Resolution-PC 89-293'~7
t
i
,
RFSOI,jTTT~I~ N4, pC89-~3
~
A RE;iULUTION OF THE Ai7AHEIM CTTY PLANN£ZIG CObiMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSTFICATT~N I~0- 89-90-22 BE CRANTED
~~;~f
,
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commzssion d.id recEive a
ver.i.~.ied petiti~.in Por Reclassi~ication fr.om SAG'1 RANCFT ASSOCTATF?~, c/o IiILLMAN ~
PkOPERTTF5, ~150 Newpor~ Canrer Drxve, Suite 304, 1.3evrport Beach, CA 92660, '~r~'
ownor, and CSF, 1717 S. State Collc~ge Boulevard, Suit4 100, Anaheim, CA -,~~
9'1806, ~gent, for certain real pro~erty situated in the C~ty o£ Anahezm, ;`
County oi Oranye, Stake of_ Ca3 ii:o•rnia, descra.bed as follows: „~
,.f y~
~~ i~~
7
{{tl
;ji
~'~0
r`yl
r
YARC~L~S 2 to ~~, INCLUSIVE IN TIiE CTTY (?F ANAHLTM,
COUNTX OF ORA.'.dGE, STATE QI' CALIFORNiA, AS PEk MAP
FILED IN BOOK 242,. PAGFS 1 TO ~: , INCLLISTVE OF PAI~CEL
MAPS, IN 1HE OFFICE OE' TIiE COUNTY RECORDER OF S11IA
CQUNTY.
r51;
~
; ~;,.
~;~i.
,,
WE3ERk~AS, the City pl~lnning CommissiQn &id hold a public hearing'
at the Civic Center in the City ~f Anak~eim on November. 6, i989 a~ 1; 30 p.m. ,
notice of said pti:blic hearings havir.g baen duly given as rec~uired bx law an~1
in acr.ordanr_e with the provisions of the Anaheim Munioipal Code. Chapter
18.03, to hear. and cansidar ew•idonce for and agair.st said pr.nposed
reclassification and to investigate an3 make findings and rocommer.dations in
connection therewith; and said petitian was aontinued to the Pl~nning
Ccmmission m~etinqs of Nuvember 20, 1989 and December 4, ].989; and
WHEREAS, said Com~nission, aft~r du~ ins~ectzon, investigation
~nd study made by itse].f and in its behalf, aad aFter due consideration of all
evidenco and rep~rts uff:er~:l aL said ;hearing, does find 3nd determine the
following facts:
1. That tho p~ti~i~ner proposes reclassification aI subject
property as follows:
(1.) Portian "A" (4~.8 ac.res) from the ML(SC) (Limited~ Industrial-Scenic
Corridor Ove.rlay) 'Lon~e to the CL(SC) (Commercaal, Limited-Scenic Corridor
nv3rlaya ur a less intense zoxie.
(2) Portion "B" (1.2 acres) from the RS-A-43,000(SC)
(Rosidential/Agriculturai-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the CL(SC)
(Commercial, Limited-Scenic Corridor Over:lap) or a less intEnse zane.
, :;:+..
' ';~
;i
i
c',ii
';t
i;
~;:a
'{:;
.' 1
. . :,.~~.:~~'i
i -'!
»,
~ ~,
.,;~,,
;~:~
:?i
•`i:
~ ~ ~ '6i
~,~
;',;~`;'
,y, `
2. That the proposed reclassifiaation of subject proper.ty is '%
necessary anc~./or desirable for ttie orclerly and proper development of the ;!;;`~
communi~.y. ~~„
,~
,
%;~
r
3. 'lhat the pruposed re~lassification of ~ubject property does ~;
properly relate to the zones and their pernitted uses locally establzshad in ,~?
clo~e proxzmity to subject property arxd to tha zon ~s and their permitted uses ~':ij
generally esL•ablish~d throughaut tk~e community. ,
';;
_ _ _ _ .....,:::~;
:?;~,
.;.
