PC 72-106~ . ~
RFSOLUTION N0.
PC72-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CIT'Y PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMM~NDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~1-72-45 gE DISAPPROVED
WI-:~REAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Meheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
classificution from ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, Post Office Box I:, Piru, California 93040, Owner;
COVINGTON BROTHERS, Post Office Box 31'18, Fullerton, California 92634, Agent of certsin
real property situeted in the City of Anaheim, County of Ornnge, State of California,
described as all that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
13, in Township 4 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, as per
map recorded in book 51, page 10, Miscellaneous Maps, records of ssid Orange County, which
is shown as Parcel "A" on a Parcel Map, recorded in book 22, page 2d of Parcel Maps, in
the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public heering at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim
on May 15, 1972 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. notice of said public hearing having beer. duly given as requiced by
law end in eccordance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear and consider
evidence Eor end egainst seid proposed reclessificetion and to investigate end meke findings end cecommendetions
in connection therewith; nnd
WHEREAS, said CommissIon, efter due inepection, investigation, end study mede by itself end in its be-
helf, and atter due consideretion of all evidence and reports ofEered at seid hearing, does find and determine the
following fects:
t. Thet the petit:oner proposes a ceclessification of the above described property from the R-A,
AGRICL'LTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPL~'FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclassification ia not in conformance with the General Plan.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject pr.operty is not necessary and/or
desirabie for the orderly and proper development of the community.
4, That the propoaed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zonea and their permitted uses locaily established in close proximtty to subject
property and to the zonea and their permitted uses generally eatablished throughout the
community.
5. That, at the time General Plan Amendm2nt No, 110 wae adopted by the Planning
Commiasion and City Council, the Coimnissiou recommended low medium density residential
for that propert~• north of the commercial aCrip fronting the north side of Ball Road
and south of the propoaed extension of Hilda Street, and low denaity residential to the
north of Hilda Street.
6. That there have been no land use changes in the immediate vicinity of subject
property to warrant favorable consideration of a more intenae land use.
7. That, in the past where the Planning Commiseion has approved multiple family
residential land uaes adjacent to aingle family usea, a buffer strip of s;.ngle family
homes has been required, whereas ehe petitioner is proposing all R-3 adjacent to Lhe
exioting aingle family homes.
8. That one peraon appeared repreaenting five peraone present in the Council Chsmber
in opposition.
RU -1-
. '' ~
~
NOW, THEREFORE, ~E IT RESOLVED thet the Mahelm City Plenning Commission does heceby recommend
to the City Ceuncil of the Clty oE Aneheim thet subject Pedtion for Reclassificetlon be denied on the basis of the
efocementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING R£SOLUTION IF signed and approved by me this 25th day Mey, 1972.
CHAIRMAFI ANAHEIM C[TY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTGST:
~j,L/ YT/1/!w~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) $s•
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I Ann Krebs Secretery oE the City Planning Commission of the City oE Maheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wes peissed And adopted at e meeting oE the Clty Planning Commission of the City oE Aneheim, held on
May 15, 1972, at 7: s0 ~ o'clock P.M., by the Eollowing vote oE the membece theeeof:
AYES: COML4ISSiONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 25th day of May, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-106
1i~f/f~/ ~~/'7.~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R2-D "2"