PC 75-33~
i&-
~RESOLUTION N0. PC75-33 ~
A RESOLUTION Or THE ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMM~NDTNG 'PO
THE CITY COUIvCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT C~NGRAL PLAN e1MENDMENT
N0. 138 BE APPROVBD.
WH~REAS, the City ('ouncil ef the City of Anaheim lid adopt Che Anaheim
General Plan by Resolution No. 69R-644, showing the general description aT~d
extent of lan~l uses within the City and indicating the present belief of the
Council as to possible future development and redevelopment of land within
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City o£ Anaheim did receive
verified petitions for Reclassification Nos. 74-75-23 and 74-75-2G, which
petitions have i.mplications on policies as expressed on said General Plan;
nnd
WHEREAS, in addil•ion L•o the notice ~~f L•he hearing on said Reclassifi-
cations, notice was also given re$arding the consideration of omendment to
the Anaheim General Plan in the general location and.vicinity of subject
proper~y oE said Reclnssifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing in the
City Hail in rhe City of Ariaheim on February 3, 19i5, at 1:30 p.m., at which
time subject petitions Eor Reclassification Nos. 74-75-23 and 74-75-24 and
Ger;aral Plan Amendment No. 138 were continued to tne meeting of Pebruary 19,
1975 to seek clarification from the present City Council pertaining to their
opinions of the nee~l and economic feasibility of expansion of Bdison Park
and the extension of Baxter Street, to serve as guiclelines for the Commission's
consi~ieration in determintng appropriate lond use desigr.ati.on for the subject
General Plan Amendment, notice af said public hearing having been duly given
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of. the Anaheim Munici-
pal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said Amendment to the
Anaheim General Plan and said proposed petitions for Reclassification to
investigate an~l meke findings and recommenr~atio~s in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission after due inspection, investigatior. and study
made by itselL ancl in its behalf, and aEter. due coasi.deration of all evidence
ond reports offered at said hearing, DO~S HEIt~DY MAKE THE P'OLLOWING FINDINGS:
l. That evidence was presented at said hear.i.ng which justifies the City
Planning Commission recommending to the City Council a change in the
present general description and extent ot land uses in the area
described as:
Approximately seventy-four (74) acres of land ~enerally bounded on
the north by Romneya Drive, on the south by La Palma Avenue, on the
east by State College Boulevard, and on the west by Acacia Street.
2. That deletian of the desi.gnation for a high school site at the subject
location from the Anaheim General Plen would appear necessery in view
of che abandonment of plans by the Anaheim School District to construct
said school at the intended location.
3. That the City Council expressed their opinion that acquisition of
additional land for the expansion of Edison Park was still economically
ilfeasible, and that the original decision by the City Council not to
acquire additional land for the paric expansion when the property was
deciared surplus by the Anaheim School Di~trict was partly predicated
on their assumptian that residential development of the property would
most probably he in some form vf condominium or townhouae development
which would provide its own system of private recreational-leisure
open apece areas and, thereby, not place si.gn;ficantly greoter demends
on the public open space in the area.
_1_ RESOLUTION N0. PC75-33
~ , .. ~ ~
4. That the City Council was unanimous in their opinion that Baxter
Street should be extended between Romneya Drive and La Palma Avenue
as a dediceted puUlic street.
5. That Environmental Impact Report Nos. 141 and 142 accompanied
petitions for Reclassification Nos. 74-75-23 and 74-75-24, respective-
ly, and were scheduled for public hearing concurrently with the sub-
ject Gensral Plan Amendment on the aubject propexty and, therefore,
a separate EnvironmEntal Impact Report was not prepared for the
General Plan Amendment.
6. That six alternative exhibits (Exhibits A L•hrough F) were considered
by the City Planning Coimnission, and "Exhibit C" was determined to
constitute an acceptable alternative to current policies as illustrated
on the Anaheim General Plan,•eai.d Exhibit indiccting a cownerc4al
portion along the State College Boulevard frontage and the remainder
of the property to be low-medium density residentinl.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVF.D tl~at the Anaheim City Planning Cotcmiiasion
does hereby recomnend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that General
Plan Amendment No. 138 be approvad on the basis uf the aforementioned findinge,
and in accordance with "Exhibit C" on file in the Office of the Development
Services Department.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved t~y me this 19th day of
February, 1975.
CHA RMAN ANA C. P NNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(~ , /~ "ww-`'~
SECR~TARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Be.
CITY Or ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Commiseion of the City of
Anaheim, do hereby ce+rtify Chat the foregoing resolution wae passad and adopCed at
a meeting of the City Placining Commiseion of the City oE Anehefm, held on Fobruary
19, 1975, at 1:30 o'clock p.m., by the following vote of the membera khereof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, JQHNSON, KING, MORLLI', TQLAR~ HERBST
NOGS: COMMISSIONERS: P10N~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS Ti7HERE0F, I have hereunto set my hand thie 19th day of February, 1975.
~ ~t-, :. ; ,~J~ ~-~.~~. ~
_ SECRETARY ANAHEIM C TY PLANNING COMMISSION
_y. RESOZUTION N0. PC75-33