PC 73-99~ , ~
RESOLUTICN NO. PC73-99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Of' THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICA'*dON N0. ~2-~3-46 gE DISAPPROVED
WfiEREAS, the City Plannin~ Commission of the City of Anaheim did ceceive a verified Petition for Re-
classification from JAMES A. AND ERANA OLSON AND JOSEPH AND BETTE K. DAVIDSON, 414 North
SCate College Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners; JAMES OLSON, 875 South
Hilda Street, Anaheim, California 92806, Agent of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Cal3fornia, described as'I•ot Nos.
115 and 116 of Tract 2205, as per Map recorded in Book 64, Pages 33 to 35, inclusive,
of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County
; end
NHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Meheim
on May 14, 1973 at 2:~ a'clock P.M. notice oE seid public hearing havir~g been duly given as cequired by
lew and in nccordance with the pcovisioas of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider
evidence for and agains: said proposed reclassificetion end to investigate andmeke finding~ andrecommendations
in connection thecewith; and '
WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its be=
half, end eEter due consideration of all evidence and reports offeced at seid hearing, does find end determine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner pmposes a reclassiEicetion of the ebove described propecty fmm the R-1, ONE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMNIERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclass3ficatton is in conformance with the land use propo-
sals of the General Plan.
3. That commercial uses at this intersection would present extremely hazardous
trafficconditions due to the angle of Savoy Avenue andStata College Boulevard, and it
would be necessary for eommercial traffic desiring to enter the property to make a
series of right turna within the residential area. •
4. That although consideration was given to reclassifying subject property to the
C-0 Zone in September, 1968, no other land use changes have been proposed except for
subject petition to warrant favorable consideration of the proposed reclassification.
5. That the manner in which the'property is proposed to be developed is not in
conformance with the C-0 Zone site development standards, and this development would
have a tendency to deteriorate the integrity of the adjacent re~idential area.
6. That the proposed•reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
7, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their perm•Lteed uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and thei~ permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.
-1-
, , ~ ~
8. That four persons appeared representing seven persons present in the Council
Chamber;'all in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Aeclaration Status request,
finds and determines tuat the proposal would have significant environmental fmpact and
would, therefore, recommend to the City Council that the petitioner be required to file
an Environmental Impact RepoFt prior to consideration of the proposed reclassification.
NOW, THEREFORE, ~E iT RESOLVED that the Aneheim rity Planning Commission does heceby recommend
to the City Council oE the City of Aneheim that subject Petition foc Rer,lassification be denied on the basis of the
aEocementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 24th da May, 1973.
~
HAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P NNING COMM ION
ATTEST:
~~~~~~ ~'~
SECRBTARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kreba, Seccetary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resalution wes pessed ~nd adopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commis~ion of the City of AnaheiR, held on
May 14, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLR~D, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NQNE.
ARSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 1973.
RESOLUTION NO. PC73-94
L~ <~v~~C/[~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R2-D '2"