Resolution-PC 89-70~
~
~
RE LiJTION N(~, PC89-70_
A R~SOLUTTdN OF' THE .AN:AHEIM CTTY PI,ANNING COMhI7SSI0N
THAT PETT'rION FOk RECL'ASSIFICATION N0. 88-89-27 BE GRANTED '1I
'
! WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planniizg Commis3ion did r~ceive a '~I
i~
varified petition for Reclassi.fication frum CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATRES, 120 ,7
North Rob~r.`~son, Los AngelQS, CA 9U04f3, ownor, nnd ~:DM CORPQRATTUN, 5150 East `
~;
~ Pacitzc Cua~Y. Highwa~, Laizg Be3ch, CA 9080~., agent, oi cer~ain real propert~r
situatecl in the city o£ Ana~reim, County oE Orange, State of Ca3ifarnia '
''
I
,
described as follows: ,
',
,:;;,i
rARCEL 2:
~
~ That portiun of L,ot 13 of the Lor.khart Trac~, in the City ~
of Anah.~im, County of Orange, Sfcate of Califnrnia, as pe~r `~'
: map rec~rdecl in Book ~, Page 512 of MiscelZr~neous Ma}~s, of
; t;he County Recorcier aE Los Angeles County, Califoznia,
''
,~ described as fallows:
-
k Beginnina at the most Norr.horl~r corner of the 5.Z5-acre
' tract of ~and r.onveyed by Harry J. Br~inerd to Willium E'. '
~~~ Gade by deed r~car.ded in Book 52'/, Page 276 of Deeds of '';;
'.' said L~s Ariqeles Coanty; ' ;;;
;,
Thenr.e S 49° 09' ?6" W a distance of 503.79 `~et;
`''~'~
~':(
;,
~'
~: Thence N f,0° 41' 10" W a distance of 118. A4 foet; to the :',;
beginning nf a 342.00-•L•cot tangent curve, conc~ve to tYte `"~,
'
:
Northeast; ,.
;
;
,, ~. `:;;
' Thence Northwe~terly along said curve, through ~ c.en~.ral r'~
anqlo af 60° 31' 4$" an arc di,~tanae of 361.37, feett ~~!;~;
Thencc: N 00° 09'22" W a dzstance of 544~~N Eeet? ;';
' Thence N 02° 28' OS" E a distance of 240.18 teeC to th.e ,,`;
~~- TRUE YOINT OF AFGIIvTNIhTG.
,
r'~ ;;ta
~
Tbence N 00° 09' 22" W a distancE of 347.93 feat;
~; Thence ri a9~ 59' 00" E a distance of 761.39 feet; ~~'~,~
r~
Thence S 00° 04' 20" E a dista.ncc af 347.93 feot'
;,~
~
,~
Thence S 89° 59' UO" W a distance a£ 760.88 f.ee~, to the ,
~
TRUE POTNT OF 9EGIN27ING. ''~
;;` ;;,
Z~he area of :hE abovQ described parcol is 264, 821 square '`~~~
,~) feet or 6.08 acres. `:"~~.
: `
'
,~
, ;
~
:
`,, y
~:
i,; '";i
'r;
;,~~ '';~i
, ,
Y.{
'~
07Z5r •-1- PCg9-70 ~ h~~
'~'~
i~~t
i.
~~ ~ r
;~~
~:;
,
~ ~ ,~
~
1
g
WH~REAB, the Ci~y Planninq C~mmisszon did hold a publ,ic hearing ai;
the Ci~~ic Can~ex in ~he City of Anaheim on January 4, 1989, at 1:30 p.m.,
notice ot s~id public he~aring hav.~.xng been duly qa.ven as roquired by law and in
accorflarsco wi.th the provisinns oE th~ Anaheim Municipal Code, Ch~pter 18.Q3,
ta hear and consic~er evidence for a:id against sain groposed reclassifi;:ation
and to investigate and make findings and recommexidations in connection
;;{ therewith; and saic! public 'r,earing was continued to the meetings of February
13. 1909, and N!arch 13, 19d9; and
WHERL:AS, said Commis~.ion, after due inspecti.on, investigation ar~d
study made by itse~f: and in its 2aehalF, and after du~ considerati.on of a11
evidence and reports o~fered at said heari.ng, does fS.nd and dekermine the
f-ollowing facts;
1• That th~a peL•ita.or.er proposes reclassit•icat3.on of subject
property £rom the ML (L~imztod Industrial) Zone to the CO (CommerciaJ. qtrice
and Professional) Zone.
2• xhat the An4heim Gen~aral Flan dQSignates "u~ject property For
9usine:ss Office/SQrvice/Industrial l~~nd. uses.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is
necessary and/or desirable £or the orde•rly and proper ctevelopment of the
c~mmunity,
4. That the proposed reclassification o~ su2ijec~ property does
properly relats to tho zones aud their permitted uses locally e~L•ablished in
close ;'.roximity t~ subject praperty and ta tlze zones and their permitted us~s
generallp established throughout the community.
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject pregerty regu3res
the de~ication and improvem~ent uf abutting str~ets ir, accordance with 'the
Czrculation Element of the Ger~eral Plan, due to tho anticipaL-ed in.crease in
traffic which will be yenerate~ by t2xe intonsiEication of land use.
b• ~k~at one person indicatecl b.is presence at said public h~aring in
opposition; and tYiaC ~ne letter ~vas roceived in oppasa.~ion to subjec~ petition.
ALIFORNIA ENVIKONMENTA_ L OUALITY A~T FINDINC~; A£ter considering
Envir.onrnental Impact Report No. 28f1 .Eor the proposed IDM F3usine~s Center and
r.eviewinq evidenr.s, both writter. and orml, prsssnted to supplement ~IR No.
