PC 87-204~'~
RESCLUIIUN NO.. i~C~2Q4
A ft~:SOLUTION ~7F TI3P; ANAHE:IM CITY. PLANNING COI~IIvlISSI0i1
THAT PE1TTJON FOR RECLASST.FICATION DIO. 87-fs8-17 LE DEN:[ED
WHGF.~'AS, ttie Anaheim City Plarining Commission elicl recei.ve a
veriiieci petition For Reclassification from JOSE A. FLORES, 9206 Brock,
Downey, CA 9Q240, owner and TRANS AMERICA DIVERSIFIEA, INC., 725 Brea Canyon
Fd., (13, Walnu~, CA 9178~J, ATTN: MUSTAFA Y.L. HUSTAMI, agent, for ~;eri::~3n
real property si~uated in the City of I~nahe3.m~ County of Oran~e, State of.
Calitornia, describe~ as Eullows:
LOT 5, SiLOCK C, Tk2ALT 15fl, IN T.HE CITX OF ~.NAHEIri,
CGUNTY OF OFANGE, STATE OF (;AL7FORNTA, A5 PCR MAP
RECORDED IN F300K 12, PAGE (!, QI' MI~CFLLANEOUS MAPS.
TN '~fIC OFI'TCE OF :CHE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
~ ;'" 4c;1"+:ni
'!'i
i
WHERLAS, the City Pl.anning Commissian did hold a public heari.ng
a~t the Civic Cez~t•er in ~.hQ (:i*yo uf Anaheiui on September 28, ].987 ~Zr 1:30 p.m.,
r_or.ice of said publi.c hc:ari.nc, tiavin~ been duly given as required by la*,r and in
accord~nc~: taith the provi:.ions o1" the Anaheim idunicipal Code, Chapter 7.8,03,
to kiear and consider evideiice for and ac7ains:. said proposed rQrlas~ification
and to investiga~e an~l maY.e fitidings an~l recommenaations in r.onnec~ian
therewi~li; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspect.ion, investzgaL-ion
and study maclo by itself anu. in .its behalf, ancl af.ter due consider3Lion o.f all
eviclence and ~eports of£•ered at sa.iJ. hearing, do~s fi2id ~nd datermine the
io'llowinq f:act-s:
1. T}~.at r.he ~etitioner proposes reclassaf.ication of subject
~roperr.y from thc~ RM-2400 (Res.iciential, Multiple-t~amily) 'Lone to ttie FM-1200
(R~s.ider,tial, Multi~le-Family) Zone.
~~
2. '1'hat: thr~ Anaheim Gen~~ra1 Plan designatss subject property
for Medium Dens:ity Residential Land Uses.
land usps.
3. That ~.lie proposed reclassificatiun ~f subject prapQrY.y is
not necessary nor desirable for 41ie orcierly aiid ~roper devel~pment of the
coromunity.
4. That ~he nropased reclassification oi subject prop~rty does ~;~
not pr~perly re2ale S:o r.he zones and their permi~t:ed uses '!ocally eskab].ishe3 ~
in close pror.imity tu subject propc~rty and ta L-he zones and their pQxmatted 1'#
uses gener~lly r.stablished throughaut the communit~y. :~,
5. That the ~roposed reclascificaLion is denied on Ckie~ basis
Lhat it wnGlci t~e s~~ot zuning because all adjacent zn~l nearby parc~ls ~re xoned
~~i-24U~ .
• ;-^
OG76r PC87-204
~ `'r;;~
~ F`°°"', ~`
~.
~ ,,~
,
, i ,~
~ 6, That twenty-rour (2~) persons indicated thQir F~resance at `'
said publzc hQ~ritig zn opposition; and that petitions and let~.ers containing n~
appro:simately 7.07 signatures were recaived in oppasition to subjoct petition;
and sevt~n ~7) peti~~ons indicatecl their presence a~ sai.cl public hearing in
tavor; and petit;ioiis anc~ letter.s contair.ing appro~:imately forty (40) ~
signaLurFS were received in favor. ~?t
2:NVTRONMFNTAL IMk?A~T I'INDiNG: Tha~ the Anaheim City Plannin~ ~
Comm.ission has reviewPd the pronosa.l to reclassify subjecr property from th~
RM-2~00 (fi~sidential, Multiple-F~mi1y) zone to the RM-120Q fResideY~tia1,
Mu'1'ciple-Family} zone to consL-ruct a 2-story, 6-unit apartcr.ent building on a
rectangularly-sh~ped parcei oi 1anc9 consisting of approximately 0.].9 acre, ~'~
kiaving a fronCage of approximataly 52 feet on ttie east side of Philadelptiia ~
Si:reF:E, havir~~~ a maximum depth oL• approximately 1.55 feet arid beinq located
appro~.imately 230 feet south ~f the centerla.ne oE North Street and further
described as 742 North Phi?ade.lphia Street~ and doas hareby approve l:he
Nogative Declarati~n upon Einding that it has considerea the Negative
Declarati.on togek.her wit•h any cumments r~ceived during t~e ~ub.l.ic review
process and £urther Einding on the basis of the ini+:i.al study and any -
comments received tha~ there is na substantia]. evidence that the proj~ct will
have a significaat e£fect. on th~ ei~vironment.
PTOW, THEREL'OF?E, BE I'T RESOI,J~D that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission cloes hQreby deny Petii.ion for. Reclass.ification on ~he basis of the
aforomentioned findiiigs.
THE @'UkEGOING RESOLUTIO~s sign~c~ and appro~ec3 b~~ me tr.is 28kh
day of Sep~ember, 1987. /~ ~ I
_.__ ~_~~ __~~~ --.-_-----
CfIATRMAN, J~NA.HErM ri, Y~ pLANNING COMMISSION
r~ar~~;s~r :
_.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~._.____ ___
~
SECRETAkY, ANAEIEIM CITY PL,ANNING COM2d]'SSION
STATE OF CALIFOFtNTA }
COUNTY OE ORANGE ) ss,
CTT'1 OE' ANAHEIM )
, I, ~dith I~. Iiarris, Secretary of the Anaheim CiL•y Plannin~ ~~
Comm.ission, do horeby c ertify that the f,oregoinq re~olution was passed and ''E
~ aCioptQd at a meeti.ng oi' the An~he.im City Ylantxing Commission l:eld on ;
~,; SQptember 23, ].y8 % by Lhe fol low.ir.y vote ef: l•,he members the~eof : ~
;~' AYES: C~A4fISSIONERS: BOUAS, BOYaSTUN, f,:ARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HEP,BS'1', MESSE
!~.
~, NOES: COt~IISSION~RS:
f, AHSENT: COI~IIdISSZONERS: MC BURNBY
d '
'~`
` IN WITNtiSS
. _..... ......... . .. WfiEREOF, I have hor~unto set my h3nd this 28th day ,
~
~!`, ~ o~ Septomber. 1947.
Mf ~1 ~
!
~i r
~~ r ~ ~
~
>~
~t~
~
~ ' / /
~K.7 f/
'
`~
~~~~ f1 ',~
1,~ ~~°~=
°~ "~ ~
,
~~F __ -~
~,
t
-_
~~~~~~~ '
` ~;~
: SECRETARY, A.P7AFi~;IM CITY PL~ANNING COhAfISSION
r~ ,
,r~;
{y 1
'
f
( ~r 4\ :'. .
~ ~~;, .i
-2- PC87-204 ,'-
1
t
;- ,
r ,
~r~r ~`::~,~a:-.'. -__. _ ,
~ ..~. . ...,~.~