PC 66-135;
RESOLUTION P!0~ PC66-135
A R~SOLUTIOl: Or THE CITY PLAIII~Ih,G COMh1ISSI0:J OF THE CI?Y OF AtJAHEIM RECOMME~JDI;:G
TO THE CITY CAU;~ICIL OF THF CITY OF AtdAHEIM TNE ADOPTIOIJ OF GENERAL PLAId AMEfJDMEtiT
P10„ y0, FSTABLISHI';G E,EW SYM60LOGY FOR PROP~RTIES ALOfdG BOTH SIDES OF EAST STREET
HETWEEfd SYCANARE AND IJORTH STREETS O;d THE WES~ AI;D WILHELMII~A Ab;D LA PALh1A AVFJdUE
Oid 'IHE [AST, AND OW TH£ SOUTH SIDE OF LA PALMA AVE:UE BETWEFIJ EAST STREET AIdD
, HA4YfHORNE STREET THERETO
WHFREAS, th? City Planr,ing Comrnission has recognized that land use c;-,anoes nave
taken place along r.orth East Streei, due to ar. increase in t*affic, and ?he dFsiyna-
, tion of East Street ~s a secondary highway ~r~ith a full 90 foot v~idth; and
~.~
,~, WHEREASy tF.e C,;+~y Planning Commission recommended to the City Council on September
ti~ ~ 26, 196b, that G?ne-el Plan Amer.dm?nt No. 52, addir,g a neighborhood sh~~ppinc cent?: symbol
j~ to the intersection oi East ar,d S•y~camore Streets, be approved; and
~ WHF.HEAS, tl,e City Piar,nin~ Cornmission di*ected ±ne Staff to prepare a new General
I Plan Amendment changinq the use desianations for bo:h sides of East Street and tne s~uti:
~ siJe of La Palma Avenue; and
~
1
WHEREAS tFie Cit Plannina Comr~ission did hold a
~ j ~ Y puplic heariny at the City Hall
t~ in the Cit.y of Anai~eim on October 24, 1966, at 2:GG 0'clock P.M., notice of =_aid oublic
i h?a_ir.g havino been duly given as requireci by law, to near and consider evidence for and
~ ayainst said Ger.:::al Plan Amendment, and to investigate and make.`indinas ano recommendations
~ ' in connect.ion therewith; and
WHFREAS, said Cormnission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration oi all evidence and reports
off?red at said hearina, does find ano determine the follov~ina facts:
1. Area I-'Nest side of East Street, between Sycamore and Plo:tn St:eets
a. That lo~N density residential is desionated on the General
Plan for this area; and tnat there are two exceotions v~here
development or zoning is oti~er than sinqle `amily residen;ia?,
the service station ~t the northviest corner of Sycamore and
East Streets, and a vacant parcel midway between Wili~eirt:ina
~ and Sycamore Streets vahich has a resolution of intent 2c
- C-0, Comme~cial Office, Zone~
1 b. That the preseni traf,`ic count: on East Street is 15,UG0
vehicles per day, with a ten-year p:o;ection -~f ?_2,~OG
~ vehicles per day.
~ c. That East Street is desiqna,:ed as a 9G-ioot secondary ai~erial
~ highv~ay on the Circulation Element, and as sucii, dedication of
~ 12 feet would be required o~ tnese oroperties to ct~.~in its
~ ultimate designated rfidt:h.
1 i d. That secondary access could be provided.
I e. That aaith the f~istory oj zoninq petitions on East Stree~ ir.
this area, along with tt~e required dedir.atior, and exis~inn and
projected traffic volume, a rhanye in the developmert oclicy
• from one oi losv density residential to heavier land uses is
~ indicated. Therefore, the Generai Plan should reilect commercial
professional developrnent for t.he aforementioned area.
k' i; . Area II - East side of tast Street, bet~veen Wilhelmina and La Palma Avenues,
~ anJ the sout.h side of La Palrr~ A~renue, b?tv;een East Street and a
~ point approximately lUU fe~c ;esi of Hawthorne St~eer..
,~ l a. That low density residential is designated .`or tl~is area on tF.e
" General Plan; and that all buC two of these properties are zone~i
and developed as single family residential on exceptionally oeap
lots~ The two exceptions to this being a service station at t}~e
;:. southeast corner of East Street and La Palma Avenue, and one
j: t multiple dwelling use on the lot immediately east of the service
f.~ station site.