`c~a
;':
1161r -1- PC 89-293
~:~~:=:
:;- E~ t t ~~yw'~,~,~
' ~ ,'{' 'ti, r
ra~+~\ ~ ~ ~o,
r ~",
4. That one porson indicaeed their presence at said public hearing
in oppositiont and that no correspondencc was rece3ve~t in oppooition Go
subjocC pet3t~on.
c~r(~.RNZA ~iN~~Q~~.7'AL OUAG~~S~ ~'~ti~A3~Si~.: A~ter. aonsidArix-c~
Dratt ~ubbequ~nt EnviranmontAl Imp~ct Report No. 2Q9 for the praposod
MarketEaire at Anaheim project ~SUb3k1CIU@Tlt. ETR No. 289 addre~sds the 3m~acts
as3ociated with the Nevelupm9nt oF a 5'7-acro commerci.al/uffica proioct, and of
the 57-acre total, approxim~tely 95 racrea of this project con4litutes the
Mc~rketfaire at Anaheim project and the remaining acraag~ will cont~in
approximately 360,O~U square feet of oFficg space) and roviewing the evidence
both wr.itten and oral, oresRntera to ~upplement L•his document, thc~ Planning
Commission ~inds that:
(a) Dra~t S~ibsequant EIR No. 289 is i.n compliance with thQ Calitornia
Envzronm~ntal Quz-lity Ack ~nd the StaCe and City Guic~elinest
!b) DrafC Subsoquant EIR No. 7.09 icltntif.ias the follow.ing impacts which are
considered to be both ~navoidable and advarse in nature and not fuYly
miL-igaCed to a level of i.nsignificanee:
The projectod Leve' of Servic~ (LOS? fur SR-91 eastbound ramp~ for
cumulative plu~ pro;~~ct conditions is unaccept~ble (LO5 E). This
cond3.tion, whicii is partially mitig~ted by the propossod
improvements, is not fully mitigated. Note: CumulativQ projects
includeci in th~ analysis were Syaamore Canyon, The Summit of Anaheim
Hills, thn High].ands at Anaheim Hills anci SAVI Ranch Busine~s Park
in Yorba ~,inda.
Air quality emissions for ~he SR-91 eastbound ramp aC Weir Car.yon
Road exceed the federal standard of 3.0 ppm for ctsrbon monoxide for
existfng, existing plus project and cun-ulative condit.tons. However,
rhe ~tandard is only exceoded within 15 mQtors of the roAdway
centerline ~xnder all condttians.
(c) Soctiou 15091 of the CEQA Gui~ellnes requfres that one or mor4 findings
be made for each oF. tho significant Qttvironmental effects ic9entified.
Three finding caLegories are pnasibls. Secti.ous l, 2 and 3 belor- state
each finding, and then 1(jFAT1F.lEy the impact caCeqoriQS £nr which thpse
fiiitiS.ngs are approprfate.
~. "Changas er s~ltora.tions have hoen required in, ur incorpora~ed into,
tl~e project whi~h avo:d or substantiaZly ler.sen the ttiquificant
onvironmental effect as identif3ed in thcs Final RIR". Thia findir.q
applies to ~he folloaing environmsntal effects of the projects
- Tcansportation/Circulation imgacts
ramp of the SR-91 Frc~eaay)
- Land Use/RAlevant Plannfng
- Air Quality (except f~r ea~tbound
- Acountic Environmant
- Services and Util.itfo~
- ~,Iiaual an8 Aeathetic Resources
- ily8ro1c4Y
- Rocreatcion and Open Space
(except f•or the eastboun~
ramp of ~the SR-S1 F:•eeway)
-2- PC 89-29~ ,:;t
,F
' ~,.~
„,y~ :'~~
. . .. . ~. r .~_,r,.~ 1 ~_ As .°.r:v:~~u;+Fi'h~
~
- r~-7
,~i.=.!8 ~;
~;
'i "i
(Itefer to ETR 2N9 SQC;tion 3 and the A(1~ex~dum SecGion 3 Eor a fu1,t
c~isc:uasion of the above impacts, the mitigation meas•ares proscr.ibed
and a discus:~ion oE re3ult:Ant levels of sign3.ficance af~er
mitagation.)
z. "Such changes or altertations ar~ within thc~ respansibility gnd
jurisdiction of ~nor.her public agency r~nd not the agency making the
findin,q. Such change~ hmve been adopCa~ by guch other ugency or c~n
and should be adopCod by such other agency.~~
With regard Co Transportation and C:irculation in the projeat
vicinity, all impactq, including cumulative plus project imracts, to
str;a~s and inCarsections can be mi~iga~~d to acr_eptable levels
axeept for the easthound ramp 3t the Weir Canyon Road/Riverts3c~e
Freeway interchangE. Tho Rivorsi.de Fxeeway falls under the
jurisuiction of the State Dapartmeiit of Transportation or Caltrans.