288, the Anaheim City Flannxr~g Commission finds tYlat FIR No. 288 is in
compliance wi4h the Ca].if~rnia Enviranmontal Quality A~ct and the State and
City GuidQlines; and tha~ EIR No. 288 identifies the following impac~s rahich
are consa.dered to be both unavoidable and adverse in natur.e and aot fu11y
mitigated to a 1eve1 of insignificance:
Traffic/ '~ci ula iQn
Even without the projecL•, a11 segmont~ of the I-5 and SR-57
froeways analyzed in the EIR will operate at Leve1 af_ Servioe F
under 1997. cumulative devr.lopment conditions.
~;
. , !~~,'y,-
~
zf
t;
I, 51
: ,,
I
;~ 1
-2- PC89-70
, ~ ::'~;~:~
+~
~'~ ~~
,t~~~,,,~ ~ F.~~,~q~,'~~~
~ !~
. . :~~,r;~'r
~' %
.~
,:,
Althouryh no~ a siyni.ficant impac~ on an indivic~ual project basfs,
the incr~mental addition of Craffic fram a11 clevelopment in the
srea is considored a cumulat,i.vAly signific~nt impact. Tables 11
and ~2 in the rinal EzR domonstrate th~t, with the mitige-tions
mQasi~re3 identif•ied in tho EIR and outlfned horein, the
int«~r~ections AL•fectod by the nroject wi].1 op~rUta at a Level oE
Sc~rvice D or ba~ter in the yea.r 2010. Although the cumulative
traft'tc impart is consid~red significaiit, the roadway network has
beQn mit3.gated such that the sys~em will operate at an acceptable
1eve1.
Aiz~ 4ua. 1 i~Y
The proposed pr~jec~ exc;eeds the thres?~old criCeria apec3fied by
, L•he SCAQt~ID and is inconsistunt with the Air Quality Ma~iagement
Plan. The project-~pacific and cumulative air quality im~acts art~
~ considered significaat.
l~~d U.~
ThE• adjacent mobilahome park will bc~ signitfr.ant2y affected by
project devdlopment as to the proposed bu:.Iding heighCs, bulk and
intensity. These conditio:~s wil'1 p~tQncially affect privar.y,
vxewshoc3s, shade and shadow and n,cise levels.
.~.irc+ Yr~ Q~L.i_9n_
Tho pr~~osed pro~ect, tog~ther ~~„~ othex dQVelapment in the
Project arc;a, will result• in a need £or an adci.itionaY fire sta~ion
in Anaheim; and, ths expansion and rabuilding and/or reloeation ot
Fire StaCion No. 6 in Urange. This impac~ is considerud
significnnt on a cumulative level.
~~.x/Wat~~w~,~er Treatmen~
The impar.~8 of the projec~ and other developmon~ in the area on
sewage troatment facxlitiea are conaidc~red potcsntially signi~icant
on a cumulative b~sis. (The project's individursl impact on
wastewater treaCment i~ considered insiynificant).
Wakor
The impacts of the~ project and oL•t~ar devolopment in the area oa
wator supply ar~ considerec~ pptentinlly significunt on a cumulat3~ie
bnsis. (The projQCt's in6ividual im~art on rrator supply is
considered insiqnifi~ant).
~~,4Jy
Prc~}csct implementatl~on wi12 incrHmenta~ly add to the s]emand for
finitN resourcan such as energy and water.
an8, the Planninq Commissiou does furth~r ffr.8 purauant to Sectior~
15091 of the CLqA Guiclelines that chanqes or alteratio~is have b~en required
in, or. incorporaic~d inta tho projoct Nf3SC}1 a~oid or substantirlly Aesaon FhR
siqnificanC envfronmente.l effects of the folloal.ng, as i8entified ia the Fine9,
EIRs
-3-
~ ~~
PC89-70
~
~~i; ,
.? r _.. ...,.. ~}. ,. ~u~ ,, . --~~..~ ~ ..... ... .. . , ;.o:~. . ... .,~.. . . ~.. ,
,rnrz,~ ~.~~~,
F
. TrafE3c ]fmpacts (projec~-specific)
. Noise
. Shac;e and Shadow
. Papulati~n, EmploymenC and Finusix~g
. Geoloqy ~and Grout~dwater
. Iiydr4logy
. IIi~logical Ites~urCes
. Po~ico Yrotaction
. Fire Protoction (project-spe~.ific)
. Parks and Recreation
. Put~lic Transportation
. Sewr-r/Wastewater 7:reatment (projoct-~pociEic)
. Wator (project-spaGif.ic)
. So1id WasCa
. ~tatural GAs
. Elec:trici~y
. C~rnrnunication/Teloyision Reception
. Cultural Resources
and, furtr.er that ths following such changes ~r alt;orations aro
within the rc~sponsibility and jurisdirtion uf anot.l~~r public agency snd not
the r~genc}r rnaking the findi.xig; and that such c.~ange. havQ been adopCed by such
other agency o: can and should be ~dopted by suc:h othar agencys
Tno mitigation measures identifiQd contain measures Eor both the
cities of Ar.ahQiu, and Oranqe. The impler;;entatlon of mitigxtion
meastixe~ within tha o~:her city reprasent measures thaC ar~ under
'the jurisdiction of anothQr agezicy as autl.tned in the abave
f• inding .
The ~launod widening of the I-5 Freewa,y is critical in providing a
workable circulation sy~tom fn th~ project •vicinity. Phaso II of
tho IAM IIusiness Center Ss contfngent upon the comp'lerion of thi4
imparrant projer.t. Since t•he widc3ning of I-5 is under tho
jurisdicl•ion o~E CALTRANS and ia not under the control of e.ither
City, the above finciing is appzopri~tg ~o: this im~act.
anc3, further that spacific economic, soc3al, ac other
cons~.derotians rr~nke inf•~. •ible thc~ mitigatinn meayures or proiect a].~ernati.ves
iden~:ified in tho Final ..tR;
and, that ~he Planning Commiswion did consider the vario+~a
altern.~cives consi~ered in the ETR, as fo~lowsc
No Proj$ct/No AoveloQment A1L•erna~ive
Thfs al.ternative would laave the Orange Drfvo-In in ita
current skate aud asaumes that the drfve-in anl! awap meet
~perxtions would continue undisturbeQ.
