PC 74-173~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC74-173
A F.ESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY PLANIvIfiG CCMMISS'LON OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIh1
RECOMMENDING TO TH£ CITY COUNCIL 0~~ 75C~TY' OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. BE DISAPPROVED
WF:EREAS, ti~e Cify Planning Commission of tha City af Maheim did receive e verified P~etition for Re-
classification from JOAN BERRY, et a~, 10282 Wesley Ci.rcle, Huntington Beach, Cal ifornia
9264b, (Owner); WILLIAM H. MILLER, ~;j~ Hazard Avenue, Santa Ana, Lslifor~ia 9ZN3 (Agen~Zof
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as The North 346.00 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter of Se~tion 12, Township 4 South, Range Il West, in the Rancho
Los Coyotes, as per map recorded in Book 51, Pa9e 11 a~ Miscellaneous Maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of Orange County, California.
EXCEPT the Westerly 75.00 feet of the Easterly 242,50 feet of the Mortherly 120.00 feet
the reof .
A~SO EXCEPT the Sou¢h 125.00 feet of the East 270.O1~ feet thereof.
EXCEPTING THEREFRQM an undi~ided one~half intzrest in and to all oil, gas, petraleum,
naphtha, other hydrocarbon substartces and minerals of whatsoever kind and nature in, upon
or bene,ath said land together with the right of entry for the punpose of development,
production and removal of all such substances as reserved in the deed from Federal Farm
Mortgage Corporation, a corp~ration, rscorded December l9, '1940 in book 1075, pa9'~ 77
of Official Rec~rds
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a pubiSc lhearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on August 19, 197~+ .at 2:00 o'clock P'.M. notiae of said public ~hearing heving been duly given es required by
law end in accocdence with the provisions oF tfie Anaheim Municip~l Code, Chaptec i8.72, to hear and consider
evidence for end egeinst seid ~roposed recless:ficHtion a~nd to invesCigate end make Eindir.gs endrecommendations
in connectian therewith; and
WHEREAS, seid Commissaon, after due inEpection, investigatior., and study made by itselE end in iYs be-
helf, and atter due consideration of ell evidence end reports offeced et seid hearing, does f3nd and determine the
following Eacts:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes e reclessification of the olwve descrtbed pcoperty from the R-i+ (AGR I-
CULTURAL) ZONE ta the C-1 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZANE.
2, That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance with the 1-nd use
designatiun o` the Anaheim General Plan.
3, That the proposed reclassification was origina'1ly co~nsidered ~as.Reclassif-
ication No. 73-74-20) in public hearing before tiie ~'la~nning C~~vunissfon on September 17,
~973~ and recommended to the City Council for denial; t~~a[ subsequently, the petitioner
submitted revised plans which Uie City Council referrcd back to the Planning Commiss~on
for rehearing; that following further denial by the Pla~vning Cvmmission, the City Cou~cil
denled said reclassificaticn en March 19, 1973; and, subsequentty, the petitioner re-
quested, and the City Council granted, a rehearing on the basi5 that the r.ew ~~anning
Comn~issioners had not reviewed the entire preposal and that addit~onal and different
materiai had been submitted and consisted of a ~ioise study.
7+, That the reclassification of subJect property and the proposed use would
create a health and safety hazard to the area, particularly ta the childre~ who would
have to pass this facility to and from school; and that the Craff+c eng3neer estimated
an increas~: of f+-Om 4,U00 to 5,000 vehicles per day at this intersectinn if ihe proposed
commercial use was established,
5,'ThaC the noise generated by the proposed use, including the use of the toading
and unloadin~ docks and in conjunction with the hours uf operation, wouid have an adv~rse
effect on the sur~rounding residential properties and would be de!•~imcntal ta th~ peace,
fiealtfi, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That the Plann~ng Commission in its deliberations, recog~ized that khe petitioner
had made efforts to meet the additiona', criteria of the Cummissian, above and beyo~d the I
Cude requirements.
7. That the proposed reclassifi~:etion of subject property is not necess~ry and/ot
desirable for the or~leriy end proper d~r.velopment of the community.
8. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and thei~ pecmiti d uses generally established throughout OEV-66•B
the community.
RESOLUT~ON N0. PC7~+-~7"3
~ ~
9. That significant ppposition waS presented, botfi by personal appearance and by
signed petitions and correspondence, and said oppos~tion weighed heavil~~ in the delib-
erations of the Commission, notwitfistanding the fact that the petitioner submi*.ted signed
petitions and that correspondence vias received in favor of the proposal.
ENVIRONiYENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDLNG:
That the Planning Commis5ion, in connection with thz filing of Environmental Impact Report
No. 99, determined that no additionai action was necessary to its action taken on
September 17, 1973, recommending certificatio~n of said EIR and as fet forth in Resolution
No. Pc73-2~3.
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Annheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council oE the City oE Anaheim that subJect Petition foc R~eclessificetion be denied on the besis of the
aEorementiened findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed oc~d epproved by me this 19th day of August, 19]4.
' ~~~ -
AIRMAN A HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~x~~~~~~~~~~
SECRETARY ANAIjEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COllNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANA[iEIM )
I, P, B. Scanl an, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission oE`the. City oE Aneheim, d~ hareby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was pessed end edopted at u meeting of the City,Plenning Commissi~n of the City of Aneheim, held on
August 19, 1974r at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of thN members thareof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, JOHNSON, .TO~R, HERBST
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS• GAUER, MORLEY ;,' .
ABSENT: COMMISSI0NEK5: FARANO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ~uy hend this 19th day of August, 1974.
~cZ~` ~~~ •~ i w ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM'CITY PLANNING COn1MISSION
Rl-D
-7r
RESOLUTION N0. PC74-173