PC 1963-1964-1057_. _ _._. _.. ._._-___ ~ _.._ . _ ~ . .. . ........n...~.-- .._._... _.... ... . _
~ ~ ~ '~~,}'
RESOLUTION N0. 1057, SERIES 1963-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECONIMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-83 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a veriEied Petition for Reclessifica-
tionfrom PABLO V. AND LAURA Ko DOMINGUEZ, 1523 East Santa Ana Street, Anaheim, California,
Q~rnerss So V. HUNSAKER AND SONS, 15855 East Edna Place, Irwindale, California, Agent of
certain.real property.situated.in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,..State of..CaLifarnia,
dascr.ibed as the northwest quarter of the northwest yuarter. af-the no.nthwest_quaxter._o~_.__
~ractional Section.24, Township.a South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho-San..Iuan Cajnn.de
Santa Ana, as said fractional section is shown on a map recorded-.in baok_51.page_10.n£..
Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said countyf EXCEPT the north
203>00 feet of the West 203000 feet thereof
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
FebTUaTy 17~ 1964, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing heving been duly given es required
by lew and in eccordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear end consider evi-
dence for and egeinst said proposed reclessificetion and to investigate end make findings end recommendetions in
connection the:ewith: end
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, end study made by itself end in its behelf,
end after due consideration of ell evidence end reports offered at seid heering, does find and detecmine the following
facts:
1. Thet the petitioner propoRes a reclessification of the above described property from the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, 2one for subdivision into 17
R-3, Multiple.Family Residential, Zoned lots.
2. That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. That industrial developments presently located within the Southeast Industrial Arda
be assured of protection from any encroachment of uses incompatible to these uses or to
ultimate industrial development of the area.
4. That no evidence has been submitted to show that the Souti~east In~iustrial Area, in
which sub~act property is located, has undergone any physical or economic change which
might ~ustify the reduction of said area, which would be necessary if sub~ect petition were
approved.
5. That sub~ect property is ideally suited for industrial development and ideally
located with respect to the future Ball Road interchange of the Orange Freeway.
6. That the Commission hereby reaffirms Planning Comm.',ssion Recommendation No, 3 of
the Industrial.Areas Analysis, adopted by the City Council on April 20, 1962, to wits
That the_entire area delimited by Ball Road on the north, Los Angeles Street and the Santa
M a Freeway on the west, and the Sattta Ana River on the east be designated for industrial
use on the Maheim General Plan.
7. That the Planning Commission reaffirmed its position in the Industrial Areas
Reanalysis that the Southeast Industrial Area be retained for industrial developmente
8. That if the City of Anaheim does not retain its Southeast Industrial Area for
industrial development, the Orange County Planning Commission's past position of holding
that portion of Maheim's Northeast Industrial Area under their Jurisdiction for industrial
development will be di.fficult to maintain.
9..That the..?:ar:nir.g Ccm^.ifssior., in conjunctior. :~ith ?lanning Study 45-114-4, recom~:ended
to the City Council that a tier of multiple family development on the north side of Ball
Road between.State College Houlevard and Sunkist.Street be approved as a transitional use
between.single family development to the north and industrial development on the south :;ide
of Ball Road.
10. That two persons appeared and one letter was received in favor of sub~oct petition.
Rl-D -1-
f ~.~ ,~
~ T
NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mahaim City Plenning Commission daes hereby recommend
to the City Counci] of the City of Anaheim thet subject Petition for Reclassi~cation be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this day of February~ 19640
i i
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY ANNING COMMISSION
A t i EST:
~~.,~-~t1 e ~ ~
~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP: - ~
~ ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ~
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretacy of the City Plannieg ~ommission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby cectify thet the fore-
going cesolution wes passed and adopted at e meeting of the City Planning Cummission of the City of Anaheim, held on
February 17~ 19649 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membecs thereof:
AYES: COh7hIS5I0NERS:Allredy Gauer9 Mungally Pebley, Perry9.Rowlendo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Sideso
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this 27th day of February~ 19640
P~~~LL'?'~'?v Nn; 1057
R2-D
-2-
;
, ~
' ~
,
~
'
~ ~
,
--~.-.., _:.
.
~== - - - _._._ ._ _. --_
.--- .-~
~, .._.. _ -_ _ _......... , __
~ „r _..._.