PC 83-34~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. PC83-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION POR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-10 BE DENIEU
W[iEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
petition for Reclassification from ROBIN HTLL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 405 South
Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, owner of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as follows:
TRACT NO 10410, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 497,
PAGES 11, 12 AND 13 Or MISCELLANEOUS ME1PS~ RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY~ CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 7, 1983 at 1:30 p.m.,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of the Anah~im Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification
and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therecaith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all
evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the
tollowing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes reclassification of subject
property from the RS-HS-10,000(SC) (Residential, Single-Fanily Hillside,
Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RM-3000(SC) (Residential,
rlultiple-Family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for
hillside, low-density residential land uses.
3. That the pr.oposed reclassification of subject property is not
necessary nor desirable for the orde.rly and proper development of the
community.
4. 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 an3 to the zones and their permitted uses
generally established throughout the community.
5. That 8 persons indicated their presence at said public hearing
in opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to
subject petition,
ENVIP.ONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: EIR NO. 218 was prepared in
conjunction with Tentative Tract Nos. 10407, 10408, 10409 and 10410 and
certified by the Planning Commission on August 28, 1978; however, the Planning
Commission found that an update to said EIR would be required to determine the
cumulative effect of the increased density on the streets, traffic, water,
utilities, etc. of the entire area.
#0486I
~ ,~
PC83-34
~S: ~ ~..'. .:. '. . . . . .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby deny Petition for Reclassification on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 7th day of
February, 1983.
~f''/~~i~~/ i~'a-~o!/
CH~ N~ ANAHEIM CITY ING COMM2SSION
ATTEST:
~~/~ ~~ /`YECww,.i~
SECRETAI2Y, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COIJ~ITY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meetinq of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February
7, 1983, by che following vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: P.OUAS, BUSHORE, HERHST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FRY
IN t4ITNESS WHEREOF, 2 have hereu~,to set my hand this 7th day of
February, 1983.
-~~,n . ; is ~ 7~~_ '
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_2- PC83-34