Under thfs alt~rnative, sevan intersections wiil dperatQ at
unaccegtbble lovels of servfce in 2010 ~~rithout the project.
This compares unfavorably to the projact mitiqation c~ndition
ahich shows r.o inters~etions operati.ng at unacceptable
conditiens in 2010, xab2os il an8 ~.2 of Che Pinal EIR,
comparing cnlumns titled "2010 Bnse" wi.th "2010 Mitiqation".
-4- PC89-70
. + tt~i'
,,.
~
;w
'i,;.
,,
>'.r
.;:*i~
~ rj7,~{
,:~a., ' l~
, ~~~~ ~i_S~
'S~ ~2
~ . .. - ,~.iei
The air pullutant omissions gonerated :f the ~roject would ncat
occur under this alternative.
This al~arria~ive would eliminake any impacts resulting from
con.Eyicts bQtween the IT~M Business Center and the adjacQnt
mobilehome ~;ark. FIowever, the existing ~Anfliats between thz
mobilehome park and tha drive-in/swap meet represent a
tradeoff wil;h this alCexnativo s.ince oxistirig conFlicts would
not bo raso'lved.
T.his altern~t~ve would el:iminatQ tno project's contribution
towarci wha~ havQ been Iclentified t~s cumulatively 3ignificant
impacts or. water consumption and wa;atew~rer treatment.
Yndustrf t~1 Altern~.tive
This alCernativR would develop the Anaheim pqrtion oi' the
project sita under the current General P1an designation of
Eiusiness Office/Sorvice/Industrial and ML ~Limitad inclus~rial)
zoning. TYie Orang~ portion of the project Qite rrould be'
dovRloped under t;he current City oE Oranye's Indu~atrial
dosignation and M-1 (Light Alanufacturing) zoning. This
alternut.Ive is similar in nature to the in~ustrial developtnent
north and northeast of the sita arld wou].d include 343,950
sq~~ara fAOt of industrial and 144,407 sc~uare feet ot ofE3ce
usea.
This alterntitive generates on~y 1,1].2 daily trips a~. tihe
siCo. While a res3uction in project ~r.affic is unnecessary tu
provide az~ a~equ~stoly working trnnsportat3.on system in the
ysar 2010, L-ho cha~nge would r~duce the project's incremental
contribution to cumulative traffic grow*h, 'Shis reduction in
traffic wouZd eliminate the significan~t project-lovel impact
on air quality, ~ut rhe cumulatively significant impact on air
quality wnuld remafn. The Industrial Alternative would reduce
tha development intensity aC th~ stte. Although adoptiou of
t:his alternaCive would i•educe the vfs3bility of the on-si.te
dEVelopment, industrial buildings are often considered
unattracti~e. The iand use conflicCS betwoon i~dus~rial uses
and the existing mobilehome park would remain aigni~icattt.
Industximl uses represent a tradeoff in torms of traffic
i.mpacts, ac~sthetics, air qu~lity, ond land usg conflfcks,
~rivacy ~nd job creation. BasQd on the above consider~tions,
the Induslrial Alternative is nor cons+.derdd ~nvSronmentally
superfor to the curren~ ~roject.
One Mi?liou Square Peot Alternat3.ve
Thi~ a].ter.nati.ve fnducc~t, two 6-sCory and ~chree 11-s~tory offfco
buildinq,s. The project site Would r.ontain a kotal uf
1,OOU,000 gquare fsot oE buildinq spnc~.
-5- PC69-70
,,
~:
~
_--'
~
-"; z !
,M
. r~.d~
h~ ~5~~"~-~
1~ y ~ 1~~
l ~ t ~. f
s;~;},
~ ~ :~~:i,,~a~l
~ . . ''~.~^~.
^~#
Thi~ altari7ative would gan~~ra~e l~s~ tr,~L•f.ic than the ~roposed '~~!
~~raject, tznd would reduc~ the am.~unt o.f r6sultang pollutant
om~.s3ions. T}ais a1l-erna~ive wouicl havo a less dramatlc vfsual t,
imp~ct, although at 6 F~nd ~1 stories, the office buildings '.~'E
wuuld havA thf3 same potential Eor ~rivacy and visual impacts ''
on the adjace~xit mobile:xoma p~trk. Thr~ One Millioii Square Foot
A1~ernat.~vQ wou].d create 4,000 permanent job~, w3~h a stimilar
rer~uct:.n.n in dsm~nd L•nr public services anci util3ties, ..
Alth~ugh in~:ramenL•ally r~duc~rd, this project's ;mpac~ on
trcrftir., .land use, Gumulative waterr.~ cansum~tiun, cum;i].ative
wastew~3tex traa°.monL• and cumulative air quRli.ty would bo yuite
sam3.l,ir to the curr~nt: nzoject and W6Uld s~.ilY represent
siSYn:~F3cant ~3nvircYUnei:~a1 impacts. A1~thouyn, adoptfoiz of ~his
alternaLivs Mou1d ~rodace incremental impruvements in the
above cateqariea, ti~is aZternative svould produce fewer job
opportLni~:ic~s at the sire. This a~ternative w~uld not
~s?.imiiiate ar.y significa::t environmental impacta associate~.
witi: tkie currQnt prt~jQCt.
Mxgad 'U~e A].ternaGive
This alternativH wo~xld cc-mbine of~ice/c~mmercial, re~ail an~i
hotei uses ~n the project site. Approximntely 8.$ acrt~~ would
be ae~~eloped ,vith a 200-room hotel. The remaininy 10 acres
would Qntail n to~al of 460,UU0 square feet of commercial
development. The commerc3al centar uauld include 430,000
sguare Eeet of ~fEice uses and 36,(IGO square Eeeh of retail
uses. The commercial off.ice space would be contained with3n
two 1Q-story bi~iYd.ings.
