a CUP, instead of a variance. The CUP does not require
the same level of findings that a variance does.
Principal Planner Borrego gave an example of small lot single family homes where the
traditional development standards do not fit with the lot sizes. The City has allowed
modifications to the standards through a CUP instead of a variance. The CUP also
allows the City to look at each project individually to see what is appropriate.
Committee Member Leos asked if the CUP has been a good tool to use or if the process
has been difficult. Committee Member O’Brien responded that his experience has been
positive
Committee Member Leos asked if there have been any examples of projects that were
not able to be built because of the CUP requirements. Committee Member O’Brien
responded that there have been some projects that have only been able to move
forward because of the CUP process.
Committee Member Henninger said the only possibility of the process preventing a
development would be if the City would not allow use of the CUP.
Principal Planner Borrego said he does not have any examples of projects that have not
been developed because of the CUP. The City works closely with developers to resolve
any issues.
Committee Member Buffa commented that other cities require a specific plan to get
same result. The specific plan is a longer and more expensive process.
Committee Member O’Brien commented that the CUP process is more predictable.
Committee Member Greenberg commented that West Anaheim has a lot of density no
places for kids to play. She asked how this can be prevented.
Principal Planner Borrego said this is addressed through development standards for
open space/recreational space.
Committee Member Leos commented that the City is becoming more cognizant of
requiring open space and play areas in last few years.
Principal Planner Borrego said in the late 80’s/early 90’s there was a push from the City
Council to reduce permitted densities in Central and West Anaheim through
downzoning.
5
Committee Member Leos commented that residents more willing speak up about
projects now and ask for more open space and less density.
Committee Member Buffa said upzoning has occurred in the Platinum Triangle where
the infrastructure capacity allows for more density. Upzoning is a way to incentivize
development and the market needs to catch up now.
Committee Member Richardson commented that in West Anaheim higher density
development has changed the dynamic of the area. She would like to see more
homeownership.
Committee Member Greenberg said young people are moving back to urban
environments. She asked how Anaheim can develop an urban environment, but can also
have places to interact, and schools and transportation.
Mr. Barquist asked for a recommendation for policy related to the topic from the
Committee. He summarized the Committee’s discussions into two topics. One about
creating community and one about providing the private market the ability to achieve the
most development. There were community design and sustainability in policy
considerations in the 2006-2014 Housing Element. The policy regarding private market
and incentives could be exploratory.
Committee Member Leos suggested looking into providing new affordable housing in
east Anaheim where infrastructure is available.
Committee Member Henninger suggested looking at areas of the City where projects
could get tax credits for funding. These would need access to transportation and would
help spread out the affordable housing supply.
Mr. Barquist suggested using the term “community infrastructure”.
Committee Member Henninger suggested that the City include an objective to meet the
RHNA needs for low, moderate and above moderate housing through development of
market rate housing.
Committee Member Buffa asked how the City would make this happen.
Committee Member Henninger suggested reducing parking requirements for high
density projects.
Committee Member Buffa commented that it would be difficult to change lifestyles of
residents to move away from having a car.
Committee Member O’Brien said Anaheim can look to how mature cities have handled
parking. Parking becomes more of a premium. He also commented that providing more
parking is not a way to facilitate growth.
Committee Member Richardson commented that Anaheim does not have the public
transit to accommodate people who choose not to have a car.
Principal Planner Borrego said the City has reduced parking standards in the Platinum
Triangle. The City also looks at parking for mixed-use projects on a case-by-case basis.
Affordable housing projects also get a break on parking based on the density bonus
ordinance.
6
Committee Member Leos asked where kids will go to school in Platinum Triangle. There
are no schools within walking distance.
Mr. Barquist said there are existing policies in the Housing Element that discuss
coordination, monitoring and developing techniques/tools to incentivize private
development. He said that policy could be modified.
After a short recess, Mr. Barquist reviewed he policy matrix with the Committee. The
draft policy program will be shared with the Committee in advance of the next meeting.
Housing Production Strategy 1A. Meet or Exceed the Production Goals for the
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
Committee Member O’Brien how many units have been completed under the Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan to date.
Associate Planner Nogal said most of the projects have been completed and some are
under development right now, including Cherry Orchard. The City Council updated the
plan to allow for rehabilitation of units and affordable for-sale units.
Committee Member O’Brien said the policy should include for-sale and mixed income
developments and the objective should be updated to match the RHNA numbers.
Principal Planner Borrego said the City can determine quantified objectives different
from the RHNA numbers based on the City’s resources and market conditions.
Mr. Barquist said Staff with come back at the next meeting with policy language for
consideration.
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely Low, Very
Low, Low and Moderate Income Housing Developments
Committee Member Buffa suggested adding fee waivers and reductions for non-profit
organizations to this policy.
Principal Planner Borrego noted that staff will update target numbers for all of the
policies based on funding availability.
Housing Production Strategy 1I: Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan
Principal Planner Borrego noted that capacity in the Platinum Triangle has increased
since this policy was written.
Committee Member Greenberg asked how many units have been built in the Platinum
Triangle to date.
Principal Planner Borrego said he could provide that information to the Committee.
Housing Production Strategy 1L: Developer Incentives Program
Committee Member O’Brien said this policy should look at new incentives and
replacements for RDA funding. Mr. Barquist said loss of RDA funding will be added to
the policy considerations and the policy program could include exploring alternative
funding.
Housing Production Strategy 1P: Police Residence Assistance
7
Committee Member O’Brien asked how many police officers have actually taken
advantage of this program. Housing Program Stepter said that there were fewer than 10
in the current planning period.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that police officers might not want to live in the
same City where they work.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said there are some programs that encourage
officers to live in the neighborhoods they work in.
Committee Member Leos commented that the internet allows people to find out where
others live.
Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Compliance with SB 2- Adequate Sites for
Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing
Committee Member Kreitner suggested revising to add language to support the
implementation of emergency shelters.
Housing Production Strategy 1U: Land Acquisition and Write Downs
Committee Member O’Brien commented that the City should look at finding replacement
funding for this program.
Other Comments
Committee Member Kreitner asked if the City could increase the cost share for Section 8
vouchers and then offer more vouchers. Housing Programs Manager Stepter responded
that the 30 percent cost share is a federal requirement. There are some cases where the
cost share could go up to 40 percent at entry if the family wants to move into housing
that costs more.
Committee Member Kreitner suggested the City include language on supporting
emergency shelters by offering CUP relief, providing safety improvements such as
crosswalks and lighting, support in community outreach, and flexibility on what the
shelter would look like. Shelters could be in a large tent. The City could also offer
monetary support. .
Committee Member Henninger agreed with Committee Member Kreitner.
Principal Planner Borrego noted that a CUP not required for shelters with 50 or less
beds.
Committee Member Kreitner asked if there are other permits required for shelters.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that building permits are required separately.
Principal Planner Vander Dussen said the City Council would need to allocate money
from the General Fund to support shelters with money.
Committee Member Kreitner noted that a shelter has not been developed even though
the zoning allows it.
8
Principal Planner Borrego said the City has not received any direct feedback from
organizations saying if or why a shelter would not be feasible.
Committee Member Kreitner said she will talk to some organizations about what would
be needed to build a shelter and will report back at the next meeting.
Committee Member Henninger suggested changing Strategy 4A to focus on Avon
Dakota and say the source of funds is residual receipts used by the Anaheim Housing
Authority.
Housing Programs Manager Stepter said the City is looking to expand the program to
Guinida Lane, not exclusively Avon Dakota.
Committee Member Leos asked for Committee input on potential incentives for
developers.
Committee Member O’Brien said the City needs to find a replacement for the things that
were previously done through RDA, including property assembly and brownfields clean
up.
Committee Member Leos said he wants developers to be excited to develop in Anaheim.
Committee Member O’Brien reiterated that the zoning code could be modified if
developers are not able to active the maximum densities.
Committee Member Buffa said the City needs to balance new housing with density.
Committee Member Henninger commented that the City Council members are not land
use planners and they do not necessarily see the impacts of land use decisions. The
Committee can provide them with guidance.
Committee Member Greenberg commented that motels that are part residential use and
part motels are problematic.
Principal Planner Borrego said that staff looked at the possibility of motel conversions as
part of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, but the motel owners were not incentivized
to convert because motels can be lucrative. The City has designated many of the motel
areas as residential in the General Plan and the areas will slowly transition to permanent
housing.
Committee Member Greenberg asked if a motel could be both a residential use and a
motel.
Principal Planner Borrego responded that the Zoning Code does not allow the motels to
be both residential units and motels.
Committee Member Kreitner commented that the only way it seems to have to motels
convert to residential would be for someone to buy out the existing owner and redevelop.
9
Principal Planner Borrego said the workshop on the Housing Element with the City
Council will be on September 3rd at 3:00 pm and the Committee is invited to attend.
Committee Member Richardson asked when the draft policy program will be ready for
the Committee to review.
Principal Planner Borrego said he will let the Committee know shortly.
Principal Planner Borrego said, in response to an earlier question, that approximately
2,000 units have been constructed in the Platinum Triangle and another 8,000 units are
entitled but not built.
Committee Member Richardson asked if the entitlements are recent or older.
Principal Planner Borrego said some of the entitlements are older.
Committee Member Richardson asked if there is building activity in the area happening
right now.
Principal Planner Borrego said they are seeing a lot of activity.
Planning Director Vander Dussen said there is one project in the building permit review
process right now.
Committee Member Richardson asked if the units are apartments or for-sale.
Planning Director Vander Dussen said they are all apartments. There is only one for-sale
development in the Platinum Triangle right now.
• Public Comments
None.
• Agenda Forecast
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm in the
same room. The Committee will discuss the draft Policy Program for the 2014-2021 Housing
Element.
• Adjournment
Mr. Barquist adjourned the meeting at 8:41 pm.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-1
APPENDIX B:
RESIDENTIAL LAND RESOURCES
A. ADEQUATE SITES ANALYSIS
State Housing Element Law requires that cities demonstrate the availability of adequate
sites to accommodate their projected growth needs. An analysis of land resources must
be completed and take into consideration zoning, development standards, and the
availability of public services and facilities to accommodate a variety of housing types
and incomes. The City must demonstrate that it has capacity or adequate sites to
accommodate the projected need for housing.
The State Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for projecting the total statewide
housing demand, with the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) apportioning this demand to each of the state’s regions. This demand represents
the number of additional units needed to accommodate the anticipated growth in the
number of households, to replace expected demolitions and conversions of housing units
to non-housing uses, and to achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy
functioning of the housing market.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Council of
Governments (COG) representing the region, in cooperation with the local jurisdictions,
is tasked with the responsibility of allocating the region’s projected new housing demand
to each jurisdiction. The allocation is further divided into four income categories:
§ Very-Low Income – 0% to 50% of the median income;
§ Low Income – 51% to 80% of the median income;
§ Moderate Income – 81% to 120% of the median income; and,
§ Above-Moderate Income – more than 120% of the median income.
This process is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and the
goals are referred to as either the RHNA goals or the “regional share” goa ls for new
housing construction. The allocation takes into account factors such as market demand
for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public
facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and others. In
determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing needs by income category, the
allocation is adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of lower income households in any
one jurisdiction.
The current RHNA prepared by SCAG allocates housing needs for the period from
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
January 1, 2014 to October 1, 2021. The RHNA identifies the City of Anaheim’s share of
the region’s housing needs as 5,702 new housing units. The City of Anaheim’s share of
the region’s housing needs for 2014-2021, as determined by SCAG, is the projected need
for housing used in this evaluation. This evaluation of adequate sites represents planning
goals, and not a goal for actual production of housing within the planning period.
1. Capacity to Meet Regional Share Goals
The City of Anaheim has the capacity to meet its RHNA goals through properties that are
already designated for residential land uses by the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.
In 2004, the City of Anaheim completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan.
Through this effort, the City redesignated several acres of underutilized commercial and
industrial properties for multiple-family residential development. Through this effort, the
City also identified several locations that would be suitable for mixed-use residential
development, including the Downtown and The Platinum Triangle areas. These new
residential designations have yielded several housing projects since 2004 and continue to
provide opportunities for infill and redevelopment projects that will help the City achieve
its RHNA goals.
a. Current Projects
The City of Anaheim has a number of residential projects that are “in-the-pipeline.”
These projects include 4,282 units that have been issued building permits; have pending
building permits and are in the plan check phase; or, are entitled projects that have not yet
been submitted for building permits, but have been approved for development through
development agreements, density bonus agreements, subdivisions or conditional use
permits. These projects further detailed in Appendix B-1. The locations of these units
are shown in Exhibits B-1 and B-2.
Within The Platinum Triangle, development intensities are allocated to individual
properties on a first come, first served basis through the approval of a development
agreement. There are 3,206 dwelling units within The Platinum Triangle that have been
approved by a development agreement, but are not under construction. The development
agreements approved in conjunction with these projects do not set minimum rents or sale
prices for these developments and, therefore, do not preclude the development of units
affordable to moderate and lower income families. Based on current rental rates in the
Platinum Triangle, future units are anticipated to be affordable to range of income levels.
However, for the purposes of this analysis, the units entitled within the Platinum Triangle
are assumed to be affordable to above-moderate income households.
!"^$
?»
?l
ORANGETH
Match Line - West Side/CentralMatch Line - East SideORANGE
LA PALMA
LINCOLN
LA JOLLA
NUTWOODBR OADWAY
CRESCENT WESTKATELLA RED GUMNINTHMAGNOLIADALEOLIVE
WESTERNBROADWAY
ROMNEYA
CERRITOS
CHAPMAN STATE COLLEGEBALL KRAEMERSO UTH
LEWISWESTLIN COLN
SUNKISTROMNEYA
KNOTTBROOKHURSTVE RMONT RIO VISTAPLACENTIAOR ANGETH
O
R
P
E
ACACIASUNKISTEUCLIDRI VERDALE
GILBERTNO RTH
WALNUTLEMONDALECERRITOS
WAGNERMULLER
CERRITOS ANAHEIMHASTERLEWISBLUE GUM
ORANGETHORPE
OLIVE
LOARAGENE AUTRY
CERRITOS
CHAPMAN
CROWTHER
DISNEY
SOUTH MI
LLERORANGETHORPE
KATELLA
FRONTERA
91
DOUGLASS5
91
5 EASTBEACHBEACHANAHEIMBROOKHURSTEUCLIDEUCLIDCRESCENT HARBORHARBORDISNEYLANDGLASSELLMA
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
FULLERTON PLACENTIA
BUENA
PARK
LA
PA LMA
CYPRESS ORANGESTANTON
GARDEN
GROVE
SANTA
ANA
M:\Mdata\10105703\GIS\Vacantlhalf.mxd 5/5/09 -- SS JM KO
Anaheim Housing Needs Assessment
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Legend
Projects in the Pipeline
City Boundary
Current Projects - West Side
Exhibit B-1!
?»
A¾
LINCOLN RICHFIELDCORONADO
ROYAL OAKMEATSW
EIRCA
N
Y
O
N
O AK CA N Y O N
ORANGETHORPE KELLOGGLAKEVIEWC A N Y O N RIM
RI VERDA
L
E
MIRALOMA
NOHL R A N C HIMPERIALLA PALMA
?k
Match Line - West Side/CentralMatch Line - East SideLA PALMA
N O H LRANCH
NOHLR
A
N
C
H
ORANGETH
O
R
P
E
RI VERDALE
ORANGETH
O
R
P
E
CANYON RIMMILLER 241
SE RRAN
O SERRANOF
A
I
R
M
O
N
TTUSTINLAKEVIEW
IMPERIALIM
P
E
R
I
A
L
ANAHEIMHI
LLSGLASSELLYORBA
LINDA
PLACENTIA
ORANGE
VILLA
PARK
M:\Mdata\10105703\GIS\Vacantlhalf.mxd 5/5/09 -- SS JM KO
Anaheim Housing Needs Assessment
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Legend
Projects in the Pipeline
City Boundary
Current Projects - East Side
Exhibit B-2!
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-5
Table B-1 summarizes the Projects-in-the-Pipeline and the remaining RHNA need after
accounting for these units.
Table B-1
Projects-in-the Pipeline and Converted Units
Income
category1
Dwelling Units
RHNA Need Projects-in-the-Pipeline2
Remaining
RHNA Need
Extremely-Low3 628 17 611
Very-Low 1,256 83 1,173
Low 907 367 540
Moderate 1,038 36 1,032
Above- Moderate 2,501 3,796 (1,295)
Total 5,702 4,282 1,420
1 Units allocated to extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income categories have been restricted to households
that meet the income requirements for these categories. Units allocated to the above moderate income category
include all units that are not income restricted.
