Resolution-PC 91-103'~' ',~''~ih' ~~
R ~'S LU ION_S1U. PC91•;103
A R~SOLUTION OF THE ANAHFTM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION
THAT PETXTION FOR CONDI'LIONAL UCE PEFtMIT NO. 3415 9E DENIGp
WHLREAS, the ~lnaheim City Planniny Cnmmisaiun dLd roceive a
vorified P~tition f~r Conditional Uae P~~rmit Far certain real property aituated
in t1~Q Ci.ty of Anaheim, Caunty of Orange, Srate of Ca.l.ifarnia, dEOCrib~d ar3:
PARCLLS 1 AND 'l IPI 2FiE CITY OF ANAHEIDI, C(~UN'PY OF
~ ORANGE, S'i'A'PE OF CAI,IFURNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAF~ FILED
IN DOOK 51, P}1CE 4 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THF OFFTCE OF TEIE
COUNTY RECORD~R OF ORANGF. COONTX, CALIL'ORNI}1.
WHPItEAS, 4he Ci.ty Ylannin~ Conunie~i~n did :~old a public hearing at
~h~ Civ.Lc Center in the City of 1lnaheim an June 3, 1991 at 1:30 p.m., noticE: uf
said pub.lic hearing haviny been duly giv~sn aa requi.r~d by :aw and in acccrdance
with i:he provisioris of thp Anahe.ir~ riunicipal Code, Chapter 1£3.0:3, to }~ear an~l
consider evidenc~: for. a~~d ~gain~t said pr'o~~oeed conditional u~e permit an~l t~
inv~~r,igate and make findinga and recommendai:iona ir: connection thQrewith; and
th~~.t eai~ pubtic hearing waa :,onti.~u~:d to thR June 1? and July 15, 1991.,
Plar~ninq Commi.c~sion meeL•irig3; and
WHFaRLAS, said Co~n~niasion, after due inapection, investigation anci
atudy made by it:oelf and in i.ts beh~lf, and aftEr due ~onsideratiun of all
~:vicience and re~~,ort3 off.ered ar said hParinc, doea find and deter~nir.e th~~
following factc~:
1. That f:he pr.op~oecl L~~se i~ properly onp for which a cunditianal.
u.-e permit ia authorized by Anaheim Munici~~al Code Secti~na 18.34.050.065 and
1s3.~6.~)2U and r~lxPornia Govarnment Codc Sectlon 65915 L•o perrni~ ~ 338-unit, 3
and 4-~tory deck-rfp~ ^<-~ffar~~ab1F" houeinq apartment com,~lex with waivQr cf the
f~llowing:
(11) ~c~_~ian 16.3~i~0u1.010 - Nininum buildin~ site area per dwe:lincLunit.
(7.,200 sa. ft. reqUired; 960 ~q~£t~ propoeed)
(`~) SFrt1~REi 18.3~i.QG7 - Perm.it,ted identiEicaY.i~n eiqnactt.
ar.d 28,05,OAU.030 (o~e 20 sg, ft. eign permitted;
t.wo,`36 and 27 s~, Et ., e~gna proponed )
2. Th~.t the pro~o~ed use is ~1E?L'P_1~~! denied.
:i. 'fhat the requeated waivE:r,~ are he~rcby den.iQd on the ba:;ic
that ~uhjr:.•ct Uc«~ permlt wae denierl.
4. 'I't!at the propnstid uae .+ill adversaly affect tho adjaining
la~icl ~3en and L•hn c~rcwth and d~:velopment of rhe araa i.n which i.t io propoc~ed tio
t~e lccatcd.
5. Thar. the alze and ahape of the »ite pr~poae~ far the u~e x~
i1or. ~~dequate to alloa thQ ful.l developm3nt o[ the prcpoaed u~e in a manner nor:
dc~trimentai to the particular area nor to the~ peacQ, health, safe~ty and gener:.il
w~~iiara of the CftizFn~ of t;he City of Anatielai.