Th~s c~lternative would yQnert~t.e ~pproximately 8,080 da31y
trips, fewer than t:e current project. S3nce the u]Cimate
20.10 traEfic conditiux~s are accepto.bAe ur,der the ~urrent
projcrct, a reduction in traEf3c is unneces~ary to rectuce a
signiEicant irnpact. Howev~r~ the incromental addition to
adv~r~c~ ~ho:L•-tex•m CraFE.ic conditions and thQ addition of
trafEic to overall tre~fic growth in tho ~r~s~ ~s stfll ~'
nonsidEred a 3i.gnif.icant cumulati.vu impact. This alternat3.ve '~'~
would leason the air pollutants emittod b tho
y projoct, but '~
;~
simtlar to hhe cuxrent prajec:t, it is tslso inCar.si~tent with 'L
the Afr Quali~y ManagemQnt Plan. The cumulativo alr quality -~~
impact •~ou1el remain signiFicant. The ree]~action tn de~relapme~nt '¢
3nken~ity 8o~s provfde ~~ore flexibility in sf.te p;.annxr~g and ~
possibly allows Eor largRr ~etbacks and buEfer zonea from the f~
m~bilahome park. Fiow9ver, due to tho heiyhts of the
~
buildinc~s, potontial impaats a3sociated with privacy $n6 views 1
remafn. The cumuiativ~ impact on water anli wastowater would 's,
remain. ~
-6- PC89-70 `~~
;~;;
!y}
e~i7
~
~ ~..
.':•y~!
~ :;;.~:~T.
~
. ~ . . . . . .... . ..~_.~~
r`~~tii~
"7~i r ~~p~.L.~> >t~1tP.~~~~~~'i ~ > ..,~~ ~ ~~ -~~a ~ (^ ~~~i?~i
~~
Other Site Altexnative
+1~;\~trt+F7;a^i ri~Lk;~t~,~,~
"~~'40
xhi~s a.ltarnative asswnes that L-he pronosed IDM Ausineas Cen~er
remains r~s curren~ly propused, but that it ia develoF~ed at
anather location in the s~me gen~r~l vicinity. The pr~j@ct
description remains the same: 1,675,001 square fe~a~ af
c:o~nmerc:al/office davelopmont on an 18-acre site. The
clevelopn~enc would consist c.f two ].~-story offi.c~ builda.ntrs and
three 18-story officQ building5. :ltho~xgh no s.ite pla.n has
been developed, it is assumod that this altorn~tive would
s}iare similar characteristics with the current site Flan in
terms cf ;;ite aacess, fZoor arQa ratio, and site covarage.
The Uran3e Drivo--Tn si.te rernains unchange~ and the dr.ivewin
and swap -noet activities continue.
Two s~~Qr.ifio sites were iclontified ba~ed on the locati~na3
.needs of. Lhe IDM Business Cent~r. Site y? is 18.6 acz~s iu
size a~.d is boundec~ by Charman AvenuR, State Colleqe
IIoulevard, Rrunpart Street and the Santa Arla Rfver, 7Che site
cur.rently contains the Cinec~ome Theater and its parking 1ot,
the 1Rudeway Tnn, a gas atati~n ~nd o~fice building~. Under
this altQrnative, theso uses would be displacsd by
const:uction of the :IDM $u3i~1E)5S Cen~er.
Site !l2 is 15.1 acr.~s ix~ sizo and is bounded by~ Katel)a
Avenue, the I-5 Freeway, Paci£ico Avenue, anQ the AT & SF
Raalroad tracks. The siL•e con~ains several businesses,
including Western Mobile Phone, SCeel t'abric~ation, a motel,
h'ater Sptts/Distribution, Mt-rble Imports and ~n aleckrical
substi~tion.
'The impacts associaCed wit2i d~velopment of the IDM Business
Cent~rr ~re more relatc~d to the type and size oI• the pro ject,
rather than the site's unique physical ar cultuisl
characteri~t:.cs. Impact~ such as traffic, a:.r qualil:y ~nd
ser.vico demand~ rem~in essentially identical to the currRnt
project. Sike y2 would eliminate the ~mpacts idaz~tified wtth
t~e project related to conflicts with th~ mobilehome park. Itt
no other case does ~he sele~tion of: one of ihas3 tvru
alL•ernativos elimindte a siynificant e~nvironmental im~,act.
and, the F~lr~nninq Commis~ion doos hereby find that the
Al~ernatives are infaasible and l~ss desirable th~n the current project, and
rejecl•s the various A1tRrnntives far the following reaso~is:
1. Mitigatfon mea~ures incorporatQd .intu the IDM Husinet~s Center
have substaritial.ly ceduced the praject'a environmontal
effects. Wliile cumulativ~ traffic volumes are projected to
increase duo to the amount af development proposed in the
arQa, mitigatfon h~s bc~en identif;tc-d that will provide
acceptable lovels af ser.vi~e thrbuqhout the area affocted by
khe project Eor the yoar 201.0 conrli~cion. Although air qualfty
is consi3ored to be significantly im~act~d, a numher of
m3tfqating tr~ctors have bsen xequirod of the pruje~t,
-7~ PC89~iQ
;~~
~~~~
,;
, „I
.. .1~, _
~. ti ~T~a'~~I~.P';5.~+1`i A ..~. .. ~ .~ . ;~, li ~~,~i~~ r ir . ~) •f~: i~ ~i}.! (~~ li i1Frt/}nZ+ ~~'~~:t~~ ~' l.~~
: ~ „,~
~ ~ ~,r'~
~;~
including a transportation demand managemezil: program. Land
use conflicts have been identifi~d as a poten~zally
aignific:ant impac~ due to pr~ximity of the project to the
mobilehome p~rk. 1levert,h~less, baft~rinc~ h~g bder~ requirod of
the pr~jec~ to pxotQCt tho hom~s Prom visiis~:~ imp~cts and
privacy concerns, and t:his project alsu presQnts the
opnortunity to elimiriate conflicts wi,th the axzstlnq drive-in
and swap meet operations. rinally, w2~ile water consumpGion
and wastewater kreatment have been id~rst;~fied r~, signiEicant
impacts, the impacts identified are r.~~qf,:~nal and cumula~ive in
natur.e, and ~,ith planned expansions, #'u,ture growth can be
accommoda~~d.