2 Projects-in-the-Pipeline are units considered approved due to a Development Agreement, Density Bonus Agreement
subdivision or conditional use permit as of September 1, 2013. These units have not been constructed.
3 The extremely-low income category is a sub-set of the very-low income category; all units within the extremely-low
income category are also included in the very-low income category.
Source: City of Anaheim Planning Department
b. Housing Opportunity Sites
During the 2006-2014 RHNA planning period, the City identified a number of Housing
Opportunity Sites to accommodate its lower and moderate-income RHNA need. The
zoning code amendment during the 2006-2014 planning period applied either the Mixed
Use Overlay Zone or Residential Opportunity Overlay Zone to the Housing Opportunity
Sites. Refer to Chapter 3, Resources and Constraints for more information about the
Mixed Use and Residential Opportunity Overlay Zones. The Housing Opportunity Sites
that are still available for development and continue to provide opportunities to
accommodate the City’s RHNA need for the 2014-2021 planning period are shown in
Exhibit B-3 and B-4 and are further detailed in Appendix B2.
The housing opportunity sites identified during the 2006 to 2014 planning period were
carefully selected based upon their likelihood to transition to housing uses during the
planning period. The City chose not to identify properties that were occupied by newer
and/or lucrative forms of development that are unlikely to redevelop in the near term.
Conversely, nearly all of the opportunity sites are occupied by underutilized commercial
or industrial uses and are indicative of the types of sites historically pursued by local
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
housing developers interested building a variety of in-fill housing types. For example,
there are several recent market rate and affordable housing projects that have been
developed on sites formerly occupied by manufacturing businesses, underperforming
retail centers or plant nurseries. The probability that several of the City’s housing
opportunity sites will develop with higher density housing, consistent with their assumed
density range, is bolstered by recent housing development activity. The following table
illustrates three recent examples of housing projects that have been proposed on
identified housing opportunity sites. These sites are identified by Opportunity Site
number, consistent with the analysis conducted during the 2006-2014 Housing Element
Update and are considered a representative example of development opportunities
expected from these sites. Development applications for these sites were received in late
2013 and it is anticipated that these sites will be developed in 2014. The densities
proposed are consistent with the densities of other in-fill housing developments that have
been constructed during the 2006-2014 planning period.
Table B-2
Recent Project Applications on Opportunity Sites
Housing
Opportunity
Site No.
Location Existing
Land Use
Proposed
Product
Assumed
Density of
Opportunity
Site
Proposed
Density
158, 159 2726 W.
Lincoln Ave
Plant
Nursery
78-unit
affordable
senior
apartment
36 du/ac 70 du/ac
163, 172 641 S.
Brookhurst St
Motel,
Vacant Land
44 detached
condos
18 du/ac 18 du/ac
14-19 1531-1619 E.
Lincoln Ave
Glass Shop,
Taxi Yard
78 attached
condos
18 du/ac 15 du/ac
Source: City of Anaheim Planning Department
!"^$
?»
?l
ORANGETH
Match Line - West Side/CentralMatch Line - East SideORANGE
LA PALMA
LINCOLN
LA JOLLA
NUTWOODBR OADWAY
CRESCENT WESTKATELLA RED GUMNINTHMAGNOLIADALEOLIVE
WESTERNBROADWAY
ROMNEYA
CERRITOS
CHAPMAN STATE COLLEGEBALL KRAEMERSO UTH
LEWISWESTLIN COLN
SUNKISTROMNEYA
KNOTTBROOKHURSTVE RMONT RIO VISTAPLACENTIAOR ANGETH
O
R
P
E
ACACIASUNKISTEUCLIDRI VERDALE
GILBERTNO RTH
WALNUTLEMONDALECERRITOS
WAGNERMULLER
CERRITOS ANAHEIMHASTERLEWISBLUE GUM
ORANGETHORPE
OLIVE
LOARAGENE AUTRY
CERRITOS
CHAPMAN
CROWTHER
DISNEY
SOUTH MI
LLERORANGETHORPE
KATELLA
FRONTERA
91
DOUGLASS5
91
5 EASTBEACHBEACHANAHEIMBROOKHURSTEUCLIDEUCLIDCRESCENT HARBORHARBORDISNEYLANDGLASSELLMA
N
C
H
E
S
T
E
R
FULLERTON PLACENTIA
BUENA
PARK
LA
PA LMA
CYPRESS ORANGESTANTON
GARDEN
GROVE
SANTA
ANA
M:\Mdata\10105703\GIS\Vacantlhalf.mxd 5/5/09 -- SS JM KO
Anaheim Housing Needs Assessment
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Legend
Mixed-Use
Residential
City Boundary
Housing Opportunity Sites
Exhibit B-3!
?»
A¾
LINCOLN RICHFIELDCORONADO
ROYAL OAKMEATSW
EIRCA
N
Y
O
N
O AK CA N Y O N
ORANGETHORPE KELLOGGLAKEVIEWC A N Y O N RIM
RI VERDA
L
E
MIRALOMA
NOHL R A N C HIMPERIALLA PALMA
?k
Match Line - West Side/CentralMatch Line - East SideLA PALMA
N O H LRANCH
NOHLR
A
N
C
H
ORANGETH
O
R
P
E
RI VERDALE
ORANGETH
O
R
P
E
CANYON RIMMILLER 241
SE RRAN
O SERRANOF
A
I
R
M
O
N
TTUSTINLAKEVIEW
IMPERIALIM
P
E
R
I
A
L
ANAHEIMHI
LLSGLASSELLYORBA
LINDA
PLACENTIA
ORANGE
VILLA
PARK
M:\Mdata\10105703\GIS\Vacantlhalf.mxd 5/5/09 -- SS JM KO
Anaheim Housing Needs Assessment
0 3,500 7,0001,750
Feet
Legend
Mixed-Use
Residential
City Boundary
Housing Opportunity Sites
Exhibit B-4!
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-9
The City was very selective in identifying its Housing Opportunity Sites and only elected
to include those properties which had definite potential to redevelop. Properties deemed
unlikely to develop or redevelop to housing affordable to moderate or lower-income
families were eliminated in this analysis. For example, the following types of properties
were not identified as Housing Opportunity Sites because they have a low likelihood of
redeveloping to a residential use during the planning period:
• Properties developed with schools; community/religious assembly uses, such as
churches and synagogues; or, other similar uses that are unlikely to redevelop in
the foreseeable future.
• Properties developed with mobile home parks.
• Properties that would not yield a greater amount of residential units than currently
exist on the property (with the exception of certain sites that could be
consolidated into a larger development area).
• Properties that are designated for residential land uses by the General Plan, but at
densities unlikely to result in development of units affordable to moderate or
lower income households (i.e., less than 13 units/acre).
• Small parcels unlikely to be consolidated with surrounding properties.
• Properties designated for non-residential land uses by the General Plan. Sites with
known environmental constraints which would preclude residential development
during the planning period.
Several of the Housing Opportunity Sites consist of parcels with light industrial and
commercial uses in buildings that are 40 or more years old and that are generally in
marginal condition. The City has an excellent recent track record of redeveloping
parcels with similar uses and characteristics with residential units. In fact, many of the
affordable housing units that have been constructed during the 2006-2014 planning
period were developed on sites once occupied by similar commercial and industrial
uses.
As indicated in Table B-2, the Housing Opportunity Sites that were identified provide
the opportunity to develop up to 3,727 dwelling units. However, when Opportunity
Sites that do not meet the 16 unit/site requirement of AB 2348 are excluded from this
total, the net number of dwelling units that could be developed is up to 3,078 dwelling
units.
The capacity of each Opportunity Site was determined by utilizing the maximum
density permitted by each site’s applicable General Plan land use designation. Recent
development activity illustrates the fact that these maximum permitted densities are
oftentimes met or exceeded, based upon current land use and regulatory policies. These
policies include several affordable housing incentives that are incorporated into the
City’s Zoning Code. An analysis of recently approved and constructed housing units
demonstrates the City’s ability to meet or exceed density thresholds in the City’s
General Plan.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, the realistic capacity for residential units is not
reduced by the inclusion of non-residential uses. The Overlay Zone does not require a
minimum non-residential square footage and developments must include a residential
component developed at a density of at least 36 du/ac. Developers of projects within the
Mixed-Use Overlay Zone have traditionally sought to maximize the residential
development potential to the greatest amount feasible.
Table B-3
Opportunity Sites: General Plan Designations
General Plan
Residential Land
Use Designation
Maximum
Density
units/acre
Acres Units1
Gross
Acres2
Net
acres3
Gross
Units2
Net
Units3
Mixed-Use 60 1.6 1.0 96 60
Medium Density 36 58.2 51.6 2,062 1,842
Low-Medium Density 18 89.7 66.0 1,569 1,176
Opportunity Sites Total 149.5 118.6 3,727 3,078
1 The number is based on individual sites and not the aggregate acreage.
2 This is the gross number of acres and units identified Appendix B-4
3 This is the net number of acres and units when excluding parcels with less than 16 unit/site capacity.
This net number is used for calculation of adequate sites capacity
The Opportunity Sites designated by the General Plan for densities over 30 dwelling units
per acre (the default density standard set by the State as appropriate for accommodating
Anaheim’s share of regional housing need for lower-income households) would allow for
development of up to 1,902 net units and would fulfill the City’s obligations to provide
sites to accommodate the remaining lower income RHNA need (1,713 units). The
Opportunity Sites designated by the General Plan for development densities within the
generally accepted density for moderate income units (11-30 dwelling units per acre)
could produce up to 1,176 net units. These sites would accommodate development of
housing for the remaining RHNA need for moderate-income households as indicated in
Table B-4.
Table B-4
Opportunity Sites and Remaining RHNA Obligations
Units Gross
Units
Net
Units
Sites designated by the General Plan for densities over 30 units/acre1 2,158 1,902
Remaining RHNA Need for Lower-Income Households 2 1,713 1,713
Lower Income Surplus Units 445 189
Sites designated by the General Plan for Low-Medium Desnity-18 units/acre1 1,569 1,176
Remaining RHNA Need for Moderate-Income Households2 1,032 1,032
Total Surplus Units 537 144
1 From Table B-2: Opportunity Sites: General Plan Designations
2 From Table B-1: Projects in the Pipeline
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-11
The Housing Opportunity Sites include approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land that could
be developed with up to 64 dwelling units. Although the majority of the Housing
Opportunity Sites are developed with existing uses, the City has an excellent track record
of transforming underutilized properties into residential uses, as is evident in the site
characteristics of the projects that are currently entitled for development (see Appendix
B-2).
Since the Housing Opportunity Sites are already designated by the General Plan for
residential uses, the proposed density of development proposed on the Housing
Opportunity Sites has already been analyzed by the Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the General Plan Update (EIR No. 330). The proposed density of
development has also been analyzed by the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
Sewer deficiencies related to the General Plan build-out have been identified in the City’s
capital improvement program (CIP) and will be upgraded as part of the CIP to
accommodate new or increased densities of residential units. Costs associated with these
improvements are funded by a sewer user charge and development impact fees. Per State
law, the City has adopted a resolution giving sewer priority to affordable housing
development and has an aggressive, on-going sewer improvement program in place.
Although the Opportunity Sites comprise approximate 31 acres collectively that are each
less than one acre, these smaller sites are located adjacent to other parcels that provide the
opportunity for lot consolidation. While the feasibility of assembling small parcels for
residential development may be a limiting factor for some jurisdictions, it is important to
note that Anaheim has a proven history of successful assemblage that has resulted in the
development of several affordable housing projects in the recent past.
Site constraints have also historically been successfully addressed through the
implementation of the Density Bonus chapter of the Zoning Code (Chapter 18.52).
Incentives such as reduced required building setbacks, increased allowable site coverage
and increased maximum building heights are available to projects proposing affordable
housing. These incentives along with density bonuses and reduced parking requirements
help make the density permitted by the General Plan foreseeable on the Housing
Opportunity Sites.
Combined with the City’s current projects (4,282 units), the “net" Opportunity Sites
(3,078 units) allow for the development of up to 7,360 units, far exceeding the City’s
RHNA target of 5,702 units.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
B. PRESERVATION OF ASSISTED UNITS AT RISK OF
CONVERSION
Jurisdictions are required by State Housing Element Law to analyze government-assisted
housing that is eligible to convert from low income to market rate housing over the next
10 years. State law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage subsidy or
mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government assisted housing
might convert to market rate housing for a number of reasons including expiring
subsidies, mortgage repayments or expiration of affordability restrictions.
This section will address:
• An inventory of assisted housing units that are at-risk of converting to market rate
housing,
• An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units,
• Resources that could be used to preserve at-risk units,
• Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units, and
• Quantified objectives for the number of at-risk units to be preserved during the
Housing Element planning period.
1. Inventory of At-Risk Units
There are 516 assisted housing units “at-risk” of losing their affordability through 2023 in
Anaheim. Programs utilized by these units include the Senior Ordinance, Density Bonus
Ordinance, tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, Housing Set-Aside Funds, HUD, CDGB and
HOME funds. Table B-5 summarizes the units “at-risk” from 2013 through 2018.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-13
Table B-5
Units “At-Risk” of Conversion
2013-2023
Project Address
Type of
Units Program
Length of
Affordability
Earliest
Conversion
Date
Total
Units
Assisted
Units
Casa Delia 1105 N. Citron Family HOME 30 5/25/2015 12 12
Jasmine Creek 206 N. Coffman Family Density Bonus 30 3/1/2021 20 2
Sea Wins Apts. 1925 W. Greenleaf Family
Tax exempt
Bonds/Federal Tax
Credits 15 7/7/2015 73 18
Heritage Village 707 W. Santa Ana St. Senior
Senior Ordinance/Density
Bonus/Tax Exempt Bonds 30 11/2/2022 196 49
Heritage Park 950 S. Gilbert Senior
PBA,CDBG, Rental
Construction Funds 30 years 11/28/2013 94 29
Angelina Apts. 1034 S. Kemp Senior Senior Ordinance 30 years 7/11/2016 8 2
1631 E. Sycamore Senior Ordinance Senior Senior Ordinance 30 years 8/19/2017 4 1
Vintage Apts. 200 S. Citron Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 1/20/2017 82 21
Sage Park 810 N. Loara St. Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus/Tax exempt Bonds 30 years 1/22/2017 100 25
208 S. West St 208 S. West St Senior Senior Ordinance 30 years 10/7/2016 6 2
Acaciawood
Village 1415 W. Ball Rd Senior Senior Ordinance 30 years 10/17/2018 123 31
Magnolia Acres 640 S. Magnolia Ave Senior Senior Ordinance 30 years 12/22/2018 40 10
125 N Gilbert 125 N Gilbert Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 3/15/2019 9 3
Palacio Villas
435 S. Anaheim Hills
Rd. Senior
Senior ordinance/ Tax
exempt Bonds 30 years 12/6/2019 117 27
Gilbert Park Apts. 925 S. Gilbert Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 3/29/2020 24 8
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B-5
Units “At-Risk” of Conversion
2013-2023
Project Address
Type of
Units Program
Length of
Affordability
Earliest
Conversion
Date
Total
Units
Assisted
Units
121 Kathryn Dr 121 Kathryn Dr Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 6/25/2020 11 4
Fairhaven 536 Fairhaven Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 8/30/2020 17 6
318 S. Lemon St. 318 S. Lemon St. Family Density Bonus 30 years 10/1/2022 22 2
721 W. La Palma 721 W. La Palma Family Density Bonus 30 years 7/27/2020 12 2
318 S. Bush 318 S. Bush Family Density Bonus 30 years 8/10/2020 4 1
322 S. Bush 322 S. Bush Family Density Bonus 30 years 8/10/2020 4 1
New Horizons 835 S. Brookhurst Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 8/7/2020 80 32
Villa Catalpa 1680 Catalpa Drive Senior
Senior ordinance/ Density
Bonus 30 years 11/20/2020 18 6
1532 E. La Palma 1532 E. La Palma Family Density Bonus 30 years 7/11/2021 14 2
Nutwood Apts. 1668 S. Nutwood St Family Density Bonus 30 years 7/14/2022 30 2
Newporter 3424 & 3428 W. Orange Family Density Bonus 30 years 9/4/2021 22 4
Village Center
Apts. 200 E. Lincoln Senior
HUD Section 8 New
Construction 5 years 2017 100 99
Anaheim Memorial
Manor 275 E Center Street Senior HUD 5 years 2019 75 75
Carbon Creek
Shores 3060 E. Frontera Street
Special
Needs HUD 2014 40 40
Total 516
Source: City of Anaheim, 2013
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-15
2. Cost of Preservation Versus Replacement
Twenty-nine projects with a total of 516 units are at-risk of converting to market rate
housing from 2013 through 2023. Generally, the cost of preserving existing units is more
cost effective than replacing units through new construction. Replacement of these units
with rehabilitated units may be cost effective in some instances.
a. Preservation Strategies
There are many options to preserving units including providing financial incentives to
project owners to extend low income use restrictions, purchasing affordable housing units
by a non-profit or public agency or providing local subsidies to offset the difference
between the affordable and market rate. Scenarios for preservation will depend on the
type of project at-risk.
