PC 1964-1965-1620~• ~. ) ; .1
RESOLUIION NO., 1620, Series 1964•~65
.A RES~LUTION OF THE CITY PLANNII~ GOldMISSION OF THE
CI'IY OF ANAHQM REGnMMF~IDING TO THE CITY Q~UNCIL OF
'IHE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT GENFRAL PLAN AMENDMEM N0~ 56 BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ananeim did adopt a General
Plan by Resolution No~ 63R-869, showing the genezal description and extent
of land uses within the City and iedicating the present belief of the City
Council as to possib:e future deveiopment and redevelopment of iand within
thQ City; and
WHERFASy the City Planning Commission of the C;ty of Anaheim did receive
verified Petitions for Reclassificat:on No~ 64-65••i2ti and Uariance Nn, i703
which petitions have impiicaiions on poiicies as expressed on said General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the notir,e of the hearing on sa:d Reciassi-
ficaticn and Variance, notice was also given rega:ding ttie consider.ation of
an amendment to ttie General pian in the general location and vicinity of
subject property o: said reciassification and variancei and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commisaion did hoid a pubiic hearing at the
City Haii in the City or Ananeim on May 1Q, 1965, 3t 2+00 0°CioGk P.,M.,9
notice of said public hearing naving beer. au.y g~ven ds reyu~.°ed oy :aW nuu
in ar,cordance with the provisions of the Anahezm Municipai Code, to hea.r
and conside: evidence for and against sai~~1 Amendment to the Generai Plan
and said proposed Petition for Reciassific~tion and Var.iance to ;nvestiga:e
and make findings and recommendations in connec~.ion there~n;itng and
WHEREAS, Said Commission after due inspection9 investigation, and
study made by itself and in its behai* and afte: due consideration of all
ev:dence and xeports offered at said hearing, DOES HF~2EBY FIND
1~ That the present general description and extent of land
uses in the afo.rementioned area adequately represents
past and current City polciies rega^ding possible future
development of said general area, described as= generally
bonnded by Knott Avenue on the west, a line 800 feet north
of Ball Road on the south, a line 250 feet east of Knott
avenue on the east, and the Orange County Flood Control
Channel on the no:the
2~ That no evidence was presented at said hearing which would
justify the City Planning Commission recommending a change
in the above-mentioned policies to the City Councile
3e That Exhibit "A" of General Plan Amendment Noe 56 does not
constitute an a~ceptable alternative to current policies
as illustrated on the General Plar~
;
; j'
i
f ~
. ~ i_ 1
NOW9 THERFFORE9 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Pianning Commission
of the City of.Anahe.im does hereby recommend to the City Council of the
City of Anaheim that subject Gener.al Pian Amendment be disapprored on the
basis o£ the afaremeationed. findings~
THE FORBGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 20th day
of May, i965.
/ •
CF?AIRMAN ANPHEIM CITY P NING QOMMISSION
ATTESI's
~ ~,~y~
g~;REIAl~y MIAFiF,IId CIIY PLANNING ODMMISSION
STATE OF CALIF~RNIA )
apUNtY OF ORANGE ) s~~
CITY OF ANAHEIId )
~ Mn Krebs, Se~retary cf
I the City Pianning Cortunission or the C;ty o.'
" ,
pnaheim, do he,reby :ertify that the toregoing resa~utio^ ~as ~a~se~ en~
~ 3dopted at a meeting of the C:iy P;anning Commission oF the C;!y o~' Anaheim,
-~ ne~1 ur~ k{ay i~9 :yGS, ot 2'%:~ ~- ..:c:,k PoN,,, b~ ,~e PCt:.~.:ry ,^`~ -he
~ members thereo;a
~'
,
AYF.Sa . Allred,
C~IWISSIONERSa Cam , Gauer, Herbst, Mun alle Perry
P 9 ~ Rowland~
rqFSa OOMMISSIONFRSa None~
pBSFMe ~IdYILSSIQIdfRSa None~
IN WITNESS Y~f?EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20tn day of ~
M~y9 i965-
SECRETARY ANAHEIU CiTY PLANNING Q01~IMISSION
Res~ No< i620
;
I
t
~
i