PC 85-240RESOLUTION NO. PC85-240
A RESOLUTION 0? THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETZTION POR RECLASSIFZCATION N0. 85-86-7 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
petition for Reclassification from BC INVESTb]ENTS 85-2, 3471 Via Lido, @213,
NeNport IIeach, California 92663, owner, and BALALIS CORPORATION, 3971 Via
Lido, #213, Newport Aeach, California 92663, agent for cereain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows;
THE EASTERLY 150 FEF.T OF THE SOUTEf ONE-HALF OF TNE SOUTH 10
ACRES OF THE WEST 20 ACRES OF THE NORTH4]EST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 18~ 7N TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH~ RANGE 10
WEST, IN THE RAClCHO LOS COYOTES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS PER
P1AP RECORllED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 7, ET SEQ., MISCELLANEOUS MAPS~ IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID CO;ii~TY. MORE COMMONLY
K[40WN AS 2545 WEST BROADWAY, ANAHEIM, CALIFURNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did 'nold a public t~earing at
the Civic Centec in ~he City of Anaheim on September 30, 1985 at 1:30 p.m.,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Iaw and in
accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Chapter 18.C3,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said prop~sed reclassification
and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
the[ewith; said public hearing having been continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of November 13, 19II5; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after ~3ue inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalE, and after due consideration of all
evider.ce and reports offered at said hearing, does find and detern~ine the
~ollowing facts:
1• 7'hat the petitioner p:oposes rr.classification of subject property
from the CL (Commercial, L;mited) zone Lo the RM-1200 (Residential,
Multiple-Family) zone.
2• ~har_ the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for
Commercial, Office and Professional land uses.
1• That the proposed reclassicication oE subject property is
necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper d2velopment of the
community.
4• That the proposed reclassification oE subject pcoperty does
p[operly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in
close proximity to ~ubject nroperty and ko the zonec and their permitted uses
generally established throughout the crmmunity.
5. That four persons indicated their presence at the November 13,
19g5 public hearing in opposition, and 15 persons indicated their presence in
oppo~ition at the September 30, 1985 public hearing; and that Fetitions
containing approximately 77 signatures were received in opposition to subject
pel•ition.
0647r
PC85-240
ENVIRONMGNTAL IMPACT FINDING: mt~at the P.nahei.m City Planning
Commissio~~ has ~eviewed the proposal to reclassiEy subject propecty from tlie
CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family)
Zone to cunstruct a 3G-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum
structural height or. a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consi~;ting of
approximately 0.99 acre, havin, a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the
north side oE Broadway, being located approximately 505 feet east of the
centerline of Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2545 West Broadway;
aad does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has
considered L•he Negative Declaration together with eny comments received during
the public review process and further Einding on the basis of the initial
study and any comme~ts ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a siynificant effect on the environment.
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEU that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby grant subject Petitir,n for geclassification and, by so
doing, that Title 18-ZOning of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to
exclude the above-described property from CL (COmmercial, Limiked) Zone and to
incorporate said described property in the RM-12Q0 (Reside~tial,
Multiple-Farnily) Zone upon the :ollowing conditions which are hezeby fuund to
be a necessary pcerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order
to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citzzens of the City of
Anaheim:
1. That the owner of subject p:operty shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee for [cee planting purposes along Broadway in an amount as
detecmined by the City Council.
2. Thac :he owner of subject property sha21 pay to the City ot Anaheim a
fee for street lighting along t,:oadway in an amount as determined by
the City Counci~.
3. That prior to the intr.oduction uf an ordinance rezoning subject
Froperty, Condition ilos. 1 a~d 2, ah~v~-m~,•n!~ored, :;;;~
~~~~~Y1Cteu. ~rne provisions er Gi hts " ~ lj ut
becume rull and void by action f the9PlanningYCommissionlunlessssaid
conditions are complied tiaith within one year from the date of this
resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
BE IT FIiRTHER RESOLVEA that the Anaheim City Planning Commission doe~
hereby find and determine that adoption of this Re~olution is expressly
predicated upcn applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions
her.einabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be
declared invalid or ,.nenforceable by the final judgment of ar.y court of
co:npetent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein
contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 13th day
of Nc~vember, 1985.
l -. /~~_c~E t .~r'-~.~c . ,~~ ~< < ~ ~ `^ _
. ' ~/ '~.:_-C~C-.t ~'
CFIAIRWOMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLItNNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
- .. ~D/~~ ~~ ' .
---t__~ ~ ~ L L ~
SLCRETA'RY~ ANAHEIM ClTY PLANNING CUMMISSION
-2-
PC85-240
~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY DF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
i, Edith L. Harcis, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify ~hat the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meetin, of tF~e Anaheim City Planning Commission held on November
13, 1985, by the follo4riny vote of the me~bers thereof:
AYES: COPIMISSIO!iERS: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURLIEY
MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS°NT: COt4~9ISSI0NERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WhEREOF, I Have heceunto set my hand this i3th day of
Novembec, 1~85. ~ .
~if/_`~-E~„Z,~L ~ ~/~~~/~C.~
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIFI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_3- PC85-240
e ;
~