Resolution-PC 91-102~~~`>~~~
RESOLUTION NU. PCy1-102
A RESOLUTION dF' THE ANAH~TM C,'ITY PLANNING CU'~SMISSION
THAT PETITION f012 RECLASSTFICATION NO. 90-91-'l6 BE DENI~D
WEI~REAS, the Anaheim ~ity Planning Commisei~n did receiv~ a
vc~ri.£ied petition fer Recla~sifi.cation fnr certain real pr.oper.t~~ c~itu~ted in
L•he C.tty of Anaheim, C~unty of Orange, State of Ga.lifornia, descri.bed as
foll~ws:
PARCEL~ '1 AND 2 7Pl TH~ CITY OI' ANAE~ETM, COUNTX OF
OR~INGE, STATE OI' CALIFORNIA, A5 SHOWN ON A MAP FILED
IN BOOK 51, YAGE 4 OF PARC~:L MAPS 'I.N THE OE'FICE OF 'PHE
~OUNTY R~CORDFR OF ORANGE COUNTY, CAI,TFOF.NIA.
WIiEREAS, the CiCy Planning Commie3ion di_d hold a public h~ariny
at the Civic GentFr in the City of Anaheim on June 3, 1991 at 1:30 p.m.,
notice af. said public hParing haviric~ been du].y given a~ required by .law arid in
accord~n~e with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to t~ear and consider evidence ~or and aga.in~t sai.c] prap~~ed rec].assif.icatlc~n
and to investigate and niake fiiidings and recommendationa in conneccian
chc~rewiti~; anc~ that said piib.lic hearing wae eontinued to the Jun~ 17 and
Ji~ly 15, 1991, Planning Commission meetingg; and
WEiERPAS, naid Commic~sion, after due ir.spection, inv~stiyation
and study madE by itself and in iL-s behalf, and aftei due r,onsidQration of all
evi.dence and rep~rte off~red at sa3.d hea.ring, does find and determine ttie
foll.owing facts:
1. That the pei:itiuner proposes rer.lasaification of subject
~roperty from the MI:, (Indu~trinl, Limited) Zone to l-.tie RM-1200 (Residential,
Idulti.~le•-F'amily) or a less .intens~ zone.
2. That the Anahei.m Gen~ral Plan designatea aUbject ~roperty
for Genera.l Industrial land ~~see; and th~t General Plan Am~ndment No. 320
filed i.n conjunction with ttiis peti.tion anci proposing amendment to rhe Lancl
Usc~ E.lement: to redesignate ouUject property ta Medium Denaity P.esidential was
deni.~d.
3. That the propoaed xeclasailication of c~uhject p~c~perty is
nr,t ~ieceasary nni~ deairable for. the orderly and proper devel.opment of the
c:ommunity,
4. That the propoaed reclaeaification of. subject property does
not properly relate to thc zonee and thei-r permitted usea .locally establ.i.c~hed
in c7.c~se proxirnity to eubject property ancl to the zonea and their peimitted
use> genera].ly estab.l.ishEd tt:roughout the community.
5. That ninete~n (19) people ir.dicated their pre~e.nce at said
public l~earinga in oppoaition; and that no correapondence was received in
appositinn to subject petiti.on.
CR123UMP -1- YC91•-102
p;'r,;~ ~iY~
C:ALIFORNTA ENVIR~NMENZ'AL UALITY ACT F'INDING: That pursuant t:o
_._~_______._
the Calitorn3.a Envirorimantal Quality Hct (C~QA) Gui,.~~.lines, after aonsider.ing
Ur.aft EIR No. 30F3 for t}ic propc~ecct Grumercy Apartmante projECt and revi~:wi.ng
eviraence preaented, both written and oral, i:o euppl~m~nt Draft FIR No. 308, thc
Planninc~ Caminission finde that:
(~) Draf.t EIR No. 308 is in complia.nce with the ~:alifurni.a Environm~ntal ~uality
Act an9 .he State and City CEuA Guidelinea.
(b) Draft F.T.R No. 308 ideritiPiea the following im•~~acts which are considex•pd tc~
be signi£icant but can be mit~.gated tr, a level of. insignifi.canr~ with
i.ncorporat3.on of the recommended R~itiyation m~:asures;
Schools - The Anaheim Ci.ty School Districr cur.r.ently operates at or over
capacity. It is e~l•imlted that the p•roject will add 41 addil-.i~nal
elementary ~ctiool studznts whi.ch wr~lild be a significant impact. The
deve.lopPr w.ill be requir~:d to pay sch~ol feea i,n accord~nce with AB 292G as
w~l.l as a~1 agreed upon a~i~u to the Anaheim CitX School District acco.rding t~
t}ie Schoo.l 2ditigation Agi:esment dated April 23, 1991, thereby mitigating the
impact t.o the AnahetR~ ;;.;.t,y School Diotr.ic~t to a level of ineignificance.