3. "Specific ~canomic, social, or other. considerat:t~ns make inEeasible
the mitigation measures or prc.;sct alternatives idoutifiecl i.n the
Fi.na1 EIR,"{page 19, paragra.ph "Q" o£ the staEf roport) with the
Statement of Ovorriding Consid~rah.ion~. The followinq discu~sion
identif.ies the various alternatives considQrod in the ~IR, followed
by gn explanuti~n of the ratior.~le for finding said al~ernatives
inEeasibie.
No Yra~e~t/N~Dev_~l~pmPn ltlternativ~
tJnaer Che No Project/No DeL•e :.-i~m~nY A1tHrnAtive the site :rould remain in
its prosent conditirn, vaca~zt. The project site has been previously
graded Eor d~v~iopment and street and atorm dra.in improvements have bedn
made pur3uant l•a existing ML-Limited ~ndustrial and CL-Commercial Limitsd
zoning and L•he curr~nt Dovelopmont Agreert~ant fn QfFect €~r thQ s3.te. Tk~e
reductfon in traffic demanci3 and related air quality and noise impacts
which wou.Yd result coul.d mako this the environment:~lly superior
alter~intivcl.
I~uto Centgr/Dealersh~~Wi. ti}L,~n~ Re~~il. Al~ern~~lg
This alternative is sim~lar to the proposod project except that undor
this alterna~ive some o~ the commercial rerail usos (up to 11 acresl
proFosod for the Marketfafre would bcs replaced with up Co khr~e (3) auto
dQalershipa. This ~lternaCi~~e would conrsfst of 121,OQ0 squa.re feeC of
commerci~l spac.a for the auto center, 150,000 squaro feet oE
reta3l/warehouse uses; 2 six-atory office buildings (70,000 and 75,000
square fae~); ana, 2 six-story office buildings (111,000 and 104,000
aqua.r~ feet) for a tot~l of 631,000 square feet of dovelopm~nt (the same
as the pr.oposed project) rhis alternative lfke the pr4pose8 project
would crezte 360,000 sruare feet of, office space. In addition, thSs
a2ternative woulcl g~nerate 16,470 average daily trips, 9,400 leas than
the proposecl project, most occurr~nq during a.m. ancl p.m. peak hours.
-3- PC 89-293
I
~.~,.,,.,,._...
~•~
~
~! u ts~.S~~.~l_~~..~i ~ s ip w~~g ~o..~.~..~3~~ a~l~
f!_~ir 11~f~~
,,~,~
, ,~
~~3
Under this mltornative Auto denlersh3.nd wuuld be doveloped on the
majority oL• the sito rrith tho same offiae confiquration tts in the
proposed project. 7lppraximare:ly 3'12,U00 squaro fe~t with up to nine (9;
dealexships kould be devel.oped~ This ult.ernativo would produce up to
9,800 avernge dai'ly tripa representing a reduction fram tho proposacl
, project ot ~60,270 averago daily trips wh.ich in ~urn wou1Q rec~uce impacts
on ~ir auality and traffic cxrc,u~ation because 1:here woul@ be l~iss
ti~aEfic at a.m. and p.m. paak hours. Long-term air quality impacta would
imp~ove slightly over tY,Q propos~d projc~ct wiL•h total emisgion3 bainq
reduced by approxima~ely aight (8) percont over the proposad project.
T~, ci~ I,~}~i rr ~,1 AevelQ~nent Alte,~-dtigg
This alternative assumes thut existing zonin,q and entit~ements remain in
etfect: for tlie 57-acre sit~s and that ~he si~e is developed =n some
combination of light indusCrial ~nd commercial uses. For the purposes of
this discussion, a Cigure of 422,OQJ square feot of light induatrial and
120,000 aquare fset of comm~ircial space wnuld be developQd. 7,570
average daily trips riould occur with a reduction in a.m./p.m, peak hour
trips. DovQlopment under existing zonirzg would be moat compatible with
tlie existiny Genr~ral Plan. designation and, on the basis of traffic, this
alcernative may be con~iderc~~ to uu environmentally saperior tn tha
proposed project. However, noise an3 a~r quality impncts could be more
significant depending upoxi thg nature of the industrial u~es ulLimately
introduced.