2. Thc~ No Pr~ject/No DQVelopm~nt, Induskrial, One Mi11i~n Squ~re
Foot, and Mix~d Use Alternatives would result in the loss of•
jnbs as compared to the subject pY'4~P.C~. In addxtion,
~ppravnl of ~he No Project Alternative would result in th~
loss oE 3n unspecified nwnber of tomporary construction jabs
Lo be created by l•he deve.l~pment oF the IAM Business l'nnter.
3. A'Lthatigh some of the significant cumulative impact;s identified
with the pro~osed proj~ct weuld ~a incremexxLalZy roduced by
the ac~option of t.he Une Million Square Foot and Mixed Use
Alternat;i,ve: , th~se impacts would ramain signif.tcant on a
cumu~~tive basis. Sinca theae impacL-s woul~ not be reduced to
a level of insigni~Eictanca by these alternatives, adoption of
t~.ese alte~rraatives wou].d not substantially lessen the
significant enviroiimantal impact~ ~f ~he IDM ~iusiness Conter.
The No Projoct: J~].ternative would elirr~ix~ate the project's
contribution toward ChQ tunc~ing of recJional transp~rtation
improvemc~nts, A r.om~ariscau uf future cumulative impaaL•s
without thQ project and future condiL•ions with the pro}ect
aiid its cr~itiqatzon, ~2iows that required miti~~atinn would
create improvemenr.s that benei'it the regiou.
Industrial u~as reproserit a tradeofi ir~ ter~ns ~i traffic
~impacts, aest}ic~~ics, a,ir quAlity, laz~d v.se conf:l3cts,
privacy and job creation. Bas~d on these considerations,
the Industrial Alternatcive is not considered
env.ironmentally ;uperior to *he current projeck.
4, The Inc3ustrial AlternaCive wouid possibly create
additior_a; conflxcCs with trie adjacent mobilehome park.
5. The No Project Alternakive wc~u.ld elzrt:inate tho net surplus
in revenue over expenditures accruing to the City.
The subjact praject's economic, cost/revenue and othex
bene~it~ would be obLained to a lesaer degrr~e i~ the
IndusL-rial, OriQ Million Square Foot and MixQd Use
Alternative ~rere implemented.
;'; ^
-8-
PC89-70
~,
:.~
w
, t~.~
~(r'
,,,;::n, . ~
`, ~'~ '7
'44a ~
~
c
6. Zn conjunction with tho Other SitR A1tQrna~ive, with ane
excepi;ion, the ~election of one of tho sit~s would not
e~liminate any of the signi.ficank impacts associated with
the IDM Businass Center. If Site #2 ware se~lected,
cc~rtain potential land use conflicts with the mobilehome
park m3.ght not occur. However, m3tigation mAasuras iiave
been included in the projRC:t t~ minimize visual and
privacy impacts, and since there are some cantlic~s
between the homes and the existinq cirive-in/swap meet
~perations, i.rtiplementation oE Site #i would elimiua~e the
possibi.li~ty of remcving exist3.ng ~onflictse
and, tho P.lanr~ing Commission does determinc~ that the bonefits of the ~
~roject h3ve beon wezghed against thQ unavoidable adverse environmental ~
impar,ts anr3 pursuant to Section 150Q3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
occurrence o£ khe signifie~nt envir~nm~ntal impacts identified in EIR No. 288
as set Eorth above, may be permittQd without fur~her mitigation due to the I~
fol].ow~ng overriding consz~'erations: ~
To the extent that any impacts (inclutling, wirhout limitatinn,
cumulative impactis) ~ttributaksle to tY~e TDhf Business Center remain
unmitigated, such impacts t~re ac:ceptable in ligh~ of thQ ovorriding
social, eaon,omzc and oL•her considerations set ;F.orth horein. The
projc~ct alternatives set forth in tho EIR ac•Q infeasible for •the;ae
reas~ns and less de.~irable than the current project. Additional
mi'.igatio~n moasures and tYie alternative~ would impose limitaCians
and re~trictions on the dQVelopment of the IDM Business Cent:er wh'lch
would prohi.bit obtainiiig the specific social, economic anci ~thor
b~nef:its o~ the pro7ect which outiwdigh thP unmitigated impacts, and
which justi.f,y approval of this project.
The following social, economic a2id ather considarations wa~:•rant
approval of thi~ proj~ct notwiLhstanding axiy un~vo3dablF, or
uru~ikig~t~3 i.rnpacts resulL•ing ~rom the TDM Bus~.ness ~an4:er.
A. Jobs axid ~conomic Growth
Ulr,imate buil~lout uf the 7DM Business Cerater ~ill px•~vider ~~~ to
6,700 ~ermar_ent jobs, in addition ~o num~rous construction
jobs. T~ioreEore, the Plan:~ing Commissian £inds tY~at thQ
unmitigated impact~ are ju~tified by the need to create jobs
and provide for economic groo-th in the City; and thgt thc~
creation of additian4l permane.r_t jobs will inclirectly crea~e an
increas~d demand for gooZis aud sarvlces witY.in L•he City, thuB
providinq other ~otential employment opgortunitids anc~
contribu~ing to overal7. economic growth and well-being witi2~in
the Ci.ty.
1he jobs createcl by the swap meet oparations wiil not be lost ~
as a re3ult of the p:oject. The reloca~ion of thQ swap rneet to ~
Anaheim Drive-In wiZl rerain cne oconomic beneEits generated by `'~
thd estimatad 750 vendors and 10,000 visitors ~hat use khe ~!
Facility eac;h weekend. f
-9- PC89-70
;v~
. .. . . ~:~>r.