The City will implement a variety of activities during the Housing Element period in
order to preserve the existing supply of affordable housing. Among the activities to be
implemented are:
1) Evaluation of legal and procedural framework for preservation of at-risk units
within the City.
2) Identification and monitoring of threatened projects.
3) Analysis of factors that influence an owner’s decision to terminate the
operation of the units at risk of converting.
4) Determination of the feasibility of an entity acquiring and preserving the units
at risk of conversion.
5) Analysis of Federal, State and local financial incentives available to deter the
conversion and assist with the acquisition and preservation of units at risk of
conversion.
6) Provision of technical assistance to developers, nonprofit corporations and
resident councils interested in negotiating the acquisition of units at risk of
conversion.
b. Local Rental Subsidy
One strategy for preserving the units at-risk during the planning period is to provide a
local rental subsidy to residents. Rent subsidies can be utilized to provide assistance to
residents when their affordable units convert to market rate. To determine the subsidy
needed, Fair Market Rents were compared to market rate rents. Table B-6 provides a
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
summary of Fair Market Rents for Orange County and Table B-7 provides an estimate of
the required subsidy by unit type.
Table B-6
2013 Fair Market Rents
Size of Unit Fair Market Rent
0 bedroom $1,126
1 bedroom $1,294
2 bedroom $1,621
3 bedroom $2,268
4 bedroom $2,525
Source: HUD, 2013
Table B-7
Estimated Monthly Subsidy to Preserve “At-Risk” Units
Unit Size
Rents
Number
of Units Difference
Monthly
Subsidy
Annual
Subsidy
Fair
Market
Rents1
Market
Rate2
Studio $1,126 $1,022 19 ($104) ($1,976) ($23,712)
1 bedroom $1,294 $1,183 367 ($111) ($40,737) ($488,844)
2 bedroom $1,621 $1,492 54 ($129) ($6,966) ($83,592)
3 bedroom $2,268 $1,842 5 ($426) ($2,130) ($25,560)
Total ($621,708)
Source: 1HUD Fair Market Rents 2013, 2RealFacts, 3rd quarter 2012
c. Replacement Cost
Anaheim can also consider the cost of replacing the units with new construction.
Construction cost estimates include all hard and soft costs associated with construction in
addition to per unit land costs. The analysis assumes the replacement units are garden
style apartments with parking provided on-site. Square footage estimates are based on the
average unit size in the region. Land costs have been determined on a per unit basis.
Tables B-8 and B-9 summarize the estimated replacement costs per unit.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-17
Table B-8
Replacement Costs by Unit Type1
Unit Size Cost per Square Foot
Average Square Foot/
Unit2
Replacement Cost
per Unit3
Studio $200 484 $96,800
1 bedroom $200 734 $146,800
2 bedroom $200 968 $193,600
3 bedroom $200 1,219 $243,800
Notes:
1 Based on prevailing market conditions. Units assumed as garden apartments with on-site parking.
2 Based on average square footage reported by RealFacts, 3rd quarter 2012.
3 Includes construction costs, financing and land acquisition costs of $25,000 per unit.
Source: RBF Consulting, 2013
Table B-9
Replacement Costs of “At-Risk” Units1
Unit Size Replacement Cost per
Unit1
Number of Units Total Replacement
Costs
Studio $96,800 19 $1,839,200
1 bedroom $146,800 367 $53,875,600
2 bedroom $193,600 54 $10,454,400
3 bedroom $243,800 5 $1,219,000
Notes:
1 Based on prevailing market conditions. Units assumed as garden apartments with on-site parking.. Includes
construction costs, financing and land acquisition costs of $25,000 per unit.
Source: RBF Consulting, 2013
d. Resources for Preservation
A variety of programs exist to assist cities to acquire, replace or subsidize at-risk
affordable housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available to the
City of Anaheim.
i. Federal Programs
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)- CDBG funds are awarded to
cities on a formula basis for housing activities. The primary objective of the
CDBG program is the development of viable communities through the provision
of decent housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity for
principally low and moderate income persons. Funds can be used for housing
acquisition, rehabilitation, economic development and public services. In Fiscal
Year 2013-2014, Anaheim received $4,605,871 in CDBG funds.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
• HOME Investment Partnership- The City of Anaheim receives funds by formula
from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing
to lower income households. Eligible activities include new construction,
acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation. In Fiscal Year 2013-2014,
Anaheim received $1,601,964 in HOME funds.
• Section 8 Rental Assistance Program- The Section 8 Rental Assistance program
provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market rate units on
behalf of very-low income tenants. Rental assistance is provided through the
Anaheim Housing Authority. Anaheim anticipates assisting an estimated 5,000
households annually through Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, subject to
federal funding availability.
• Section 811/202 Program- Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no
interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the
construction of very-low income rental housing for seniors and persons with
disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can
be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care
facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction
and rental assistance.
ii. State Programs
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs- CalHFA’s
Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction of rental housing that
includes affordable rents for low and moderate income families and individuals.
One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition Finance Program which is
designed to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable housing developments
and provide low-cost funding to preserve affordability.
• Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)- This program provides tax credits to
individuals and corporations that invest in low income rental housing. The LIHTC
program creates affordable housing opportunities when the developer of a project
“sells” the tax credits to an investor or investors who contribute equity to the
development in exchange for an ownership position in the project.
• California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC)- The California
Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multifamily affordable housing lender
whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for low income
families, seniors and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital
flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing.
Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of
properties.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B-19
e. Program Efforts to Preserve At -Risk Units
Through the Community Development Department, the City continually monitors the
eligibility of affordable housing to convert to market rate housing. Constant monitoring
allows the City to anticipate the timeframe by which affordability covenants would
expire, allowing the City to implement various resources to ensure the continued
affordability of the housing units.
f. List of Qualified Entities
The following non-profit corporations are potential organizations with experience and
capacity to assist in preserving at-risk units:
• BRIDGE Housing Corporation (San Francisco)
• Jamboree Housing Corporation (Irvine)
• Mercy Housing California (San Francisco)
• The Related Companies
• Global Premier Development, Inc.
• Anaheim Supportive Housing for Senior Adults
• AMCAL Multi-Housing, Inc.
• Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC
• TELACU
• Urban Housing Communities
• Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation
• Solari Enterprises
• Orange County Community Housing Corp
• Lennar Affordable Communities
• Irvine Housing Opportunities
• Century Housing Corporation
• Arnel
• LINC Housing
g. Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of u nits that can
be preserved over the planning period. Twenty-nine assisted projects with a total of 516
units are at-risk of converting to market rate housing within the planning period. The City
of Anaheim’s objective is to preserve these affordable housing units.
Housing Element
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
B-20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Appendix B-1: Current Projects
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B1-1
APPENDIX B-1:
CURRENT PROJECTS
A. Projects in the Pipeline
Table B1-1 details projects that have been entitled, but not yet constructed. Affordability restrictions are noted and the
distribution of the units into affordability categories is provided in Appendix B.
Table B1-1: Projects in the Pipeline as of September 1, 2013
Project Name Address Units Affordability
Anton Monaco Apartments 1881 W. Lincoln 229 224 very-low, 205 low1
Calandula Court 928 S. Webster 32 16 very-low, 16 low1
Lincoln Family Apartments - Phase I 1272-1280 Lincoln Ave. 51 10 extremely-low, 15 very-low, 25 low, 1 moderate1
Lincoln Family Apartments - Phase II 1272-1280 Lincoln Ave. 39 7 extremely-low, 11 very-low, 20 low, 1 moderate1
Colony Park III S/E corner Santa Ana and Olive 174 68 low2
Colony Park IV Atchison and Santa Ana 226 23 low, 34 moderate2
Metropolitan Domain I N/W Corner Anaheim/Santa Ana 60 6 low2
Metropolitan Domain II Anaheim Blvd./Santa Ana/Ellsworth 40 4 low2
Vivere Apartments II Katella Ave. (Platinum Triangle) 244
Platinum Vista
1015 and 1105 E. Katella Ave.
(Platinum Triangle) 350
AT&T Site N/W Corner Anaheim and Lincoln 225
Gateway Apartment Homes Phase II
Orangewood Ave. (Platinum
Triangle) 395
Park Viridian II Katella Ave. (Platinum Triangle) 215
Park Viridian III Katella Ave. (Platinum Triangle) 185
Lennar’s A-Town Metro (Parcels A, B, C & K)
1404 E. Katella Ave. (Platinum
Triangle) 893
Lennar’s A-Town Stadium 2015 E. Orangewood (Platinum 525
Housing Element
Appendix B-1: Current Projects
B1-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B1-1: Projects in the Pipeline as of September 1, 2013
Project Name Address Units Affordability
Triangle)
Platinum Gateway
915 E. Katella Ave. (Platinum
Triangle) 399
4,282 Total
Notes:
1 Affordability secured through Low Income Housing Tax Credit program
2 Affordability secured through use of Redevelopment Agency funds
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-1
APPENDIX B-2:
MIXED USE AND RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY OVERLAY SITES
Table B2-1 details properties designated as Housing Opportunity Sites. Sites not meeting the AB 2348 threshold of 16 units/site
have not been included in the total potential units (3,727). Approximately 649 potential units have been excluded from the total
potential yield of the parcels analyzed for Table B2-1.
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
1 03517303 Low Medium I (RO) 0.3 5 Contractor’s Yard
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
2 03517304 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Contractor’s Yard
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
3 03517306 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Auto Parts Salvage
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
4 03517307 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Auto Parts Salvage
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
5 03517308 Low Medium I (RO) 0.3 5 Auto Parts Salvage
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
7 03517313 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Contractor’s Yard
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
8 03517315 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Vacant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
9 03517602 Low Medium
RS-3
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
10 03517606 Low Medium
RS-3
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
11 03517610 Low Medium I (RO) 1.3 23 Small Industrial Firms
12 03517614 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
12a 03517603 Low Medium I (RO) 0.1 1 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
13 03517615 Low Medium I (RO) 0.2 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
14 03527022 Low Medium C-G (RO) 1.1 19 Glass Shop
15 03527023 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.4 7 Yellow Cab Co
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
16 03527025 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.5 9 Yellow Cab Co
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
17 03527026 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.8 14 Glass Shop
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
18 03527028 Low Medium C-G (RO) 1.0 18
9-unit Apartment
Complex
19 03527029 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.9 16 Yellow Cab Co
23 03620309 Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.1 3 Small market
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
24 03620608 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.2 7 Vacant Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
26 03620627 Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 7 Vacant Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
28 03621015 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.6 10 Small Industrial Firms Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
30 03702114 Medium I (SABC) 0.1 3 Single Family Home Does not meet AB 2348
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-3
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
(RO) threshold requirements
32 03702119 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.1 3 Storage
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
33 03702123 Mixed-Use
C-G , I
(MU) 0.6 36 Appliance Store
34 03702201 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firms
35 03702202 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.3 10 Auto Body Shop
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
36 03702203 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.3 10 Auto Body Shop
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
40 03702212 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 1.1 39 Small Industrial Firms
42 03702301 Mixed-Use C-G (MU) 0.2 12 Mortuary
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
43 03702302 Mixed-Use C-G (MU) 0.2 12 Mortuary
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
44 03702303 Mixed-Use C-G (MU) 0.2 12 Mortuary
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
45 03702304 Mixed-Use C-G (MU) 0.4 24 Mortuary
52 03702411 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 1.0 18 Small Industrial Firms Yes
53 03708101 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.4 7 Liquor Store
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
57 03709105 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Single Family Home
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
61 03709109 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
62 03709125 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.3 5 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
63 03709127 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Contractor Yard
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
64 03711129 Low Medium I (RO) 0.7 12 Small Industrial Firms Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
65 03711130 Low Medium I (RO) 0.3 5 Small Industrial Firms Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
66 03711425 Medium I (RO) 0.1 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
67 03711428 Medium I (RO) 0.1 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
68 03711435 Medium I (RO) 0.1 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
69 03711437 Medium I (RO) 0.2 7 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
70 03711438 Medium I (RO) 1.5 54 Small Industrial Firms
71 03711439 Medium I (RO) 0.9 32 Small Industrial Firms
90 03713015 Low Medium I (RO) 2.7 48 Industrial Firm
91 03713015 Medium I (RO) 0.7 25 Industrial Firm
92 03713017 Low Medium I (RO) 1.0 18 Small Industrial Firms
93 03713021 Low Medium I (RO) 1.8 32 Small Industrial Firms
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-5
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
94 03713025 Low Medium I (RO) 0.3 5 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
95 03713026 Low Medium I (RO) 0.4 7 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
96 03713027 Low Medium I (RO) 0.5 9 Service Station
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
97 03713028 Low Medium I (RO) 0.8 14 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
98 03713028 Medium I (RO) 1.2 43 Small Industrial Firms
99 03713029 Low Medium I (RO) 4.2 75 Industrial Firm
100 03713029 Medium I (RO) 6.0 216 Industrial Firm
102 03716110 Medium I (RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firms
102a 03716109 Medium I (RO) 0.1 3 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
103 03716111 Medium I (RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firms
104 03716112 Medium I (RO) 0.4 14 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
105 03716114 Medium I (RO) 0.3 10 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
106 03716116 Medium I (RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firms
107 03716117 Medium I (RO) 0.4 14 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
108 03723002 Medium I (RO) 4.2 151 Industrial Firm (L-3)
109 03727108 Medium I (RO) 0.4 14 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
110 03727111 Medium I (RO) 0.2 7 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
111 03727117 Low Medium I (RO) 0.3 5 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
112 03727123 Low Medium I (RO) 0.9 16 Industrial Firm
113 03727124 Low Medium I (RO) 3.4 61 Industrial Firm
114 03727124 Medium I (RO) 7.1 252 Industrial Firm
115 03727125 Medium I (RO) 0.4 14 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
116 03727127 Low Medium I (RO) 0.6 10 Industrial Firm
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
117 03727222 Low Medium I (RO) 0.4 7 Auto Repair
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
118 03727223 Low Medium I (RO) 0.4 7 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
119 03727225 Medium I (RO) 0.5 18 Small Industrial Firms
120 03727225 Low Medium I (RO) 0.1 1 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
121 03727226 Medium I (RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firms
122 03727227 Low Medium I (RO) 0.4 7 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
123 03727230 Low Medium I (RO) 0.8 14 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
125 07016106 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.5 9 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
126 07016107 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.4 7 Restaurant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
127 07016111 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.4 7 Restaurant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-7
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
128 07016112 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.4 7 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
129 07016113 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.9 16 Thrift Store
130 07256125 Low Medium I (RO) 1.3 23 Small Industrial Firms
131 07259101 Low Medium I (RO) 2.1 37 Small Industrial Firms
132 07259126 Low Medium I (RO) 1.3 23 Small Industrial Firms
133 07259134 Low Medium I (RO) 2.4 43 Small Industrial Firms
135 07261101 Low Medium I (RO) 14.1 253 Offices
136 08217049 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.6 22 RV Park
137 08218501 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.1 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
138 08218526 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
139 08218527 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
140 08218528 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
141 08218529 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
142 08218530 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
143 08218531 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
143a 08218535 Medium T (RO) 0.1 3 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
144 08218539 Medium T (SABC) 0.1 3 RV Park Does not meet AB 2348
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
(RO) threshold requirements
145 08218540 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.1 3 RV Park Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
146 08218541 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.1 3 RV Park Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
147 08218547 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.3 10 Small Shops Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
148 08218549 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 0.4 14 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
149 08218551 Medium T (RO) 0.4 14 RV Park
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
150 08218552 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.2 7 Small Industrial Firms Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
151 08218553 Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 1.2 43 Small Industrial Firms Yes
152 08218558 Medium
T (SABC)
(RO) 4.2 151 RV Park
154 08373116 Medium C-G (RO) 0.8 28 Office Building
155 08373117 Medium C-G (RO) 3.1 111 Office Building
158 12602217 Medium T (RO) 0.2 7 Nursery
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
159 12602218 Medium T (RO) 1.1 39 Nursery
160 12603226 Medium C-G (RO) 1.8 64 Motel
161 12631010 Medium T (RO) 1.8 64 Nursery
162 12660204 Low Medium C-G (RO) 1.8 32 Vacant Yes
163 12723134 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC) 1.4 25
Mixed Retail/Office
Uses
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-9
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
(RO)
164 12723135 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 1.6 28 Motel
165 12723156 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.6 10 Restaurant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
166 12723159 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.6 10 Bank
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
167 12723160 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 1.1 19 Small Shops
168 12723161 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.3 5 Parking Lot
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
169 12723162 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.6 10
Mixed Retail/Office
Uses
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
170 12724132 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 1.7 30 Motel
171 12724167 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 1.3 23 Motel
172 12724170 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.5 9 Vacant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
173 12807103 Low Medium T (RO) 0.8 14 Restaurant Does not meet AB 2348
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
threshold requirements
174 12807105 Low Medium T (RO) 0.9 16 Motel
175 12807138 Low Medium T (RO) 1 18 Motel
176 12807142 Low Medium C-G (RO) 0.6 10 Restaurant
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
177 12834116 Low Medium O-L (RO) 0.2 3 Offices
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
178 12834152 Low Medium
C-G
(BCC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
179 12834161 Low Medium
I, O-L
(BCC)
(RO) 6.6 118 Small Industrial Firm
180 13532130 Medium C-G (RO) 3.3 118 Motel
181 13533118 Medium C-G (RO) 2.8 100 Self Storage Facility
184 23414102 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.3 5 Single Family Home
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
185 23414109 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.3 5
Mixed Retail/Office
Uses
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
186 23414110 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3
Mixed Retail/Office
Uses
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
187 25107123 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.4 7 Small Shops Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-11
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
188 25107124 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.4 7 Plumbing Contractors Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
189 25108102 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.7 12 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
190 25108102 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.5 9 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
191 25108122 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 2.0 36 Small Industrial Firms
192 25108123 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Industrial Firms
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
193 25108126 Low Medium
I (SABC)
(RO) 2.6 46 Small Industrial Firms
197 25109213 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Vacant Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
198 25109214 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Vacant Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
199 25109215 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Single Family Home
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
200 25109216 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Offices
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
201 25109217 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Offices
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
202 25109219 Low Medium C-G 0.1 1 Single Family Home Does not meet AB 2348
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-12 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
(SABC)
(RO)
threshold requirements
203 25109220 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.1 1 Used Car Dealership
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
204 25110103 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
205 25110104 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.3 5 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
206 25110105 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.1 1 Small Shops Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
207 25110106 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.1 1 Small Shops Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
208 25110107 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.3 5 Small Shops Yes
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
209 25110108 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.2 3 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
210 25110109 Low Medium
C-G
(SABC)
