PC 76-37~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-37
A~2ESOLUTION Of THE CITY PLAWhIIf~G COt4MISSEON OF TNE CITY OF ANANEIM
RECOM~•1EWDIWG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI?4 THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATIOtd N0. 75-7G-21 BE APPfcOVED.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the Cit,y of Anaheim did initiate a
verifi~d Petftion for Rec]assification on certain real property situated in the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
The North 180 feet of Lot 6 in Tract No, 162, as shown on a map recorded in book
12, page ~5, t4iscellaneous t4aps, records of Orange Countyd California.
Excepting therefrom any portion thereof lyinc~ within Ball Road on the ~orth and
Emp~re Street on the east.
WHEREAS, the City Planniny Comnission did hoad a aublic hearing at the City
Hall in th~e City of Anaheim on March 1, 1975~ at 1:30 n.m., notice of said oublic
hearing having been duly given as required by law and•in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1L,03~ to hear arod cons',der
evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to i~nvestigate and ~~ake
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
wHEREAS, said Cortmission, a~fter due insoection, investigation and study made
by itself ar,d in its behalf, and after due consideration of a11 evider~ce and reports
offer~d at said hearing, does find and determine tP~e follorrfng facts:
1. That the pet9tioner proposes a rectassificat9on of the above-described
PROFESSti~lNAL) ZONE,CL (COM~dERCIAL, LIP•1ITE4) to the CO (COMMERCIAL, AFFIGE APJQ
2. That the ~lnaheim General Plan desi~gnates sub3ect nronerty for• medium-
density residential uses.
3. That the preposed reclassification of sub~ect property is necessary
end/or desirable for the orderly and pro~er development o~ the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification cF sub~ect property does nroperly
relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally es~ablished 1n close proximity
to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established
throughout the community.
5. That no one indicated their pmesence at said public hearing in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in oppositian to sub~ect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL It4PAC7 REPORT FINDIWG:
That the Director of the PSanning Department has determined that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01~ C~ass .I, of the City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
NOW, TH[REFORE, BE IT RESOLUED tha# the Anaheim City P~anrriing CorrQnission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the C9t.y of Anaheim that sub~ect
Petition for Reclassification be approved and~ by s~ doing, that Title 18-:Zoninq of
the Anaheim Municipal Code be amendec~ to e~xclude the above-described nroperty from
the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIMITED) ZONE and to i~ncorporate said descri~bed pnoperty into the
CO (COM~4ERCIAL, OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL) ZON~E.
THE FOREaOING RESOLUTIOt~ is signed and approved by rne this ist day of
March, 1976.
~~~~
< ~
CH IRt4AN, N HEI~4 CI t~ N C
T:
3 CR~E'IPI"
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-37
A ~ ~
STATE OF GALIFORNIA
COUN7Y OF ORANGE ss,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricfa 6. Scanlan. Secret~'ry of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do ner~by certify that *ae foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of tn~ City Pl-anr.;ng Commiss9on af the City of Anaheim, held oa~
March 1, 1976, a~ 1:30 p.m.~ by ~the f:el~lowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIO~dERS: BAR~~ES, HERB5T, JQ~INSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR. FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: C~JMMISSIONERS: NONE
1976.
IH WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set Ry hand this lst day of March,
~~ ~ XS~~~~
.
-p- RE50LUTI~N N0. PC76-37