CCt1131MP -1- PC91-10:,~
' r,
u
~{ :~
6. That thQ qr~znting ~f the Cunditional. Use 1?armit wi11 bE~
detr3.mental to thQ peac~, haa7.th, eafety ar.d gonec•a~, welf.are of L•he Gi~izQns o£
t:t~e Ci.ty of Annt~cirn.
7• That th~ traf.t9.c gQnera~ed bY ~hQ propo~od u~e wil.l impufle ~z~
ut~:i~ic: burd~:n u~~on th~ atre~tb and hiytu-~aye deeigned and J.mpLOVQd to carry tlie
tr~ffic in the arPa.
8. Ttiat nin~t:c~e~n (19) peU~ie i.ndlcated th~ir prosenae ~t s,zid
publir,; hearir.c~ in oppasition; and that no cor..reaponc-?~~ncc: wae rer_eivecl in
~ppo~it.ton to th~ ~ub~ect peti!:ion.
CALIFr~g1J7A ENVIRONMFNTA, I, q(IALr ~~y_ pCm_~ giNdIH~. That pursuant t~
the C711tOt11.La Enviromm~_ntal Quali.ty Act (CEQA) Guideline~, after cc~r.eider.inq
U~1ft EIR DIu. 308 for the propoeed Gramerc~ Apartmu-it:~ pr.~jPCt and reviowing
evidence pr~~Unted, both written and or.al, to euppl.amunt Draft F.TR No. 3U8, t;liE
Plannir:g Commiseion findn ~.hat:
(3) Druft EIR No.
Quality Act anQ 30F3 ib in compl.i.ance with the Calif•ornia Environmenta
the State a
l
d
.
n
City c.EQA Guidralines.
(f>) Draft TIR Nn, 3 ~8 identif.iea tha~ foll.oking im
t
h~ ~ignifLCanr. pac
s which are ~~o-:9i~lered to
b,+t: can be m~
tig~zted l•
in~orporation of _
o a level af insignificancF w.ith
tlze r.ecommended mitigation ~~~~~
;;~ur~ri;
Sctin~l~ - i'hf
ca~,acitY• It Anaheim City School Dic+trict: current;
Y oP~'rates at
i
elementary ~choo ar cver
u astimatecl L-h,<,~
~ Will add 41 additiui~al
l student
~e
~
1
de•~eloper will ~ which wou
a
~~
lcl
be re uir~ ~igr-ificant impact. '1'ri~
q d t:a
af3 wNll as an pay ~rh~ol fees i.n accordanc~ with AB 29?.6
agreed upon au
accprding t.~ the m to the Anaheim Cir.y Schoo.l Diatrict
School Miti
gat
i
or, A
mit ic~at.ing the .
.
.
qreemen;: dateci April 23, 19)1, thereby
impeict to t}~~ pnan
i
insi.g.ni.f icance. s
m City School District to a level of
The An~heim Union tiiqh Sr.hool Di_;~ r+_et submittQd comment:~ at the Nctica~ oL
Prc'p~.ration atage glving :;tudent yeneration fzctors and capaeity of t:hc~
junior and g~nior high ~chools that woulc~ servi~e the propoaed project.
No impact on the Anah~.im Un.ion Hi~~h schoal D}.etrict was zdenti~ied and rio
mitigation ~nea~uros were prop~sec{, On May 3, near the end o£ tha public
rc.view period, correspondence wae r~cef~~r_:d from i3tst, F3es~t and KriAC~e~, a
1~!++ fi.rm repreaenting tiie Anah~irn U~ton Fiigh Schc+ol D13trict. Ttiis 1Q~tc~r
cited many ar~ao of concern in the Dr.aft•. EIR such ae .zir qualiL•y, traffic.~,
hazar.c?ous materiala ind incZuded a ntatemer~t that all ;zchools in the tiigh
sr.t~ool d.fr~~,r•i~~ W~rt ,~yeL ~apacity and could nol• a~cemmudate a~y n~W
3tuc3r~nta. Sincc~ the star_~m~nt that Lhe District was over capacity w~n
contrary to eariier information supplied by thF Diotrict, eubstantiation,
a~ require~J by CEQA, was re~uested ot thQ District by btay 15. N~ r~Fp~r~;~
~+'~~:~ receiv~d t,y May 1S to e~ubAtanti.are the claim that thf> Diatzict ?s f,;,~c•
c•.3t~.~city nr~w and would auf•fer aclverse im~.acts by thQ c~natr~iction of th~
C:ramr~rcy Apart.n~nt piojtct. 1~ letter was re~eiv~d from Hest, F3~:ar ana
rcr.fe~er ,,,, pfay 2g With new etudent genprakion factora. The letter stated
that tht ronsult.an~ who dc~vQlope~ the new or,ucier,t generar.ion fac;torr~ wa3
ouk of town iint:.l JunQ 4. Planning ataff. aent a lc~tter o~i .;une 3 to Fiest,
tie~t and i:r.ieqer (attachm~nt H) requo~at•ing trr~ subatctnti.ation for the new
-2-
PC91-103
.