(RO) 0.1 1 Small Shops
Does not meet AB 2348
threshold requirements
217 34335160 Low-Medium T (RO) 2.6 46 Nursery
218 26833106 Medium T (RO) 1.8 64 Plant Nursery
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 B2-13
Table B2-1: Opportunity Sites
Site APN
General Plan
Residential
Designation Zoning Acres
Potential
Units Existing Use
Housing
Authority
Owned Notes
218a 2683312 Medium T (RO) 0.8 28 Plant Nursery
219 13745122 Medium C-G (RO) 1.0 36 Small Industrial Firm
220 13745124 Medium C-G (RO) 0.5 18 Vacant Building
221 13745125 Medium C-G (RO) 0.6 21 Small Industrial Firm
TOTAL1 3,078
1 Sites not meeting the AB 2348 threshold of 16 units/site have not been included in the total potential units.
Housing Element
Appendix B-2: Opportunity Sites
B2-14 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Zoning Designations:
RH-1
RH-2
RH-3
RS-1
RS-2
RS-3
RS-4
RM-1
RM-1
RM-2
RM-3
C-G
C-NC
C-R
O-L
O-H
I
T
SP
PR
OS
Single-Family Hillside Residential
Single-Family Hillside Residential
Single-Family Hillside Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Single-Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential
General Commercial
Neighborhood Center
Regional Commercial
Low Intensity Office
High Intensity Office
Industrial
Transitional
Semi-Public Use
Public Recreation
Open Space
SP 87-1
SP 88-1
SP 88-2
SP 88-3
SP 90-1
SP 90-2
SP 90-4
SP 92-1
SP 92-2
SP 93-1
SP 94-1
The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan
The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan
Pacific Center Specific Plan
The Festival Specific Plan
East Center Street Specific Plan
Mountain Park Specific Plan
The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan
The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Hotel Circle Specific Plan
Northeast Industrial Area Specific Plan
Planning Overlay Zones:
BCC
DMU
MU
MHP
PTMU
RO
SABC
Brookhurst Commercial Corridor
Downtown Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Mobile Home Park
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (followed by district name)
Residential Opportunity
South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-1
Appendix C:
Review of Past Performance
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Production Strategy 1A: Meet or Exceed the Production Goals of
the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP)
The City shall continue to meet the housing production goals contained in the
City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP). Established in 2005 and
revised in 2006, the AHSP has a goal of providing 1,328 new affordable family
rental housing units by the end of 2009. The AHSP provides for 33 percent of
the new units to be affordable to very-low income households, 33 percent to
low income households, and 33 percent to moderate income households.
Additionally, the City has initiated a no net loss requirement that requires any
low income units lost due to City-initiated projects to be added to the following
year’s targeted production number. The AHSP, including past progress, is
reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis. The City Council may elect to
1) continue with the plan; 2) terminate the plan; or 3) make revisions to the
plan. However, whether the AHSP is eliminated or extended beyond 2009, the
affordable housing programs and goals identified in the Housing Element will
continue, as will all the federal and HCD requirements for the City of Anaheim
and Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. The City of Anaheim has been
proactive in establishing the AHSP and establishing a quantifiable goal of 1,328
units. Based on the current production pipeline, the City expects to exceed its
quantifiable goal and develop 1,571 affordable units.
The Affordable Housing Strategic Plan initiated a number of other actions and
On August 22, 2005, the City Council adopted the
2005-2009 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
(“Strategic Plan”) with the primary goal of
constructing 1,200 affordable rental housing units
with affordability levels of very-low, low and
moderate income. The City Council subsequently
increased the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan goal to
1,349 units. In October 2009, the City Council
extended the Strategic Plan through 2014 and
increased the goal to 2,812 units. The City Council
also diversified the Strategic Plan to include
affordable for-sale housing, rehabilitation of
existing structures and preservation of “At-Risk”
rental housing.
Since 2005, 1,511 new rental, for-sale and
rehabilitation units have been completed with
another 655 in the development pipeline for a total
of 2,166 affordable units. The projects that are
completed, underway or in the development pipe-
line are broken-out as follows:
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-2
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
programs which will continue as strategies during the 2006-2014 Planning
Period. These strategies include: Housing Production Strategy 1B:
Implementation of an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, Housing Production
Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low and
Moderate Income Housing Developments and Housing Production Strategy 1D:
Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds at 30% of Property Tax Increment.
Given the loss of RDA Housing Set-Aside Funds utilized to implement the
AHSP, the City’s strategy for new affordable housing construction will be
reevaluated for new opportunities for the 2014-2021 Housing Element.
Objective: 1,328 new affordable family rental units
Responsible Party: Community Development/Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund/Housing Set-Aside Funds
Timeline for Implementation: December 2009
Rental New Construction (Completed):
• The Vineyard – 60 units
• Monarch Pointe – 63 units
• Diamond Street – 25 units
• Broadway Village – 46 units
• Elm Street – 52 units
• CIM – 277 units
• Pradera Apartments – 146 units
• Greenleaf Apartments – 20 units
• Arbor View Apartments – 46 units
• Vintage Crossings (South Street) – 92 units
Rental New Construction (Underway/in
Development Pipeline):
• Cherry Orchard – 45 units
• Anton Monaco Apartments – 229 units
• Lincoln Family Apartments I – 51 units
Lincoln Family Apartments II – 39 units
For-sale Affordable Housing Projects (Completed):
• Colony Park Phase I and II – 99 affordable
units, 270 total units
• Harbor Lofts – 44 affordable units, 129 total
units
• Habitat for Humanity – 4 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-3
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
For-Sale Affordable Housing Projects (Underway/in
Development Pipeline):
• Colony Park Phase III – 68 affordable units,
174 total units
• Metropolitan Domain I (Anaheim Boulevard
Residential Parcel B) – 6 affordable units,
54 total units
• Metropolitan Domain II - Anaheim
Boulevard Residential Parcel C – 4
affordable units, 36 total units
• Colony Park Phase IV – 57 affordable units,
226 total units
Rental Rehabilitation (Completed):
• Integrity Hous e – 49 affordable units
• Colette’s Children’s Home – 4 affordable
units
• Casa Del Sol – 4 affordable units
• Mariposa Village – 8 units
• Hermosa Village II – 112 units Hermosa
Village III – 76 units
• Hermosa Village IV – 36 units
• Bel’Age Manor Apartments – 180 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-4
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Rental Rehabilitation (Underway/in Development
Pipeline):
• Avon Dakota Neighborhood Phase I– 16
units
• Avon Dakota Neighborhood Phase II– 16
units
• Hermosa Village V – 16 units
• Paseo Village – 176 units
Housing Production Strategy 1B: Implementation of an Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone
The City understands that land available for residential development is limited.
As a part of the City’s Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and in order to
encourage additional infill and redevelopment opportunities for the
development of affordable housing units in Anaheim, the City will develop an
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone. The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will
allow for residential development, when affordable units are provided, in areas
of the City previously designated for non-residential uses or lower density
residential uses. The City is currently analyzing the potential affordability
levels and site constraints associated with the Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone. This analysis has proven to be challenging, however, due to the fluid
nature of the current housing market. Once this analysis is completed and the
funding necessary to complete the associated environmental impact analysis is
secured, staff will present the Overlay Zone to the Planning Commission and
City Council for their formal consideration. Once approved, the Overlay Zone
could be combined with other City programs, such as the Density Bonus
Preparation of an Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone, which was a component of the City’s 2005-
2009 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, has been
superseded by Housing Production Strategy 1V
(Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites) and is no
longer being pursued.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-5
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
ordinance, to further attain affordable housing objectives.
Objective: Development of an Affordable Housing Overlay
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: December 2010
Housing Production Strategy 1C: Expedited Processing for Extremely-
Low, Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Housing Developments
The City shall continue to expedite discretionary entitlement and plan check for
lower income housing developments. Expedited processing is provided as an
incentive to encourage development of affordable housing projects. An
expedited schedule was developed as part of the Affordable Housing Strategic
Plan.
The City shall evaluate the effectiveness of the expedited processing timelines
and modify as needed to further encourage affordable housing development.
Objective: Expedited processing for affordable housing developments.
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
An expedited entitlement/plan review process for all
affordable housing projects was established in 2009
and remains in effect. Through the expedited
process, affordable housing projects realize a
typical time savings of 20 days.
Housing Production Strategy 1D: Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside Funds
at 30% of Property Tax Increment
The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency’s Housing Set-Aside Fund provides the
Effective February 1, 2012, Redevelopment
Agencies (RDAs) throughout the state were
eliminated as stipulated under the approved AB 1X
26 legislation. As a result of the dissolution of
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-6
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
primary funding source for most of the affordable housing related activities in
the City. Under state redevelopment law, the Agency is required to set-aside 30
percent of its tax increment revenues in order to increase, improve and preserve
affordable housing. More importantly, the law requires that 85 percent ($85
million thru 2014) of the funds be used only for low or very-low income
housing. The previous set-aside requirement was 20 percent, but in 2006, the
Agency extended the life of the Merged Project Area by ten years, thus
triggering the new 30 percent requirement. In fact, the Agency implemented
the 30% set-aside policy in 2006, prior to the legal requirement to do so.
As detailed in Table 3-19, through 2014, over $100.5 million in housing set-
aside funds will be available to increase, improve and preserve the supply of
affordable housing. The funds are used for a variety of projects, programs and
activities, including: land acquisition, new affordable housing construction,
substantial rehabilitation, and first-time homebuyer assistance.
Objective: 30% of tax increment for Housing Set-Aside
Responsible Party: Redevelopment Agency
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
RDAs, the Housing Set-Aside is no longer required
or available. This action has had a drastic effect on
the creation of affordable housing and the City’s
ability to meet its future housing goals.
On January 10, 2012, the City Council adopted a
resolution electing to serve as the successor agency
to the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (Agency).
As the successor agency, the City Council will
administer the enforceable obligations of the
Agency and wind down the Agency’s affairs,
subject to the review of an “oversight board”.
On January 24, 2012, the Governing Board of the
Anaheim Housing Authority (Authority) adopted a
resolution to assume the housing assets and
functions previously held and performed by the
Agency upon dissolution of the Agency. The
Authority will have the ability to develop affordable
housing should funding resources become available
in the future.
Despite the Community Development Department’s
limited ability to continue to fund the production of
affordable housing due to the State’s action to
eliminate RDAs and the loss of approximately $15
million dollars annually in tax increment for
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-7
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
affordable housing, the Community Development
Department continues to make steady progress
towards achieving its overall RHNA allocation By
using existing assets and other sources of funding.
Housing Production Strategy 1E: Affordable Senior Housing Program
The City recognizes the unique needs of its senior population. Seniors typically
have fixed incomes and unique housing needs that are not generally included in
market rate housing. The City shall continue to encourage through incentives
(e.g. financial assistance, parking reductions, regulatory waivers, etc.) the
development of a wide range of housing choices for seniors ranging from
independent living to assisted living with services on-site, including healthcare,
nutrition, transportation and other appropriate services. The City currently
provides incentives for affordable senior housing through the Senior Citizens’
Apartment Project and Density Bonuses chapters of its Municipal Code. In
addition to the above incentives, the Housing Authority’s Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher program also provides housing vouchers to 2,165 seniors, with
an additional 2,624 currently on the waiting list.
Objective: Senior Housing Development
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
Recent senior housing activity completed is as
follows:
• Bel’Age Manor Apartments – 180 units
• Memorial Manor Apartments – 75 units
• Renewed Project Based Section 8 Voucher
to extend affordability of Lincoln Court – 25
units
Housing Production Strategy 1F: Availability of Housing for Larger
Families
The current Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
encourages the development of larger family units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-8
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
The City of Anaheim understands the availability of housing to accommodate
larger families does not meet existing needs. The City recognizes and
addresses this need through the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (AHSP),
which focuses specifically on the development of housing appropriately sized
for families. The AHSP focuses on the development of 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom
units. Of the affordable units currently under production, 85 percent are 2-, 3-
and 4-bedroom units. Of the low and very-low income units, 91 percent are 2-,
3- and 4-bedroom units. The City shall continue to encourage and support the
development of rental and for-sale housing for larger families within future
affordable housing projects. Developers and builders of such projects will be
encouraged to incorporate larger bedroom counts to accommodate the needs of
larger families and reduce incidents of overcrowding in the existing housing
stock. The City continuously reviews the AHSP to determine its effectiveness
in increasing the development of units for larger families. As discussed in
Policy Strategy 1A, with or without the AHSP, the City will continue to focus
on providing affordable housing units for larger families through various
strategies and programs including the Density Bonus Ordinance, expedited
processing and Developer Incentive Program.
Objective: Develop dwelling units with 2-, 3- and 4- bedroom counts
Responsible Party: Redevelopment/Planning
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
consisting of 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom units. Since
2006, nine new development projects were
completed consisting of 525 larger family units.
The projects include:
• The Vineyard – 60 units
• Monarch Pointe – 63units
• Broadway Village – 46 units
• Elm Street – 52 units
• Pradera Apartments – 146 units
• Greenleaf Apartments – 20 units
• Arbor View Apartments – 46 units
• Vintage Crossings (South Street) – 92 units
Another large family project is expected to be
completed in mid-2013 (Cherry Orchard),
consisting of 45 units, which will bring the total to
570 larger family units completed.
The Community Development Department also
assisted St. Anton Monaco Partners, a developer
that began construction of a 229 large family
affordable rental project in Spring 2013. The
Department assisted with entitlements and the
issuance of bond financing for the project.
