PC 76-56~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY CQUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION fOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 75-76-24 BE DiSAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planniny Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Reclassification from LOWELL W. HAUCK, 9252 Imperiat Avenue,
Garden Grove, Caltfornia 92644 (Q:~rner) of certain real property situated in the City
of Anaheim, County of Oran9e. State of California descrihed as:
Lot 34 of Tract No. 2537. as shown on a hfap recorded in book 75~ pages 38 and 39
of ~4lscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on March 29, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance wtth the
provisions of the Anaheim tlunicipal Code. Chapter 13.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and tu investigate and mal:e
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS~ said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behaif, and after due consideration of atl evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above-described
property from the RS-7200 (RES~DENTIAL, SINGLE-FpMILY) ZONE to the CL (COMh1ERCIAL,
LIMITED) ZONE.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for general
commercial uses.
3. That the proposed reclassification of suhJect property is not necessory
and/or desirable for the orderly and proper developmenC of the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subJect property does not
property relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in tlose
proximity to subJect property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally
established throughout the community.
5. That subject property ls determined to be inappropriate for the
proposed commercial use due to the development proposal requesting substantial
waivers from the site development standards of the commercial zone, and also the
inability to provide an adequate buffer adJacent to the neighboring residential
properties.
6. That two (2) persons appeared, representing five (5) persons present at
said public hearing in opposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition
to subJect pet(tion.
ENVtRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Director of the Planning Department has determined that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Sectton 3.01, Class 1 of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Envtronmental Impact Report and is,
therefore~ categorically ~xempt from the requirement [o file an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby re.commend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subJect
Petition for Aeclas~ification be denied on the basts of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOi~JG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 29th day of
Marcho 1976.
~ ~
CHA~RMA , ANAHEIH CITY PLA~~NING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~ -/
SELREl~'7~R1 NN ~ NG COMM I SS I ON
RESOLUTION N0, PC76-56
' ~ ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning'Commisston of the
City of Anaheim~ do hereby certify tliat the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meecing of the CTiy Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
March 29, 1976~ at 1:30 p.m., by the follow(ng vate of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMIS~IONERS; BARNES~ HERBST~ K.ING~ TOLAR~ FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: JOtit~SON, MORLEY
ABSENT: COMMISSIOIJERS: NONE
i976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuntG set my hand this 29th day of Harch,
~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIt1 CITY PLANNING COMMIS5I06!
-2- RESOLUTION N0. PC76-56