~
f'''~''!h 6rr'4~
studont generat.ton ~nctors by Juno 7, '1991 and alr~a requ~etc~d a mooti:~g
with f3oei:, Bost and Kriagar ta diecues thd i~euQ of the Echool. lliatrict.
Nu oubotantiation w~F recc+ived b,y Juno 7 i:a eupport ~.he new student
gen~ra~ion factora. Acldition~lly, a call wae r.eaoived on Fri.day afte.rnoon
uE June 7 sl•,ating that tho Iflwyer handling ~hi_s case waa going to bc~ aut
of town during the weelc uf Jun~ t:~nth and would not be available to
c~iecuse the pr.opa~ed pr.~jac~ unti.l the week of t;he Plar~ning C.o~nmt«si.on
hearing. Due to the fact that the oxl.gtnal respour~e to tho Notice uf
Preparation is conei.etent with paRt rc~epanaea fr~m ttie Dietzict, no
~uU~tanL•iat•ion has been received i:u validate riew student gerierati.on
far.tor~, no kno~an impact:g oi~ required mitigation meaeure3 have been
identif.iecl a~s it relat.en to the hnaheim Union Eligh School. District.
Soc~,ioeconomics - The prop~sed project will add 338 housi»g unita to a
~ubreg.ion that ia considered job ricta. However, cumulati.v~ prnject.n will
wr~rsen the exia~ing job~ to housing imbal.ance in tize subregion. This i~
con~idered a significant impact. Th~ City of Anaheim ~$ ~vorking to
impl~n~ent meaauree ttiat wil: balance growth with infrastructure needs and
ai.r qur,lity can~erno throuc~h aduption of a Growth Ma~agement Elemen~, an
Rir. Quality Element and TSM ~ragrama.
(b) Sec~ion 15091 oE the CF.QA Guidplines rpguirea `iiat one or mor~: findings bc
made for each yignificant environmeiital effect. 'Phree fi:~ding catec~orios
are po:~cible. Sec*_ions A, B and C below atate Eaach finding, and L•hr~n
identify the im~~act catEgoriea for which the~e findinys arE appropriate.
A. '~Change~ or altc:rat.ians hav~; been requircd .in, or in~:orporated ~.nto,
the project which avoid or aubfltantially 1~3~en t:he ofgnifjr.ant
tnvirunmenL-al effect `s identified in the praft ~TR." This findiiig
ap~.lie~ to tY~e f.ollowing envizonment~al efFeattt of the project~
. Land Use
. Geolcgy/Soils/Sc~i.smicity
. Fiydrolaqy
. Socioeconomi.ca
. Noise
. Fubli.: Servic:e3 and UL-il.itics
. Aeathatics
. Tra:fic, Circular_ion and Parking
. Air Quality
. EiazarclouH Material.3
Refer to the Ur.aft EZR for a f~~11 diecuosiun ~f the above impacts, the
mitiyat:ion measures prescriber~ and a discus~ion o.f impact sic~nifi.cancc~
after mitigakior_.
B. '~Sll~tl changee r~r alr.c~ratious are within the reapon3ibility and
jt~risc3i~tion of anotl~er public agency and not the agency making t.he
finuirty. Such changea have been adopted by ~uch oCher agency or can
and flhauld be adopt.ed by such other agency."
