Resolution-PC 91-101,. :~
R~SOLU7,'}ON NU PC 1-101
,~,~:~
A RESULU'~IQN OF T[fE ANAHEZM CI~Y PLANN'!NG COMMISSION
DENYING GFt1ERAL PLAN AMr:NDMF,NT Nn. 32U
WHEE2k;A5, th~ C.f.ty Counc.il of• tho City of Anahoi.m did adopt Che Anaheim
CeneL•al. F'lan by Rac~oluL•ion t1a. 69R-6~34, Anuwin~r tho genc~ral descr.iption and
ra:tt;`nt of por~sib"ta futurc~ develc~pmPnt w~t•hin thr: City; ~~nd
WHERCAS, P.ianniny C~mmi~oiun dirac:tc~d at~~ff t~ inttiate an amendm`nL• to
L-l~e~ Lancl Uoe El~men~ of hhe Genc:r~l Plan to redosignatc subject prop~Y:ty from
the Gener~71 Ind•aatrial deaignation to L•he Medium Ueneity Res.idential de~ic~nation
f~r an irregula.rly-shapQd parc:el of land corioi~ting of approximately i.5 acre~
LUCiiCf?d a~ L•he r:orthe~dL cornex of RrookhurAt Str~et and G1'clfI1P.ZCy AVC-~C1UQ~ haviny
approximar.~ Lrcn~age~ af 282 feet on tho nast aiciQ of Brookhur~t Street and 682
feet on the r~ort.h side of Gramc~rcy Avenue;
W[JEREAS, the Anaheim Ci.ty P1anr.Lng Commiesior, did hold a publ.ic h~ari.ng
~~t the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber., 20~ South Anaheim Boulevard, on
~tune 3, 1991, at 1:30 p.m. , notice of aaid pu.r,Lic tia~aring :~avin~~ been duly g.iven
1a z•eq~.~ir.ed by law and in accordance ,~fth the provisicns of ttie Rnatteim
t•tunicipal Code, to hear ~nd conoider evidEncQ for and again~t aaid Cenera.l Plan
Ar.;e:::.';r,ent ar;d :.o inve~tigate and maise fi.ndings and recomi,ead~tionrs in connect~un
~tlf?LL~WltIIJ and that ~Aid nub.lic }ieari.ng wan continued t:o thc June 17 and
July 1'.i, .1~91, Pl.ansiing Corruni~c~fon meeti.nga; and
WHEI2EAS, aaid Comc~ission, afL-er due conside.r.at~on, in~pecti.on,
iilvestigiti.on and akuciy made by itaelf, a~id atter due considerati.on of all
evidenc:~ and report~a offered at eaid h~ai~ing, DOCS fiFFtEBY FIND:
1. That the evidence pre3en~ed did not 3ub:~tar.tiate tha need for an
amer;dment L•~ the Anaheim General P1an.
CAT,II_Oi.NiA ENVZFtUNM~.~Ai,~UA[.7TY,_fiCT FINDSNG: 'Phat p~.~~:suant to
r.hrr Cal.i.forn:a Environmental Qu3lity AcC (CEQA) G~.iideline~, after :.•on:siderinc~
Draf`L ~IR No. JUf3 fur the proj~c~ed Gramer.cy Apart:menta projer,t an~~ r~viewi.ng
e•: idene~ pre3c~nt~:ci, both wricten an~] orr11, to supplement D_:.ct EIR P7o. 30£?, the
Plar~ning Commi~:~ion ti.nds `ha~:
(a) Uraft i:IR t7o. 3~t3 ics in compliance wi.th the California F:nvironm~ntal ~?uality
T.ct anci the Stat:e and Cir_~ CF:QA Guideline3.