~; ;
;., -
~. a ~
`i ~
~ i
1 I
i N
, ~ ,.
'~ ,~
~
` .... ,:.. . ._ .
_ , . ._ ...... _ . .._.,...,..
_:..,.,_._., . ^.
~ ~~ -
- __-
'~ ~ _ . . aer~. ,~'7:t,~:
~
~
- 1
b. Tnat the present i~affic count on ~ast Street is iS,OUC -.ef~;r;es
per day, witi: a ter.-year projection of 22~50C venicl?s pe= day,
La Palma k•,~enue presently carries 12,QOG vehicles uer day ~xi~i~
a ten year p:ojection of irom 1R,OCG to ?5,000 vehicles per day
, dependenc upor~ th? extensi.~n of La PaLna AvenuE easterly tiiro~iq!,
, the fdo: theast .ndustriai A: ea to Imperial Free~.t•ay.
c. That ~ast Street is designated on tt:e Circulai~cn E;ament Niqh•nay
Rights-of-Way as a 90-foor. secondary arte°ial r:in~i:~ay 'NIIi:FI ',•,'pUld
require ]2 feet of dedication; and t.hat La P.~1ma A~~anue is desiyr,at.Ed
as a 106 foot asterial highNay requiring varyi~g de-.iicaticns ci
from 13 to ?_3 feet to ultimate widt}~.
•~f~: ~'~_' d. That due to the depth of the iots secor.dar•~ access c~uld be pro~~ided,
,'Z € ~
-.~ b ~ r'. Tf:~! ?h0 }i75f.07"~ Jt zoning petitions Ofl £BSL JLI'Q?'. LOCei.flQT ':!l';:
i the ~.~ltimate ~Nidth requirement of 9G f?et for said sti•eet, ar,d ;.~~e
.~ I'' I'aq~.;irement of 106 feeL for La Palma Avenue, toae-.her •,~~ith ttie
;~ I, o.esent an~ ~TOIECTeCI tra*fir, volume, a cnanoe in the devel.onmenr.
policy f:om one of lovr density residential tc heavier land us?~ is
± ~%::
inclicated. Tnerefore, the General Plan sr:ouid re: iect medium
I ~:jensi*_y development in this area.
~f ?. Tha~ th~•~e persons appeared in favor oi and tnree persons aopeared in ooposz-.ion
-~; io ~he prooosed amendment~
~
,~ tiOW, TIiFREFQRE, BE IT RESOLVED tnat the City Planning Con:nission dees i~ereby z•er,o;:;mer,d
:,"~ to thr Ci!y Counci? oi tne City of Anaheim tha2 Grneral Plan P.mendment tdc, ~0, Exhibi` "A"
be ao;:r.^.vei en ihe basis of t.i~e aforenentione~ findings.
.~
~ THE FORP",,OIt•iG RESOLUTION is sioned and approved by me this 3rd day o: Movember, 1?t;c.
l
; ~~
' .<,~ _~/ ~~/~-~„
'~~ CHAI MA;J AHAHEIM CITY PLANIdIK~G COM~SIO'J
ATTESTs
/,
_ ~%;~.j.t~".- i..(~_,i
_ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIIJG CAMMISSIGN
STATE OF CALIFORNiA )
COUNTY OF ORA[JGE ) ss~
CITY OF APIAHEIM )
~.~ ;-~7 I. Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City P1a~~nin~ Commission or tr,e City o,` Ar.al~ei~n, ~o
~ t~~reby certify that. the forea~ino res~ltitior~ was ~~~sse~i an._i ado,r,~e~ ,;t a iuee~.inq or t1~e C:;';~
, Planning Commission o.` the City of Anaheim heid on October 24, 1966, at: ~:l:G C~clock P.M.,
~ by fhe ioilowing vote oi t.}-,e members r.t~ereo:: ~
I .
~ ~, AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst., Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
~ `; NOESs ~MMISSIONERS: Pione.
ABSEIdT: ~MMISSIONFRS: Farano.
t Ih; WITN£SS iNHEREOF, I nave nereunto set my hand tnis 3rd day of ~do~: er,ioer, 1966.
I ~
~ ;
/ i •
~ /~-7?_ l.t / ";'~i~ /
l (~'-•~. "
SECRETARY AIJAHEIM CITY FiAIJIJII~G CAMMI5SI0;1
`
~~
,I ~
~~ ~
Res. h'o. 135
~ ~
l~,~
~~ '
~
~