-3•
PC91•-103
~';
!yyy'{*`,''~~~J .
Y9K~.~YrdtNfY f.I.'e
,,~:rr ~, ~r'~v}.
The.re aro no o•ther ~ganciea tha~ have ba~n identifiQd through the ~TR
px•oceoe wh.icti have juriadiction ov~r this dite.
C. "Specitic ~conomic, eo~ial., or other congiderationa make .in£•eaaibla
tYie pr~ject ~zlternative~ identiF.iecl i.n ttie Drr~f.~ EIR"
The fol.loa~ing diECUSeion identifies the v~r3.auo a1.L-ernativea
r.onoidered in the nraft EIR, follc~wed by an explanation ot the
rar.iGnale for finding these alternarives i.nfe~~ible ~nd/c~r zejecting
same.
NO FROJ?s'CT AT.,TLFtNATIVE
~•,
Ttiir xlt~rnative assumes the continuation af exi~ting condirinns. 'Phe
eit~ 4/0111C~ continue ae an industrial manufacturing facility. There
w~uld bc a loes of employment for up to ?.35 people. Fiowever, the
prop~aed pi-ojor.t wculd provid~ 4U (forty) to 68 (sixty-eigttt) ~anits of.
a°fordable housirig which i~ a qoal of the City's Housing Element,
Thi.s alternative cloes not, howev~.r, preclude ftiture development in
accoi~dance with plannirig and zonir.g atandards in existence at the i:ime
af. permit issuance.
Adoption af the No Pzoject Alternativ~ would not be inst-runiental in
eliminating the ai.ynificaril impacte of the proposed project identified
in the Draft E~ivironmental Impact Report (i.e., .i.mpacta on elementary
3r.hools and ct~r,iulari~e sac.i.oeccnomic impactfl).
As sh~~41R in Section 3.0, Adcl~ndum, of lha ~tesponse to Comments, the
project rropoi~ent rp~ched an agreement with the Anaheim City School
Diatrict conc:ieting ~f tlie oaymer.t of additional school Fees to tre
District. Pa,yment of th~ae fees will allow tt~e Distri.ct tq provide
the n~ceasary school facilities an3 will rE~sult. in the camplete
mitiyation of. all project•-generated impacts on the District.
The cumulative soci.~pconomic impacts consiat of an excess of jobs
versus houeing in an ulready job-rich subregion on a cumulative
level. Implementation of tl~e No F~zo~ject Alterr~ative would fail to
improve the jobs to hou~ing balance, and the cumulative projects as a
whcle wi.ll cc~ntinue Ltie existing jobs to huusing imbalance in the
a~.ibregion.
Becau:~e the No Project Aiternative is net environmentally 3uperiur
c:ompazc~d to the proposed prnject, ~he No Project Alternative is
rejected. In additi.on, the No Projecr Alt~rnative would not
acccmpli~l~ the o-~jectives e:~tai~lished for thQ projeci. 'J.'he 338
houaing uni.ts would n~t be built in the j~b-rich dubiagion thun nor
amel.ic.~ruling ~he ~:xisting job/ho..aing irabalance. The 40 to 6E3 very
low ir-come houaing ~anita wou~d not be buil.t thus not zeapondinc,; to the
need for afforda5le hc..eing for very low an~ low ~.ncom~ hoti~ehol.ds as
identified in the ftousing El.emen~.
-~}- PC91-103
.. r. i: ~t ~e
r ~-
R~nUCF~ UENSI:TY ALTF.F2NATIV£
Thi~ alternativa redur.er~ tho to~a1 amourit of apartment unirs :Erom 338
to ?.J8 uiiits, approximately ~0+~ lees uniL•s. 1411 servic.e demand~ woulcl
be reduced. Thie alter.nativ«~ would be ~nor.e in conc2rt with the
current "down zoning" effaz~t t}~at the City hac~ undertaken wii:h regarde
to reo,idential laticl uses.
The Reduced DenAity Al~err.t~l-ire ie not er-vironmen::ally superior
becauae it would result in similar impacts ae the propoaed pr~jec~.
