PC 73-95~ ~ ~
RESOLUTION PIO.
PC73-95
A TtESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COie1MISSION OF THE CITX OF' ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCII OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 'fHAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. ~2-~3-4~ SE DIS./+PPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissio:i of the City of Anaheim did :eceive a veri:ied Petition for Re-
clessification from PETER AND DORINE C:~BRERA, 1532 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia 92805, Ownera~of certain rr•al property situated in the City of Anaheim, County
of Orange, State of California, deacribed as That portioia of Lot 3 of Anaheim Extension,
as shown on a map thereof, madF• by Wm. Hamel and filed f.or record in L•he office of the
County Recorder of Los Angeles County, described as follows: Beginning at;a_point'.in
the Northerly line of said I.ot 3, distant thereon South 89°51~30" Sast 307.81 feet :
from the Northwesterly corner thereof, said point being also the Northeasterly corner
of the land described in Certificate of Ti.tle No. 10,435, and running thence South
16°28'30" East along the Easterly line of said land described in said Certificate o£
Title No. 10,435, a di~tance of 200 feet; thence Westerly at right angles to said last
mentioned course 100 feet; thence North 16°28'30" West to the North line of said Lot
3; thence South 89°S1'30"East along said''No=Eh line to the poirit of beginning. '•EXCEPTING
THEREFkOM the Nort•herly 30 feet thereof included within La P~;ma Strept.
; end
WHERSAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing et the City Hell in the City of Meheim
on May 14, 1973 at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of seid public hearing heving been duly given as requiced by
law and in accordance with the provisione of the Maheim diunicipal Code, Chepler 1Y.7~, to hear end consider
evidence far and egainst said propased reclessification end to inveskigate andmake findings ondcecommendetions
in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter due inspection, investigetion, end study mede by itself end in its be-
helf, end eEter due consideration of all evidence end raports offered et seid headng, does find end determine the
follow.ing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the above described property fcom the R-A, AGRI-
CULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GEPTERAL COMMERCTAL, ZONE.
2, That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance with the General
Plan.
3. That ample coimnercial facilities are readily available elsewhere in which to
establiail this use rather than creating "spoC zoning".
4. That a small commercial complex was locatzd immediately to the nor~th which
was experiencing difficulCy in retaining tenants, and to inject additionni commercial
usea into the area wuuld be fu2ther diluting eatablished commercial developments.
5. That a real estate buainess has been conducted on Chis site for several months
as a Home Occupation, however, Che use has expanded or is proposed to expand beyond Che
limita of the Home Occupation., therefore, the use ahould be moved to an appropriate
commercial location.
G. That subject propetty would be ideally suited for the eatablishment of a mul-
tipie resident retirement home, thereby maintaining the residential integrity already
establfshed in this area.
7. That the proposed reclasaification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for tY~e orderly and proper development of the coimnunity.
8, That the proposed reclasaification of subject property does not properly re-
late to the zones and their permitted usea locally established in close proximity to
sabjec'C pruperty and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established through-
out the cov~nunity.
RD ' 1"
i~ ~
.. ~
~
ENVIROtaSEf1TAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
Thar, the Plenning Cflmmiesion, in connection with an Exemptiun De.cl&ration Status ~:
request, finds and determines thet the proposal would have no aignificant environ~
mental impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental
Impact Statement is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEII that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the C'it4 of Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclassificetian be denied on the basis oE the
aforementioned finditigs.
THE FOREGOING RE~bL~~TlQN is signed end apFroved by me this
ATTEST:
~ ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS'SION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~
Iy Ann Krebs~ Secretery o: the City Plenning Commission oE the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes pessed and edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, held on
May 14y 1973~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the mem6ers theceof:
AYES: COMMfSSIONERS: ALLRED, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, SEYMOUR,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, ROWLAND.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 24th d8y of May~ 1973.
RESULUTION NO. PC73-95
C~! Q~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOM
R2-D "2"