PC 76-236" ~ ~
RESOLUTIDIJ N0. PC76-236
A RESOLUT I Qri OF THE AtJAfIE I M C ITY PLANM I tlr, COHt11 S51 btl
THAT PETITION FQR COt~DITIOtlAL lISE PER!41T t~0. 1651 BE DENIED.
WIIEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission dld receive a verified Petition
for Conditlonal Use Permlt from CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCII, 278Q [. Wagner Avenue, Anaheim,
California 92006 (Owner) of certain real property sltuated in the Cfty of Anaheim,
Lounty of Orange, State of Callfornfa descrihed as: • ~ '
That portion of the northeasl quarter of the Fractional Southeast quarter of
Section 13, Township 4 South, Ran9e 10 West, in the Rancho San Ju:m CaJon c1e Santa
Ana, as shown on a Map recordr,d in Book 5i, Page 10 of Miscellaneous Haps, records
of Orange County, California, bounded an~ descrfbed as follows:
Deginning at th~ Northeast corner of said Fracttonal Southeast quarter and ~~a;i~i
thence Westerly 1~~4.5 feet along the tlorth line thereof; thence Southerly, p
with the E~sterly line of sald Southeast quarter and the extenslon thereof to the
Easterly iine of the Rancho San Juan CaJon de Santa Ana; thence along safd Rancho
Line, North 26° 3~' East to the Easterly ltne of said Southe~st quarter; thence
IJorth alo~g said Easterly line to the point of hegtnning. .
RESERVING therefrom unto Grantor the South 3 fr.et of the Morth 40 fer,t for an
easement for lrrigation Iines and incidental purposes.
WNEREAS, the City Plannin9 Commission did hold a public hr.aring at the Lity
Hatl in the CiCy of llnaheim on Novrmber 8, 197~~, at 7:3~ p.m., noticr. of said puhlic
hearing liaving been duly given as re~uired hy law and in accordance with the provisions
of the Anaheim Hunicipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and
against satd proposed conditlonal use and to Investigate and make findings and
recanmendat?ons in connectton therewith; and
WNEREAS, said Commission, after due Inspectfon, imestigatfon and stuAy made
by Itself and in its befialf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is proper3y one far which a conditional use permit
is authorized by Code Sectlons 18.21.05~•11~ and 1$.21.o5n 27n, to riit: expansion of a
church complex to tncludr. a private school and pre-school in the RS-A-h3,~~~
(RESIDEt~TIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE,
2, That the proposal to expand and prnvide educational facilities for gradr.s
klnJergarten through high school (twclfth grade) is not within thc intent of previous
conditlonal use permits approved for the church com~l•~x and pre-school nursery, ~~n~1 a
larger sfte would be more appropriate for the proposed expansion.
3, That testimony was ~resente~i that the existin~ usc ~f the property h~s
been detrimental to the adjacent stngl~-family residential ~roperties and that the
proposed expanslon of tlie use would substantially increase the nolse ~nd othr.r impacts;
and that huffcring, In eddition to th~ extsttng wall, should be provided for the
protection of the adJacent singte-famlly residential properties.
N. That sub)ect property is relatively small and narrow and development tn
the manner proposr.d to include encroachment Into the public righ[-of-~aay aiould over-
develop tlie site, since the enrollme~t of the school factlities wnu1J immr.rliately be
twelve (12) to forty (~~~) students, with anticipated growth to one hundred and forty
(140) students in the future whe~ the facilities were further ex~anded, including thr.
addition of a two-story structure; and, furthermore, the tetal futurr, development plins
for lhe property were n~t submltted for revlew.
5, That thr. ;>roposed further development in the public right-of-way, (n vlew
of a current Julnt study by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Oran9e County
Water District for use of sald ri9ht-of-way, would not be in the best intr,res[ of the
City of llnahelm or tfie petitloncr.
G. That the proposed use will aciversely affect the ad.~otning land uses and
the growth and development of the area i~ which It is proposed to be locat~d.
7, That the stze and shape of.the site proposed for the use is not adrquate
to allow thc full development of the pro~~sed use in a manner not rlr.trtmental to the
particular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and gr_neral welfare of the Citizens
of the City of Anahelm.
RESOLUTIOtitlO. rc76-z3~
. ~ ~
8, lhat ihe granting of thc Conditlonal Use Permit will' he detrimental to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
9. That one~ (1) person appeared, representing three (3) persons present at
said public hearing in opposltion; and that no correspondence was recefved in
opposition to the subJect petition.
EI~VIROI~MEtlTAL IHPACT REPQRT FI~lDII~G: That the Anahcim City Planning
Commission does hereby recomme~d to the City Council of the Gity of Anaheim that a
negative declaration from the requlrement to prepare an enviro~mnntal Impact rrpor.*. be
approved for the subJect project, pursuant to the provisions of the Caiifornia
Environmental Quality Act.
~lOW, TFIEREFORE~ RE IT RESOLVF.D fhat the Anahelm Lity Planning Commisslon does
hereby deny subJect Petltion for Condltl~nal Use Permit on the has(s of th~
afarem~ntioned findings.
TfIE FOREGOING RESOLUTy0t1 Is signed and'approved me this t3th day of
I~ovember. 1976.
LH R11AN~ N H IT ANN NG COMM SS ON
ATTEST:
~ ~
SE~RETARY, AIJAfiEIM CITY PLANNINf C011NISSIOIJ
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF QRANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANANEIM ).
1, Patricia B, Scanlan, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolutlon was passed and adopted ~t a meeting of the
llnahelm City Planning Commission, hcld on t~ovemhcr 8, 1976, at 9:3~ p.m , by the
following vote nf the membcrs thercof:
qYES: COMI415510t1ER5: 9ARNE5, FARANO~ HERt~ST, Y.INf,, Mf1RLEY
MOES: CQMMISSIOIJERS: JQNIJSON
ADSENT: C0111115510NER5: TOLAR
1976:
It~ WITNE55 WNEREOF~ I have hereunto set my hand this Rth day of ~~ovemher
AR , ANA EIM C LANMIt~f C~M~11SSi01J
a
_Z_ RESOLlITION N0. PC76-236