PC 70-61x
RESOLUTION NO. FC70-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-46 BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning rommission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
clessification from HERBERT GREENWALD, 1810 North Greenleaf Street, Santa Ana, Calirornia
92706, Owner; RAYMOND SEE, 12726 Pellisiez• Road, Whittier, California 90601, Agent of
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
~ California, described as Lots 19 and 20 of Tract No. 59, Per~lta Hills Tract No. 2,
as shown on a map thereof filed in book 10 page 18 Miscellaneous Map6 Reccrds of Orange County
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion occupied by the Sa~ta Ana Canyon Road. :URTHER EXCEPTING
THEREFROM the southerly 427,20 feet thereof.
-. s7
i
i
i
i~
~,1
i~
~
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City of Aneheim
on Apri 1 20~ 1970 at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of seid public hearing having been duly given es required by
law end in accordence with the pcovisions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear end cansider
evidence for and egoinst seid proposed reclassification and to investiQate andmeke findings andrecommendations
in connection Urercwith; and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter due inspection, inveati~ation, and study mede by itself and tA its ~,r
helf, and a(ter due consideration ot ell evidence end reports otfered at said hearinr~. does fted rmJ ~tiheiq~~~M ~~~'
(ollowing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassificetion of the above rd-acribed ptcc,~~yy f~mm 1!~€ ;-F.- Res' :
dential Estates, Zone to the G 1, General Commercial, 7.n•;;.
2. That the proposed reclassification is not in ~vn:ormance wi the F;;~~'~~eim Gen~.,.,~
Plan or land uses ~stablished in this general area.
3. That annexation of the Peralta Hills and Sant~ ;na r,ai;yon Az,.:• ?a~~~' ~~ ._ City
of Anaheim an opportunity to get off to a fresh start ~~' anning the c,,.: ,, ' o~i
this relatively uninhabited and undeveloped area of Nor'hFrn Orange Co~..n.v. ;~:.~
onportunity is presented now to build instead of rebuil~- :;,,= to l~n r.~th~; '
4. That the City Council, the Planning Commission, anc then~ity staff h~ve ~:?vnted
many hours at work sessions and public hearings in developinq ~~enera] ~lan t=:a~ ~,=~~,
provide a reasonable and logical framework for guiding the develo;: ~t of the ;lill a
Canyon Area, and that until evidence is presented that conditior~i; and/or :lrcurts ta:~ces
are such as to justify some type of development other than what is ~~re'sently projected
on the Plan, the current guidelines should be followed. Adequate facilities have been
planned for the Santa Ana Canyon Area, and any deviatien, unless justified by sub-
stantiating evidence, would be a detriment to the area and to the genera] planning
program.
5. Residents of the Santa Ana Canyon Area and Feralta Hills were assured prior
to their annexation t.o the City of Anaheim and have been re-assured subsequent to
annexation that this area of Anaheim will be maintained as one of the fi~~est, low-
density, residentia] areas in the City, and it is the duty of the City to retain the
residential integrity of the Peralta Hills and Santa Ana Canyon Area in accordance
with the land use policies established in the General Plan.
6. That unless good planning practices are followed in the initial development
of the Hi]] and Canyon ~:ea, the City will find itself reacting once again, rather
ttian establishing a yood planninq f:amrwork
i ~" ~ RD .1_
~. That the proposed reclassification would be deleterious to an area that has
been pianned for low-density residential purposes, and approval of subject petition
would establish spot zoning which should be avoided.
8. That the Anaheim General Plan piojects areas determined to be appropriate for
commercial uses based upon accessibility, convenience and projected need in a given area,
and subject property is not within an area designated for commercial development.
9. That the proposed reclassification and plan of development would be a direct
violation of the Santa Ana Canyon Access Points S tudy vihich was adopted in 1966 as a
cooperative effort between the City of Anaheim,the County of Orange, and the State of
California as an effort to control access io Santa Ana Canyon Road, a limited access
expressway.
10. That Santa Ana Canyon Road has been deemed a scenic highway route through the
mountain area by the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, and the State of California, and
commercial uses, as proposed, would detract from the attempt to retain the scenic qualities
of this road, one of the few remaining roads with scenir, characteristics.
11. That the land uses in this general area have not changed since the General Plan
was adopted in 1969, to warrant favorable considera±ion of any land use change as requested.
12. That four persons apoeared representing fifty persons presant in the Council
Chamber, all in opposition; that nine letters, two cards, and a petition signed by 134
persons, all residents of the Peralta Hills, were received, all in opposition; and that one
person appeared and presented a petition signed by 125 persons residing north of Santa Ana
Canyon Road, in favor of subject petition.
13. That the Planning Com~ission hereby reaffirrtu its previous position regarding the
planning principles established in the Anaheim General Plan by restating as a mattEr of
clear policy that the Hill and Canyon Area should be retained for low•density residential
purposes, and that this restatement of policy should serve •~otice to any future developers
of the Hill and Canyon Area as to what may be expected of tt;em when they propose develop-
ment within the area, and that the Planning Cornmission hereby recommends to the City
Council that a similar reaffirmation of policy be issued by that Rody.
NOVJ, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject petition for Reclassi-
fication be denied on the basis of the aforementioned findinys.
THE FOREGOItJG RESOLUTION is signed a d a roved b me thi 30th ay of April, 1470.
~
CH CITY PLANNIPJG CO~~ISSION
ATI'ES T:
/ ~
_ ( /C-^~L ~2/ ~; ~.~
SECRETARY APJAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
S TAI'E OF CALI FORN I A)
~UNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAH[IM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby ~ertify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meetinq of tt~e
City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on April 20, 1970, at 2:G0 0'clock
P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYbS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred~ Farano, Gauer, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Thom.
It~l VJITIJESS WHERFOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of April, 1970.
_~~ ~~~-1 ~ ~
l /~~ L J
SECRCTARY ANAHEIM CITY PLFNINING COMMISSION
Res. No. 61
~ I