PC 73-177RESOLUTIONNYY. P~J3-i77 ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 72"73'4~ BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Meheim did :eceive a verified Petition for Re-
classification from JAME5 A. AND ERANA OLSON AND JOSEFH AND BETTE K, DAVIDSdN, 4S4 N~rth
State Collage Rculevard, Ar+afieim, Cali1'ornia 92806, Owners;JAMES OLSON, 875 South
i~ilda Street, Ar:aheim, Caliic~r:ia 92806 Agent of certain real property situated in
the City c` Ana~eim, County cf Orange, State of California described as Lot Nos. 115
a~d i16 of %rac_ 2205, ~~ tha City of Anaheim, as per Map recorded in 13ook 64, Pages
33 tfl 35, in"1~s+v'-~ ~~ Misceliar.eous 14aps, in the ofrice of the Gounty Recorder of
<a~id Orange Co~n~.y .
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim
on August 20, S ~~3 at 2:~ o'clock P.hl. notice of said public hearing heving been duly given es required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear and c~r.sider
evidence Eor and against seid proposed ceclessificetion end to investigate end meke findings and recomme ~dations
in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study made by itself end in its be-
half, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at seid hearing, does Eind and detecmine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the ebove desccibed pcopecty fcom tl:e R.-1 , ON E h:'.PI f LY
RtSIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMIIERCIAL-OFFICE, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclassification is in conformance with the land use designa-
Cion of the General Plan.
3. Th•~~ the Planr.ing Commission on t•1ay 14, 1973, recommendEd disapproval of subject
petition, however, the petitioner at the P1ay 30, 1973 Planning Commission meeting submitte~?
revised plans whicli elimi~ated three of the waivers requested under the Conditional Use•
Permit submitted in conjunction with the request, at which time the Commission determined
that these revised plans should be considered at another public hearing because of the
opposition that had been presented at the previous public heariny.
4. That subsequent to consideratio~ of subject petition at the June 25, 7973 public
hearing, the Comr~ission determined that staff should reactivate Area Development Plan No.
98, and prepare other al[ernatives for subject and adjoining properties both as ta circula-
tion and sou~d atte msation.
5. That the Planning Commission on August 6, 1973 adopted Exhibit "F" of Area
Development Plan No. 98 which provided for the retention of~the single family hort:es in
the study area and further provided sound attenuation devices to insure an adequate resi-
dential living environment.
6. That although tiie petitioner indicated the traffic alo~y State College Boulevard
rtiade it impossible to utilize these properties for residential purposes, evidence was pre-
sented that wfien the Urange Freeway, presently under construction, was completed, consider-
able traffic would !:e rerouted from State College doulevard to the Orange Freeway, thereby
enhancing Lhe residential use of the property.
RD ' 1"
} "
•. That the propo5ed re ssification of subject propert s too premature tc cunsider
further strip commercial uses~ continue along State College ~levard. However, at a later
date, if the traffic volume along State College Boulevard increased to the point that the
properY.y is undesirable for residential use, a zone change request could be reconsidered.
8. That one resident and one owner/resident living in two of the six homes on State
College Boulevard in the study area indicated their preference to retention of residential
use for this block of homes.
9, That a high percentage of the residents in the area abutting subject property in-
dicated their opposition to the commercial use for sub;ect property.
10. That 5 persons appeared representing 10 persons present in the Council Chamber, and
a petition signed 'oy 59 adjoining property owners was received, all in opposition.
ENVIRONIIENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Oeclaration Status request,
finds and determines that the prooosal would have no significant environmental impact and,
therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is neces-
sary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLUED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition f~t° Reclassification
be denied on the ~asis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FORE601NG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 30th day of August, 1973.
~~ . ~
C4AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY~ ~~P3NlNG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1~
S'eCRETARY ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMM~SSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIPI )
I, Ann Krebs, SecreCary of the City Planning Commission of the Ci;y of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on August 20, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; ALLRCD, FARANO, 6AUER, HERBST, KING, ROIJLAND, SEY110UR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS 4lHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of Qugust, 1973.
L~~/' a' L=--~"k~-
SECRETARY ANAHEI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-177
- 2-