PC 76-62~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLA~~NING COMHISSION OF t'HE C17Y OF AH~• EIM
RECOMMENDIHG TO THE CITY CQU~7CIL ~F THE LITY OF AIdAHEIM THA1
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 7fi-76-19 (READVERTISED) BE APPFIVEO.
VJHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ~ d initiate a
vertfied Petition for Reclassification on certai~ real propert~ situate~ in the City
of Anaheim, Gnunty of Orange, State ot California d~scribed as:
Lot Nos. 1 through 18 of TraGt No. 33~+3~ in the City of Anaheim, ,s shown Book
102. Pages 47 and 48, Miscellaneous Maps, records~af Orange County.
WHEREAS~ the City Planning Commission dtd schedule a puhlic hearing at the
City Hali in the City of Anaheim on March 1. 197F. at 1:30 p.m., r,r,ice of satd
public hearing having been duly given as required by larl and in acc-.~dance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Munictpal Code, Chapte~ 18.03, :o hear and consider
evidenc:e for and against said prooosed re~lassifi~otion and to inve-tiqate and make
findings and recommendati~.-,: in coe~nection ~herewith; said ~uhlic hear!ng having been
continued to the Planntn; Comml~~~.,~~ meeting nf Aprii 12. 1976; and
WHEREAS, said ComnIssion, after due inspection, investigattc. and study made
by itself and in its behal~~ and after due co~sidere:ion of all evldeace and reports
offered at said Nearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the Anaheirr~ City Planni~g Lommisston proposes a reclassification
of the +~bove-described property from the CL (COMMERCIAL, LIHITED) ZO~E to [he RH-1200
(RESIDENTIAL, MUITIPLE-FA.'11LY) ZONE.
2, That the Anaheim General Plan designates subJect prc:erty for medium-
density residentlal uses.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject proF:rty is necessary
and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the comm~nity.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subJect prop~rty does properlY
relate ta the zones and their permitted uses loca{ly established tn close proximity
to subJect property and to the zones an,i thcir permitted uses ge~:r?Ily established
througliout the cummunity.
5. That on March 1, 197G, when subJect petition w~s inftially considered~
three (3) persons lndicated their presence at satd public hearing n opposition; and
a letter in opposition to subJect petition was rec~ived from one of the subject
property owncrs.
ENVIRO~~MENTAL ~MPACT REPORT FINDIt~G:
That the Director of the Planning Departmen[ has dttermtned that the
proposed activity falls within the definition uf Section 3.01, Clas 1, of the Ctty
of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requlrements for an Environmental Imp~ict Reoort and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to f11e an EIR
N061, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOWED that the Anaheim Ctty P anning Commission
does hereby recommend co the City Council of the City of Anah~im that subJect
Petltion for Reclassification be approved and, by so dotng, that 'ltle 18-Zoning of
the Anaheim MWnicipal Code be amended to exclude the above-descriF:d property frorn
:ha CL (COMMERC~AL. LIMITED) ZONE and to incorpnr~te said described ~roperty tnto the
RM-1200 (RESIRENTItiL, MULTIPL~-FAMILY) xONE unconditionally.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is ~!gned and approved by me this ~tth day of
April, 1976. `~ ~
CH I N, ANAt IM CITY PL NNItIG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~ ~~~~
SELRtTP..°.7, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION
RESOLL~ION N0. PC76-62
. ~ ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COU~lT't OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City~ of Anaheim,•held on
Aprii 12, 1976, at 1:3~ p.m., by the following vote of the mem6ers thercof:
AYES: COMMISSIOt7EPS: BARNES~ HERBST, JOHIJSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIOtJERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WIT~lESS WNERE4F, I have hereunto set my hancl this 12th day of Aprii, 1976.
~~~~ B. ,~Gz~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLAPJNiNG COMMISSION
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. PL76-62