The Anaheim Unian Hi.gh School Diatri.c:t ~ubmitted cornments at the rro~ice of
Preparation stage giv.ing ~~udent generation fact~LS and czpa~ity of t,he
juni.or and eeniar hi.yh schools that woulct ser.vice Lii~ ~,r:opoaed project. No
impact on the ~nah~im (Tnion Hi.cJh School District was identified and no
rnitigation mea~ures were proposed. On May 3, n~ar ct~e end of the public
review period, correopondence wa~ received fr.~m Be~t, Best and Krieger, z
law fir.m repr~senting th~ Anaheim Unian High SCY1uC). lll9tY'LC~:. This letter
ciLed many areas of coneern in the L~Y'dFt EIR such as aii qiiality, traffi.c,
hazardoua materi~.~ls ~nd included a c~tatNment that all sr.hoola in the hi~~h
achool distr.ict were over capacity ancl could not accommodatP any n~w
studerits. Sincc~ the statement that the District wa~ aver capacity waw,
contrary to ea.rlier information aupplied by the District, ;ubstankiat:i.on, as
required by C~QA, was requested of the District by May 15. No response o-~as
rece.ivc-d by May 15 to subetantiate the claim that i:he Di3trict i~ over
capar.ity now and would sufPer adverse impact3 b,y the cortstruction of ~lie
Gr~imer.;:y Apartmc~nt praject, A letter waa received from Bes~, Best and
Krieger on Dlay 2f3 with nzw atudent qeneration Factors. The l.ptter stated
tt~at the con~ultant who d~velope<I the new atudenL- generati~n factars 4118 aut:
of town until June 4. Planning ~taf•f oent a:Lett:er on June 3 to Be~t, F3e~t.
and Krie~er (attacilment B) reqtie~;ting the aubsz,:~ntiation for the new student
gen~ration f~ctora by Junc~ 7, 1991 and also requested a mpei:i.ng wi.th Geat,
B~st and Krieg~r to discusa L•he issue of the Schoo]. District. Na
suk~stantl.ation was received by J'une 7 to supporL- the new st.udent gene.ration
L•actora. Additianally, a call waa received on Friday aftern~on of JunP 7
~tating that the lawyer handling thi.,~ caec~ wa~ goi.n~ to be out u£ toam
dui-ing ttie week ~f JunE tenth and would nat be available to cliGCUS~ t:ie
propc.~3ed project unl-il t~h~ week of thP Planning Commission hearing. Due to
tht fact tF~at the original rr..3gponse to the Notice of Prepaz•~tion i.~
con3iatent with past respanaes from thP Diotrict, no eubstantiation ha~ been
received to validat•e n~w studer~t generation facLorn, no known impacta or
requ~recl mitigation measures have been idontified as iY, relates to tti~
Anaheim Union EIigh Sctiool U~strict.
-2- PC91-102
;'.'~i~~!.,~';i L~ .
~„
Vi9~`d6~
~~~'' ~~'~
Socioeconomics - The prapaoed project wi11 add 338 housirig unit~ to a
subreg.i.on that i~+ con~iderod job rich. However, cumul.ative pro~ects will
worRen lhQ exiating joUs te k~c~uaing imbalance in the subrpgion. This i~
conaidered a aigri.iftaar~t impact. The City of Anaheim is working to
implemer~t measures th~t wi11 balance grawth with infrastructure needs and
ai:• quality eonc:erns through adoption oP a Grc~wth N,anagement Element, an
.Ai..r Quality Elenent and TSbf pragrams.
(b) Section 15091 of the C~QA Gu.idelinea re~ui.res tYiat one or. moxe Eindtn7s b~
mad~ for each aigriificant erivironmerital effect. Thr.ee finding categorie9
ar~ po~aib'le. SQC~ione A, E1 and C bel.ow state each finding, s.nd then
i~leiitify the impac~ catec~ories far wliich tk:ese findings are a~,~ropriate.