(r~) DrafY_ EIR No. 30fl identif:ies the following i.mpacta which are cor~:ziderec: to
b~: siynific~7nt hu~ can be mitigated to a level of. in~iynif.icar~ce with
incorpo_~atic>n cf the recomm~n:led mitic~ntion ne3suiea;
Sc:hr~ols7 - The F.r.ahnim City School t)i.~ztrict currently o(~Ct•aCe3 at cr. over
~~iX~:~city. It i~ e~ti-r,ated *i~at the praject will adc! •al additional
ele~entar}• ~chool s~tud~nts which would be a~Ign.ificant i.mpac~. The
~,l~~v~~loper wi:l b~ requicerl Y.o p~y echool LP.2b in accoi•dance with P.f3 2926 ag
wc!1] an r,n jtgreed upon nurr, ta the AnahPi.m City School Uial•rict accordiny to
the Schuol Mitigation i.yreement rlntQd April. 23, 1991, th~reby niitiqar.iny the
impact to tha Anah.~im City School Dt~st•r.ict to n I.~vel of inai.gnificanc~.
c:~?1Z2~~N.P -1•- ('c91-1~:
,~~ ~~
't'he AnahQim Unian Hlgh School Diatr.ict eubn;it~c~d commentt~ a~ tht~ Nr~tice o*'
P~.'eparatl~n otage gl.ving student yaneration fuctur.e and capuc.ity of ~ho
junior acia eeciiox• tiiqh acho~~ld that would oorvice the propaoed pr.ojQCt.
No i.mp~-ct on thc.~ AnahoSm Union High Schoc~l Dietrict was .id~tit.ifiod and no
mitigahic>r~ mQaeurag wor.e ~ropoFS~d. On Ma,y 3, near. tti~ end of the public
r~viow period, corre~pondei~ce wae r~ceived from Bcet, Eest anci Kri.eger, a
law fi.rm reproaanting thc~ Anaheirri flnion High Schoo.l ~istrict. This letter
cited many 1r.ea~ of concern in th~ Draft Ei~i euch aF3 ai.r quality, trarfic.~,
hazarduus mat~rialc~ and i.ncludeci a etat~~nent that all ocho~ls in thc~ higii
~chool diatr.lct were over cwp~c~ty and could not accommadat~ ~ny new
atudente. Sinae the atatamEnt th~it: th~ piatrict war~ aver capac.ity w~za
contrary t~ ea~:l.ter information eu~plied by the Diatrict, r~ub~tantiation,
a~ 1'~'Cjuited by C~QA, war~ requ~eted of t}ie pic~tr~.ct by M1y 15. No r.ecpor.se
was receive:] by May .1.5 tc~ aubatantiate the claim that thc~ DiDtrict ia over
capacity now and would auffer adveree impacte by the conatructior, of the
Gramercy Apartment project. A lotter waa recei.vtad from s~~C, Beet and
ICrieg~r on bfay 28 ~.rith new atudent generatiori fact.ora. The letter 9tated
tt~aY. ttiE~ conaultant who cieveioped the new atudent genoration tactora waa
otit ~~f t.own until Jt~n~ 4. Pl.vnning ~t~zff aent a I.Qtter on ,7une 3 to pe~t,
E3e=~t .-,nd Kri~qer (attachment B) regue~t:ing the subatantiation far the n~k~
~tud~nt generation factora by .;~~np 7, 1991 and al~a requested a mn~ting
with E~~st, Eiect arid Krieger to diacuas the i~eue of ':,he Schoo~ Ui~tr.ict.
N~ oub~tantiati.on wa~ r.~ceiv~d by .7une 7 to support ttie new student
genc~ration fact~rfl. Additionally, r~ call Nas received on H'riday aftcrn~u~t
oE ,7ans 7 flt,~t;ing that th~ lawyer handlinq thi~ ca~e wa:~ going *.o b~ out:
of town during th~~ we~k of June terith and would not be availablE~ to
discus3 the proposeci project t:nY.il the we~k of the Planninc~ Commi~~ion
hearing. Due +:o the fect that the ariginal re:~ponae to the Notice of
Prcaparation ia conaistent with paat r.e~ponsc:e fr.~m the District, no
sub~tantiat.ion has been rec~ive<I to validate new student generat-ion
iact~r~, no known impacts or requi.rsd mitigation measuras have bPer.
idantified as i~ relatE~~ to the Anaheim Unian :tigh School Ai~trict.