Other large family affordable rental projects in the
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-9
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
development pipe-line include the following for a
grand total of 921 units:
• Calandula Court Apartments – 32 units
• Lincoln Family Apartments I – 51 units
Lincoln Family Apartments II – 39 units
Housing Production Strategy 1G: Encourage the Development of Housing
for Extremely-Low Income Households
The City encourages the development of housing units for extremely-low
income households earning 30% or less of the Median Family Income for
Orange County. Specific emphasis shall be placed on the provision of housing
types including transitional facilities, permanent special needs, senior housing
and housing units serving temporary needs. The City currently has a number of
developer incentives that it utilizes to create opportunities for affordable
housing development. Some of these incentives include: funding development
fees, land write-downs, ground leases, and density bonus processing and pre-
development loans/grants. In addition, any development with an affordable
housing component qualifies for an expedited review process through the City’s
departments. All of these incentives would be available to apply towards the
development of housing for extremely-low income households. Special needs
projects. The City will continue to investigate additional incentives to
encourage development of housing for extremely-low income households.
Objective: 120 extremely-low income units
Responsible Party: Redevelopment/Planning/Housing Authority
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside/HOME/ CDBG
Since 2006, 19 projects were completed or have
obtained building permits. The projects, which
consist of a total of 522 extremely-low income
units, include:
• The Vineyard – 6 units
• Hermosa Village Phase II – 43 units
• Hermosa Village Phase III – 19 units
• Hermosa Village Phase IV – 4 units
• Monarch Pointe – 10 units
• Diamond Street – 24 units
• Broadway Village – 5 units
• Elm Street – 6 units
• Arbor View – 5 units
• Pradera Apartments – 100 units
• Integrity House – 48 units
• Greenleaf Apartments – 6 units
• Collette’s Children’s Home – 4 units
• Casa Del Sol – 4 units
• Vintage Crossings (South Street) – 91 units
• Cherry Orchard – 44 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-10
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Timeline for Implementation: 2014 • Mariposa Village – 8 units
• Avon Dakota Phase I – 5 units
• Bel’Age Manor – 90 units
Housing Production Strategy 1H: Encourage the Development of Housing
for Special Needs Households
The City of Anaheim understands the need for housing to accommodate special
needs households. Historically, the City has assisted in the development of
housing projects for special needs households by providing technical assistance
with tax credit applications, and public funds, including: ESG, CDBG, HOME
and Housing Set-Aside funds. Three recent special needs developments
benefited from the City’s technical assistance, long-term ground leases, and
project based housing vouchers. Two other projects are currently under
development that will service special needs households. The City shall continue
to utilize similar incentives to encourage and support the development of rental
housing for special needs families within future affordable housing projects.
Developers and builders of such projects will be required to incorporate
specialized social services to assist the special needs households, in exchange
for these incentives.
Objective: Develop units for special needs households
Responsible Party: Redevelopment/Planning
Source of Funds: ESG/CDBG/HOME/Redevelopment/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Since 2006, 89 special needs units have been
completed and include:
• Diamond Street – 24 units
• Integrity House – 49 units
• Colette’s Children’s Home – 4 units
• Casa Del Sol – 4 units
• Mariposa Village – 8 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-11
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Production Strategy 1I: Implementation of The Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan
During this planning period, the City will continue to implement The Platinum
Triangle Master Land Use Plan and coordinate with developers proposing
projects in this area in an effort to further encourage the production of high
density housing. The Platinum Triangle represents an opportunity to replace an
older industrial area with a dynamic mixed-use development district including
higher density housing, residential-serving retail and amenities and
employment-generating commercial/office uses. The Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan was developed in conjunction with the General Plan Update in
2004 and currently allows for development of up to 10,266 residential units
within the 393 acres of The Platinum Triangle that are designated for mixed-
use.
Prior to the adoption of the master land use plan, no residential development
was permitted within this area. Development intensities are allocated to
individual properties on a first come basis through the approval of a
development agreement. Since the creation of the Master Land Use Plan, 8,370
residential units have been entitled for development at an average density of 67
dwelling units per acre. Of these 8,370 entitled units; 390 units have been built;
1,530 units are under construction; applications for building permits for 196
units have been submitted but not yet been issued; and, 6,249 units have
been approved through development agreements, but have yet to start
construction or submit for building permits.
The development agreements approved in conjunction with these projects do
Implementation of the Platinum Triangle Master
Land Use Plan continues with 1,920 residential
units completed and an additional 6,543 units
entitled to date. In addition, during the 2006 -2014
planning period, the City Council has approved
amendments to the plan to increase the number of
residential units permitted within this area from
9,825 residential units to up to 18,988 residential
units at densities of up to 100 units/acre.
The following apartment projects in the Platinum
Triangle provided affordable rental opportunities at
80 percent and 120 percent of area median income
without affordable covenants consisting of 1,213
units:
• Park Viridian Apartments – 320 units
• Avalon Anaheim Stadium Apartments – 221
units
• Gateway/Archstone Apartments – 316 units
• 1818 Platinum Triangle Apartments – 265
units
• Anavia Apartments – 91 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-12
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
not set minimum rents or sale prices for these developments and, therefore, do
not preclude the development of units affordable to moderate and low-income
families. In addition, all of the City’s programs that encourage affordable
housing can be utilized within The Platinum Triangle, including but not limited
to, Redevelopment Agency set-aside funds; HOME program funds; the Density
Bonus and Senior Citizens' Apartment Housing ordinances; developer
incentives, including land write-downs and predevelopment loans/grants; down
payment assistance programs; Section 8 programs; deferral of City
development fees; exemption of Transportation and Impact Fees for Affordable
Housing Developments; and, subsidies for tax credit projects.
Amendments to the General Plan and Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
will likely be pursued to allow additional development intensity in response
to anticipated market demand.
Objective: Implementation of The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2024
Housing Production Strategy 1J: Development of Housing Information
Clearinghouse
The City understands that disseminating information about housing and housing
related items in Anaheim will increase awareness and participation by the
community. Through its Housing Counseling Agency, the City has been able to
provide assistance to 5,135 individuals since 1999, and provide affordable
The Community Development Department
continues to use citywide public forums to conduct
community outreach, including the four
Neighborhood Councils and the Downtown
Taskforce.
In April 2012, the Anaheim Housing Counseling
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-13
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
housing information to approximately 1,800 individuals through its annual
Homeownership Fair. To disseminate affordable housing information to a
wider audience, the City shall establish an information clearinghouse accessible
to the general public that provides a “one stop” location for comprehensive
information about Anaheim’s housing projects, programs, policies, available
funding, technical assistance, and other applicable items. In addition to
consolidating information, the City will employ a “go to them” strategy by
placing information in easily accessible locations including the City’s website,
public facilities, at public events and at locations community members frequent.
The Community Development Department and the Housing Authority are
currently in the process of placing an inventory of affordable housing units and
housing authority applications on-line.
Objective: Facilitate Dissemination of Information
Responsible Party: Community Development/Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund/Housing Authority/ Redevelopment
Timeline for Implementation: Establish outreach strategy and develop
implementation plan and promotional materials by January 2010
Agency (AHCA) discontinued these services due to
staff and funding reductions. However, Anaheim
residents are still able to obtain housing counseling
through the Anaheim office of the Neighborhood
Housing Services of Orange County.
The Community Development Department
continues to maintain and improve various outreach
programs to promote the City’s affordable housing
programs. The Community Development
Department has developed an Outreach/Resources
Guide to serve as a tool for staff and a housing
services resource for Anaheim residents.
The Community Development Department uses
several citywide public forums to conduct
community outreach. These forums are a great
information sharing resource and provide an
invaluable tool for City staff and affordable housing
developers to promote affordable housing. These
forums include:
Public Forums
• East Neighborhood Council
• West Neighborhood Council
• South Neighborhood Council
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-14
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
• Central Neighborhood Council
• Downtown Taskforce
The Community Development Department also
conducts housing program outreach though internal
and external methods as follows:
Signage
• Downtown Affordable Housing and Future
Development Promotional Banners
• “Live Two Feet Away” Billboards
• Homeownership Education Fair Banners
• Free Foreclosure Prevention Workshop
Banners
• Advertisement at Various City Facilities
Publications
• Anaheim Magazine
• Economic Development-Residential
Opportunities
• “Live Two Feet Away” Fliers
• Local Newspaper Advertisement
• Homeownership Education Fliers
• Affordable Housing Fliers
• Housing Navigator Newsletter
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-15
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Anticipated Future Resources
• Promotional Materials Booth at Local
Farmers Market
• Community Center Promotional Materials
• Promotional Materials Provided at Gas
Company Customer Lobby
• Promotional Materials at Local City
Libraries
• Channel 3 - Anaheim’s Local Cable
Television Channel
Housing Production Strategy 1K: Support for Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDOs)
Each year the City of Anaheim receives a funding allocation from the HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME). Historically, the City’s HOME
allocation has been approximately $2 million per year; the allocation for FY
2008-2009 is $2,026,743. Per the HOME program regulations, a minimum of
15 percent of HOME funds must be allocated to qualified Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a non-profit community
based organization with the capacity to develop affordable housing within the
community it serves. Only projects in which the CHDO acts as a developer,
sponsor or owner of housing are eligible to receive a part of the 15 percent
HOME fund allocation. In FY 2008-2009, the amount of HOME funds
allocated for CHDOs is $315,000. The Community Development Department
has partnered with many non-profits and CHDOs in the past to develop
Each year the City of Anaheim receives a funding
allocation from the HOME Investment Partnership
Program (HOME). Each year the allocation has
steadily declined. In 2012, the City of Anaheim
received a funding allocation from the HOME
Investment Partnership of $296,659 to be made
available to CHDOs organizations.
In 2012, no projects were identified for funding.
In 2011, the Community Development Department
provided eight Project Based Vouchers and a loan
in the amount of $510,736 to Community Housing
Resources, Inc. (CHRI), a qualified CHDO, for the
acquisition and rehabilitation of an 8-unit apartment
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-16
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
affordable projects, and will continue to do so on future projects.
Objective: Provide funds to qualified CHDOs for affordable unit production
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
property (Mariposa Village) for special needs
housing. In addition, 48 Project Based Vouchers
were provided and loan in the amount of $315,000
to Anaheim Supportive Housing for Senior Adults,
a qualified CHDO for the Integrity House
rehabilitation project.
In 2010, the Department provided four Project
Based Vouchers and a loan in the amount of
$398,875 to CHRI for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of a 4-unit apartment complex (Casa
Del Sol) for special needs housing.
Housing Production Strategy 1L: Developer Incentives Program
This program offers developer incentives to promote housing development.
Some of the incentives under the Developer Incentives Program are funded
with HOME and Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside funds. Incentives and
concessions offered to developers to offset increased costs associated with the
affordable housing program requirements include: funding of development
fees; write downs of land costs; long-term ground leases of public property;
pre-development loans/grants; funding of off-site improvements; bond
financing; density bonus incentives; and assistance with tax credit applications.
Current housing production projections indicate that the Developer Incentive
Program will help create approximately 1,800 new affordable housing units
through 2014.
The Community Development Department has
assisted affordable housing developers by providing
subsidy loans, long-term ground leases and
miscellaneous rebates/fee credits to help offset total
development costs.
Due to the elimination of Redevelopment Set-Aside
funds are no longer available.
The City is continuing the Developer Incentive
Program on a smaller scale without the availability
of RDA Housing Set-Aside Funds. No funds were
committed in 2012.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-17
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Developer incentives are primarily supplied through land write downs and
ground leases of Agency owned properties. Approximately $60 million of land
acquisition has occurred in the past seven years, much of which is currently
under development or will be developed within the current planning cycle.
Objective: Financial Incentives for Developers (based on available funds) to
create 1,800 new affordable housing units
Responsible Party: Community Development/Agency/ Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD/Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
In 2011, the Community Development Department
committed or expended the following assistance:
Mariposa Village
• 8 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $1,701,360 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $510,736 HOME CHDO loan
Cherry Orchard
• 44 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $5,301,900 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $5,751,682 in land/site preparation cost
savings
• $191,030 in rebates/fee credits
In 2010, the Community Development Department
committed or expended the following assistance:
Casa Del Sol
• 4 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $570,240 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $398,875 loan
Vintage Crossings (South Street)
• 91 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-18
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
approximately $11,529,942 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $6,503,445 in land/site preparation cost
savings
• $786,606 in rebates/fee credits
Other assistance provided to developers in 2010
consisted of $6,700,000 in down payment assistance
for first time low-income buyers for the Colony
Park Phase III and Anaheim Boulevard residential
development projects.
In 2009, the Community Development Department
committed or expended the following assistance:
Lincoln Anaheim
• 100 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $14,744,575 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $6,950,326 in land/site preparation cost
savings
• $1,163,169 in rebates/fee credits
Manchester/Orangewood
• 72 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $11,062,115 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-19
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
• $7,934,860 in land/site preparation cost
savings
Greenleaf Apartments
• $254,317 in land cost savings
• $199,036 in rebates/fee credits
• $613,000 loan
Collette’s Children’s Home
• $530,000 loan
Integrity House
• 48 Project Based Vouchers consisting of
approximately $4,024,247 in rent payments
over a 15-year period
• $315,000 loan
Other assistance provided to developers in 2009
consisted of $4,571,000 in down payment assistance
for first time low-income buyers, most of which
was allocated to the Colony Park Development.
Housing Production Strategy 1M: American Dream Down Payment
Initiative (ADDI)
The American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI) aims to increase
homeownership rates for lower income households, and to revitalize and
stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers by providing
assistance with down payment and closing costs. The ADDI program shall
During the 2006-2014 planning period, ADDI funds
were allocated and loans were made as follows:
2006 – None
2007 – Allocated: $287,000 / loans: 11
2008 – Allocated: $156,000 / loans: 5
2009 – Funding was not available in 2009. The
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-20
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
provide for down payment/closing cost assistance not to exceed the greater of 6
percent of the purchase price of a single-family housing unit or $10,000. ADDI
offers a 3 percent simple interest rate and the monthly payments are deferred
for up to 30 years. To promote the availability of the ADDI program, the City
will include information, including application requirements, as part of the
Housing Information Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy 1J). The
BEGIN Down-payment Assistance Program was added as a new affordable
housing down-payment assistance program.
Objective: 6 Low Income Families ($125,000/year)
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Department of Housing and Urban Development
terminated this program.
2010 – Program no longer exists.
BEGIN (New Down-payment Assistance Program)
2006 – 3 households
2007 – 6 households
2008 – 16 households
2009 – 16 households
2010 – 36 households
2011 – 20 households
2012 – 21 households
Housing Production Strategy 1N: Second Mortgage Assistance Program
(SMAP)
The Second Mortgage Assistance Program (SMAP), funded with housing set-
aside funds, provides deferred payment second mortgage loans to assist
households who earn up to 120 percent of the area median income to purchase a
home. This loan program offers a five percent simple interest rate, and monthly
loan payments are deferred up to 30 years. The loans are available for up to 15
percent of the home value, not to exceed $50,000. This amount was later
revised to $125,000 as gap financing for low-income households only and
$100,000 for moderate-income households. Homebuyers are required to
provide a minimum 3 percent down payment plus closing costs and repayment
includes an equity sharing formula.
SMAP (Second Mortgage Assistance Program)
2006 – 9 households
2007 – 8 households
2008 – 39 households
2009 – 31 households
2010 – 24 households
2011 – 17 households
2012 – 26 households
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-21
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Redevelopment Set-Aside funding no longer available. This will now be
funded by the Recognized Obligations Payment Schedule (ROPS) pending
State approval of contract commitment to the Colony Park development.
Objective: 90 households
Responsible Party: Redevelopment Agency
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside/Recognized Obligations Payment
Schedule (ROPS)
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Housing Production Strategy 1O: HOME Homebuyer Program
The HOME Homebuyer Program provides deferred payment second mortgage
loans to assist low income households in purchasing a home. This loan program
offers a 3 percent simple interest rate and monthly loan payments are deferred
for up to 30 years. Homebuyers are required to provide a minimum of 3
percent down payment. To promote the availability of the HOME Program
Down Payment Assistance Program, the City will include information,
including application requirements, as part of the Housing Information
Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy 1J).
Objective: 108 households
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
HOME Homebuyer Program (deferred payment
second mortgage loans)
2007 – 2 households
2008 – 10 households
2009 – 8 households
2010 – 6 households
2011 – 1 household
2012 – 0 households
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-22
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Production Strategy 1P: Police Residence Assistance
This program was designed to encourage homeownership for Anaheim police
officers so that they can reside in Anaheim. Through this program, the City
provides one-time, no interest forgivable loans of up to $10,000 to Anaheim
police officers for purchase of an owner-occupied home within the City.