(d) Fin~rsnq~Rctla~iyg,~~Inff;~-~i ili~y/Rgj~~ i n of Alt n•iy.q~
The Planning Commission finds that the alternatives ara ir.feaaible or
less cles.irable than the project propoaed an~ rojncts the vaxiouss
~1~ernatlves Por the f.~llowing rQas4nss
1. The No Yroject/No Development Altorn~tive would eliminate the
project's contribution toward ttie fundiiiq of regio:~al transportation
irr~pr~vements. A comparison of future conditionR with the project
aad its m.itigation shnws hhaL• required mitigation may create
improvoments that benefit the rogi~n.
I~~ ~38ition, the site prc~puration which has alroady oc~urred such as
si..~ cleuring, yradin~ ancl lovee building has altereci the aita's
natural fentur~s. As such, ~hould tliis site remain vacant without
continued clearinq, vegetation would ultimately be roes~ablishod buC
would consist primarily of voqoL•ation representar.ive of disturbed
habitats, f.e. weeds, and would do little to enhBnco hab.ttat va2ues -
or tho aest.hetics associated with open apace in yoneral an8 Lhe
~-cljmcent Santa Ana River re~tource manaqomAnt area in p~,.r:.icular.
In~stead, the vacac~t site may become a nuisancti. '"
.~-
tn:
-9- PC 89-?93
;
Yr ~
r.i
.` S
Yi~'~3
l i•,
J~~
~ ~'+}f
~
. ' ~ ~
~ r •'r ~`~~i
. ., ,,~
r ',
2. ThR Atito Center/Des~l~rah3p WiLh Nn Re~ail Al~ernat.ive would produce
9,800 averago daily ~rips rather than the 25,870 average cla3:ly trips
~anerated by the praposed projoct. However~ sinco this alta.rnative
does not pro,pose an,y commorci~l retai7. usos, present a~nd futurQ
rEaidant~ of tihe FIill and Canyon aroa, when looY.ing for commercisl
retail ~ervir.es, woula conceivably have to driva a longex distance
to f.ind those retail and commercSal servfces ~-at aupplied under thi3
alternativo. Thi~ altdr.nn~ive then, wou:d indirectly c~fEer.t trc~~fic
an~ air quality. In add.ition, Iatersection Capacity Uti1?.za~ion
(ICU) for sxishing plus this alternative and cumulative traEFic has
been r.t~lcul3ted which show~ th~t eva~n wiCh the reduction in avc~rage
daily trips, the Leve1 af Service at the eastbaund ~R-91 Freeway
ramps would st311 be L0~ E durinq ~he evRnin~ peak hours whfch is
the samo condition a~ under ~he pro,posad pro~ect.
3. Ttze Auto Center/Dealership With Some Commercial Rotail A.1~ernativR
woulcl qenarate 15,470 averaqe daily trips also occurriny at a.m. and
p.m. peak hours as does the proposed project. In both ~Y-is
a~cernative an3 the preceoditzg a].ternative, additional ~fgnage
(ele~vatQd s.igns for ~ac:h deal.ership visible from the ~.reeway wauld
be proposed) and the out~loar dis~lay areas may increa;a tlie amount
of light and glar~ which may aQverselx irc~pact the surrouading
residant3ol areas. In addition, this alternativR r.•ould h~ve a
similar impact to tr~fEi.c ~and air quality gs the proposed project.
The cumulative effec~ oF this project and cumulativs proiocts in ~he
ar~a would exceed the ~ed9ral 3tandard of 9.0 ppm of carbon monoxide
just as tho proposed project would. This a.lternative would also
have a;imilar impact on the oastbound freQway ramp3 as the proposad
project, Finally, as in the alternat3.ve ju3t discussed, wheu
~oakix~g for commQrci.al rQtail Services, r.esidents will have ~o drive
farther to find khose retail and commorcial se~vices not supplied
iinder this alrernativa so that Chis ~lternative would in8ixectly
affect traffia Mnd air quality.