.~^;c~•~nn~mics - ~1•he propo~ed project wili add 338 hous.ing unit~ to a
~ubregion that L:3 con~.Lde~tu ~cb ~•irh, Howe~~er, cumulative projects will
coorr~pn the exifating jobs to houHing ~.mba?ance in tne ~~;,~~g;_nn, This S.~
considered a dignificant impact:. The C.ity r~f Anaheim .in warking to
implement meaoures that wil.l balance grcwth with ~nfra~trucr_ur~ needa and
:li.r quality cat:cerna r.nr~uyh adoptfon of a Growth Manag~ment Element, an
ALr Quali_ty Eleme:~t and T,M programs.
(L') Section 15091 of the CEQA Cuidelinen requiree that one ar. more fi_nding5 be
macle for each sic~niticant enviromm~nral effer_t. Three finding categorie~
are I~caaible. Sc~ction~ A, B and C below etate each fi.nding, and then
ic:lentiEy the impact c~~teyorief; for which thea: findinge are appropriate.
A• "CFl<?I1C]~'D or alteration3 hav~ been required in, ar incorporatecl into,
the ~roject which avoi~ or eubatanL•ially le:~Aen the s.ignificant
enviromm~nral eff~ct a~ i.de»r_ified in +;he Draft E7R. ~~ This finding
u~FLLE?f7 t~ the fol.luwing envi.ronm~ntal eff~:cts af the project:
. Land U~~~
. Geology/,oi.La/Sei.emicity
. Hydrol~~ ~Y
-2~ PC~.1-101
, ~~'M1
`Y. ~1,}:~'1
• Sc~cioeconomlca
• Noiae
• ~'ublic SeivJ.cos ttnd Utillties
• Aeathetic~
• Traffi.c, Girculation ~nd I'~:~r.kinc~
• Air Qualit}~
H~tzard~u~ Materia.ls
Refer to the !)raft FIR Eor a f'uli dincusoton o~ ~he abave irnpacta, the
mitigation meaoure,y preacr.ibed and a diecuesion of imract eignificance~
~ifter mitigatl.on,
~• "Such changes or a1~F~rations ~~~
juricdiction of. anather ~°~~r~in L•he rQApor~~ibility and
findin P~~blic aqency and not the aqenc g
9• 5ucti chari ~o have been ado ted ~ Y malcin the
anci should be adopted b
P y such other agency or r_an
Y Quct; other agency. ~~
There ~rE• r~~ other agenci~a tliat havQ r,een identified throuyh the EIR
proceso which Y,ave j~rir~diction over khis a~,tP,
c• "Spacitic economic, aocial, or other consideratier:p ma;ce inf
the project alternativea id~nrifLed in ~he Draft EIR~~ ~c131~1e
Tt~e fo.llow.in
~J d16CUrJOlOt1 id~ritifi.es the variou~ alternatives
c°nsid~red in the Araft: EIR, followed b
rationale Ecz finding th~nE al.ternatives infeasib1~p~~nnation oP tha
aame. ',or rejecting
N~' pR0~7GCT AL'i ERNAT I VF.
----_..____~___,
1'~~~`~ alternative aseumes t ~
~ite would h., continua*ion of exieting r.c~nditiona, q'1i~,
cc~ntinue as an induatrial manufacturi:ig gacility. There
woulci b-r. a losc~ of emp.toyment for up to 235
Propo~cu project would pro~.ide 40 ,. People. However, the
a~ford~,ble hcudin. (for„y) to 68 (aixt}._eight; tinit~ of
3 whi.ch ia a goal of the Cit
Y'~s Houainr~ Element.