_~
.~
B, Cosh.~Revenue BenQfats
The Plann.ing Commis:.ion finds t.hat IDM Busfnesa Center wJ.ll
enhance the City's abilifiy to tund sert~icas aiid improvements
due ho tho a~~.itional revenuo~ generatecl by the project. The
net revenue to r.~sL ratio a.t full buildout for the City of
Anahaim is J.4a. This surplus amounte to 9;96.~ thousand per
year, after full buildouL.
C. Traffic/Circulatior
Even with~ut the prnject, ~11 segments n£ the I-5 and SR-57
freeways analyzed in th~ FTR wi.il operate at LOS F under 1991
ewriulative c~nciitions. The additi.on uf project traffic will
add to an alre~ady adversa condirion. 7Che incrome ntal addition
of tra£fic irom all development in the area ,is aonsidered a
ctunulativelx significant impact.
Thcre£ore, the Planning Commission finds that the unmitigated
impacts are justified by tk~e bonefitfl or the groject, and
recognixes that ~uc2~ impacts are on].,y temporary in natu~~e; aia~]
that the ul~imate mitiga*ion of this reg,ional problem is the
resgono:ibility of anoL-her agency (CALTRANS), and is not under
ths control o£ the City.
and, farthQrmore, L-he P].anning Commis~ion finds that the
praje~~t's spnciEic trattic imp~cts are mit9.grxted to a 7.eve1 af
insignificance. I'ees will be apglic~d ~oward the aonstructiion
of improvements needed throughou+~. this region. A review of
Tables SI and 12 0£ the Fznal EIR demonstrates the improvemsnt
in traffic operation produ~ed by the proposed mitigatian
measur~s. l~ comparison of Colwnnc 2(1991 Growth) and 7(20XQ
Mitzgatxon) shows t~hat at several inL•er3ections, levels of
Qervice w3.11 aatual].y ir~~rnvo bfter pro ject mitigaL•ian as
Gomp~red to ~.991 cumul~:tive conditions wfthout the ~roject.
The degree to which theso conditions improve re~.lects a ben~f3t
~~ the reqion.
D. Air Quality
Notwi*hstandinr, the mitigation measures ~nd ather condi.tions
which are imposed on this pruject, the GIR id~sntifies emissions
of air polluta::ts from vehicti~.lar trafPic which will bQ
generated by development of the site r~s signific&nt. The EIR
al~u identifies thQ combinati.on of rhis project and other
growth in the araa as having a c~umilatively significant
impact. The Planning Commission finds tha~ this impact cannoS:
be avoided exc~gt by approval of the No Projec~/No Dovelopment
Alternative, which tota"lly eliminates the projecC's benef3ts as
sst forth abovQ. The Planning Commission further finds tlna~
all of the yocial, economic and a~her considerations sst fozth
hereinabove wnrrant appz~oval of L•his projHCt notwithstanding
this siqni£icant imp~ct.
-10- PC89-70
..~.~v~.
~:~~,~ r,~,`~a~~''~~~
'k!
;R'
;~
::;i.t
~"'^?
~
~;~~,;~
:;a
:,~
.r
~' F
E. Was~swator Treatm~nt
Notwithstanding the mitigaCion measures and othdr ~ondi~ions
which are ndapted and incorporated in~o this prc~ject, the EIR
identi.fie~ the impac.t upun wa,towater tr•Qatment as significant
on a cumulaL•ive basis. Section 3.12.1 of the EZR st~tes claat
the Orange County Sanitatiou Di,t,ric~ ~QCBD) io continuously
Rxp«nding its c~nveyance and ~reatment facilit3.es to
accommodate the growth in its servica area. OCSD has indicate3
that its tr~atmenL• facilities, expanded as plarined, wi11 bR
adequate to handle the increased ~1ow of this and otner
project~s in i:he area. The Planninc~ Comm3ssion finds that this
cumulative •lmpact cannut be avoided except by appr,oval oE the
No Project/N~ Aovelopment Alt,ernative, which totally elima.nates
the proj~ct's benefits as set far~h above. The Planning
Commission further find~ that all of the sociaJ., economic and
other ~onsiderati~ns sot forth riereinabove warrant apgroval o~
this pL•nject notwit.hstanding the ~~imulati.ve significant impact.
r. Water/Energy
Notwik:hs~anding t2ie -r,itigation moasures and uther conditions of
appruval whict~ are adoptad ~nd incorporatEd into khis project,
th4 EIR identifies the impact upori watt~r sLnply ~s significant
on a cumulative basih. Section 3.12.2 of the EIR states that
both Cities 211Vr3 the capabili~y to serve the site with water
and neither c~f the two cities ant.icipates any adverse
Qnvironmental impacts associatc~d with providing watar
facilities and services to th~ ~ito. The Planning Commisgion
fincls that th.is cumulative zmpac~ cannot be avoided except by
approval of the No ProjectlNo Ilevelopment Altarnative, which
tota].ly elimixiates the projer.t's benefi~E a~ set forth above.
Thu Planning Commission furrher finds tizat all of tl~e socit~l,
ecanomic arid other considgrations set forth hereinabnva warrant
approvttl oF ~.hi.s }~roj~ct natwithstanding ~he cumutative
siynifi.cant impact.
and th~ Plannzng Commission does Eind tha~ the prc+jpc~ is acnsi;3tent
w9.th the intent of the City's General Plan for the site and wi'll be
Compatible with the projected usas of the surrounding land use~i; and
that mit.igatian measures havp been incorpor~ted into the project to
recluce the majnrity of environmextal impacts to an, accepCable level;
unci~ ~herefore, the Planning Commxssion hereb~ certifies
Envir.onmental Impact Zeport 2Jo, 288 and adopts this Statement oL
Overrar.linq Consi.derations.
WHF,REAu, the sttt[f ranort to th~ planning Commissxon datoQ March 13,
198:a, and Ei~vizonmental Impac~ Report No. 288 are in~orporat~d herein and
cQpies ~f hoth the staff repor~ and environ.mental impa~t report are avai2able
in Che Planning Departmer~~ af ~he Cit,y of Anaheim.
