PC 66-105RESOLUTIGN N0. PC66-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECO~M7ENDING TO THE CITY COUNCI~ OF THE GITY OF ANAHEIM THAi
GENERAL PiAN AMENDMENT N0. 1R BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Cour.cil of the City of Anaheim did adopt a Ger,eral Plan by
Resolution No. 63R-R69, showing the general description and extent of land uses
within the City and indicating the present belief of the Ciiy Council as to possible
future development and redevelopment of land within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of ~inaheim did .re~eivP
verified Fetitions fur Reciassificatiu~~t~u5. 62-63-121, 64-65-39,64-65-97 and 64-65-135,
which petitions tiave implications on policies as ex.pressed on said General Plan; and
WHEREAS in conjunciion with the notice o: the hear~ngs or said reclassifications
notice was also given regardiny the consideration of an amendment to the General
Plan in tlie ger,eral location and vicinity of subject property of said reclassificatior.;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold public hearings at the City Hall
in the City of Anatieim on May 11, 1964, September 12 and September 26, :966, at ?_:00
0'clock P.M., notice of said public hearings havino been duly qiven as required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and
~onsider evidence for and aqainst said Amendment to the General Plan and said ~roposed
Petitions for Reclassification to investigate and make findings and recommendaiions
in connection therewith; and
VdF;EREAS, said Commission after due inspection, investigation and study made by
itself and in its bef~alf and after due consideration uf all evidence and renorts
offered at said hearings, DOES HEREBY FIIJD
1. That the present general descriptio~i and extent of land uses in
the aforementioned area adequately represents past and current
City policies re9arding possible development of said general area,
boundcd by North Street on the south, the Orange County Reiarding
B~sin on the north, the east side of East Street on the east.
2. That no evidence was pre~ented at said hearing which ~NOUld justify
the City P]anning Commission recommending n change in the above-
mentioned poli~ies to the City Council.
3. That Exhibil "A" of General Plan Amendment IJo. 1~ does not
constitute an acceptable alternative to current po.icies as
illustrated on t~~e G eneral Plan.
t ,~/x
*
5
1
NCWy THEREFORE~ BE i? ~FLJGi.I~L~ chat i.i~e ri+y i-!;n~~i;;g Comn,issicr~ _~i r.he City ~f
Anaheim doe~ hereby recorr;mend to tt.e ^_ity Cou~~cil oi ?.he C.cy of Anal~eim ~;~a~ sut;jECt
~ener~l Plan Amendnient be d'15app:ev<<] on the L-~sis of tne foreaoing findir.gs;
THE FORE~OING RESOiU7I0P7 is signe~9 and approved by mF ti~is 6tt•, d~y of Outcber,
1966.
~ ~,._ttu-/ '~'• ~/~:ti.-~n/
~1~~1IF.AV~:! t{~dANEIM CIT1' PLANtJIP.~ OOMMISSION
ATTESTs
' -~?~ / ~,~~~/
~
SECREIARY ANAHEIDq
I'i .f P,I.N:"~:t:f;G t:.:.MMISSIOPJ
STATE OF CALImrPJIA ~
~UNTY OF OFtANGE ) i .,
' STATE OF CALIF~RIJIN )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of ihe Cit~~ Plan:~ing Con;RUSS;on cf the City oi /u,ai~eirc
~
w
}teroby certify t7at the foregoir~,: reaoi.~'
City Plannin
Comm
ssio
^f th
C' ,
.
was passod and adopted at a meeting cf' the
g
i
n
e
.;ty o? ~,,,,neim, held or. Septembe: 2c, ]96b, at 2:G0 G'
clock P.M., by the fo]lc~hing vote
~f t
b
e
rs th
~
f
,
.. ,nf
„
e
ereo
:
AYES: CGN~MiSSIO~dERS: Alired, Cam~, f u.Cd'1J~ Gauer, Herbst, A1ur~qall.
NOFS: COMMISSIONERSa ;~cn~e.
ABSENT: CONJdISSIONERSs ~one.
ABSTAINs OOh1MI5SI0NERS: Rowland.
IN WITIJESS WHEREOF, I have hereunte sat rry hand tnis oth day of Octobec, 196L.
.
~` '~ Z ~~~~~ 2 l
,-~
•
SFCRETARY ANANEIN CITY PLANhJI~;G ~h1A1ISSI0i;
~ Res. No. ]05
.~ ~ ~
;~
.~
i ,
~ ~
, ~x
.
~~
~ ~ f , %~ ~ '
~: . .. .
~