4. The Light Industrial Developrnc~nt Alternative represents a tracleoff
in tc~rms of traffic, noise and air quali.ty impacts. Bas9d ou thc~se
considrratio~s, trip reductions to this destinatiori could make th3s
a supQrior alternative to the project. However, as disoussed
pxevi.ously, as the hill aad Canyo+- Area of Anahaim cont.inues to grow
w.ith residential neighborhoods, tr.e ~ypes of commercial retafl uaes
proposed in the pending project bocome deatination land uses and us
such wi11 bQ built either aL• thzs site or at a pofnt ~arther away
than this site. This alternative may then be ronsidered to have an
indfrQC~ ~dvc~r~c~, impact on the regio~i bc~cause althaugh dc~stination
trips to ~he site would be reduc:ed. destination trips for goods and
se:vicos not supplied und~r the proposed pr~jert would si:ill take
place a~: a differunt location and thus mdy bo offsAktinq. In
addita.on, noise an3 air guaifty impacts cou1Q be graater depanding
upon the nature uf the industrial uaes ~iltimately intraduC~d.
' ~' ~
(o) Therofore, the Planning Commission further detprmines ~hat thfl benefir,~
of r,he project outwefqh the unavoidable environmenta2 impacts, enfl
provisions to Sect.fon 15093 nf the State CEQA r,uidel3n~g, the folloaing
Statamen~ of Overriding Consfder.mti~~ns i~ adoptod.
-5- PC 89-293
. ,. .~.. . ..~r 1 t -~?:;, .~.r;;-.t t ,~r~tE t'iib!~
..... .. ~. ~~ ., . , i .~:~.~.
i,
~~~'"~ . . .
~ ~ ~_ ~~.~~
~
A,.
P,'-'~=~y ~
• t~)
~~ 145~~'p
J~1
~ ~~j~
~ ii3~
~
1• The benef3ts at the
unavoidablQ ac7verse e n v i r n m e n t a lh i
Weighed a ai n a t t h e
~
g
,r
?t
/t~
m ~c~s
and
1 5 0 9 3 oF tlzo P
St~at.e CEQA Guidoline~, pu~'suant to Section
significant
t}1~ ~
~?
environmenta?.
occurre~ce o£ tho
~bave, may ug imPd~tg idon~ified in EIR 28g ,
`
~
a~ ge~ fbrth
ov~rrid3.ng consi art~tio
mitigati~n du~ t
~
f '
'
'
;;
ns
o the
enum~ra ed
balowr ;,
;
• To the extent that an
y impacts (inclu~ing without limitation
cumuZati~-e impacts) attz•ibutabl '~
-
'se
,
a to nc~~ prpposed project remain
unmir.ig~~Q~,, such impacts are acceptable in li
soaia1
ht
eco
f
i ,
,,
'
`,
~
,
g
o
nom
the averr.iding
c, and oL•her considerations set forth laerei
project al~ernatives '
'
`
~
n. Tlie
sNt fnrth in tYie EIF ~re infc~asable for these
reasons and less dQSirable than thQ
'
proPosod project. :
The fo].lowing s~cial, economic anc7 other consideration
unr~~itiqated im
a '
'
p
s outwei h,~t~
~ts and juskif R 9 e
Y pproval o.f this projACt.
A• Jobs and Economic Gr.owth
Construction and opera~ion of the 45-acra Marketfaire pro'set
th~ 12-acre oF£ic~ project
woulc~ create numer~us eonstruc:tion and
construcY.ion-rQlal•ed jobs in the short-t
ffi
o
erm as W~~1 as a variety ot
ce and retail ;obs under
projPCt
~~g-torm
he
opsration of
. Tho unmi'ti~a~ed impacts
the
aro
create job, dnd
l
th
b
provids f~r economic growth
~ rieea ta
hQ
in
crnation of additional
City. Th
er
p
e
man e n t
incro~sed demand for goods and servi
irectly create an
l~
i
'
ces
prov.
w~irhan
ding !
or employmQnt o ~h~ Cit.y, thus
o~ ~rall
i
C~
ecanomic growth ancl we11 raeiug
Cityntxibut;inq ~o the
of tt1e `
~
In addition to creatar.
