PC 88-281,~,~G'tti
~~~
^
~G. ;:'~i~~~~
;~'
;~
RES L TI.QN N2~ ~4-~4.~
A RESOL~UTION Ok' THE ANAH~IM CITX PLANtdING CUtrIlr1ISSTON
AFPRUVTN(i GENE~RAL PLAN ~1M~NTJM~NT N0. 244 -
LAND USE Er..EMENT
' WfiEREAS, ~h~ Ci.ty Cu+~nci'1 of rhQ City of Anahaim did adopt tY:e
Anahei.m GenerF~~. PSati b~~ FQSOlution No. b9R-694, showzng the gener~l
de:;cription and F~xtent of pnssible future development with3.n the City; arsd
VdHEREAS, CY~e Anaheim Cit,y Planni.ng Cc+nuni~sion ~licl reeexve a request
f:; trom the Froperty owner tor an amendmanC to l-.he Ar.ahoirn General Plan to modify
tho siae and locat.ian of severa.l existing land usQ designations wiLhin The
Summit developmgnt arPa to acc~mmudate the proposQd Specific ~l~n No. 80-02 on
property wh.i~:h i.s apx~roximately 591 ~cres and is laca~ed approximately 1.1
, mil~s s~utk~e~~st ot Weir Canyon Road and the Riverside Freoway intersectipn,
and is boundttd on the r,ortY- by Sy~amore Canyon Speci£ic Plan development, on
the r:e;~t by ThQ Highlands at Anaheim Fiills 5pocific i'lan developrnen~, and on
'- the so:ieh and Qast by Trvin~s Compariy property, and furthor c3oscribed as Tho
~' Summit o: Anaheim Hills ?lannQd Community (YC)(SC); and
WHGZEAS. the a~plicant'~ request involves adjustments generall~ in
the central and eastern portio:~s ~~f the propArt,y as follows:
(a) A r.halge ;n tne composiCion af residontial units by
incr•easiay the number of dwc~llings categorized as Hillside
Low-Mediu.~n Rosi~'.ential f:om 312 to 547 (ar. increase of 215
units) anc; corre~pondi.ngly docreasiny thc~ number of units
.iciQntif:ie~1 as Hil.l~ide Me~litun Density Nesiflential from 1, 575
to 1,3GQ units (a decrease of 215). xlie total dwclling
units proooso~ for. The SummiL- remains ~t 2,1X7.
(b) An incr3ase of 2pproximately 60 acres of lanci designate3 for
Fiillsi~].e Low-Medium DensaCy Resicleutial usos (from 'd2.9 to
'L53 acras) and ~ decrease of 32 acres in l~nd designated for
;, Eiillside Medium ~ensity Residanti~l uses (fr.om 1T7.5 to
145.5). This will res~.-lt in a nat increase o£ 25.1 acres oP
re~idential usA (from 343.~ to 369.5 aCI'[f9~. A de~rease of
25 acres fr, araa~ dasigna~:esd as Genernl Commerci~l (from 30
to 5 acres) i3 also bQing proposad. OpQn s~ace acreage
rc~maiiis unchangQd (169 .1 zcres ) .
(c) The relocation of thQ sr,ho~~.: sike to a more central location
~n The S~unmit property (rQmains at 10.0 acras).
i. ; k0506r
K;
`,ri
s
>
PC88-2$1
,~,'a~,
(d) A minox r-ortherly realignment cf Oak Hills Dr.~ve in the
csntral portion oP ~ho sIL•e (which impaats vegotation mor.e
than circu.latian). Tho proposal wauld alsA realign the
et~sterly leg of Oak Hills Drivo sliqhtly to tho sou~h, ivhile
~Gill prot~iding ingro~s and egross ro the site at the same
southeastc~rly location. These changes wi11 result in a
1.1-acrd reduction i.n major ros~dways.
WHEREAS, thc~ Cit,y Planning Commission did hu].d a public hearing at
the Civic Center in tYi~ City ot Anaheim on September 2(i, 1988, aL• 1:~0 p.m.,
notice a.E said public hcsar, iug having b~en duly qivon as requi re~3 ~y 1aw and in
accordance with the pr.ovisions pE the Anahoim Municipal (:odQ, Chapter 18.03,
to hear ancl consider evidancQ Eor and against saicl proposed gengral plan
amenclment in connaction with Sp~~cific Plan No. 08-02 (inclixding zoninq and
develo~ment standards, ~ public facilities plan, ancl a fi;cal impacL analysis)
and ~mer~..ted and reststa~ed Uavlopment Agreement No. 8a-3 and ta irtivostigato
and maks £indings and reconunendations in connection therewith; and so,id
peti~ion was continued r_o the meeting of Oataber ].0, 1988; and
` WHERF.AS, said Commission, after due inspection, investiqation and
f study made by itself and in its behalf, and afher due considerr~}ion of all
ovi.dQnce and z'oports offered at said hearing, does £ind 3nd detgrmin~ the
followinq Eacts:
1. Tkiat the ~pplicant's proposal (Exhibit• A) will increase ~ha Hillside
Low Lensity RQSi~lential areas from 2.8 to 2.9 dwe].ling units peL~ acre; tnat
the @ensity xilhin the Hillsic7e Low-Mediwn Density Resident•.ial areas wi11
remain unchanged at 3.G dwelling units per acre and that the density within
thnse areas aesicJnt~ted for FTillsidts Medium Donsity Resid~ntial will inr.rc~ase
from 8.9 dwolling units ~aer acro to 9.3 clwelling units per acre; and that
overall the proposod projoct will result in a slight decrease in the ratio of
uwelli.ng units pet~ residential acre (from 6.2 dwtilling unity per acro to 5.?
dwelliny units per acro).
