PC 74-37~.. r~.. ~ ~
12ESOLUTION N0,
PC74-37
A RESOY.UTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF3 H4 C~~TY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City uf Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
classification from JOAtd BERRY et a'l, Y0282 Wesley Ci.rcl.e, Huntington Beach, California
92646, Owner; WILLIAM H, MILLER, 9732 liazard Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92703,
Agent, of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California, described as foilows:
Portion 1: The Westerly 75 feet of the Easteriy 242,50 feet of the Northerly 120 feet
of the East one-lialf of the Northeast or.e-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of
Seccior i2, Tuwnship 4 South, ltange 11 [dest, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on
a Map recorded in book 5~i, pdge 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange,County,
California,
Portion 2~ The Nor[h 346,00 feet uf the East half of the Northeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los
Coyotes, as per map recorded in Aook 5i, page 1T of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office
of the County Recorder of Orange County, California.
EXCEPT the Wes~eriy 75.00 feet of the Easterly 242,50 feet of l-he Northerly 120.00 feet
thereof,
ALSO L•XCEPT tlie South i25.00 feet oP the East 270.00 feet thereof.
Portion 3; The South 125.00 feet of the Plorth 346.00 feet of the East 270.00 feet of
the Soulheast quarcer of Section 12, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the 12ancho Los
Coyotes, as per map recorded in Boclc 51, page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps ;and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City oE Aneheim
on rebruary 20,1974et 2:00 o'clock P.M. noticr of seid pu6lic hearing having been duly given es required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1$.72, to hear end consider
evidence for and ageinst said proposed reclessification end to investigate endmake Eindings andrecommendations
in connection thecewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, efter due inspection, investigetion, end study made by itself end in its be-
half, and efter due consideretion oE ell evidence and reports oEfered at said hearirg, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner propuses a reclassification oE the ebove described property from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL,
20NE, tn the C-1, GENE&1L COMMERCTAT., ZONI:.
2. Tliat che proposed reclassiPication is not in conformance with the land use
designation of che Anaheim Gener~i Plan.
3. Thac the propused reclassificatLon was originally considered in public hearing
before the Planning Co~nission Qn September 17, 1973, and recommended to the City Council
for der.ial; end subsequently, L-he petitioner submitted rFVised plans which the CiCy
Council reterred back to tl~e rlannl.ng Commission for rehearing.
4. That the revised plans indicated little or no change from the orLginal plans as
presentNd on 5eptember 17, I973, with the exception that a 20-fcot buffer strip was shown
between the subjecl• pruperty and the adjoining residential uses.
5. That the peti~ioner liad requested a four-week continuance from the Flanning
Commission meeting ~f January 21, 1974, in order to prepare exhibits, and no exhibits or
new or addLeional evidence or juscification for the reclassification of the subJect +
property was presented at the Pebruary 20, 1974, Planning Commission meeting.
6. That the noise ger.erated by tiie delivery trucks and the unusual hours of
operation would have an adverse effect on the surrounding residential properties and would
be detrimenCal to the peace, health, safe~y and general welfare of the citizens of the
City of Anaheim.
7, Tl~at the peticioner JLd nct demonstrate that the highest and best use of the
properL-y was for commercial development at tfiis location.
8, That the recYassi.fication of suUject property and the proposed use would cr.Pate
a heaTth and safety hazard to the area, particularly to ~he children who would have to
pass tliis fecility tu and fr~m school; and that the traffic engineer estimated an increase
of from 4,000 to 5,000 vehicSes per day at this intersection if Ciie proposed commercial
use was es~abYished.
9, 'Phat the propose~l reclassification of sul~ject property is not necessary and/or
desirabie tor the orderly and proper development of the community.
10. Tl~at the proposed reclassiPication of subject property does not proper~;~ relate
to ttie zones and their permitted uses locally established in closc proxi.mity to subiect
p:operty and to the zoc;es and their permitted uses generaliy established throughout the
community.
R1-D -1- RCSOLUTIUN N0. PC74-37
• I1. That two pers~ appeared at said public heari~, representing approximately
ei~ht persons present in opposition; that petitions signed by approximstely 550 persons
wez~ preser,ted in ~pposi~ion; and one letter was received in favor of sume development
of subject pr<p2rty.
._........._ .......
ENvTROh'ME[v'T;,i IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
'Phat the Planning Commission in connection with the filing of Environmental Impact
Repur.t No. 99 iound no changes necessary to its action tsken on September 17, I973, and
szt rorth ir. Resolution No. PC73-213.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City PLanning Commission does
hereby re::ummend to the City Council o£ the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for
Reclassificetion be denied on che basis of the aforementioned findings.
1974,
THE POREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 20th dey of February,
ATrE3T:
~~~ ~~~,~.ea.~/
SECRET~,RY ANHHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSYON
ST:;Lc OP CALIFORNIA )
CGUNTY OP ORAIvGE ) ss
CIl'Y OF ANAHEIM )
T, Patricia B. Scan'Fan, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
d~ hereby certify tha~ the foregoing reso9.ution was passed and adopted at a meeting
::i tne Cit,y FYannLng Cummissicn of the Citp of Anaheim, held on Febrnary 20, 1974, at
'L.00 o°clock p~m., by Che following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMTSSIONERS: COMPTON, PARANO, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY,
GAUER
NOES: COAAfISSTUNERSt NONE
ti3SEN'P: COI~4fISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WNEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of February, 1974.
. ~tJ
ECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R2•~U -2- R~SOLUTION N0. PC74-37