Thi~ alternative doea n~t, howPVer
accordancc cvith plannin ' pLt'~=1ude tuture ~evelopment in
°~ P~z'mit ioau3nce. ~ and zcning ytandardy in existence at the tirr~e
Adoption oF thQ No Prujec~ Altern~i:ive 4%~~Uly not be instrumsntal ±n
elimina~in~ the Dign.ificant irnpactn ot• the
in the Draft Environmental Impact Re ort ir~pJ~Qa praject identified
Hchooln and curtiulatfve r~ocioeconomic ~, np~GtB~ .~'' imp~zcr_s an elementar,~
A~ 3liown in Section 3.U, ldder.du~n, of. the Renp~~~;~ ~~ Ccm;r,e~it~, thQ
projech pr.oponent r.er,cl~ed g
Ui ~tr. i: t an a reQm~-~~- with thF An~~heim ~ity Scho~l
conaistir,c~ ~~f the F;ayment uf additional achool f~ea to the
Di3tr ict . p~ym~~~t a f
thr_ L•hese .feee will allow the Uistrict to provide
n~cer~~Ary ~chcol faci~itien an~ w1.11 re~ult in
mi.~igation of ~~11 project-qenQrated i.mp.icta ~~n the DistL'i~t~hr: cr,rp~.ilr•t~
-3-
PC91-101
, . ,.,..,.,
,~f4M~
d~6'~;p
4
The r.umulative socio~c~nomic impacto caneiet of ar, excc~s~ pf• jc,b~
ver.sus housing iii an a.l.roady ~ob-rich subr~gion an a cunii~lr~tive
l~ve.t. Implemen*ati~rl of the No Projoct Alternat.i.ve would fail to
imProve the ~obe to huuei.ng bllanco, and the cumulative prujocte as r1
whole wi11. continue L•h.e exietiug jubs to tiouainy imbalancQ .in thQ
oubrr~gion.
Becausp th~ Nu projecC Alternstl.ve ig qot environrnentally ~uperior
compared, t~ ~ho propaaed pxnject, thQ No Pr~ject A1t4xnative ts
re7~~ted• In addi~tion tha No P.ro= ect A1t.ernaL•ive wo+ .
accomplic~h the objQetiveo~ establiahed for ~h~ r~ ~C~, atd not
houaing units wou:Ld nat be built in the job•-rich~aubregion thus not
ameliorating th~ ~~;ioYing j~~b~housirig imk~alance. The q~ ~o 6a vQiy
l.ow income houainq uc•~its would not b~ built thua not reaporiding to the
need for a.°fUrd'able houaing for very low and lo~.~ income hntiaeholds ~~
iclentif~.Pd in . he HQUSiny Element.
REDUCEll DENSITX ALTGRNRTIV~
Thie alternative reducea th~ tutal amounr of apartment• unita from 338
to 238 unita, ap~roximately 30~ lec~o u:1it~, All servi.ce demanda wou.lci
v~ reduced. This alternative would be more in concert with tt~e
current "down zoning~~ effort tl:at tihe Ci.t,y har~ u:idertakea wi•th regards
to re3idential lan~ uaeo,
The Reduced Denaity Alte.rnati.v~ is not environm~ntalJ.y auperior
beczuse it w~uld result in similar impacts as the propuesd project.
Wtiile the nurr~ber of c~ ementary school. atudents g,.nerat~d b}• ttti3
alter.native oould be reduced, they c~»il~ not be accommoaated by the
Anaheim City Sctiool District becauaQ all elementary ~chools currently
~pc~rate at capaci ty, ~ayment of additional. feea within t}~e frameworlc
af a Sch~cZ Fee Mitigation Agreement woulcl be requ±red simzlar to tne
agreement re~,ched for the proposPd proj~ct;~ alrhougt~ moat likely
reduced in amount.