WHEREAS, ms required by ~ection 21081.6 of the Public Resources
Code, in ordar to i.nsure compliance aith the mitiga~ion mea5ures set forth
heroin, a pr.ogram is hereby established to monitor all con8itions/miLigat~ion
me3sures. Said program sha11 ~onsist o£ a writtc~n statQment to the Eile by
Planning Department, other City staf.f and Che develop~r listing those
-11- PC89-70
~ _ ~~,~
V
.~.
. , r'. ~~~~.
~
o.....~
.l~""".q
~.~.~~
~~ a
~ ~ ' '~ ' "'~ ~ ~' ~.,; `;,"~'~~'~
, 4~tL
',ir:
L~,
~':,.,
'u' i
cond.itiany/mitigati.~n measuros completed prior. to each bui].ding parmit. No I
building permits or cei•tificates of occu~ancy sha11 be i~suec~ until the
mitigation mea3ures as required by the conditions havQ bE ~ri met, as idexitiL•ied
in the projecl: app.rova'ls.
NOW, TH~REFOR~, ~~ 1T RFSOLVED that ~he Anahoim Citiy Planning
Commissiori doea h~rgt~y c7r,..~;: subject Pei:iti~n for Reclassific~itic~n and, by so
doing, th~t Title 18-Zoriing af the Anaheim Municipal Code be amenAed to
exclud~ the ~bove-describod praper.Ly irom the ML (Limited Industra.al) Zone and
to i~~cor.~~orats~ said descr.i.bed property inro the CO (Commerci.a7,/Office and
ProEesszonal) 2one uperz the fallowing condi~ions which axe hei~~~.'~x fa~~nd to b~s
a xiecessary prerequisite to the pxonosed usQ of subject ~ropar;:y in order to
pres~r;rQ the safety a~id 5eneral welfare ~f the C:iti.ze.~s aP the ~c'ity of Anaiz~im:
1. That the legal owner of sub~ect pr~perty sha11 irrevoc~-bly otFer to
dedicate to the City o£ Anah~im a ~trip c~f lyind 72 feet in ,vidth From the
centerZine of the s~reet along State Co2l.dge Boulevard including a 25
~' foot rad,ius at th~ pro~o5ed pul~lic street to be constru~ted 3n Phase TT
Eor street widening purposes.
2. That the 1oga1 owner ef subject property ;,hall irrevdcRbly offar ro
dedicate L-o the City oF Anaheim that portioxi oi tho public straet tc~ be
constructed in Phase TI within the City ot '~naheim f,East/West Praject
Road).
3. ThaC the legal qwner of subject, property .=ha].l dedicate *o the City of
Anaheim a strip of lan3 15 feet i.n width adjacent to the entire easterly
property J.ino within t•!ie Ci.ty of Anaheim for storm drain purpose3.
4. That the devolopRx st~all conduct. a study to determinc~ th..~ geas9,bxzity o£
providing sanitary sewer service. Sanitary sewers ahall be c~~ns~ructecl
as d~termined L•o be nec~ssary by ~hat study~ 'to the satisfactxon of tha~
City ~ngineQr. Sec:uri~.y in the form of 3 bond, reri:ifi~ate of depaslt,
letter of credi~ or ~ash shall be posted with the City pr,ioz• to
in~roduction oE an ordinance rezoning subject property~ to quarautee the
satis~actory complotion of the sewer Qrior to f.inal building and s:oning
inspections for thc first bui?.ding in l~haso T.
5. Thr~t a faithful performance bond in an amounr_ ~,pproved by the (:ity
~ ~,ngineer sha].1 b~ posled with th~ City of Anaheim przor to intruduction
of an ozdinance rezoning ~ubjsc~t property to guarantee tt~e removal of
r exi~~ing street improvemQnts along State College Boulevard and
reconstruction/construct.ion o£ f:ulX street improvements at the ultzmate
location w'isn requirecl by t'fie City Engineer.
6. That street l.ighting tacilities along State Colleye Boulevard shall be
installc~c3 cis required hy tho Utilities Genera.l Manager in accordance with
specifications on file in the OfL•ice of the 'Utilities G~neral Manager; or
th~t security in the form of a bond, certificate af deposit, ietter of
crodit, ar ca~h, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City ot
Anaheim, sha11 3Q posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory
completion of ~he above-mentioned improvementt~. Said sectirity shall be
posted with the City nf An.aheim prior to L•he introduction of au or~3n~ilce
rezoning subject property. The above-required improvEment,s shal'1 be
installed priur to occupancy of tlie firat building ;n Phase I.
I'' -~2` PC89-70
~~
y ~. . .. . ~ ~ ' .~ . ~ .. .
~ .^ -~~;''.._, ,. . .. ,. . . ~ ~ . ~ , . ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . . , ~ ~.'~i ~,~ i.~
. . . . . . ... t . .
M,
(fJDYr1~~iY.!nll~r.vl, i4~ F-~.~~'.Q~!tia~~rtif~ j~ivV~~ ~ r- ri 7
~ ~c.Al ~ ~ : f " 91r p. V£1 ~ " ~
f 1 r t; C i~ - ~~~`~t,A li~ ~.n~r p i~~+~I~~i~ti~6~l~'Y,s°'~~~Y~ii '
~ , f ~~; k'~,~~ ~~ ~
~ ~.~~ , ' 1~ cti ;~
pr~~4~;~~ ;
~'7 i
;
1
~ 7. That the devQlopor of 5~x~'oc~ ;
1~naheim, place underground ther~Qx s~ ing aoverla adAUt~lltie~ ty~~~hinYthe
public rig.ht,-o~-way on L-hQ su;q~eCt pro,pertl (east s.ide of S~ato Colle~e
RoulEVard3 includiii, axay transitional ns
U~i1i~iQS General Manager; and tha~ security£ n tth,eg Enrmr o~ Q~ bbande
certiFicaCe of deposit, 1~t,L•er of credit or cash in an amount ar~d form
satisEactory to Lhe City of Anaheim sha11 be posted with 4he City praor
to introduction u£ an art~inance rezoning subject pz-aperty ta guaran~ee
the satisfactory completian of. the abov~-menti~n~d imprQVC~mants prior ~o
final building 3r~a ~,c,ninq inspections for thQ first buil~ing in Phase I.