Objective: 36 households
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Police Residence Assistance (forgivable loans)
2006 – 4 households
2007 – 1 household
2008 – 3 households
2009 – 3 households
2010 – 0 households
2011 – 0 households
2012 – 0 households
Housing Production Strategy 1Q: Compliance with SB 2- Adequate Sites
for Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing
Pursuant to the provisions of SB 2, the City shall analyze and amend the Zoning
Code (Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to allow for emergency
shelters and transitional and supportive housing to homeless individuals and
families for annual and seasonally estimated need. The City will comply with
SB 2 by:
• Considering amendments to the Commercial General (C-G) and Industrial
(I) zoning provisions, or other suitable zone designations with sufficient
capacity, to permit emergency shelters without discretionary approvals.
The subject zoning category(s) shall include sites with sufficient capacity
to meet the local need. Local need will be determined based on the
methodology provided by HCD.
• Amending the zoning code to ensure shelters are only subject to the same
The City Council approved a code amendment to
permit emergency shelters in the City’s Industrial
(I) Zone subject to specified standards. A code
amendment addressing transitional and supportive
housing was adopted in September 2013 (Ordinance
No. 6289).
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-23
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
development and management standards that apply to residential or
commercial uses within the same zone.
• Amending the zoning code to permit transitional and supportive housing as
a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other
residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Quantified Objective: Compliance with SB 2
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Compliance by June 2010
Housing Production Strategy 1R: Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
The AHP offers down payment assistance in the form of a grant to low income
first-time homebuyers. The grant is awarded by the Federal Home Loan bank
only for the purchase of a new affordable housing unit.
Objective: 12 households
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Federal Tax Credits/County of Orange
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Funding for AHP is currently not available.
None funded during this period.
Housing Production Strategy 1S: Housing Enabled by Local Partnerships
(HELP) Program
The HELP Program, which is funded by CalHFA and administered by the
Anaheim Housing Authority, offers loans up to $25,000 to homeowners earning
(HELP) Housing Enabled by Local Partnerships
Program
2006 – 3 households assisted
2007 – 2 households assisted
2008 – 25 households assisted
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-24
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
less than 80 percent of the County Median Family Income. Loans are provided
at 3 percent simple interest, fully deferred for 10 years. HELP Program funds
are received on a project basis.
Objective: 18 Households
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: Cal HFA
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
2009 – 16 households assisted
2010 – Program discontinued
2011 – Program discontinued
2012 – Program discontinued
Housing Production Strategy 1T: Housing Stabilization Program
The Housing Stabilization Program provides assistance to households facing
foreclosure through the Anaheim Housing Counseling Agency by making
referrals to appropriate agencies that can help restructure loan terms and/or
provide financial assistance. The Agency anticipates high demand for this
program due to the nationwide increase in home foreclosures.
Recent passage of HR3221 will provide $4 billion in emergency assistance
(CDBG funds) nationwide to communities hardest hit by the foreclosure and
subprime crisis to purchase foreclosed homes, at a discount, and rehabilitate or
redevelop the homes to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the significant losses
in home values. Funds will be allocated at the local level and localities will be
required to expend the funds within an 18-month period. Anaheim received
$2.6 million and is currently establishing its local program. There are currently
an estimated 1,205 homes in foreclosure and an additional 1,054 in pre-
foreclosure as of September 23, 2008.
In 2009, the first year funding was available, the
Housing Counseling Agency referred 332
households facing foreclosure in the City to
appropriate Agencies that help restructure loan
terms and/or provide financial assistance.
Four households were assisted in the purchase of a
foreclosed home using Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP) funds in 2009 (801 N. La Reina
Circle, 131 S. Connie Street, 1510 E. Cedar
Avenue, 1312 N. Columbine, and 512 N. Bush).
One household was assisted using NSP funds in
2010.
Additionally, in 2010, the Community Development
Department purchased a 4-unit apartment complex
located at 833 S. Dakota Street for rehabilitation
and conversion to affordable housing for extremely-
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-25
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Foreclosed and rehabilitated homes would be sold or rented to moderate income
individuals and families, whose income do not exceed 120 percent of the area
median income. At least 25 percent of the funds would be targeted to house
low income and very-low income persons and families, whose incomes do not
exceed 50 percent of area median income. Any profit from the sale, rental,
rehabilitation or redevelopment of these properties must be reinvested in
affordable housing and neighborhood stabilization.
Objective: 200 referrals
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
low income families.
In 2011, 12 households were assisted in the
purchase a foreclosed home using NSP funds at the
Harbor Lofts town home development.
2012 – Anaheim did not qualify for NSP funding
after first round.
Housing Production Strategy 1U: Land Acquisition and Write Downs
The City recognizes that limited availability and high cost of land can have a
direct effect on project feasibility. Historically, the Agency has relied on an
aggressive land acquisition strategy to provide viable sites for affordable
development. Of the affordable multi-family developments in the current
production pipeline, eleven of the sites were acquired by the Agency, totaling
38.43 acres and 1,355 units. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency shall
continue its land acquisition policies and shall work towards the acquisition of
up to 10 acres of land (aggregate) to facilitate the development of affordable
housing. Funds for the acquisitions will come from the $14.4 million in annual
housing set-aside funds.
In addition to land acquisition, the Agency looks for opportunities to partner
Since 2006, the Community Development
Department has acquired 11 properties, totaling
approximately 20 acres, for the development of
affordable housing. Between 2007 and 2009 the
Community Development Department provided
land in the form of ground leases to the developers
of affordable housing at The Vineyard, Monarch
Pointe, Diamond Street, Greenleaf and Pradera
Apartments (Lincoln Anaheim CHOC). These
properties consisted of 13.7 acres and $17,084,662
in land cost savings to developers.
In 2011, the Community Development Department
entered into two additional ground leases consisting
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-26
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
with housing developers and assist with the development of affordable housing
units. Land write-downs, in the form of a long-term ground lease, is one way in
which the Agency has been able to ensure affordable housing development. In
addition, the Agency has worked with developers to apply for and receive low
income tax credits to assist with the financing of affordable developments.
Objective: 10 Acres
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
of 5 acres and $11,975,501 in land cost savings to
the developers of Vintage Crossings (South Street)
and Cherry Orchard.
In 2012, the Community Development Department
acquired four properties and entered into a ground
lease consisting of 29,378 square feet and
$2,365,000 in land cost saving to the developer
(Avon Dakota).
Housing Production Strategy 1V: Rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites
Appendix B-3: Opportunity Sites, identifies properties that are designated for
residential land uses by the General Plan and have strong development or
redevelopment potential to accommodate housing affordable to moderate and
lower income households. However, the underlying zoning designation of
these properties varies and many are not properly zoned to accommodate
residential development at this time. For example, some sites are zoned for,
and occupied by, commercial or industrial land uses although they are
designated for future residential use by the General Plan. The goal of this
Strategy is to develop an approach allowing “by-right” residential development
of these sites in a manner that is consistent with the density allowed by their
current General Plan designation. Properties that are City-owned, including
those owned by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or Anaheim Housing
Authority, can simply be reclassified to a zone that will allow “by–right”
development at a density consistent with the General Plan designation. This
The Residential Overlay Zone code amendment was
adopted by the City Council in October 2011 and
the sites were rezoned in September 2013
(Resolution No. 2013-150, Ordinance No. 6287 and
Ordinance No. 6288).
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-27
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
approach is appropriate for sites in which residential development is imminent
and there is no desire to retain existing commercial or industr ial uses on the
site. For all other sites, an overlay zone will be applied that will provide the
opportunity to develop “by right” housing consistent with the density permitted
by the property’s General Plan designation. The City has successfully utilized
overlay zones to promote residential development in areas such as South
Anaheim Boulevard and The Platinum Triangle.
Objective:
Rezoning of Opportunity Sites
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: June 2010
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2A: Monitoring and
Preservation of “At-Risk” Units
To ensure the continued provision of affordable units, provide for regular
monitoring of over 2,200 deed-restricted units. Of these units, 272 have been
identified in this Housing Element that have the potential of converting to
market-rate during the planning period. Provide for targeted outreach to
owners of these units to encourage the extension and/or renewal of deed
restrictions and/or covenants.
In order to proactively address units at -risk of conversion, the City shall
develop a program to partner with non-profit housing providers and develop a
preservation strategy. The preservation strategy will allow the City to act
The Community Development Department
continues its ongoing monitoring of At-Risk units.
In 2008, the Community Development Department
extended the affordability term of the 180-unit Bel’
Age Manor senior apartment project. The
Community Development Department continues to
explore the preservation of the 180-unit Miracle
HUD Senior Apartment Project to extend the
affordability term of the project. The owner’s HUD
236 Contract is set to expire in 2013. The
Community Development Department will continue
to identify and preserve the other 236 HUD units
whose terms will be expiring.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-28
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
quickly if and when notice of conversion is received. As part of the strategy, the
City shall ensure compliance with noticing requirements; conduct tenant
education and pursue funding to preserve the units.
Objective: Continual monitoring of all assisted units with focused effort on 272
at-risk units.
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
The Community Development Department also
continues to monitor the 2,595 units in its
affordable rental housing stock.
The City of Anaheim is also continuing to explore
rehabilitation of the Heritage Park Apartments, a
94-unit senior housing project and the extension of
the affordability covenants for the Anaheim
Memorial Manor, a 75-unit senior housing project
with affordability convents set to expire in 2014.
The Community Development Department
continues to explore the preservation of “At Risk”
units. No projects were processed in 2012.
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2B: Conservation of
Existing Historic Resources
Continue to provide guidelines, strategies and incentives for the conservation of
existing historic resources through the City’s Historic Housing Preservation
Rebate and Mills Act Programs. Provide outreach to residents within the City’s
Historic Districts and owners of historic properties outside of these districts via
print media, the City’s website and other media to inform them of the Mills Act
tax and rebate program benefits.
The Redevelopment Agency has assisted in the preservation of 19 historic
2006 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 47
Rebates: 16 rebates
2007 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 28
Rebates: 19 rebates
2008 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 20
Rebates: 14 rebates
2009 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 17
Rebates: 25 rebates
2010 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 14
Rebates: 5 rebates
2011 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 9
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-29
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
structures. The City recently established “Heritage Park,” which will preserve
2 additional historic structures.
Objective: 60 Mills Act contracts, 10 Rebates
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annual
Rebates: 4 rebates
2012 – Mills Act Contracts Recorded: 9
Rebates: 0 (Rebates discontinued)
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based
Neighborhood Enhancement
Continue to encourage the involvement of neighborhood-based groups in the
conservation, preservation and enhancement of neighborhood quality of life.
Efforts will focus on community participation related to planning activities,
strategies and programs that directly address quality of life in Anaheim’s
neighborhoods. The City will continue focused outreach efforts, through a
variety of marketing techniques (e.g., website, informational flyers, meetings,
etc.) to inform residents of opportunities to better their existing neighborhoods.
Objective: Community Participation
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Development/ Police/Community
Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Establish outreach strategy and develop
implementation plan by January 2010
The City of Anaheim’s Neighborhood Improvement
Program (NIP) is a strong collaboration between
City departments to share ideas and resources to
improve Anaheim neighborhoods. The NIP has
helped create a strong partnership between the City
and other neighborhood stakeholders (residents,
property owners, school officials, business
community, faith community, non-profit
organizations) to improve neighborhoods.
The following projects have been completed
through the NIP:
2012
• Orangewood Avenue – Speed
feedback/radar sign relocation
• Nohl Ranch Road –Speed feedback/radar
sign relocation
• Rose/Bush/Vine – Neighborhood parking
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-30
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
plan (one way traffic calming & street re-
striping)
• Guinida Lane neighborhood – Installment of
speed lumps
• Camino Pinzon neighborhood – Installment
of speed lumps
• Old Bridge neighborhood – Installment of
speed lumps
• Installment of 20 infill street light projects
• Beach Boulevard – Street safety and signage
project
• Neighborhood clean ups: 38 total
In addition to the projects above, the following
projects are in design or are under construction:
• Miraloma Park and Community Center –
Site construction documents
• Installment of 24 infill street light projects
• Rose/Bush/Vine Neighborhood Concept
Plan
• Chain/Gain – Arterial street closure
2011
• Guinida Lane – Neighborhood street light
project
• Partnered with Public Works to improve
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-31
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
street and alley conditions in various
neighborhoods
• Partnered with Utilities to upgrade street
lights in various neighborhoods
• Corners of Wilhelmina Street/Resh Street &
Wilhelmina Street/Pine Street –
Construction of ADA access ramps
• Sequoia Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street
– Construction of sidewalk
• Center Street – Crosswalk improvement in
front of the Senior Center
• Avon/Dakota neighborhood – Street slurry
seal rehabilitation project
• Acquisition of 4 buildings in the
Avon/Dakota neighborhood for
rehabilitation and creation of affordable
rental housing.
2010
• Julianna Park improvements to deter crime
• Acquisition of the Miraloma property in the
Park Lane neighborhood for park and
community center development
• Guinida Lane neighborhood – Street light
project
• Improve street and alley conditions in
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-32
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
various neighborhoods
• Upgrade street lights in various
neighborhoods
2009
• Miraloma Avenue – Construction of a
sidewalk and landscape beautification
• Lemon/La Palma – Traffic calming project
• 18 Street/alley lighting projects, which
included the installation of 74 lights
• Rio Vista/Jackson neighborhood – Street
light project
• Frontera Street – Landscaping project
• Partnered with Parks Division to install
playground equipment at Rio Vista Park
• Thornton-Brady neighborhood – Installation
of new flood channel gates
• Purchase and installation of 8 street speed
radar units
As part of the NIP, the City of Anaheim conducts a
variety of community outreach events/programs
including:
• Neighborhood Council Newsletter
• Anaheim Religious Community Council
meetings
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-33
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
• Partnerships with schools to hold
Neighborhood Council meetings
• Neighborhood cleanups: 32 in 2011
• Participated in the Anaheim Community
Anti-Graffiti Effort
• Participated in the Anaheim Complete
Count Committee for the 2010 US Census
• Participated in the Mayor’s “Hi Neighbor”
initiative
• Assisted with “Adopt-A-Neighborhood”
graffiti removal events
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2D: Neighborhood
Improvement Program
Continue the identification and mitigation of substandard units and properties
exhibiting deferred maintenance through the Neighborhood Improvement
Program. Focus efforts on the mitigation of substandard conditions through the
proactive identification and prioritization of neighborhoods exhibiting
significant blight. Identify opportunities to acquire substandard rental
properties, rehabilitate the buildings and establish long-term affordability
covenants. Focus effort on “Level III and IV” neighborhoods identified through
the Neighborhood Improvement Program. “Level III” neighborhoods are
characterized by moderate to substantial decline. “Level IV” neighborhoods are
characterized by severe social, economic and physical decline. The City
understands the Level III neighborhoods may advance to Level IV status if
As described in the “Housing Conservation and
Preservation Strategy 2C: Community-Based
Neighborhood Enhancement” item above, several
neighborhood improvement plans and efforts are
underway to mitigate substandard housing in the
City most challenged neighborhoods.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-34
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
proactive efforts are not undertaken. Level III and Level IV neighborhoods are
further described in Chapter 2.
Objective: Mitigation of substandard units
Responsible Party: Planning/ Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund/ HUD
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Housing Conservation and Preservation Strategy 2E: Relocation and
Preservation of Historic Homes
Continue to provide guidelines, strategies and incentives for the preservation
and rehabilitation of existing historic homes through the City’s Historic
Relocation and Preservation Program. The Lemon-Water historic development
was developed under the program and included the relocation and rehabilitation
of 7 historic homes. A third phase of the Lemon-Water development is
planned, which will relocate and rehabilitate 11 additional historic structures.
Objective: 20 Historic Homes
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Redevelopment Funds
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
2006 – 0 homes
2007 – 1 home (211 N. Olive Street)
2008 – 3 homes (Center Street)
2009 – 9 homes (Water Street/Stueckle Avenue)
2010 – 0 homes
2011 – 0 homes
2012 – 0 homes
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3A: Sustainable Development/Green
Building
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of limited resources and
In 2012, Vintage Crossings (South Street
Apartments) received USGBC LEED Platinum
certification.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-35
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
embraces the concept of “green building” in new and existing housing
development and neighborhoods. The City’s Green Building Program provides
for expedited plan check, fee waivers and technical assistance for projects
participating in the Green Building Program. To encourage “green building”
practices in new and existing residential development, the City shall continue
its efforts in providing financial assistance to projects meeting US Green
Building Council’s LEED certification standards and Build it Green guidelines.
The City shall continually analyze current trends and best practices and provide
a program of incentives that will facilitate and encourage the incorporation of
materials and technology that promote the development of high-efficiency,
sustainable buildings and neighborhoods.