A. '~Changet~ or. alteration3 have been requir~d in, or incorporateci into,
~ the project wY-ich avoid or aub~+t~ntially ].esser. the sign.ificant
envi.ronmental effect as irlei~tified in the Draft EIP.." This finding
app.liea to t•he following environmental effECt~ of the pro~ect:
. Land Uee
. Geol~gy/Soilr~/Seismicity
. FIydrology
. Socioecunomics
. Noise
. Public Servicc;II anci Utilitiea
. Aesthctics
. Traffic, Circulai:iar~ ar:d Farking
. Air Quality
. FIazardous Mat.erialr~
12cfer to tt~e Uraft EIR for a f:ull diacusaion of the above 3.mpacts, t:he
miti,qation measures preECribed ard a ciiscussioii of impact significa*~r_e
afte.r. mi.tigation.
fi. "Such changzs or alt~ratione are within the resnuneibility and
jurieclict:ien of. another publ.ic agency and not the agency making the
fin~9ing. Such changes have been adopted by such ~tt~er. ac~ency or can
and ehould be adopted by auch other agency."
There are no other agencien that have been identif.ied through the EIR
procesa which have jur:i3diction ove.r thia site.
C. "Sp~cifwc kconomlc, social, or other. consideratians mak~ infea~il~le
the project alternativea identified in the Draf~ EIR"
The following discusei.on identifies the variou~ alternativ~s
coneidered iri the Uraft E?R, followed by an explanatian nf the
rationale for findiny theae alternatives inf~asible and/or r.ejecti.ng
aame.
_3_
YC91--102
,
~' `
~h, ~ i;!~~~l~' ! '
~i4r}+a -~ti ' t, ~~„ ;.;ai,.
~i:sP4y
NO PROJECT ALTLRNATIVF
Thie alternative assumea the continuation of• existing con~itionr~. The
sit~ would continue as az~ induetr.ial :nanufacturing Eact.l!ty. Th~re
would be a loss o£ employment for up to :~35 peaple. How~ver, the
proposed rroject wnulcl p.rovide 40 (fari;y) to 68 (aixty-elght) units of
affordable houeing which ie a goal of the Cit~~'s EIouei.ng Element.
Tl~is alternative doe~ not, however, preclude futur.e dev~].opm~nt in
accordance wi.th planning and zoning standards in e:~istence at the tims
~£ permit isauancz.
AdopL-ion of the I~o Projc:ct Alternative would not be 3.nstrumental in
e].iminating the signiiicant impacte of the propoaed project identifi.~d
in the Dr.a.f.t Environme!~tal Tmpact Report {i.e., impact~ an alpmeni:ary
achool~ and cumulative socioernnomic ~mpacte}.
As shown in Section 3.0, Adc9~ndum, of the Reaporise L-o Comm~nts, the
projact proponent reached ari agreement with the Anaheim Cit.y School
Diatrict cnnsieticig of. the payment of additional school £ees to the
D.istrict. Payment nf these .f~p~ will allow th~ Disttict to provide
the necesgary school faci.li.ties and will resulL i.n the complete
mitigation of a11 project-generated impacta on the District.
The cumulative socioecoiiomic xrtipacts cor.sist of an ~xcess of job~;
versu~ housing in an alreadx job-rich subregion on a cumu.lative
level. Implementation of th~ No Project Alternative would f.ail to
impr.ove the jabs to housing balance, and the cumulative projeats as a
whole will con~inue the existing jobs to housing imbalance in th~
subregion.
Hecau~~ th~ C7o Pr.oject Alternat-ive is n~t environmentally superior
compared to the proFo~ed project, the No Praject Al.ter.native is
::ejec:ted. xn addit•ion, the No Project Alternativ~ wct:ld not
~xccomplish the objectives estab].ished for the project. Tne 338
housing unite would n~t be built in the job-r.ich aubreyion thus nct
amelio.rzting the exi.sting job/housing i.mbalance. The 40 to 6$ very
low income housing unii:a would riot be built thus not respond.tng to the
need for af E~rdable housing for very l~~w a~~ci 1ow iric~me households as
identified in the Houoing ~lament.
REDUCI:D D~_~SIT}. AI;TERNATTVE
Thie a1t~L•native reducea tiie total amount af apartment uait~ From 338
to 238 units, approximatel}r 308 less units. All aervice demands would
be reduced. Thifl alterna.tive would be mor~ in concert with the
current "down z~n.ing" effort that the City has under.~taken with regards
to resid~ntial land usen.
".~" PC9] -102
~
°i~tbtp
~"'
The Reduced I'en:city ~].t~rn~tive is not Pnvironment~].ly superior
becauso .it would re~ult in ~imilar i.mpac~s as •tho proposed pro joct .