2. That the 25-•acra reduction of land c~esignata~ for Go.nera.l c:omrnerci.al
~ises will sign.ificant?y aecrea,e the sst3rnated average daily vehicular trips
iUr tho ~roject ar~a.
3. That L-he apE,licaii~'s proposal (Exhibit A) wouid re~sult .in:
o An uverall 32-aar~ deer.ease in Hi.llsicle Mc~dium Denszty
Re~i@ential lancl uses;
d An pverall 50.1-acx•e increase in Hillside Low-Meilium
Density ResiciQntial land use ,;
o A 9hi.F.t in Hillsido Low Den~ity Residential Zand usQS,
Hillside T~ow-Madium Residcntial land uses ard Hi~lsidf~
Modium land uses; and re~location oE thQ elgmentary
school site.
o An overall 1.x-acre decreasse ln roadway Areas;
o Retention of 169.1 acres of Upen Spttce;
o An overall 25-acre decrease in General Comnerr.ial land
use~;
o M.inor roalignments ta Oak Hills Drive.
J~
~
ti
PC88-2A1
;.
; ,;
+ `,?; ~
,:,;.~:
~:','~~
5~Y4~ _ .. .. .. , ..., ~.~...~•.i . .~ :. y,,~,', ~ ~~.:. "+r ~ /~ ,•rroC~~~ r x
r~ ~. { ... . .. . .. . - , , . ~ . . . ~i; ~ '.{~`'i i"' ~ yz71~,^A~~ ~~wi5~ tf~',~r+~',7~'1
h~~1,;~ ~ ~n~~.tr~~~
,a '?`~
~ 4 ,.r1AP?). ~!F 5,
~, , ~
~ ~ `. ~ ~ ^V~'iid~ . ~ i;s
i ~7
'.i
. . ~ . ~.~_,; ,j'
~ 4. That res3denrial land u3e densi~ies i•o osod f
~f Tho p ~,~
:~ Summit develo ment axe genQrall ~ p °r the PQr~meter
those ranch areas immediate3y ad~~cont t~YThe Sum ~t ~ wzt~ the de~s,~tiss for
5. Th~t tho proposed amendment ~
pulicies relating tu Zand ~S cons.isL•en~ with General Plan ,,;
r '' USP.~ CORIliIUTllt
r., circulation., open s~ace/con~~rvatioii, safet xand ~rseismicit;llf:astructure, '?,
?;, housing. The propossd projocL•'s rela~ionship and cnmpliance with ~ n~zse and ~~
policias zs incYuded and clescri.hed e.neral Plan ,~~,~
dacument. °n P~qes 5-14 oP the Specific Plan (SP88-2~ ~,1
,,;:..
a. That t2ie ~pplicant's propasal (F.xhxbi~ A) is a ro riate for the
~ subject study ar~a, pp p.
I~
;
`~ CALI'OFtNIA ENVTRQ eENrf,~. ~,~~I~ ~ T
r_ Q ~
~' Dra~t Su C ~'iNDING; After considerin
pplement to EIR No. 281 ~ur the q the
? Gerieral Plan Amendment N~~ Z~}4 progo~ed S ecific Plan
and amended and restaCed Davelopment Agreerr,ent
`,~ No. 88-p3 Fur The Summit. of A.~aheim Hi~ls and raviewin
~' written and oral, th~;
+ Planning Commission t.inds thah,; ~~hg gvidQnce, both
~
a) Supplemant to EIR No.
