PC 84-34.....~
~:ESOI~UTION N0. PC84-•34
A RESGLUTIUtJ OH' THE ANAH~IId CJ'1'Y PI~r~NNTNG COMMI ~SION
T)ENXING GENERAL E~LAN AMENll~'1.~NT NO. 19.1-I,ANb fiSF' ELEMF:TIT
WHERFAS, the Ci~y Council af: the City of An~~hei.m did ~dopt the
Anah~im General Ple,n Resolution No. 69R-•G44, showing the gerieral description
and extent of possible L-uture development within the c;ity, and
WHE.REAS, City staff. prepar.ed a GenPral Plan Amendment :~:or an area
consisting oE approximataly 3.2 acres bc~unclad on the ncirth by Sinclaar Stre~t,
west by the Or.ange (57) P'reeway, south by Katella AvenuF~r and west ay Eiowell
Avenup; and
Wi3EREAS, the Plannina Departmeri~ deemed it appropriate, pursuant to
the provisions of the California F,nvironn;ental Quality Act, after review of
L•he proposal 3nc~ Tnitial Study that a Negative Ueclaration be approvec7,
provided tha~ the a~plicant par~icipates in funding d study to provide data
for dec.isions on land use planning anc~ future needs foc public facilities and
services for the Stacliurn Tndustrial Area and pays his pr~~portionate share of'
improvemFnts which may bz identified by said study ancl upon a P:inding that
there is no substantial evidence that the project wi11 have a signif.icant
effec~ on the environmenk; and
WHEREAS, the Anak~aim City Planning Co~nmissinn did hold a gubli.c
hearirig at the Anaheim Civic c:enter, Cou.ncil Chamber, 2Q0 South Anah~im
Boulevard, ori Febr:uary 22, 1~84, at~ 1:30 p.m., n~tice of saicl publzc hearin~
having been duly given as required hy law and in accor.dance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Munic.ipal Code, tc hear and c~nsidex~ avidence for
and agdinst said Amendment ko the Anaheim Gener.al Plan and i:o investiga~t.e and
make findirigs and recommendations in cunnection tY~erewith; anci
WEIFREAS, said Comm~.ti::ion, after due r.onsideration, inspection,
investigakion and si:udy made l~y itself, and after duE consideration of all
evidence a~nd repor~s oL-fer~d at said hearing, DOES HEREnY FIND:
1. That City d~}~a.tments agreed t:~at a c:om~rehensive study is
neec~ed to identi~fy i:he estimated extent ar.d intensity uf.
dpvel~pment in the Staclium Industrial Area and service
constraints and o~partuniti~s associ.ated therewith including
infra-stcucture and circulakion.
2. That ~ince the origi.nal adoption of t:.he Gen~ral Plari in 1963,
the area narth o£ KaY.ella Av~nue has been de~ignated, nlanned
and developed with industrial uses.
3. 7.'hat currently, th~re are no com~nercial office uses nor.th of
Kat;.ella Avc~nue. If lhe ~ubject amendment is appr.oved, it would
set a major precedent in ~he area ier~pardizing the integrity
of the industrial area.
~4. That the princi.ple concern of the C.i.ty departmenk:s is tnat the
Stadium Area i.s currentl.y undergc~~ny extensive changes where
industrial uses are converting tu high i-ltensity commercial
#0169r Pi.84-~4
office uses on a p.iece rneal b~sis. 'i'his piece meal approaeh
may lead to an uver saturation of commercial offi ce u~ es in the
area and an inability by rhe City to pr.ovide a high level of
municipal services ar~d wi11 c umulativEly re~ult in a ..eed Lor
public Facil itiea and services beyond tt~o:~e which are presently
available or p~anned.
5, 'I'hat based on the above~ is iL- stuff's opin.ion that until +~he
camprehensive st~udy (as directed by tk~e Planning Commission) o£-
potential land uses, infrastructu~:e needs an~ anti.cipated
gr.awth i.r, the ar.~a is completed, it is ~remature t•.o changP the
existing General Plan designation f oc the specific property
under consideratiacl to C~mmercial Pr.ofessional.
6. Th~refore, no chan,~ b~ adopted for the subject study area at
this time.
ENVIRONMLNTAL IMPACT b'INDING: That the Anaheim City Planning
Cornn~ission~ has review~d the proposal to cl~anye the curr.ent General Inciustrial
desi~r~ation ko Comme.rcial ProEessional. o~ tl~e GeneraJ. Plan and
recl.assification a~ subject property from the ML (Ir.dustcial, Limitec]) Zone to
the CU (Commercial, Of~ice and Professional) 7.one to construct a 6-story
commercial oL-fa.ce building on aii irregularly-•shaped parcel ~f land consisting
of approximately 3.2 acres bounded on the north by Si~iclair ;trePt, west by
the Orange (57) F'reea~ay, souL•h by Kate].la Avenue, and west by Howe11 Avenue;
and doe~ k~ereby approve the '.~egaLive Declaration -apon Linding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with a~.y comments rer.eived dur.in~
the public review process and further finding oi: the basis of the 'lnitial
Si:udy and any comments received that there is na substantial evide-ir.e that the
project wi.~l have a siynificant effec~ on tne environment.
NOW, THFR~FO~tE, BC IT RESOLV~D, ttiat pursuant. to th~ forec~~ing
f iridings, the Anaheim City Planning Commissi.on does hereby deny C~~neral P1an
Amendment IVo. 191, without prejudice.
THE FOP.EGOING RESOLUTION is signed a,~d appraved by me this Eebruary
22, 1984.
' %~'ll•~G. ' ~•%y~.r ~.~
CEIAIRWOM ANAHFIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~STON
ATT~ST; ~
~.~c~ ,~ ~~~~. _
SECREZ'ARY~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2' PC84-34
~~ .~
STATE OF CALIrORNIA )
COUNTY Ob~ ORANGE ) ss .
CITY OF ANAHCTM )
I, Edith I~. Harris, ~ecre~ary o~: the P.nah~im CiLy Planning
Cotninissi~~n, clo tz~reby certii-y that the :Earegoing resolution was passed and
acto~L•ed ati a meeking cF the Anaheirn City Planning Comr~icsion held on February
22, 1984, by the follawii:~ vote of the tnembers ~hereof :
AYES: CUt+1MISSION~kS: }30UAS, F3CiSHORF;, FRY, KING, LA CLA2Rh', MC BURNrX
NOES: COMMISS:LqNERS: NUNE
ABSENT: C:QMMiSSI0NE125: HERBST
IN WITNESS WH~REOF, I have h~reunto set. my hanci this 22nd day nF
r'ebruar.y, 198~.
p ~ .<~ ~sC~t..C-~i~' .
SECRETARY, ANI~HEIM CI'CY PLANNING COMhIISSJADI
-3-
PC84-34
~n~~;;;~ t , {`~~
_ ., ~