47hile the number of elementary ~chuol studente yenerated by th.ts
alternative would be reduc~d, they could nut be accommor3ated by ~he
Anaheim Ci.ty Scho~l Dis~r.ict becauso all elementary dr.hool~ currently
operate u* capaei_~y. Yayment ~f add.itional £ees withi.n thp frameoiork
ot ~ Schoal Fee Mit.igation Agre~merit would be required aimilar to tho
agrecment r.eached for the rroposed project, although most like.ly
reduced in amount.
The cumulative socioeconomic im~acts conAiet of an excess oF jobs
veraur~ housi.ng in an already job-rich ~ubregian on a cumulative
level. Whi.le the impl.ementat~an ~f the Redur,ecl Density Alternative
will improve the jobs to bouoing halar~ce, ~he improvement would be
reduc~d compared to the prop~sed project. The cumuiat.ive projc:ct~ ar.,
a wlto.tF~ wnuld coritinue the exieting joba to h~using imbalance in the
area.
'Phe Reduc~d Uen~ity Alternat.ive is not envi.ranmentally superior
r.ompared t.o the pr~poaed projer.k; ttierefoLe, th~ Iteduced Den~ity
Alternat•ive is reject~d. Tn additi~n, tl:e ~teduced venaity Alternatiive
w~~:ld not accomplish tne ohjectiv~~ established for the px•oject~.
Approx.i.ma~e~y 100 fewer hou~ing unita would be built in the job-riah
aubreyion thus reaulting ln reduced ameli~ration of the existing
job/hou~ii~g imbalance. Fewer, if any, low iricome houatng units would
he bui1L- thus iior_ re~ponding at aJ.l or LE:sa to the n~ed For affordable
housing for vE~ry low and loa~ income h~useho.lds.
OWNERSIIIP HOUSZNG ALTER[JATIVC
'Phis alkernative ~;roposc9 75 (_~evaaty-five} to~~inhomes. The pwner~hip
H~~u~ing Alternative ir~ not environmentally ~uperior becaur~e it wou.1~~
r~;~ult i.n Himi.l.ar impacte ao the prupoEad project. while th~ numi.~~r
af Qlementary echo~l s~tudents generated bv thl.~ alterndti.v~ would be
redixced, they could not be ac~ommodated by r_he A:iaheim Ctty School
Dintrict bec3use ali srnoals currently oper~zte at capacity. Payment
of addi.tional fees w.i.thin the fr.amework of a S~hool Fee MiL•iyatian
A,r~~ment. would be reguired aimilar to che agreement reached for the
p:opooed project, although m~st likely reduced in am~unt.
The cumulative socfoecanomic impacts c~nsi,st of an c:xceas o1: jok~a
verau~ hour~ing in an alr.eady job-rich eubregion on a camu.lative
].eve:l. While the implPmeritatiar~ of thF Ownerstiip Houo.ir.g AlternativQ
will irnprove the job/housinc~ balanc~, tha improvement would Ue reduced
camparF~d to the pzopUSed pr.oject. :tie cumul~3tive projecr.n as a whole
would continuc the existir-g job/t~ou~ing imbalance in the subr:~gi.on.
-~- PC:91-' 0;1
~']rt, f
. .. -.d:{~~ ~
r;
The Ownezet-ip Housing Al.ternative ie nnt envirc,nmentally aup~rior
compa~-Ed ta trie propc~sed pro jec:t, therefors, the Owne.rship Hou~ing
A].L•ernattve ia r.ejected. In addition, ttie ownorship Housing
A1t~rnaL-ive woulcl not accomplish the objoctivQa estab].iehed for thQ
project. Approximately 192 fewer housing unite would be built in thQ
job-rich eubregion i;hus r~sultir-g in reduc~d aa~elioration o: the
existing job/hou~inr~ imbzl~nce. Few~r, if any, low income housing
uni.ts would be built thur not respond.icig to }he need for affordable
houaing for very 1aw and low incon~e houac~hnlda.