The cum~;laY.ive soci~~econo~nic impacts consi.st of an excesa of jobs
vera~s hou~iny in an already job-ric}i subregior~ on a cur,~ulative
lev~l. While the imp~ementation of the Reduced U~nsity Alternative
will improve the jobe to housing balance, t:}~e irr~provement would be
r~ducead compared t~ thF pr.oposed proje~t, The cumulative proiect-a a3
~ wl;ole w~uld conti.niie the exietiny joba to hou~inq imbalance in th~~
area.
xh'-' Red~ticed Density A.lternati.ve io nal• environmentally r~up~rior
cc~rnpared to the proposEd projecr; tlier.efore, the Reduced Denait:y
P.lternat.ive is rejoct~d. In addition, the Reduced Denaity Alternative
wouid not accomplieh tt~e objectives establiehed for the project.
Approxi.mately 10~ fewer housing units would bp built i.n the jab-rich
subr~gion thun resultir~g ln reduced amPliorat.ion of the F~xisting
]ob/hous.ing imhalance. Fewer, if any, ~~W income houaing unita would
be bi~f.it thue not renpondiny at- a11 or lesH to the need for afforda~~l~
houc~ing for very lo:~ an~? low incnm~ houa~holds,
~q_
PC91-IQ1
•;~
~~,
u.~ F{
/~:fJ'.n?~
OWNEI2SHIP HUUSTNG AL'!'ERNATIVE
;hi.s alternativo ~r.opoaec~ 75 (aeventy-fivc) t~wnhomee. The Ownership
Houeirig Alternati.vc~ ie not environmantally euperio.r because it woulcl
reault in aim.l.lar imnacts a9 the propo~sed project. WlZile the number
af. elementary eehnr~l atudent.a ge:ndzated by thi~ alternative would be
reduced, Chey could not be raccommodated by t ^~~aheim Ci.Ly Sc:~o~1
Diskrict becausc~ a11 E3CIlOOlEj r,urrently opera~:~ ~,:~par,ity. Payment.
of additi.onal fees withit: i:he f.ramewark uf a:. ,,~~nl FeE3 Mitigatic~n
Agreement would bo z~ec~uirQd atmi.lar to tne agreement reached for the
propoaed proj~ct, althc~ugh moet li.k~ly reducEd in amour~t.
The cumi.~lativ~ aocioECOnomic impacto c~nsiet of an e:cceea of j~b~
~~~rsus hou»iny i.n an already jab-ricli suUreyion on a cumulative
lEVel. Wnilc the implementation r~£ the Ownerahip EIouainy Alternative
wi11 improve the joh/houetnc~ balance, r.r,e improvemenL• would be reduced
compared to tihe propoeed pr.ojec~. The cumt~lative proSect~ a~ a wtl~le
would continue the exioting jr~bjh~using imba.lAnce zn the subregion.
Ttie Own~rahi;~ Hou~ing Alternative .is not enviror~mentally superior
~~ompared fio the propot~ed projec~, ther.ei'ore, the Awneraliip Hou~ing
Alternalive i.~ rejected. Tn addition, the Ownership kiousing
Alternative woul.r~ not• acr.ampli~h the objective~ estabiished for the
projeck, Approximately 192 fewer hou5inq uni.te would be buil~ in the
job-rich subr~yian thu~ re3ult.ir~g in reduced ampliorat3.on of the
er,.isting job/houaing imbalance. ~'ewer, if any, low income houaing
unitr~ would be built thu~ not reaponding to the need for af.fordable
houeing for very low anc9 low inc~me household~.
A~'i'ERNATIVE LOCATION
The Alternativ~ Location aasume~ the eame projer_t a~ a 9.5-3C1:@ eitt.
at the oc~uthwe_~t c~~rneL of IIezi~h Boulev~rd and Orange Ave~u~. Th~
project would havo 20v; low iiicome unite and would be on land which i.s
curz•ently uaed for agricul.ture a~id is zoned RS-A-43,000.