While the num}asr. ot' elementar.y acl~oul atudento generated by this
alternati.ve wouLd be reducod, thay could not be accommodated by the
F~naheim City Sctioo; pigtrict be~:ause all elementary schoolA curreni:ly
operate at capacity, payment oi addi.tional feen within tne framework
of a School Fee Mitic~ation Agreement would b~ required similar to the
agreement reached for the proposed project, although most-. 1ikQly
reducad i.n amount.
The ~~umu7.ative socioecon~mic impacts cori~tist of an ex~ess of }obs
versus~ housing in an already job-rich subregion ar. a cun~ulative
level. Whil~ the implementatian of tre Reduced Density Alternative
will impr.ove the jobe to housing balatice, the improvement would be
reduced compared to the prop~sed project. The cumulative projects a~
a wh~lc would continue the existi.ng joba ta liousing i.mbalance in th~
~rea.
The Reduced Uensity AZi:e.rnative is not environme:~ta~.ly supeLior
compared to the prr~puc~ed project; ther~fore, the Reduced D erisity
Alternativ~ is .reject~d. In adcition, th~ 12educed Density A.lter:~ative
• would not accomplish the objectives eatablished for the project.
~, Approximately 100 tewer hoasing units would be built i;i t:he job-rich
° rubregion thuo reau lting in reduced ameliorltion of th` ex isting
job/housing imbalance. Fewer, if any, low inr.orne t~ousing units would
be built thus not responding at all or lesa to the rieed for affordable
housing for ver.y low and low income householda.
OWNERSHIP HOUSI~IG AL'I'ERNATTVE
Tna.s alterriative proposes 75 (seventy-five) towr,homes. The Ownership
Iioueing Alternat;.ive is not c~nvironmentally supe.rior because it: would
result in similar impacta ae the proposAd project. f4hile the ntimber
of elementary achool atudenta generate~ by thia alternative would be
reduced, they could not be accommodated by the Anaheim City School
I)istrici: becau~e all ecrool.a currently operate at capacity. Paym~nt
aF additional F~e~ within i:he framework of a School Fee Mitigation
Ac~reement wo~ld be roquired ni.milar to the agreeme-it reached for the
proposed nrr~ject, alt hougfi maR~ likely reduced in amount.
The cumulative socioeco~iomic impacts consist of ~~zn exces~ of jobs
versu~ housing iti an already job-rich su~regian on a cumulai.ive
levEl. 4lhile the implementatfon of the Ownership Housing Alternative
wi.ll improve the job/houei.ng balanc~, tre improvement would be redu~ed
compar~d lo the propoeed p.roj~ct. The c;:mulative projer.ts as a..:~o1e
wou:d continue the exis~ing job/hou~ing icnba:.ance in the suk~r.egion.
The Ownership fiouaing Alternative is not en•~i.ronmentall,y superior
compared t~ the proposed project, tt~er.eforP, the Ownership Houeing
Alternative is rejected. Iri additi.an, ttz~ Ownership Fiousing
AlternaCi.ve would no~ accomplieh the objectives ~r~tabli.ohed f or the
pro~eat. Approximatcly 1.92 fewer. houaing ut~its would be built in tli~
r+ ~,..,.
i;`..
1~~' d i 1~~~ ~~ .
r n~~,s, ~ ~~' ~4 ~
«-~ ~,,~~.~~ `.
d ~
r~ 'fF~~ r k~ ~~, .
dt r?~+;; r ~
~Y~+e?~h ,. .
-5-
PC91-102
~ `~nt.;y
job-r1.ct~ subragi~n tlwo r~nulting in reducod ame.llaration of et~e
axt~ting job/I:oueing imh.3lance. Fewer, i_f any, 1~w inc~me hc~usinq
unito would bo hUi.].r. thuc~ nat :~enpunding to thc~ noed for afford7ble
hauoinq for vary iow and lo,~ incam~ hauneholdo.
1~L~1'ERNATIVL LOCATIUN
'I'h~~ Alternat•ivo Locat.ton aaeumea thc~ eame ~LOjecr. ,3t a 9.5-acr~ aJ.ro
~~t th~ ~uuChweat corner of B~aah Eioulavar.d ~nd Ur~nc~~ Avenu~. ThQ
pro•jQCt wouid havQ 20~t l.ow income units ~r.9 would be on iand which ir~
currently used f~r agriculture and io zoned AS-A-43,OOU.
