PC 78-280;
RESOLUTION N0, PC78-280
A RESOLUTION OF TFIE ANAHEIN CITY PLANNIt~G COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79-23 BE DENIED.
-1FIEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a veriftad
petition for ReclassiffcatTon from HOSSEIN TAVAKOLI AND JAFAR JAHANPANAH~ 631
Sandlewood, La Habra, California 90631, owners, and SEYEO N. DOP.OUD1, 631 Sandlewood,
La Habra, California 90631. agent, of certain real property situatcd in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Caltfornia, describ~d as follows:
A portton of Lot 7 in Block 17 of a subdivislon of the South half
of Section 21, tn Township 4 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho
Las Bolsas~ recorAed in Book 51, page 7, and followtng,
Miscellaneous Maps, records of saTd Orange County, as shown on a
Map thereof recorded fn Book 1, page 33. Miscellaneous Maps.
records of sald Orange Lounty, describ•d as follows: Beginning at
the Southwest corner of said Lot 7; thence North 0° 40' 20" East
6b9.60 feet alon9 the West llne of said lot to the Northwes[
corner thereof; thence South 89~ 43' S0" East 339•00 feet along
the Nor[h line of said lo[; thence South 0~ 33' 10" West b68.87
feet to the South line of said Lot 7; thence Nor[h 89° 51' 10"
West 340.40 feet aiong said South line to the point of begTnning.
Except the West 150.00 feet ihereof. Also except the North 300.00
feet thereof. Also except therefrom an undivided 4/5ths fnterest
in the South 50.00 feet of the East 12.5 feet of said land.
41HEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring at the City
Nall in the Ctty of Anaheim on December 4. 1978, at 1:30 p.m.~ notice of said public
hearing having been duly gtven as required by laN and in accordance H:th t;~
provisions of tlie Anaheim Munictpal Code, Chapter t8,03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed reclassiflcatton and to investigate and make
ftndTngs and recommendations In connectlon therewlth; and
4/HEREAS, said CommTssion. after due tnspection, investigation and study made
by Ttseif and in Tts behalf. and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offercd at satd hearing, docs find and determine the followtng facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes reclassiflcation of subJect property fran
thc RS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to the LL (Commerctal. Ltmlted) Zone.
2. That the Anahelm General Plan designates subject property for
cortmerctal professional lan~ uses.
3. That the proposed reclasslficatlon is hereby dented on the bas(s that
che proposed zoning would allow commerclal uses which would have a detrimental impact
on the residentla) area to the ~orth of the subJect ~roperty.
PC78-280
~~. That the prooosed reclassification of subJect property is necessary
and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
5. That the proposed reclassification of subJect property does properly
relate to the zones and their permitied uses locally establlshed in close proximity
to subject properiy and to the zones and their permitted uses aenerally established
throughoui the communtty.
6. Tha[ approxima[ely 7 persons indicated thelr presence at said publlc
hearing in oppositTon; and that no correspondence was recelved in opposttion to the
subject petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC7 FINDI!!G: That the Anaheim Lity Planning Camnlsslon has
revlewed the proposa to rec assi y subject pruperty from the RS-10.000 (Residential,
Single-Family) to the CL {Comnerciat. Limited) Zone to permi[ a motel with an
accessory restaurant Nith a woiver of maximum structural height on a rectangularly-
shaped parce) of lend consisting of approximately 1,4 acres. having a frontage of
approximately 189 feet on the nor[h sidc of Katella Avenue, having a maxtmum depth of
approximately 328 feet. and bcing located approximately 498 feet west of the
centerline of Bayless S~:reet; and does hereby disapprove the Neoative Declaratfon
from the requirement to prepare a~ environmental impact report on the basls that
there would be siy~ificant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of thls Negative Declaratlon since che Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for commerclal professional land uses commensurate
with Lhe proposal; thac sensitive envTronmental impacts are involved in che proposal;
that the Initial Study submitted by the petltio~er indica[es signtficant indivTdual
or cumulative adverse environmental tmpacts; and that the Negative Dectaratlon
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the Ci[y of Anahelm Planntng
Department.
NOW, THERE~ORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahelm City Plannin9 Comm(ssion
does hereby deny subJect Pe[i[ion for ReclassifTcation on the basis of the foregoir.g
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUT~ON is signed and approved by me this 4th day of
December, 1978.
, H M iTY NNING COHMISSION
ATTEST:
-~,~, ;~ ,~ ~.~_,..:.
SECRETARY~ NAHEIM CiTY LANNING COMMISSION
-z- PC78-280
t~ ~)
STATE Of CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIN )
I, Edtth L. Harris. Secretary of Lhe Anaheim City PlannTng CommTssion, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolutlon was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission held on Decr.mber b, 1978~ at 1:30 p.m., by Che
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE. DAVID~ HER85T~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSi0NER5: JOHNSON
1978.
IN NiTN~55 WHEREOF, I have hcreunto set my hand this 4th day of Decanber.
~ ~
SECRETAR . ANAHE 1~I ~f PLANN I;~G CO~M i SS 16N
-3- PC78-280
~,
~t _