PC 71-246RESOLU7'ION NO.
PC 71- 246
A EtESdI.UTIQN OF THE CITY PLANNING ~OMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDiNG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAH~;IM THAT
PETITION ~OR RECLASSIFICATION N0, 71-72-24 HE DISAPPROVED
~~' i~
, ;, ~~,~
~
,.
r,;
,';
~I
WHEREA5, thc City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verifie~! Petition for E2e-
classiEicntlon from CITY FULLERTON, 3O3 Wesh CommonwealLh Avenue, I'ullerton, Calitornia
92632, Owr-er; .IACK ItOYLR, Municipal Utilities Manager, 303 West Cummonwealth Aveizue,
F~llerton, CeliFornie 92632, ARent of certain real properly situated in lhe City of
A~ialieim, County oE Or.ange, Stake o f Cali Eurnia, described ~s tlia;: 4. 15-acre parcel lo-
c~ted west of Harbor noulevard and norlh oE La Palme Avenu~ be~inning at the i.ntersec-
tLon ot tl~e ce~iter. llne o[ 1.a Yalma Avenue and Narbar Boulevard; ttience Nortl~ 15° 22'
01" West ?.51 , 60ofeel; thence SuUth 89° 39' 10" West 46.59 iept to Clie point of begintiing;
thence Souch 89 39' 10" West 535. 81 Eeet; chence South 0° 20' 10" Eo~t 50.00 L-eet; thence
South 89° 35~' 10" West 50, 00 feet ; tlience North 0° 20' 10" idest 227 [eet; rhence North
89° 39' 40" i:~ast 542 feet; Chenc;e South 0° 20' 10" L'asr 13.68 fee[:; lhenre South 15° 22'
Oi" i?asr 16f3.95 feec to the poi.nc of bEginning
; snd
*
~
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public he~rring at the Clty Hall in the City of Anaheim on
Uecember 29, 1971 et 2:00 o'clock P.TvI. notice of said public heariag having beer, duly given es required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to l:ear and consider
evidence for and against seid proposed reclassification and tA invesligate and make findiags e~d recommendations
in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, a£ter due inspection, investigation, and study madn ~y itself and in its be-
half, and Eifter due consideretion of ell evidence and reports offered at said hearing, doas find as~d determine the
following fi~cts:
1. ThAt the petitioner proposes a~eclassification of th~ ebove described prnperty from the I~-~, aGF.'CUL-
'I'U1~Ai ~nNr Co the C-l, GENE[2AL COMMERCIAL 'LOIQE,
2. TIZaC the proposed reclassif.ication is not iii conformance witti land use desigt:a-
tions establis!~Pd cu tne Genaral Flan.
3. 'i'hat ti~e increase in ~s~~~ of th~ proposed building over the existing Department
of l~toeor Vehicles bullding tproposed buildin~; is approximately khree times the size ot
the existing buildi.ng) w~uld indicaCe an. increase in emplayees and busin~ss activity, haw-
ever, the proposed perktng would not accommoda~e a similar increase in employees and cus-
tomers, and the pelitioner's Ageizt would not sCipulate thst tl.iere would be no increase in
ttie number of employees oc activity to assure that the provided parlcing stalls would be
commensurate witti Che number of employees and parking demar~d.
4. That khe pruposed use of rhe property as designed at thi.s busy i.ntersection would
increase tl~e tr.af£ic liazards considerably more than if it were redesigne~i or located in
the C-1 Zor:e at a less traveled intersection.
5. Thac the propuaed development is poor.ly plarined from the standpoint etiat the
single-L•amily homes to the north of thE subject property would be subjected to the brunt
of the odors attd noises emanating from the idling vehicles awaiting thei.r turns for tests,
and c~~e petitioner was not providing adequate screening to protect tlie residentiaJ~ integ-
rir.y of these homes,
6. That one person appeared representing ehe single-tamily t~ome owners, all of whom
were iti opposition lo the proposed use oF. the property.
RD . 1.
~
b
~,LL,; ,
~'
x''
~t,
:~ ~'°' ,
,,
~~~, f, :
~~{.i'
+~~`", .
'4
F; ;
~,~~.
;~;
,.;.
'i~~:
,,
~'v;
,~
`:
~
;
c.,:
~~.,;
, •;~
~.
•',~
,~
I ,'
~;~
~
~~i
,~!
'i
;_;
~~~
•:;
;
;s;:
'~:
~
~
NOW, 1'HEREFORE, ~E IT t2ESOLVED that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does he~eby recommend
to the City Council of the City oE Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on the basis of the
afor~mentioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 6th dey of Januery, 1972.
~
C[3AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
L;~i2rn~c~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE dF CALIFORNIA )
~OUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CIT'Y OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Flanning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was aassed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
December 29, 1971 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLR~D, FARANO, GAUER, HERSST, SEYMOUI'c.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KAYWOOD.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I h~ve hereunto set my hand this 6t~~ dey of January, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 71-245
R2-D
~
.~ ~~~
e ~,
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-
~
h