Implamentltion of this AJ.ternutive Locdtian wouid reault in the same
i.mpacto ar~ th~ proposed projecL•, If the projeck ie impie~ac~nted at the
altarnative locAtion, ~.t would bQ in the Sav~~nna School District
which, acco~:di;~rJ to th~ Asei~tant Superintei-d~nt, ir~ ~~t ex~.~eriencing
ove.r capacity and would not requir~ mitigatiun m~asures bQy~nci ~he
require~i f~chaol £e~:o. Impacts in ali other impact: azeaa are ~ro~ected
tc ~e i.d~nt.ic.~l or si.mi.lar, incluclinq curoulative eacioQCOnomic
impacta, B~r_ause the Alte~native Location ia .~ot pnvironrnentall~~
~upf,ri.ur ~ompared to the propo~ed prcjeck, the Al.ternative Locatior is
re j ec tec: .
(c) aec*_ion 210E?1.G of t.h~~ P~~bl.ic R~?90liCC@3 Code requirc~~ thaL• wtien a public
agency is making the fincfingn required by Sect•ior~ 210$1(a) o£ the Public
Resoui•ces Code, L-he Ayency ehal.l adopt a reporting or m~ni.toring program
far the changes to the pr.c~ject which it haa adopr_ed or nade a condition of
~rojFC~ approval, ir: order ~o mitigate or .ivoi.d signifi~~•~r.t rfYectia ~n thP
environment..
'1'he Cir_y }~~reby iinds r,h~iY. L-l~e miti~ation meaau.res (l.i~ted in Section V-
Recomcnc^:Ied i:ondition3 of Ap~roval) have bt~en inr_orporated inCo a
DSitigation Monitur.ir~y Pro~ram tltia*. meNts the r~qiiirements o~ Section
210f31. G of the f~ublic R~ec~urcea Code and rraducer~ the project ~ s
environrnent:~l effect•e to an acc~FtaDle lnvel.
(d) Therefore, the Planning Conur.is3~fon hereby certiiien EZR N~. 308 and the
an3~~ciated Mitl~~ati.on M~niL•oriny Vrogr~~m baQed upon the £indinqs herr_in.
NCW, TH~REFORE, Bf•.' IT RESOI,VED that the Anahefrc City Planning
C~m~iaaion ~9oea hc~reby deny PF~•citi.on for RQrlaa4ifi~ltion on th` ba~ir of th~~
af~rer.ic~ntionFd fiitdingt~.
T'NF: FORF.CGING RF;S~GUTION wa~ adopteq aY. L•he Plann i r.:, C~„~,,,.isr,.~ rt;
m<~ctirv; ~~f July :5, 199:. i% . ' J ,.
~ i.
~~1,-__~c=,.~-~ ,~-~ ~~ C?~~4-~ <<t_
Ct~AIRWbMAN, AiVAHEIM rIT~ PGANN.ING C(1MMZSSIGU
yJ ~ r .
J, ~
' -r~-a.~. .~~~ </~ti~': /</
.~ECP.F.'f'n^., A;lAF9F:IM CITY f'L~NNItiC f.UHM15510:i
_r_
~'.
ATTEST• ,
--------•-•. ~ -C. .
~~.
F'C° t-1~1
~:
, ,a~~a, `.
STATE OF CALIFORN.IA )
CCUNTY UF n~ANCE ) ~o.
CI7'Y O~ A~IAHFTM )
I, Janet L. J~naen, Secret~ry of tha Anaheim City Planning
i:amm.taeinn, do hereby cortify that the foiegoing L'g9p1Utj,0I1 was pnn~Q~ and
adoptc~cl at a ma~tinc~ oE the Anahaim City Plan~~in9 CommisHion held on .7uly 15,
:791 by tho fpllowing vote~ of thw monboro there~f:
AYES: COMblIS5IONERS: BOYUSTCN, F~I~nHAUS, HELLYER, fIENNINGEk, PEI2A?,A
PlOFS: COM,MJSSIONERS: BOUP~y
AF3SEP!'P: COMrfISSIONERS: ME5SE
IN WITNES~ WHEREOF, : have herc~ianto r~et my han~i thie /~ ,~iv~
d~Zy c,f _~ ~~~ ..~ 1991. - ____._
_~
; ~~
i ,
_E2_~-~'~~--' / V <~l ~~.~~.1-
~_!~ 1i
SF.CRETA22Y, ANAFiEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION
_ ~ ~~C,~ .~ ~ 1 0 4