Resolution-PC 96-77~, ~
RESOLUTION NO. PC96-77
A RESOLUTION QF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECIASSIFICATION NO. 95-96~4 BE GRAM'E~
WHEREAS, 4~Sa Anaheim Cfty Planning Cornmfssio~ did receNe a~veO~ BetSo~i fo~r
Redassffication for certain reai properry situated in the Ciry d Ana~'ieim~ CouMY 9~
Califomia described as:
TH,~T PORTIO~J OF UWD IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALiFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBEd AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST SOUTHEASTERLY CORI~ER OF LOl' 16 OF TRACT
MAP 5229, BK 192, PGS. 11 & 12 OF MIS~ELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE S 22° 00' 00" E ALONG THE WESTERI Y RIGHT-0F-
YVAY OF MAUDE UWE, 64.00 FEET WIDE, A DISTANCE OF 46.65 FEET ~O THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGONNING, SAlD POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A
TAIVGENT CURVt CONCAVE TO 7HE WEST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 142:18 FEEf,
A RADIAL LiNE OF SAID CURVE AT SAID PO1NT BEARS N 68° 00' 00' E; THENCE
ALONG SAID CURVE SOUTHEASTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ~9°
01' 00' A DISTANCE OF 47.29 FEET; THENCE S 41 ° 07' 44' W A DISTANCE OF
35.06 FEET; THENCE S 84° 43' ~7' W A DISTANCE ~F 100.00 FEET; THENCE
S 87° 01' 00' W A DISl'ANCE OF 130.00 FEET; THENCE N 2° 59' 00' W A
DISTANCE OF 3.69 FEET TO POINT ON A'NON TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 620.00 FEET, RADIAL LJNE OF SAID CURVE
AT SAID POINT BEARS N 7° 17' 23' W~ THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE
EASTERLY THROUGH A CEMRAL ANGLE OF 23 ° 54' 22' A DISTANCE OF 258.69
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the Cfty Planning Commission did h~ld a publlc hearing at the CNic Ccnter in
the Ciry of Maheim on February 5,1996 at 1:30 P•m•~ noUce of said public hearing having been duly gNen
as required by law and In accordance wfth the provisions of the~ ~e~tion ar.dpto investiga e and make
to hear and conskler evklence for and against said proposed
flndings and recommendations in connection therewfth; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, Im+esN9ation an~ sttu~Y made by itself
and ir, its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and repores offered a4 said hearing, doss find
and determine the following facts:
1, That the petitioner proposes redassiflcation of subJect properry from the RS-A-43,000(SC)
(Resldential/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overtay) Zonetothe CO(SC) (Comm~rclal Office and Professional-
Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subjed proPenY for HAlside Low Densiry
ResideMial land uses and that the Planning Commi~sion has i~~m~ ~ P Qf~I~on~ai and uses.rove
General Plan AmendmeM No. 340 to redesfgnate the property
3, That the pro~osed red: .:srfication of subject property is ~e~%essary a~d~°r desirdble for the
ordorly arxi proper development of the communiry.
4. That the proposed redassification of subject properry does properly relate to the zones and
their permitted uses ~ocal~Y es'~~i~ ~n dO~ proximity to subJect property and to the zones arxi their
perrnitted uses generally established throughouc the communfty.
-1- PC96-77
CR2721 DM.WP
~ ~
5. Ti~at the propo~~::` ?'jclas.s~ic~tton of subJect r.`~~~'h~ d~ not requfre the dedication and
-- ;craar,^,~.~~ment a"r ab~ring stresis ir~. :;<,~r~fan.e with the C(rcutation Elemont of the Generai Plsn; and
f,. " That 3 p~';~::~ indG .~ ~1 ti~sir ~+resencs:~~ ~'ti!d publlc hea~ing in oppositl~n ar~l2letters were
'~t:u?~'r'At~ [a~ e`T:~7t'rr't~?R'. ::ifC~ t~ld't v,:~a o^.w'r'J6.o i8^•~Ei':~e~~ in favc+r to subjc~ct patition.