Objective: Increased sustainable building practices
Responsible Party: Public Utilities/Planning
Source of Funds: Public Benefits Fund/General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually as funds are available
In 2011, six projects received funding for achieving
Green Building certification/rating or installing
solar energy systems. Colony Developers completed
five single family homes on in-fill parcels; each
home received California Build It Green rating.
Pradera Apartments, completed at the end of 2010,
received funding for achieving California Build It
Green and also received a rebate for the installation
of a 20 kilowatt solar energy system. A solar energy
system was also installed at the Greenleaf
Apartment complex which will receive funding in
2012.
Three projects received certifications in 2010. The
Crossing at Anaheim (312 units) and Park Veridian
Apartments (320 units) each received USGBC
LEED New Construction – Gold rating and three
single family homes in The Colony development
received California Build-it Green rating. The
Pradera Apartments and Greenleaf Apartments,
projects completed in late 2010, have applied under
Anaheim City Utilities Build-It-Green and Photo-
voltaic System Programs.
In 2008, the Broadway Village affordable housing
project obtained a Green Building certification
under the Anaheim City Utilities Build-It-Green
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-36
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Program.
In 2007, the Vineyard Apartment project installed
energy reduction measures through the City’s
Utilities Department Photo-voltaic System Program.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3B: Efficient use of Energy
Resources in Residential Development
Encourage residential developers/builders to maximize energy conservation
through proactive site, building and building systems design, materials and
equipment to maximize energy efficiency that exceed the provisions of Title 24
of the California Building Code. The City shall continue to implement the
Home Incentives Program and provide for the purchase of Energy Star-rated
appliances, other energy-saving appliances and conservation measures. To
further promote efficient use of energy resources, the City shall investigate the
feasibility and effectiveness of offering incentives or other strategies to further
encourage energy conservation.
Objective: Energy conservation
Responsible Party: Public Utilities
Source of Funds: Public Benefits Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Annually as funds are available
In 2012, the Public Utilities Department provided
incentives for Affordable Housing units that exceed
Title 24 requirements and meet or exceed Energy
Star energy efficiency criteria. The following
projects implemented energy-saving methods:
1. Colony Park – 20 affordable housing units
were completed and the home design
included Energy Star Dishwashers, ceiling
fans, and over 2,100 sq. ft. of low-e, dual
pane high performance windows
2. Mariposa Village – 8 units were upgraded
with Energy Star low-e, dual pane high
performance windows
3. Vintage Crossings (South Street) – All 92
units received Energy Star dishwashers and
refrigerators, 304 Energy Star ceiling fans,
and over 9,100 sq. ft. of low-e, dual pane
high performance windows
These three projects (totaling 120 units) resulted in
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-37
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
90 kW and 116,321 kWh in annual energy savings.
The Public Utilities Department also issued
incentives to residential customers in existing
homes where Energy Star appliances were installed
and high efficiency conservation measures were
taken.
Under the City’s Utilities Department Public
Benefits Program, the following projects received
rebates for use of Energy Star appliances and other
energy reduction measures which meet or exceed
Title 24 requirements:
• Manchester – 2011
• Greenleaf Apartments – 2010
• Lincoln Anaheim (CHOC) – 2010
• Diamond Street – 2008
• Broadway Village – 2008
• Hermosa Village IV – 2008
• The Vineyard – 2007
• Hermosa Village III – 2007
• Hermosa Village II – 2005
In fiscal year 2010-2011 (FY10-11) (July 1, 2010 to
June 30, 2011), the Utilities Department provided
affordable housing construction incentives for low
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-38
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
income customers at four projects, including:
Colony Park, Arbor View, Greenleaf and Casa Del
Sol. A total of 133 units received energy efficiency
upgrades.
In addition, the Department provided green building
incentives for two market rate properties that
received their green building certification, including
The Crossing and Colony Park. A total of 297 units
received energy upgrades above Title 24
requirements with Energy Star appliances, dual
pane, low-e high efficiency windows and central air
conditioners.
Additionally, the Anaheim Public Utilities’ Home
Incentives progra m provides rebates and energy
savings for residential customers in existing homes.
In FY10-11, the Department issued incentives to
3,228 residential customers in the amount of
$355,551 for the installation of Energy Star
appliances and high efficiency measures. This
resulted in energy savings of 751,771 kWh and 810
kW.
The Department provided funding for
weatherization services and replacement of
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-39
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
inefficient appliances in the units that have central
electric heating or cooling.
In FY10-11, the Department provided services to
226 customers, resulting in energy savings of
127,503 kWh and 39 kW.
In FY09-10 (July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010), the
Department issued incentives of $452,845 to
residents for the installation of Energy Star
appliances and high efficiency conservation
measures (included in the total expenditure was
$108,705 in American Recovery and
Reinvenstments Act (ARRA) stimulus funding).
During FY09-10, 3,008 customers participated in
the program, achieving 688 kW demand savings
and 1,066,906 kWh in energy savings. The
measures the participants implemented include:
installation of Energy Star clothes washers,
dishwashers, refrigerators, room air conditioners,
central air conditioners, ceiling fans, windows, as
well as high efficiency attic fans, pool pump
motors, whole house fans and air duct
repair/replacement.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-40
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3C: Adopt Reasonable
Accommodation Procedures
The City understands the importance of providing equal housing opportunity
for persons with special needs. Persons with disabilities may require
reasonable accommodations to meet their particular housing needs. To comply
with federal and state housing laws, the City will analyze existing land use
controls, building codes, and permit and processing procedures to determine
constraints they impose on the development, maintenance, and improvement of
housing for persons with disabilities. Based on its findings, the City will
develop a policy for reasonable accommodation to provide relief from Code
regulations and permitting procedures that may have a discriminatory effect on
housing for individuals with disabilities. The policy shall include procedures
for requesting accommodation, timeline for processing and appeals, criteria for
determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable, and ministerial
approval for minor requests.
Objective: Adopt Policy/Procedures
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: June 2010
Completed: Procedures for reasonable
accommodation were incorporated into the zoning
code in April 2011 (Ordinance No.6206).
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3D: Universal Design
The City recognizes that all people have varying abilities and that many people
will encounter temporary or permanent changes in ability to conduct the tasks
necessary for daily living throughout their lives. Universal Design features
Universal Design guidelines were created in 2012
and are available on the City’s website to guide the
design and construction of homes to incorporate
features that are usable by people of all abilities.
These features help to create housing that can allow
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-41
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
create housing suited for people of all abilities and can allow residents to stay in
their homes over their lifetime. The City shall explore programs and incentives
to encourage provision of Universal Design features in housing.
Objective: Explore programs and incentives for Universal Design
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: December 2010
residents to stay in their homes over their lifetime
and create living environments that are safer and
more accessible for everyone.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3E: Child Care
The City understands that finding adequate and convenient child care is critical
to maintaining quality of life for many households in Anaheim. The City
currently allows child day care centers in residential and commercial zones,
subject to a conditional use permit. The City also allows large family day care
centers by right. In addition, the City’s Zoning Code provides density bonuses
and incentives for the inclusion of child care facilities in affordable housing
projects.
To reduce constraints to and encourage adequate child care facilities, the City
will review the Zoning Code and implement appropriate revisions.
Objective: Review and Revision of Zoning Code
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: December 2010
Several meetings and discussions have taken place
with various child care interest groups and ways by
which to streamline the City’s childcare permit
process have been identified. In September 2013,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6286
which significantly eased the siting restrictions for
large family day care homes.
The following affordable projects included
childcare and early head start programs:
• Pradera Apartments
• Vintage Crossings
• Hermosa Village (Children’s Educational
Programs)
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-42
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3F: Parks and Open Space
The Green Element of Anaheim’s General Plan is a comprehensive plan to add
more green areas throughout the City and enhance its natural and recreational
resources. Parks and open space are important factors that contribute to
Anaheim residents’ quality of life. As the City’s population grows and vacant
land becomes scarce, the City will need to continue to explore creative
opportunities to provide quality parks and open space for Anaheim residents.
To identify these opportunities, the City will review the Green Element and
make any necessary revisions or updates to provide opportunities to enhance
and/or add to the City’s inventory and typology of parks and open space.
Objective: Update General Plan Green Element
Responsible Party: Planning/Community Services
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: June 2010
The City implements and amends the Green
Element of the General Plan through ongoing
planning processes. Since the adoption of the 2006-
2014 Housing Element, the City has added new
parks, identified new park areas, and is working on
programs to improve access and availability for
outdoor access.
Specific parks and open space projects, and their
current status, include:
• Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan – City
Council approved in May 2013
• Founders Park – Complete
• Mira Loma Park and Community Center –
Construction bids expected in Summer 2013
• Anaheim Coves – Complete
• Expansion of Ponderosa Park – Starting
design Spring 2013
• Public park in Colony Park – Complete
• Circle Park – Add 0.2 acre pocket park to
system – Under design
• Olive Hills Park – Expand with a dog use
area – Under study
• 5 Coves – Northern extension of Anaheim
Coves – Grant application pending
• Nohl Ranch Road east of Canyon Library -
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-43
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Development of new park – Under study
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3G: Community Design
The Community Design Element of Anaheim’s General Plan provides policy
for the City’s built environment. This element addresses community-wide
design features such as gateways, streets and public signage, as well as special
policies for specific districts within the City. These policies are implemented
by the Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Municipal Code), as well as by several
topic or area specific design guidelines/plans such as the Affordable Housing
Design Guidelines; The Anaheim Colony, Vision Principles and Design
Guidelines; The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and, the Greater
Downtown of Anaheim Guide for Development. In order to ensure quality
design of our City’s neighborhoods, the City will review the Community
Design Element and recommend any necessary General Plan or Zoning Code
amendments and/or the creation/modification of design guidelines to provide
aesthetic direction for future residential development.
Objective: Provide analysis and related recommendations
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: June 2010
Planning Department staff reviewed the Community
Design Element of the General Plan and determined
that amendments were not necessary. The Element
continues to be referenced and used for housing
projects and will be updated if necessary at a future
date.
Housing Quality and Design Strategy 3H: Definition of Family
The City’s Municipal Code currently defines a Family as “An individual or a
collective body of persons, living together as a single housekeeping unit, in a
domestic relationship based upon birth, marriage or other domestic bond of
The City evaluated the current definition of family
in the Municipal Code and found that no revisions
were necessary to be consistent with State and
federal fair housing laws.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-44
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
social, economic and psychological commitments to each other, as
distinguished from a group occupying a boardinghouse, lodging house, club,
fraternity, sorority, hotel, motel, or any residential or group care facility
requiring a conditional use permit.” The City shall evaluate and amend, as
appropriate, the definition of “family” to be consistent with State and federal
fair housing laws.
Objective: Definition of “family” consistent with fair housing laws
Responsible Party: Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: June 2010
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4A: Affordable Housing Acquisition and
Rehabilitation
The City shall continue to provide, through regulatory incentives such as
expedited processing, financial incentives and development concessions, for the
acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Efforts shall be focused on
the acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion and accessibility of existing market-
rate units to affordable units. The City shall also consider the feasibility of
acquisition, rehabilitation and conversion of motels.
The City Council has approved the continued acquisition and rehabilitation of
apartment buildings in the Hermosa Village neighborhood in order to create and
expand long-term affordability. The City has continued to implement an
aggressive acquisitions program within this neighborhood. To date 518 units
have been acquired, rehabilitated and converted to long-term affordable units.
The Community Development Department
completed Integrity House in 2010, Colette’s
Children’s Home and Casa Del Sol in 2011, and
Mariposa Village in 2012 consisting of eight
extremely-low income units. In January of 2013,
construction started on the Avon Dakota consisting
of five extremely-low, 10 very-low, and one
moderate income unit. The projects are described
as follows:
• Integrity House – 48 extremely-low units
• Colette’s Children’s Home – 4 extremely-
low units
• Casa Del Sol – 4 extremely-low units
• Mariposa Village – 8 extremely-low units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-45
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
The City has commenced new acquisitions towards a possible fifth phase of
development (8 units have committed assistance, See Appendix B4), and is
analyzing the economic feasibility and tools for targeted acquisitions within
some other Level III and Level IV neighborhoods. Recently, the Agency
assisted in the rehabilitation of the Bel‘Age Manor senior housing development.
The project involved the rehabilitation of 180 affordable housing units.
Objective: 39 Very-low income units and 61 Low income units
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Housing Set-Aside
Timeline for Implementation: Complete units by July 2014
• Avon Dakota Neighborhood – 5 extremely-
low, 10 very-low, and 1 moderate unit
The Housing Authority has also acquired or is in the
process of acquiring additional properties for the
creation of affordable housing as follows:
• Hermosa Village Phase V – 5 extremely-low
and 11 low-income units
• Avon/Dakota neighborhood – 5 extremely-
low, 10 very-low, and 1 moderate unit
In 2012, the Community Development Department
implemented a Housing Rehabilitation Rebate
Program for the rehabilitation of very-low, low and
moderate income units with code violations. 47
units were rehabilitated.
The Community Development Department
completed the Hermosa Village
Acquisition/Rehabilitation Project Phases II through
IV between 2005 and 2008 consisting of the
construction of 25 extremely–low, 155 very-low,
and 44 low-income units. In 2008, the Community
Development Department also completed the
rehabilitation of the Bel’Age Manor Senior housing
project consisting of 180 very-low income units.
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-46
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4B: Rehabilitation of Single Family
Homes
The City shall continue to provide rehabilitation loans for appropriate exterior
and interior improvements that enhance the quality, safety, accessibility and
livability of existing single-family homes. The Community Development
Department shall continue to offer the CDBG, HOME and CalHome
Rehabilitation Loan Programs for households earning 80 percent or less of the
county MFI.
Objective: 120 lower income households
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: CDBG/HOME/CalHome
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
2006 – 3 lower income households
2007 – 2 lower income households
2008 – 5 lower income households
2009 – 9 lower income households
2010 – 6 lower income households
2011 – 3 lower income households
2012 – Program discontinued
Housing Rehabilitation Strategy 4C: Relocation Assistance
As and when required by law, the City shall provide financial relocation
assistance, such as payment of moving costs, for qualified tenants during City-
assisted substantial rehabilitation of residential units. Relocation can be
temporary or permanent.
Objective: Relocation assistance as needed
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: Redevelopment Funds/HOME/CDBG
Timeline for Implementation: As needed
2006 – Relocated: 76
Benefits paid: $223,569
2007 – Relocated: 36
Benefits paid: $34,000
2008 – Relocated: 27
Benefits paid: $129,518
2009 – No relocation activity
2010 – No relocation activity
2011 – No relocation activity
2012 – Relocated: 10
Benefits paid: $103,224
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-47
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5A: Local Support of Regional
Fair Housing Efforts
The Fair Housing Council of Orange County (FHCOC) and similar agencies
provide community education, individual counseling, mediation, and low-cost
advocacy with the expressed goal of eliminating housing discrimination and
guaranteeing the rights of all people irrespective of race religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, family size or disability to freely
choose the housing for which they qualify in the area they desire. The City
refers all inquiries for these services to the FHCOC and similar agencies and
maintains literature and informational brochures at City Hall available for
public distribution.
The Anaheim Housing Authority publishes Housing Choice Voucher tenant and
landlord newsletters with information regarding tenant/landlord laws and
regulations. In addition, the Authority has created a Housing Opportunities
Guide that is distributed to the Chamber of Commerce, non -profit
organizations, and social service agencies. The Authority also participates in
the annual Orange County social service forum where non-profit agencies come
together to disseminate information on affordable housing and social services.
To further outreach to the community, the City shall provide fair housing
information as part of the City’s Housing Information Clearinghouse (see
Housing Production Strategy 1J). Information will be provided in multiple
languages and through print and electronic media that may include the City’s
website, brochures and newsletters.
Objective: Allocate $100,000 annually, based on program funding availability
Responsible Party: Community Development
2006 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,988 households
2007 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,757 households
2008 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 2,050 households
2009 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,908 households
2010 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,658 households
2011 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,782 households
2012 – Allocated: $100,000
Served: 1,228 households
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-48
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5B: Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program
The Anaheim Housing Authority provides rental assistance through the Section
8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Under this program, families/individuals
whose annual income is below 50 percent of the HUD Area Median Income are
referred to this program. Participants pay approximately 30 percent of their
adjusted gross monthly income for rent. The Authority pays the remainder of
the rent directly to the property owner. Funding for the Section 8 Rental
Assistance Program is based on Congressional appropriations and is subject to
available funds.
To promote the availability of the Section 8 Rental Assistance program, the
City will include information, including application requirements, as part of the
Housing Information Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy 1J).