~ 7°hs, the projecL• wi11 also
anci econom
ic
nA
.
serve the social
~ eds of a growing community in Anaheim's Hill
(.anyan Aroa oy providiag r
t
d
i
~
an
a
l shoppin o r
theatQr complex close to oxisting a
d
gl~ as a
e
n
pr pos
d n iqhboxhoods.
~. Transportati~n/Circulation
~'urthQr, the Ptannznr~ Commission ffnds tha~ t:~e unmftigatod impacts
Lo the easrbound ramps tu the Rfverside Freew~y are jus~ifiec~ b th
benefi~s of tne projeet, ~nd recognizes that such impacts areyonle I
tomporary In nature becauso af projects pl~nned b~ y
such as the Eastern Transportation Corridor, ~°rhe~ egRnr_ies
weli as on-qoing street and intersection impro~vements$ funded on aa
cumulative basia bp a variety of prdje~~3 in the vicinity in both ,'
the cities of Anaheim and vorba [,inrla. Fecss will be akplied toward +~~
the construction ot irnprovoments needed throughau~ the vicinity. A ,~
~e'~jeW Qf Tab1o 3 i~ Secti~n 3. `'
~Pege 8) r
demonstrate~s the improvementa in tr Ffic~ opera~ o~~enr~d ced b '
grorosed mitigation m~asurea in the vfci.nity of the p oject. y the
-1;:
i:
r :~~
' t~
< < ~ t~^
-6-
~'~ 89-293
;,~~:;
Y
. ., ... .A,.i. ,~~
I ,
. ~ ~~ ~
'
C. Air Quality
~
N~twithsranding tho miti~ati~n measures and other con8itions which
are imp~secl on this proj~at, the FIh ident.ifios emisaions aE air
pollutants from vehicular tra~fic whir.li will bs generated by
developmenl: oF ~he site ancl concludes that ~?though the cumulative
e~Fect of pxojocts in tne stucly area sli~~htl,y exceec~ f~c~eral
s~andards (CO emissior.s of 9.05 ppm versus 9.0 ppm' the project's
c~ntribution to localiz~d CO amissiona is not .gniEicant in
itcelf. NoverthQless, mQ~sur~s for 1QSSeniny the ~roject-reJ.cted
and cumula~ive impacts h;ave been incurporatod inta the Mitigation
Monit~.oxing Program,
~) Thereto.:e, the Planning Commissian hereby recommends c~rt~Eication ~F EIR
No. 289, inc:tuiing the accompanying Addendum and adoption of 4:his
Statemont of Overridinq Considerations and accompanying Mi~igation
Monit~rir~g k~rogra-n.
NOW, THGI2EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tiiat th~ Anaheim City Planning
Commissian does heroby grant subject Patition for ~t~oclassification and, bx so
~loing, that Title 18-Zoning of the Anaheim Munic.;.pal Code be~ amended *_o
Fxclude Portion "A" of t}ie above•-described propert•y frcm the ML (5C)
(Industrial, Limited) (Scenic Corri.dor Over~ay) Zuns and Yortion "B" £rom the
RS-A-43,000 (k+~sidential/Agricul~ural-•~cenic Carr3dor nverlay) 2ax~e and to
incorporate said de~cribefl property into the CL (SC) (f:ommercial.,
Lirnited~-Sc~nir_ Corridor Overlay) Zone upon the folZowing cAnditions which are
lze~-eby found to be u necessary preroquisite to the proposed use of subject
propert~ in o.rder to proserve the saf~ty and genoral welfaro of the Citizexis
of the City oE Anaheim:
1. That the vohicular accQas r.ights to Weir Canyon Road, except at street
openings, shall be deair,ated t~ the± City oE Anahgim.
2.~ Tha~ a fee sha11 be paici to the City of Anahaim foc tree p~anting along
Pullmttn SY.reet (Markol:f-airQ Drive) t~nd 01d Canal itaar.l in an amount as
established by City Counczl r~soJutfan.
3. That a•a ordinance rQC:lassifying subiect property shall not be introQuced
until after is is d.9toLmined that the CL(SC) "Con~merclal, Limited -
Scenic Corriclor Overlay" 2ona is in conf.~rmance with the City of Aziah~sim
itedevelopment k'1an.
