PC 84-32~L;;;oLU'.CION No. z~cs~-.s2
A HE:SOLU`!'TON 0[' 'TkiE ANAHETM CITY PLANDITNG CONiMISSION
7'IiAT PE7:'I~'IUN 1 UR RLCLASSZFICAZ'IUN NO. 83-$4--17 BE; D~N:IeD
WHEREAS, the P.naheim City P.lar~ning Commiss:ion clid rPCeive a veriEiPCi
pe~itiari tor KPClassi.fica~.io-i fro~ri RETIR~MLIVT F'UND TRUST OP' THE PLUMBING,
Ei~AT.ING & PTP:[NG I.NUUS`i'RY GF SOU'i'HERN CALI1?ORNIA, 5U1 Sh~:~tL-o Place, Fifth
floor, Los Arigel~5, Ca:liLornia 9UU20, owner, an~~ BROWN DEVELOPMk~NT
CU.RPURATION, 3595 Presley Aveniie, Riversicle, California 925U7, agen~ of-
certain real p.ropeity sii:uated in the City of. Anaheim, County of Or,ang~, St~t~
of ~alifornia, described as fallows:
PARCEL ;i OI' PAf2CLL M~1P N0. 79-279 AS 3HO~i~N ON A MA? RECORDED TN
BOOK 143, PAGES 34 ANll 35 OF PARCBL MAFS, IN THE pE'FICE OF '"Hu
COUN't'Y R~CORDE~R.
WEI~FEAS, the Cily Planning Com~ni~sian did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in rhe City ot Anaheim ~n FEbruary 22, 1984 at 1:30 p.m.,
natice of said publ.ic heariny having b~tan cluly given as required by law ancl xn
ac;cordance with the provision:; of- the AnahPim Muni.cipal C~de, Chapter 18.03,
to l:eax and consider. avidnnce tor and ayain~t said proposed reclassification
anci to i:~vestigate and make findirigs and rece~mmendations in connection
therewi~h; and
WHERE~IS, said Commission, after due inspecL-io~, investi.gation and
study made by itsel.f and in its be~half, and after c~ue cons:ideration oF all
evidence and reporL•s off~red al• s<<id hearin~, does fincl and determine the
f~llowiny facts:
l. 'i't~at the peti.tioner pr.~poses reclassification of sul~jcct
proper*;, frotn the C~ (c;omnercia.l, General) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residen~ia].,
Multiple Eamily) 'Lone.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subject prn~ert,y for
low-medium densiky residential iand uses; that General Plan Amendment No. 19U
submitted in cnnjunction with this petition ~:,o redesignate subject proper~y
for madi~a7~-density residential land uses wa:~ denier~ and, therefore, approval
of this reclassification would be inconsistent wi~h khe Anaheim General Plan.
3. That the propased reclassification of subject propert~• is no~t
necessary noc desirable r.~r the ~rderly and proper deve.lo~m~nt of t}~P
cumnzunity.
4. That the pro~:useci reclasUific~ti.on of subjec~ property doe~ not
properly relate to tlze zones and their p~rmitced use~ locally estab.lisl~ed iri
close pro:cimity to yubject; propF~rty ~~nd to the ~~ones ~nd their permitted use~
generally ~stablished throughout the community.
5. That 25 persons indicare~ their presence at said piiblic hearing
in oppositior.; and that pet~tions containirig 184 signal•ur~s wa~ ceceived in
oppositio.~~ to s~abjc~ct petition.
~0157r PCa~-32
_.,.,
~NVIRONMENTAL IMPAC7' EtNnING: That th~~ Anaheim City Plannin~
Commi.ssion r~as revxewed i:he proposa.l to change Ghe curr~~nt 1ow-medium densxty
resid~nta.al lan~3 use designation to meclium clensity r~sidEntlal and Y.o
r~classi~t•y subject pra~erty irom the CG (Commercial, Cyenerll) 'L~ne to the
RM-12Q0 (Residential, Mulriple C'amily) Zonc to construct a 250-unit apartment
co~np.lE~x witl; waivers ~f maxim~im structural height, minimum c~istance beL-w~cn
~uildin~~, minimum dim~nsions oF parking sp~tce~~ ~nd cequired enclosure uf
carp~r.ts on an irregularly-shaped par.cel of. land consisting of ap~~roximate:,.y
9.6 ac:rts havi.ny a frontage of apProximately 420 feet on thF~ ~outh side of
Wilken Way, and being located approximatPly 615 f.eei: east oE tt~e centerline of
Harbor. E;oulevarcl; and do..s hereby disapprove i:he Ne~ative Dec.laration from the
requirE~ment ta pr~apare an ~nvironmei:tal impact repc rt an the basi: that there
wot~l.d be significant individual or cumulative ad~~e~rse ~nvi.ronmenY.al impacts
involved in thi.s pr.oposal; an<i tY~at an environmental impact rEport would be
requir~d prior to approval of this pro;jecL•.
NOW, `.CH~RE:FORE, BL 1T F.E~OLV~D that tl~e Anaheim City Planning
Commissio~n does hereby deny Petition for R~clussific~ation on the basis uE the
af:oremeni;ioned fin~i.ngs.
THE F'ORFGOING RESULUTION is signed anc~ ~~pproved by mc this 22nd d~y
of Februai-y, 19~4.
, , )
~~~i GG ~ ^ lTZG~C-~.--!
_ __~~ =
CHAIRWCMAN~i yAHEIl9 CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION
~~r~r~s~~: : ~
- ~1,~~ _._--~u-~ -
SECRE'CAR , ANAHEIM CI7.'Y PLANNING COMMSSSION
STATE ~~F ,~tFORNIA
COUNTY UE' URANGE 1 sS•
CITY OF AhP.HFIM )
I, Edith L. Ha~:.ris, Secretary of l:t~e Anaheim City P.lanning Commission, do
t-ereby certify tFat the ioregoing res~lution was passed and ad~Pted at a
mseting of the Anaheim Caty Planniny Commission held c~n February 22r 1984, by
the following vate of th~ members there~~:
py~g; COMMISSIONERS: BUUAS, E3USEi0R,~, FRY, KTNG, MC BURNCY
NOES: CUMMISSIONEI2S: NONE
t1BSENT: CUMMISSIONCRS: EIi,RBS2'
A$STAII`1: CUMMISuIONF.RS: LA (:LAIRL
IN WI'.PNESS WHEFtEOF, I have h~reun--o set my han~ thi~ 22nd r!ay of Eebxuary,
19 t3 ~~ . '~
~!~Q~,~--~~ ~`~ ,~t'~~`~' -
SECRFTARY, ANAHEIM CI7.'Y PLANNING COMMI9SION
-2- P:.Hn-3~