!t,~~,~~ ;:!~~.~~~ik EV'~~ `"'~Rc,~ +.,~ c~tAE~' AG7 ~'lo!,_, ~, Tha*. the Anaheim Ciry Planning
~ammiss!on Il33 f9V16W6 x ~: ~:~OS3~ ~r, rac~ K~~+ s~k ~*,:~ ;., t.,~::~y ~rom ths ~iS-A-43~OC~(SC)
(Residential/Ag~icuitural-ScFEs .<:n~rt~t~rCJu ~ }':'~ ,,:t~;~ ~.w(aC)(CommercialOff'~eandProfessfanal-
ScenEc Corridor Overiay) Zone c+~; a+~ ~-reg;il ;., ,:-',~:. ~r.' ~::~ .~?;~` land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres,
loca4ed at the northwest comar a~ :~anta An~ °'•:M, ~1+on Road ~:~~ Maude Lane, having apProxtrr~te ftoMages
of 1,020 feet on north sfde oi Sarna Ana Ca~Yon Road arxi 120 feet on the west side oF Maude lBne and
further described as 5481 East Sarrta Ana Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the NegatNa Declaration
upon flnding that the dedaratlon reflects the independent Judgement of the lead agency and that ft has
considered the NegatMe Dedaratlon together whh any commerns received during the public raview process
and further finding on the basis of the inRial study and any camments receNad that there is no substa:itial
evidence that the proJect will have a signiflcant effect on the envfraimerrt.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOWED that the Anaheim Ciry Plann(n{~ Com-rdsstan does
hereby approve the subJect Petit'An for ReclassiflcaUon to exdude the above~described ProPertY from the
RS-A-43,U00(SC) (Resfdential/AgricutturaiScenic Corr(dor Overlay) Zone and to liicorporate said described
property IMo the CO(SC) (Commercial Office and Profess(ona!-Scen~ Corridor Overfay) Zone u~on the
fdlowing conditions:
1. That the appropriate fees due for primary water mains shall be paid to the Wa4er Enginee~ing DNision,
in accordance wlth Rules 15A and 20 of the Water UtGity Rates, Rules and Regulatbns.
2, ?hat the vehicular access rights to Sarrta A~"~a Canyon Road, shall be released and reUnquished to the
Ctty of Anaheim.
3. That the developer st~all submft an offer to purchase the Cfty owned proPeriY to the F~aai Properry
Sect(on for approva! by the Ciry Councp. The purchase shali he ftnalized prior to iMrocluction of an
ordinanca to recfassify the property.
4. That a lot Iine adjustmem plat to combine the two (2) existing lots shall be st~bmittE~d to ttxt ~ubdivisior..
Section for approvai by the Ciry Engineer. Follawing approval, ft shall be recorded in the Office of the
Orar~ge County Recorder.
5. That compleilon of these redassffication proceedings is contingent upei~ approval df Gene~al Plan
AmendmeM No. 340 by the City CouncU.
g, That p~lor to placement of an orclinance rezoning subject properry on an agenda fiar City Councfi
c.onsideratlon, Condftion Nos. i, 2, 3, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be completed. Tha Ciry Councfl
may approve or dis~pprove a zoning ordinance at fts discretion. If the Qrdinance i~ disaPProved, the
proceduPe set fortn In Anaheim Municipa! Coda Se..^tbrr 18.03.085 sha~l app~y. The provisions or ~ights
grt~ed by this resdution shall become null arxi vofd by actbn of the Planning Commission unless said
cor:,dftions are compUed with within one (1) year from the date of this resolution, or such further time
as the Planning Corr~missiors may grarrt•
7. That approval of this app8catbn constitutes approval of tFie proposed request ordY to the e~dent that
ft complies with the Maheim lulwi~lpal Zonfng Code and any other appliGaae City, State and Fedoral
regulations. Approval does nct indude any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request rggarding any other appl(cabie ordinance, regulatian or requiremerrt.
_2_ PC96-77
~ ~
B~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the P,naheim City Planning CommissVon does h~reby flnd
and determine that adoptlon of this Rosolution is expresslY Pred~cated upon applicant's compiiance wi:h
each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condiUons, or aRy part thereof, be
Resolautionn and any app orvais hbrein chontainedU shall be deemed ul~ 8n d vo~ tent jurisdiction, then this ,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall nut constftute a rezoning of, ar a
commitment by the ~Iry to rezone, the subject properry: any such rezoning shalt ~equire an ordinance of
the City Council which shali be a legislative act whi~h rr~y be apProved or d9nied by the Ciry Council at
fts sole discretion.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Plannin Commissior+ meeting of
August 19, 1996
CHAIRM:'iN, ANAHEIM CI PIANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ~
SECRETARY, AN EIM CITY PIANNIN~$SION
STATE OF CALJFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss•
CITY OF ANf+HEIM )
I, Margarita Sdorio, Secretary of tne Anaheim C;ty Plannfng Commission, do hereby cer:ify
that the foregoing resolutlon was Passed1e f~lo~d,npt~te of the members thereof: heim Ciry Planninc~
Commission held on August 19, 1996, by 9
AYES: COMMIISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMt3SI0iJERS: PERAZA
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se! my hand th(s ~~~ day of
1996. ~~1U lpl.l.l~
ECRETA Y, A HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
S
-3-
PC96-77