Quantified Objective: 5,198 Vouchers Annually
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
2006 – Allocated: 6,033
Leased:5,915 vouchers
2007 – Allocated: 6,033
Leased:5,876 vouchers
2008 – Allocated: 6,033
Leased:6,143 vouchers
2009 – Allocated: 5,198
Leased: 5,825 vouchers
2010 – Allocated: 6,033
Leased: 5,950 vouchers
2011 – Allocated: 6,033
Leased: 6,006 vouchers
2012 – Allocated: 6,133
Leased: 6,031 vouchers
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5C: Section 8 Mainstream
Housing Program Vouchers for Persons with Disabilities
This program provides Section 8 rental assistance to very-low income persons
with disabilities to enable them to rent private housing of their own in a non-
2006 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 251
2007 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 242
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-49
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
segregated environment. The Housing Authority screens its current Section 8
waiting list for disabled persons who meet the eligibility requirements for this
program. Once all of the disabled applicants on the Section 8 waiting list have
been identified and assisted, the Housing Authority seeks disabled referrals
from various local service providers. Housing Authority staff works closely
with these local service providers to ensure that Section 8 tenants are receiving
the supportive services they require in order to live independently.
Objective: 225 Vouchers
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
2008 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 215
2009 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 220
2010 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 215
2011 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 224
2012 – Allocated: 225
Leased: 211
Non-Elderly Disabled Section 8 Vouchers
2011 – Allocated: 100
Leased 100*
2012 – Allocated: 100
Leased 100*
(* New allocation for non-elderly disabled received
in 2011)
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5D: Section 8 Family Self
Sufficiency (FSS)
This program assists very-low income families in transitioning from living with
the help of public assistance to economic self-sufficiency. Participants are
required to complete a job training/education program and maintain suitable
employment. The program creates an “escrow account” for each participant and
holds money earned by participants above and beyond the income they received
when they began participating in the FSS program. An FSS tenant has an
2006 – Goal 99
Participants: 97
2007 – Goal: 98
Participants: 102
2008 – Goal: 96
Participants: 96
2009 – Goal: 90
Participants: 95
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-50
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
increase in earned income, which results in an increase in their portion of the
rent, the tenant pays the increased rent amount and holds it in an escrow
account. In order to receive the money held in the escrow account, a family
must maintain employment and be off of all public assistance (except for rental
assistance) for at least 12 months, and complete the goals outlined in their FSS
contract with the Housing Authority.
Objective: 90 participants
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
2010 – Goal: 100
Participants: 105
2011 – Goal: 100
Participants: 103
2012 – Goal: 100
Participants: 118
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5E: Section 8 Homeless
Program
Provide for Section 8 rental assistance for extremely-low and very-low income
homeless households. The Anaheim Housing Authority shall set aside vouchers
specifically for homeless households.
Objective: 91 vouchers
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
2006 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 91
2007 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 91
2008 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 91
2009 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 50
2010 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 60
2011 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 48
2012 – Allocated: 91
Leased: 44
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-51
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5F: Project Based Voucher
Program
This program provides a rental assistance voucher to a property in exchange for
the owner’s agreement to rent some or all of the housing units to Section 8
tenants and record a long-term affordability covenant on the units. New
construction units, rehabilitated units and existing housing units qualify under
this program.
Objective: 654 vouchers
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Since 2006, 422 Section 8 Project Based Vouchers
have been approved for projects that have been
leased up. 149 vouchers were processed for
approval and lease up in 2011 and 2012.
To date, the total number of Project Based
Vouchers that have been approved for affordable
housing projects is 710.
No new Project Based Vouchers were processed in
2012.
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5G: Emergency Shelter Grant
Program
The City shall utilize federal Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds to assist
people that are homeless or those who are at-risk of becoming homeless. The
City shall distribute ESG funds to non-profit organizations that provide
emergency or transitional shelter and supportive services to people that are
homeless. ESG funds are contingent upon program funding availability.
Objective: $220,000/year in Grants (estimated)
Responsible Party: Community Development
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: Annually
A total of $195,000 in funds was distributed
towards homeless assistance and prevention
activities and a total of 12,421 persons were served
by program service providers during calendar year
2011.
Other years/persons served are as follows:
2006 – Allocated $220,000 / Persons served: 4,873
2007 – Allocated $189,004 / Persons served: 4,486
2008 – Allocated: $216,938 / Persons served: 4,656
2009 – Allocated: $195,000 / Persons served:
16,883
2010 – Allocated: $180,000 / Persons served:
11,683
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-52
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
2011 – Allocated: $195,000 / Persons served:
12,421
2012 – Allocated: $210,000 / Persons served:
11,872
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5H: One-Time Rental
Assistance Program
The City uses a portion of its Emergency Shelter Grant funds to operate the
One-Time Rental Assistance Program (OTRAP). The program assists homeless
families residing in a shelter or motel who have sufficient income to pay the
monthly rent for permanent housing, but lack the funds necessary to pay the
“upfront” costs of renting. Families who are “at risk” of being homeless are
also eligible. Through 2014, the City will allocate approximately $175,000 for
OTRAP, which will assist 105 low- and very-low income households with first
month’s rent and security deposit.
To promote the availability of the One-time Rental Assistance program, the
City will include information, including application requirements, as part of the
Housing Information Clearinghouse (see Housing Production Strategy 1J).
Objective: Allocate $175,000 annually to assist 105 low and very-low income
households
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HOME
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Low and very-low income households were assisted
under the One-Time Rental Assistance Program as
follows:
2006 – Allocated: $49,024 / Assisted: 37
households
2007 – Allocated: $48,935 / Assisted: 30
households
2008 – Allocated: $1,733 / Assisted: 13 households
2009 – Allocated: $24,957 / Assisted: 17
households
2010 – Allocated: $29,171 / Assisted: 17
households
2011 – Allocated: $18,822 / Assisted: 11
households
2012 – Allocated: $18,190 / Assisted: 13
households
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-53
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5I: Counseling Assistance
Program
The City will reserve $500,000 in HOME funds to assist and/or prevent
foreclosure of low and very-low single family owner occupied homes. The
Housing Counseling Agency will provide counseling in the area's of lost
mitigation and forbearance negotiations; provide financial resources to assist
very-low and low income families reinstate delinquent mortgage loan payments
and assist eligible families purchase foreclosures in strategic locations. The
City will also consider the feasibility of establishing a program to acquire
foreclosed properties and sell them to qualified low income families as long-
term affordable units.
Objective: 279 households counseled
Responsible Party: Housing Authority
Source of Funds: HUD
Timeline for Implementation: 2014
Households that participated in the Counseling
Assistance Program were as follows:
2006 – 312 households
2007 – 362 households
2008 – 402 households
2009 – 411 households
2010 – 595 households
2011 – 401 households
2012 – Program discontinued
Affordable Housing Opportunity Strategy 5J: Workforce Housing
The City shall explore opportunities to provide additional local housing options
for the City’s workforce. These opportunities could include partnering with the
City’s employers to create a housing land trust, encouraging the use of
employer-issued housing vouchers, providing financial incentives for living and
working in Anaheim, increasing public awareness of the City’s housing
assistance programs and other creative public/private partnerships.
Objective: Explore opportunities to encourage additional local workforce
housing through community partnerships
Since 2006, the Community Development
Department has built 806 units of extremely-low,
very-low, low and moderate-income rental
workforce housing units consisting of:
• The Vineyard – 60 units
• Monarch Pointe – 63 units
• Broadway Village – 46 units
• Elm Street – 52 units
• Pradera Apartments – 146 units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-54
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
Responsible Party: Community Development/Planning
Source of Funds: General Fund
Timeline for Implementation: Ongoing
• Arbor View Apartments – 46 units
• Greenleaf Apartments – 20 units
• CIM – 277 units
• Colette’s Children’s Home – 4 units
• Vintage Crossings (South Street) – 92 units
Another 412 units are under construction or in the
pipe-line as follows:
• Cherry Orchard – 45 units
• Avon Dakota Neighborhood Phase I– 16
units
• Anton Monaco Apartments – 229 units
• Avon Dakota Neighborhood Phase II– 16
units
• Hermosa Village Phase V – 16 units
• Lincoln Family Apartments I – 51 units
• Lincoln Family Apartments II – 39 units
In addition, the Community Dev elopment
Department has built seven for-sale affordable
projects consisting of a total of 8 very-low, 90 low,
134 moderate and 354 above moderate income units
as follows:
• Cantada Square – 41 affordable units, 82
total units
• Cantada Lane – 8 affordable units, 28 total
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-55
Table C-1
Review of Past Performance (2006-2014)
Strategy Progress in Implementation
units
• Habitat for Humanity – 4 affordable units
• The Boulevard – 36 affordable units, 56
total units
• Harbor Lofts – 44 affordable units, 129 total
units
• Ventura/Picadilly – 17 above-moderate units
• Colony Park Phases I and II – 99 affordable
units, 270 total units
Another 490 for-sale units, including 135 affordable
units, are under construction or underway and
include:
• Colony Park Phase III – 68 affordable units,
174 total units
• Colony Park Phase IV – 57 affordable units,
226 total units
• Metropolitan Domain I (Anaheim Boulevard
Residential Parcel B) – 6 affordable units,
54 total units
• Metropolitan Domain II (Anaheim
Boulevard Residential Parcel C) – 4
affordable units, 36 total units
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-56
Table C-2
Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
2006-2014 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective Progress in Implementation
New Construction
Extremely Low 120 455
Very Low 668 206
Low 471 310
Moderate 809 1,693
Above-moderate 2,800 1,902
Total 4,868 4,566
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rehabilitation
Extremely- Low
-- 4 (Casa Del Sol)
4 (Collette’s Children’s Home)
48 (Integrity House)
25 (Hermosa Village II through IV)
8 (Mariposa Village)
90 (Bel’Age)
Multifamily Rehabilitation Very-
Low
39 90 (Bel’Age)
125 (Hermosa Village II through IV)
Multifamily Rehabilitation Low 61 44 (Hermosa Village II through IV)
Multifamily Rehabilitation
Moderate
-- 1 (Integrity House and Collette’s
Children’s Home)
1 (Integrity House)
Single Family Rehab Loans
Extremely-Low
-- 28 lower income households (as of
2012)
Single Family Rehab Loans
Very-Low
65
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-57
Table C-2
Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
2006-2014 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective Progress in Implementation
Single Family Rehab Loans Low 50
Single Family Rehab Loans
Moderate
5
Total 220
Conservation
At Risk Units Extremely-Low -- 90 (Bel’Age)
At Risk Units Very-Low 51 90 (Bel’Age)
At Risk Units Low 134
At Risk Units Moderate 75
Relocation and Preservation of
Historic Homes
20 13 (as of 2012)
Conservation of Historic Homes 60 Mills Act contracts and 10
rebates (annual)
9 to 47 recorded annually;
20.57 average
4 to 25 rebates annually;
11.86 average
Assistance Programs
American Dream Downpayment
Assistance (ADDI) and Building
Equity and Growth In
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
6 annually ADDI
5 to 11 annually;
discontinued in 2009
BEGIN
3-36 annually; 16.86 average
Second Mortgage Assistance
Program (SMAP)
15 annually 8 to 39 annually; average 22
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-58
Table C-2
Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
2006-2014 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective Progress in Implementation
HOME Downpayment
Assistance
18 annually 0 to 10 annually; average 3.86
Police Residence Assistance 6 annually 0 to 4 annually; average 1.57
Affordable Housing Program
(AHP)
2 annually 0; funding discontinued
Housing Equity Loan Program
(HELP)
18 annually 2 to 25 annually;
discontinued in 2010
Section 8 Rental Assistance 5,198 annually 5,198 to 6,133 vouchers allocated
annually; 5,928 average
5,825 to 6,143 vouchers leased up
annually; 5,963.71 average
Section 8 Mainstream 225 annually 225 allocated annually; 211 to 251
leased up annually; 225.43 average
Elderly disabled vouchers: 100
allocated annually;
100 leased (new allocation) in 2011
Section 8 FSS 90 annually 90 to 100 annual goal; 95 to 118
participants annually;
102.29 average
Section 8 Homeless Program 91 annually 91 vouchers allocated annually; 44 to
91 leased up annually;
67.86 average
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-59
Table C-2
Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
2006-2014 Planning Period
Program Quantified Objective Progress in Implementation
Project Based Voucher Program 654 annually 710 total; 422 since 2006 and 149 in
2011/2012
One-Time Rental Assistance 17 annually 11 to 37 annually; 19.71 average
Housing Stabilization Program
referrals
33 annually 2009 -332 referrals; 17 households
assisted in purchasing foreclosed
homes with NSP funds
Total 6,373 annually
Housing Element
Appendix C: Review of Past Performance
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 C-60
This page is intentionally left blank.
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 D-1
APPENDIX D:
GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually
greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of
such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing
program.
Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling
occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living
purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.
Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family
ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been
subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to
Federal state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal Section 8
(new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal
Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate
program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA Sections
515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee
programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus
programs.
Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented
to low- or moderate-income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of
the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low inc ome” or
“moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.
Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all
developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of
development envisioned by the General Plan. Build-out does not assume that each parcel
is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for
entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money
to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including
public facilities and economic development
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
D-2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are
individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in
common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive
limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a
condition of holding title or lease.
Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the
seller to the buyer.
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to
accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the
maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or
preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of
land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or
per net developable acre.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be
developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural
resource areas.
Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion
of the purchase price which is financed.
Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as
the residence of two families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unit (DU). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms,
designed for or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate
bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.
Elderly Housing. Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums
designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150
units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.
Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short -term housing and
supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum
size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental services may include food,
counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional
Housing.”)
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 D-3
Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or
less than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of
such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S .
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing
program.
Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the
Section 8 Program.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of
the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a
bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity,
sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of
any kind [Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines].
General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for
the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which,
in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required
elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The
plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams
illustrating the policies.
Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will
direct effort.
Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and
more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and
demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and
neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation
of the building(s) to a former condition.
Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic,
architectural, or cultural value.
Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit.
(See “Family.”)
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
D-4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that
has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet
the needs of low-and moderate-income households.
Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it
assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing
needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law, Housing
Elements must be updated every five years.
Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment,
property taxes, insurance and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and
utilities.
Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly
income; also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A
housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a
modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real
property under State law.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level
department of the federal government that administers housing and community
development programs.
Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.
Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered
vacant lots in a built-up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.
Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply
within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The
General Plan uses SCAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number
of housing units within the area under consideration.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use
of properties.
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 D-5
Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for
commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary
or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.
Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than
51%-80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined
by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a
survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State
governments for investors in housing for low-income households.
Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the
factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile home” and
“Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-Use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional,
and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated
development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical
design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.
Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater
than 81%-120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of
such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing
program.
Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the
borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.
Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a
dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority,
usually a city or county.
Overcrowded Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or
group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and
housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one
which is occupied by more than one person per room.
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
D-6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Parcel. A lot or tract of land.
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area
typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of
influence.
Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear
commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to
follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See
“Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are
classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that
provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family,
number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to
reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to
achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how”
and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing
on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater th an that of a single
jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. A quantification by the local council of
governments of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all
localities within a region.
Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building
consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling
Unit.”)
Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its
residents.
Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site,
which may be in the same or separate buildings.
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 D-7
Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve
its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and
to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or
intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in
addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of
second unit.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is
one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The
program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and
public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a
unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated
at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes
programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing
rehabilitation.
Shared Living Facility. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one
family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support,
and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all
residential districts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Single-Family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling
unit. (See “Townhouse.”)
Single-Family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for
occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such
dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a
sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower,
and kitchen.
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors
that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms
or mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes, sale
or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing,
payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
D-8 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition,
do not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the
target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d), and
that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in
retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her
ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means
adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or
AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for
services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and
may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young
adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings,
veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b)
and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically designated sections of the community where loans and grants
are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing
affordable by Very-Low and Low-income households.
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values
within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for
redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and
improve the community’s supply of very low and low income housing. Anaheim
currently allocates 30 percent of its tax increment to increase and improve the
community’s supply of very low and low income housing.
Tenure. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit,
even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is owner-
occupied only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified
as renter-occupied including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without
payment of cash rent.
Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more
attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with
each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.
Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as
long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling
programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable
income and permanent housing. (See “Homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013 D-9
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil
conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City.
Acronyms Used
ACS: American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/AC: Dwelling Units Per Acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan
Housing Element
Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
D-10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT DECEMBER 2013
This page is intentionally left blank.
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There is no new correspondence
regarding this item.