PC 75-180~ ~
RF:SOLlTfION NO.PC75-1R~
A RESOLIrI'ION QF THF. CITY PLMINiNG COI~IPIISSI(1N QF THF. CITY OF ANAHEItd
RF.Cf~£NDING TO TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF THF. CITY OF ANAHF.IM TNAT PEfITIOH
FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 74-75-41 6F. DISAPPROVF.D.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Reclassification from NOR'EAST PLAZA~ LT[1., c/o Mark D. Leff,
12Q E1 Camino Drive, Suite 206, Beverly Hills, California 90212(Q~mer); BILL PHELPS,
1Q95 N. Main~ Suite S, Orange, California 32667 (Agent) of certain real property
sitt~ated in the City af Anaheim, County of Orange, Statc of California described as:
That portion of Tract No. 613, in the City of Anaheim, as shoxn on a map thezeof
recorded in book 19, page 19. htiscellaneous D1aps, records of said Orange County,
which lies East and Soutli of a line described as follows:
Aeginning at s point in the North line of said Tract No. 613, (said North line
being the centerline of Placentia-Yorba Boulevard as shown on said map) distant
ther~on North 87° 19' West 685.30 feet from the Northeast corner of said Tract No.
613, and running thence South 7° 15~ East parallel with the F.asterly line of said
Tract No. 613, 278.34 feet; thence South 75° 20' West to a point in the Westerly
line of said Tract No. 613 which is distant 570.00 feet South 18° 11' West from
the most NorthNest corner of said Tract No. 613;
EXCEPTING that portion which lies iPest of a line which cotmnences at a point in
the South line of said Tract No. b13, distant thereon 827.04 feet North 73~ 12'
East from the Southwest corner of said Tract No. 613~ and runs thence North 7° 15'
West 120C.11 feet to the line first above described;
ALSQ EXCF.PTING the Southeriy 2~ feet as conveyed to the County of Qrange £or road
gurposes by deed zecorded February 24, 1926, in book 62b, page 387, Deeds;
ALSO EXCEPTING all oil and other hyclrocarbon substances, hut without the right to
use any portion of said land lyin~ above a depth of 500 feet from the surface
thereof;
ALSO EXCEPTING that portion of Tract No. 613, in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California~ as shown on a map recorded in book 19. page 19 of
Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County
described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Tract No. 613, said point being on the
centerline of Orangethorpe A~enue; thence S73°13~OQ"1V 428.92 feet along ehe
southerly line ~f said Tract No. 613 being along the said centerline of
Orangethorpe Avenue to a point on a line parallel with and 423.00 feet, measured
at right angles~ from the easterly line of said Tract No. 613; thcnee N7°15~Q0~'{V
1116.00 feet along said parallel line; thence N82°45'00"F 423.Q(1 fe~t to a point
on the said easterly line of Tract No. 613; thence S7°iS'OQ~~E 1044.97 feet along
the said easterly line to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom the souY.herly 20.00 feet.
WEiEREAS~ the City Plannin~ Commission did schcd~ile a public henring at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on July 7, 1975~ at 1:30 p.m., notice df said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in aecordanee with the
provisions of the Anuheim Municipal Code, Chapter YR.03, to hedr and consider
evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make
fifidings and recamnendatior,s £n connection therewith; said public hearing having been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of Septemher 3, 1975; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection~ investigation and study made
b}~ itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing~ does find and determine the folloaing facts:
1. That the petif,ioner proposes reclassi£ication of the above-described
property from the CL (COA4~IERCIAL, LIMITED) and CH (CO~AIERCIAL, HEAVY) ZONES to the
RM-1200 (RESIDENTIAL. M[1LTIPLE-FAMILY) ZUNF..
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designstes subject preperty fo° -
combination of ineditnrt-density residential and commercial land uses.
RESOLlftION N0. PC75-180
~ ~
3. That the petitioner failed to provide sufficient information, as deemed
to be required; said information to consist of an environmental impact report~
plrticularly related to traffic, sound and schools and, fiirthermore, said information
to include proposed development plans for subject property; said information having
been requested in order to make a properly informed decision regarding the land use;
and, further, approval of the ~roposal in the manner requested, without adequate
sL~pplemental information, might set an imdesirable precedent for future similar
requests.
4. That the petitioner aiso failed to provide information relative to the
future development of the adjacent commercial parcel fronting on the northwest corner
of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard.
5. That the proposed reciassification of subject progerty is not necessary
and/or Jesirable for the orderiy and proper development of the corenunity.
6. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
properly relate to the zones and their permitted.uses locally established in close
proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally
established throughout the commiinity.
7. That one (1) ~~ritten communication was raceived in favur of residential
development of the subject property; and no one indicated their presence at said
puhlic hearing in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIROMlE!JTAL IbiPACT RE•PORT FINDII~G:
That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to Lhe City Council that
the netitioner's request for an environmental impact report negati;e declaration be
denied and that, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, an environmental impact repozt be required for the subject development proposal,
saiJ denial being based on the foregoing findings of the Planning Commission.
NOW~ 'f}i.FREFORE, BF. IT RESbLVF.D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does heYet~y rec:om~ort~ t9 `sNe City Council of the City of Anaheim that subjeet
Pet,it~~n ~6r ReclaSs3f~~3tSCo~y~ be denied an the basis of the aforementioned findings.
Tt~~E F'Qp,i~.G~INQ f3E56L~~'I~~~ is signed and approved by me this 3rd day of September~
1":115; .
C11A R N, ANAIIF.IH ITY PLA*INING COh4dISSION
ATI'tf~i':
~~! l..~tJ
. fCf;~ :TARY, ANAFIF.ID1 C T'Y PLANNING CO!~PIISSION
5TATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUN7'Y OF OftANGG )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia E. Scanlan, Secretary uf the City Planning Commission of trie
City of Anaheim, do hereby certi£y that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anahcim, held on
September 3, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of th~: members thereof:
AYES: COAfMISSI0NER5: BARNE5, HERBST, JOHNSQN. KING~ MORLEY~ TflLAR. FARANO
NOES: C0~4~fISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHBRf.OF, I have hareunto set my hand this 3rd day of September. 1975.
~~~:~ ~'~..~
SF.CRF.TARY, ANAHF.IM CI N COhQAI N
-2- RESOLIffIQiN N0. PC75-1$0