8. Thr~t a f.ea s;~all be p~;.d to the City o£ Anaheim ~ar tree p.Zanting along
State Co11Qge BoulPVard .in an amount as estab~zsh.ed by City Counczl
res~lution.
9. That the vehiculax access r3.ghts to State C~lleye Boulevard except nt
approved access points, sliall b~ dedicated to Lhe City df Ariaheim, ~
I
lp • Thah priar to the introduction of an ordinance rezonin "~
or with3.n a pvriod of ninet 9 subject ~roperty, ~
Y(90) days from the date of this resolutiori,
whichever occur~ first, tha 1ega~ awner(s) of sub'f:ct
axecuts and record a covennnt in a form approved byJ thP Cx~t pPrty shall
OEflce wherain such owner(s) agre~ noL• to cnntes't the #prm tioxi~of ~an~ ~"~
a~•sessm~n~, distr.ict(s) which ma y '~ r 2 a f t e r b o f arme d pursuant to tht~
p rovisians of Development A~reernent No. 8~-01 botween the Cxt ~~
and Ana}ieim Stadium AssociatNS, which distx•ict ~ X of Ana;~Qim ~
l~ga1 properry ownor' s prope: t•y. ~ ~ ~ould incl ude such ~
11. ~hat pr, ior to the introduction oi an ordinance rezoning $u~~eCt Property,
Coriditian Nos, 1 througYi 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or •righ~s granted by this resolution shal~ become null and
vo.id by act.ion af the Planning Comrnission unl.ess :,ai.d conditions are
cc~mplied with withiu one year trom the date oP this re4olution, or such
furL•her time as ~he planning Commissi.oii may grant.
12. 7'hdt a~,proval oF this application c:onsti~utes a
roquest ori3.q to the exten~ that it complias witr~ the Anaheim~ Muaaicipal
Zoning Code and any other applicabl«~ City regulatxans. Approval does not
ir~c;lude any action or findings as to co-npliance ~r appro~val of khe
request r~garding any other appli~ablo urdinancp, regulation or
requirement.
13. Thc~t the deva~loper shall be held responsibl.e for c~mp~ying w~th the
future monitoring nnc] ',
f 11
repoxting program establzshed by the City in
~amPl3.ance with SecCion 21081
B
,
oF the Public Rec~ources Code.
Furthezmore, the devel~per stiall be
responsiblQ for any dir~c~ costs
associated with tho monitoring and
reportinq requirar~ to ensure
.irnplemen~ation of tYlose mitigation m
^
ea.
,ures identiEied in Final
FnvironmentaJ. Impacl: Report. Nn
288
',
.
that have beexx incorpora~@a as
Conditions of Approval for subj~ct
roj
'
p
ect.
II~ 7T I'URTHER RES~LVEL
C
o
~
n
~oes hereby find and detormine that adoptrion A
aning
f he
C
Y ~ ,1
'''
j~,
$
~
~
Qqs~
o
his
RP
o utl
predicated upon applicant's c o m p l i s a n c e w i t h
P y ,~
e ac h an d a11 of the cond' '
h~reinabov~ s~~ foxth. Should any such conc3i~ions
lti~ns
o ~'~'
4 ~i
,
r ~n
-1~- Y part ~hereof, be ~,,,;~
PC88-7C G .
,
~~'Y ...
~`
~
_
.
.
,
.~._ ~ ~„r _
- _ , . . ;_:~ ~
. ., .~,;?~
rs ,
~~
1
'
;~`t
',;
~ ,:~
~~~
;.;,
~
SECRG~ARY, .ANAFIEIM CITX LANNI23G COMMISSION ~~i;
,`
^r
~
~i, p
. . l 1 ~~'..~;~Ji { 'v~rt'fi~ti~~'Y'~~~~f~~Fp~
~ I1M1tP
lJ r ~~4
I':'„F
, '~4
~(~(
I ~~C .
?;~~
d~clared invalid oi• unantorceabla b t1iQ final ~;
y judgment of ,~ny court of a~
competant ~urxsdiction, tYien ~his Resalution, and any apkrova'ls herein. ``'`
contained, shall be deemad nul3. an~3 void, `;;
,i;
THE FOR~GOTNC RESOT.U'.~ION is signed and appxovecl by me thi~ 13th dzy
of March, 1989.
~,~ , , . 1 ~ ) i;
~r i
. ,', . , ~J ,. .
~ ~' %!l • a-~~ ~'` ,, Il'i~C~ Ct.GC.~
CHAI~tWOMAN,.~"A.NAI~EIM CITY PLANN.LI7G COMMISSION
v' ~ ;~~
A'rTE: T:
-- _d~~~ _G~~_~~.~ ~ ~ ~
SE(;RETARY, ANAHT:IM CTTY PLANNING COi~A~SISSTON
STX-TE OI' ~AI~TFQRNIA )
COUIJTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CI~'Y s)r .~p,HgIM )
i;
,;;;
;;
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of tho Anaheim City ~lanning Commission, do
hereby ~erti£y that L•ho foregoing xesolution was passed and adopted at a ~`
meeti.ng of the Anaheim Czty Planning Commission he.:d on March 13, :1989, by the
!co].lowing vote of thc~ membors theraof :
! ,;
AYES: COM?QISSIONERS: CiOUAS, HOYPSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, MESSE '±i
~,;
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: N0~1E •.~
VACANT; 'fW0 SEAT.S , '~,%
IN WTTNESS WIiGREOF, I have her~unto set my hand this 13th day of 'Ii
March, 1989. ,.,,;