Implementation ~f thia A.lternative Location would reault in ~he sam~
imp~ct~ as th~ propoaed project. If the project is imp].emented at th~
a1l:crnativQ lnr.ati.on, it would be in tne Savarina School District
which, accoi-ding to the Assistan~ Superin~end~nt, is not experiencing
over cupacity and would not requir~ mit.igati~n ;neaoures beyond the
requir~d school feea. Impact~ in all o~her impact arPas are ~rojected
to be identical oL similar, including cumulative s~ciaeconomic
imp~icte. Becauae the ~1lternative Location it~ nct e:~vironmontally
auperior compared to the pr.opo~ed project, the Alternative Lacatian is
reject~d,
(c) S~ctinn 21081.6 of the Public Reoour.ce~a C~de requi.rea that when a public
agency i~ making Lhe findings required by Section ~~.081(a) of the l~ublic
R~source~ Code, the Ayency shall adapt a repUrting or mon.itoring program
f.~r the chanyea to the proje~t which iL• ha$ adoptc-d or n,ad~ a aondi.tinr. of
Fr~ject approval, in ~~xde_• tr~ mitiqate o: av~id ~ignificant effeci:s on thp
environmc:nt .
-'~ PC91-1C1
', I'
1~~~
'Phe ~ity hereby finde that the mitiga.~ic~n meaaur~s (1S.z~tec~ ,tn Secti~ii V-
Recc~mmendAd Con~itiang of Ap~roval) have been. inr.orporai:ed into a
Mi.ti.gation :f~nitoring Proyram that meots tho requirementd of Section
2i~:a1.6 oF th~ Public Redourcea Code and reduces the project's
environmQntal Off~ct~ ta an acceptabl~r level.
(d) Therefor.~, ttie Planning Commic~eion certifies EIR No. sGt3 and tI1P_
associaL•ed Mitigation Monitcring Program ba~~d up~n the fi,nd?ngs herein.
NUI9, THERE;r^OR~, DE IT RESOLVED, that purQUant to the abova fin~',ings,
the Anaheim City Planning Cornmisoi.on doea hereby deny Genc~ral Plan AmFndm~nt
C1o. 320.
THB FOREGOING RESOLUTTO?V was adoptecl at L•he Plann:ing Cammicaaion
mE~eting of July 15, 19y1.
_ _ '~/ ~~ ,~ ~ /
~`~ --__,..-- ~~~ G~~v...~
CEIAIRWOMAN, ANAH~IM CI'C PLANNING COMM.iSSI4N
ATTEST: `/~ ,
l~
_~ ~~---{.~--~- ~' C~~I~~
SPCRL'f71RY, ANAHF.Ibf CITY PLHNNING CUM.MISSION
S'lATG OF CALIFORNTA )
CUUfJ7.'Y OF ORANC~E ) pt3,
C.TTY GF ANAfi~;IM )
I, Janet L. Jenean, Secretary of the Anaheim City Pl~r~n.iny Commi~sion,
do hereby certify that thc: f.oreyoing resolution waa passed and aclopted at a
meeting nf ttie Anah~im C3.i:}r Planning Cammissi.on h~lcl on July 15, 1991, by thc~
fol.iowing vote o£ the membera thereof:
n~'LS : COM:tISSIONERS : BOYDS'PUN, FEs'LpHpUg, HELLYER, ~IENNI[3GER, PERAZA
K~r~: COMMISSIONERS: RO[lAS
AF3SEN'P: CAMMISuIONEF2S: ME:SSE
ZN WI'I'NF:SS WHEREOF, I have hereunta aet my hand thiv ~ ~~
d a y o f ------r~~'~+~-~~ ' 19 91. _.___~-~_ ~ ----
l, ~
..~,<
-~LC-~rt!~ U~~ ~^-r.~'~'1 w • 4i
SEC_RETARY, ANAEiF1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN
-6-
P~91-101