Environrriantal x 2g1 is in compliance w.ith ttxe California
Qualit Ac~ ar~d the State and Cit,y Guidelino;;
b? Supplement to EIR No. 281 idontifies the xollpwing :mpact~ w•
considered to be both unavoidabl~ hich are
fully mitigated to a 1~ve1 oF insignificars~everse in n~~urQ ~Ild not
o DQVel~pment will remov~ significant biological habxtat incltidin
aieas of high, m~deraL•e aiiit low ~~Ql~~i~,al sQnsirivit~l, g
o'Ve2xicular tr.i~s and ~ilex•gy ~onsumptxon genera.ted by uses on-sike
will produce air pollutant e~nissions anQ wiil be cumulativsl•
signiticant in combznation with otlier simi7,ar ~
a3.r basin, developmont in the ~
o Dev~lopment wi12 a1L•er apprnximatelx g04~ oE thE natural ~opogr~phx
and will p~tc;ntiFSll ~
y impact ~•ir~w3 from off_s.ire including Weir ~
Canyon, open spaces on the Irvine Company propc-rty to thQ sou*h and
the Highlands propc~rty ~~ the west, ~
S~
~ Praposed land uses ivill consume signif5.cant ~mounts 4f hnsr ,11
considorecl in combination with other developrnen~s in the reglon.when ,~
However, ';;
the Planning Commission does hQreby def:~rrnine that the benef3ts
af ~.ho projRC~ autweigh th~ unavoidablo ~~ivQxg~ gnvironmental impacts,
end that a Statoment of Overriding ConsidQrations should he ado ~,e~ '
recr~mmencis that the following be cunsidered; p . and `~'~'
3 ~'
PC88-28Y ~::~
~,
~, '7
.
~
~ '`~" `*~~
>u,
~, ,^
;J
That the beneEits oL• the project havr, been b~lanced against the
unavoidablo environmenta.l impacts and, ~,ursuant to the provisians of
Section 15093 0~ the fitatQ CFQA GuidElines, the occurrence of the
signiEicant onvzronmental effec~s identiL-.ieo ir~ ~upplQment Lo EtR No. 281
as sQt forth above, max b9 pexmi"~ed wit:hout furthQr »itigatian due ~o
t:he £ollowing overriding considerations:
(:.) Economic, social and physical ccnsidarations make it i.nfeasible to
elimin~~te all of the signiEicarit environmental impacts of the
project which have been identified iu EIR No. 2$1 anCi ~ha Su~plementJ
(2) Such environmental impacts wi.ll be reduced by compli~nce with City
codes and a~iproved Specific P1an p~licies and procedures~
!3) The projoc~ wi11 bring subs~antial benefits to ths ciLizens of
Anaheim by providing emp].oymont and permitting the development ot a
variety of res.~.dantial densiti~s and unit types to assist in meeti.ng
dsmands E~r housing; and
(4) Mitigation measure~ have been i.ncorporated into the project ta
r~duce the majority oF Qnvironmental impacts to ar~ acceptable l~vel.
Therefore~ the Planning Commission reco.mmends that the City C~~ ~ril
c~rL•ify Supplement to ETR No. 2fi1 for T.he Swnmit o£ Anaheim is
SpQCific P1an No. 8a-2, General Plan Arnondment No. 244 and amendec: and
restate3 Developmerit Agroement rTo. 8$-03, and aclopt the Statemant. of
GvQrriding Consideral:ioris.
NOW, THr^.REFORE BE '1'T fiESOLVF.D, tha~ pursuant t~ the above findinga,
the Anahoim City Planning Commission does her~~y recommend tnat the City
Council aclnpt c;eneral Plan Amendment T.do. 244, ~xhibit A, subject to thn
following conditions:
l. That thR approval ot the subject ~mendment does nnt guaranr.ee tihe
developmeut of 2,11'1 dwelling units, buC providas for a range of
from 0 to 2,117 dwelling units. The artual number oE units shall be
iieterminec3 in connectinn wi.th t:he coi~sideraticn of tha Specific Plan
and suc:division appro~~als.
?.. Th~t the applic~nl: sha].1 e3tablish a mechanism to provide an
on-going monitoring and transmitka~:i oF infoxmation t;o the Ci~y of
Anaheim concerning fisca7. impact of f:uture developments within the
subject amendment area.
THE FGREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved hy me thi~ lOth day
o: October, 19a8.
1; ~ ~ - 1
`~ ~. ~ ' ~. . J! ,~ir~r_-~ .~i -~
CHAIRWOMAN, J+N~EIM CTTY PLANINlNr, (;OMMISSION
ATTEST: /
~,o - ,~ ,- ~ .
/ 1,,t~~,,
SECRET.ARY, ANAHEIM CTT PLANIr`I2IG C~JMMTSSTON
,.. ~. . ~ . r.,. ~ ,..., .~ ..., .
4
PC88-2Eil
~ ~;~
`~
. '~s
.'a"'1
STATE OF CALI~ORriIA
~~
CO'UNTY OF ORANGE ) Ss,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eclith I,e Fiarris~ Secretary of the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commission,
c1r~ hereby certif.y Chat the Eoregoing resolur_ion was pasyed and adoptecl a.t a
meet.i.nq of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on October 10, 19$8, by the
foliowing vote of the membors t:hareo£:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, ROX'DSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDilAUS, HERIIST,
MC BURNEY, MESSF
NUES: ~OMMISSIONF,RS: NOA1~
AL~;iENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEFEOr, I have hereunko seL my hand L-his 10th 3ay of.
OctobEr, 19a8.
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~~ ~~~,~_''~t= .
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMx5SI0N
^i
5
PC88-3A1
';r
,M
~;~
,:~
~;~d
,y~~~t,
; y~ ~91
ri
~ .... .. .1.~