4. That ~ump7.etion of thQSe roclassificatintt procQadinqs is contingent upon
City Council approval of GQneral Plan Amendmen~t N~. 271.
5. That pri~r to l.he introduc~ioti n~ an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Conditzon Noa. 1, 2, `3, and ~, above-mEntionod, shall be completed. The
provisions or righCs granted by this reso'lution shall become null an~i
v~id by action of the Flannirx~ Commiscsion unless said cnnditians are
com~lied with within one (1) year from the date o£ this resolution, or
such .Eurther time as the Planning Commissi~n may grant.
-7- PC 89-293
J~
L.;..~-'..~~ . .
S..
~ . ~ ~ `
6.*
~'
.~
~«.
~ ~. ~ ; ~, p~
" !}
{~'r ~~, ; -. ~ ~ ~ ~ . . t ! ~~i~l
%~
~f~i
. ,'...~j~,
li
That approvHl ot• th,is a~;,plicataon consCitutes approval ax the proposed t~
request only to lhr,a ext~~nt thaL• i~ complies wi~h tlie Anaheim Municipal ~~
Zoning Code and any other gpplicable C3t ~~ ~
regulaLions, Appr~va]. does not inc].ude any a~io~n~' or efindings F as rto ~?
rs
compliance or approval ot- the request regarding any ot,her ~pplicable
ordinance, regulation or requirr~ment. Conditions marked wi,th an asL-erisk '~
(*) arQ requ~red by esCablished laws, aodes, regulat~.ons end agreQmAnts j,
and are not subjQCt ~o negotiation. ?~
.~
1
SE IT FURTHk~R RFSOT.,VED tha~ the Anaheini City Planning Cammissinn y
does Y,erQby find and datermine that acloption of this Rasolution i~ expressly ~
predicated upon applieant's complianc~ with each and ~11 of ~he conditians /~t
hereinabove set Eorh.h. Should any such conditions, or an ~'~
declarQd invalid or unenforceable by the f.inal ud ~' ~'axt thereo~, be
competent juris~liction, then this ~~~nt of any court of
coii~ainec~, ~hal~. be daQmed nii11 Gnc~ ~To asulution, and any approvals herein
THE FaREGOTNG RESOLUTION is signad and a proved ~iy me this 4th day
of DecQmber, xggy, _ /„
i \ Y.~ ..~U
.~~
`-`~ ~ CHA P,MAN, A E M CITY PLAN NNI G Cph~tIS$TON
ATTEST:
~~ ~
~ ~., ~ ~ _.
~- ~ ' ~,~`~'~ /~,,~/ ~. f~
~ ~ ~'~t=~.: • 'a ~~ ~~,,~,Cs~:'fr!~--~ - ,~ ~.~1?/?~Q.1
S`ECRETI-F~Y 311dAF;ET?T CITX'~F~LANNING COhII~fTSSI0t7
C/ ~~ / / ~~:.
~ STATE OF CALIFOFtNTA )
COUTTTY OF ORANGE ~ ss~
CI'PY OF ANAHEIM ;
z. Edith L. Harris, Secre~ary of the Anaheim City Plax~ning
i.ommission, do hQr~,by cortify tha~ the foregoin~ resalutinn was passec! and
adopted at a meeting of ttie A,naheim City Planni~ng Commissiun hel~., on Aecember
4. 19&Q, by the following vote oc the members th~sreof.:
AYES: COMMI5SIONERS: BOYDSTUN, BOUAS, HELLX~:R, F:F.RSST, MC BURNEY, MF.SSE
IdOES: COMTQZSSIONERS: F~LDFIAUS
ABSENT: COI~iISSI0t1ER5: NONE
IN WITNESS WHERE~JF, I have heraunto sr~t my hand Ghis 4tn da~ of
December, l9go,
~ ~-y~
'-`~t'' =-~f.Q.e .~L_.C~._ .~~~-.~'~v'
ETAR~ ANAHEIM CITY ~E,ANNTN'G COt~tiSSION ~ ~~~~
-8 •-
PC 89-293
i~1:,
~; J:>
, _ , ' ~ r k~S..tK