ALTERNATIVE .LOCATION
The AlEernati.ve Location aesumes the same proj~ct at a 9.5-acre site
at, the ~otittiweat corn~r af E3each Houleva.rd and Orange Avenue. The
projeci: would have 20~ low income units and would be on land ~vhich is
currnntly used for aqricu~tu.re and in zoned RS-A-43,000.
Implementation of r.his Al.te,:native Loca•tion wauld rebult in the same
ia~pact~ as the proposecl project. If the project is implemented at t;he
al.ternative locar.ion, it would be in the Savanna School Di~trict
wt~i_ch, according to thc~ Aasiatant Supsrintsnderit, is not Pxperiencing
over r.apacit:y an3 wou'ld not requirP ~nitigation measurer~ beyond the
r~quired school fc?es. Impacts in all other impact areas are projected
to be id~ntiral or ei~ailar, including cumulative eocioeconcmic
impactz~. Bccause the Alternative Locatian is not en~ir.onmentally
superior compared to the pr~posed p.roject, ttie Alternative Locati.o^ is
r.eje~~ted.
(c) Ser.Lion 21U~1.6 of the I'ubl~c Re~ourc~e :.'o_ic requireH that when a public
agency is making the f~ndings requiYed by Section 21(101(a) t~.f the Publ.ic
It~:sour.ces Code, thc Agency c~hall adopt a r.e~ortinq or monitor.tng pro~7ram
foz- the changes te the project which it ha~ adopted or. c;tade a c~r:dit.ion of
project appr~val, in order to mitigate or avo;.d sigciificanL ef.fectn ~n the
environment.
`Phe City her~by fitids thc3t the mitigation mea~ure~ (listed in S~ction V-
Recommended Coi~~itions of Approval) havE; been sncorporated into a
M.itiga~ion Monitori.ng Prograin that meets t}is requir.emer.ts o~ Sectiotl
21081.6 oC the Piiblic Res~ur.cpe Code and reduce~ thc project's
unv.ironmental effects to ai~ acceptable 1eve1.
(cl) Z'hei•efore, ttie Planning Commiesion hereby certifies ~I~2 No. 308 and the
ae,AOCiated blitigation tdonitorin~y Program based upon t•he findin,yn her.ein.
NOW, THP:RE.FQRE:, SE TT RF:SOLVED that the Anahc~im City Planning
Commi~sion doea hereby Qeny aubject Petit.ion for Cond~.tional Uee Permit, on tYie
basis of the aforementioned findings.
-6-
PC91-103
. ,. .. , . y .~~.
a.
~~~'`~~b
/•~:flv '
THE FUREGU7NG kESOLrJT10N wao ado~ted at the Planning Commi~eion
mceting of July 15, 1991. ~
~~-~ ''`~,~7 C: ~G~E'-'-=-*-'~ -~._.
CfiAIRWO AN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM.:a~IC~I
A'PTEST: ,
~~"""~.~-~~-tiL~L~ ~~ C G`i~!VG~LJ . ~...Y
Sb~CRETARY, ANAHETM CTTY QLALJN7NG GUMMTSS]ON
STATE OF' CALIF'ORNIA }
COUNTY QF ORAPJGL, ) Hs.
CIT'Y OF ANAH~,IM j
I, Jari~t I,. Jerisen, S~+cretary af the Anatieim City Planning
Commi~sion, d~ her~by c~rtify ~hat the foregoi.r.g resolution was passed and
adopced at a meotirig of the Anaheim City Planning Commiosion held on July 15,
1991, ~y the folLowing vote ot the member.s thereof:
AYES: COMMI;~:IbNERS: BOYD^aTUN, FELllHAU5, HELLYER~ HE[JNTNGER~ PERA'LA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: I30UAS
AB.~,ETi'P: COMMISSIONERS: M~SSE
TN WITNCSS WHEREOF, T have hereunto set my hand ±hie ~~ r~ day
o f ~ .s%~" , 19 91,
~.~ ' ,~ ~ t~~ ~~~. ~ ` ~ ____-
) ~/
SECR~mARY, ,ANF,HEIM CITY ~'LANNING CObiMTSSION
~-7-
PC91-103