PC 78-33RESOLUTIOFI N0. PL7~3-33
A RESOLUTI011 OF THF ANAHEI!1 CITY PLANN!t!G CO`1M15510`!
THAT PET1T1011 FOR RECLASSIFICATION tJO. 77-78-k4 DE DE~~IED.
WfiEREAS, the Anaheim City Pl~nnin~ Commission did reccive a verified
petition for Reclasstficatlon from Y,OtISTAYTIM05 M.417DA.5, ET AL, ?t~ South Euclid
Street, Anahcir~, California 923nz, oamers, and ELF.I:I '1. BOUY,IDIS, 5~~ TFalia Street,
Suite B. Laguna Beach, California Q2651, agent, of certain real property situated in
the City of Anahcim, County of Orange, State of Laiifornia, described as fellows:
Lots lif~, 4~, 1~p and ~i? of Tract Ilo. 23~?~ as per r~ap recorde<I in
Book II; paaes 19 and 20 of Miscallaneous Maps, Recorcis of satd
Orange County.
k91EREA5, the City Planninq Conr.iission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anahein on Fet>ruary 27, 1^7~5, at 1:3Q n.m „ notice of said public
hearing havin9 heen duly given as required by lio~ anci tn accordance a~ith the
provisions of the Anaheim Nunicipal Code, Chantrr 19.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and aoainst said proposed reclassification ancf to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in conneciion there~~ith; ~nd
Wf1ERE115, said Commission, aftcr due insoec[ion, investi~a[ion and study made
bv itself and in its beh~if, ancf after due consiJeration of all evidence and repor[s
offcred at saiJ hearina, does find and determine [he followin9 facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes rrclassification of subject oroper[y from
thc RS-7200 {Residential, Single-Fanily) 7.one to the LL (Cormercial, Limited) Zone.
2. That the Anaheim General Plan desinnates subjec[ oroperty for
commerciat professional and/or lo~•i density residential land uses.
3. Ttwt the proposed reclassification is here6y denied on the basis that
subject property is not designated for aeneral corc+mercial land uses; and tha[ nearby
anu adjacen[ properi[es Co [he nor[h across Ceacor, Street ~r:.' :o Lhe ~ast are
developeJ wi[h low-density, si~gle-family residences and an in[rusion of general
cortvnercial uses, including vehicular access onto Eeacon Street, would be detrimental
to the residential character of the area; and that the public necessity, convenience
anJ oeneral welfare does not require a reclassification at this time.
4. Tha[ the oroposed rectassiflcatlon of sub)ect pr•operty is not necessary
anc:/or Jesirablc for Lt~e orderly and pr~;per development of the cor~munity.
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not
properly reiate to the zones and their permit[ed uses locally established in close
proximity to subJect properiy and to the zones and their permitted uses generaily
established throughout the co~ranunity.
5. That approxinately ~il persons indicated their presence at said public
hearin~ in ocposition.
ENVIROtIr4ENTAL INPAC7 FIN011~35: That the Anaheim City P13nni~g Canmission
has reviewr t^ sub ect proposa to reclassify the zoninc~ frcxn RS-7'~'~ (RESIDE~lTIAL,
SINfLE-FAMILY) TO CL (t~!1NERCIAL, LI~IITE~) on a rectannularly-shape~l parcel of land
Pt78-33
j~_, ;.:
consis[ina of approximately 0.6 acre located at the southeast corner of Beacon Avenue
and Euclid Street, having approxima[e frontages of 2t+7 feet on the south side of
Beacon Avenue and 110 feet on ttie east side of Euclid Street; and does hereby approve
the Negati•+e Declaration fron the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report on [he b~sis that there arould be no significant tndividual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to the aoproval of this ~~egative Declaration since
[he Anaheim General Plan desi9nates the subJect property for commercial, orofession~l
and low-densitY resid~ntial land uses cor•snensurate rrith the oroposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submit[ed by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmentai tmpacis; and that the ~~egative Deciaration substantiating the foregoing
findings is on filc in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
NOW, THEREFORE. E3E IT RES~L4E~ that the Anahein C([y Planning Carmission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Reclassification on [he basis of the foregoing
findings.
TNE FOREG011lG RESOLUTI011 is signed and approved by me this 27th day of
February, 1°7P•
~ ~_
CN IR~4Ali, ANkHEi~i CITY LANNItJG CONNlSSION
ATTEST:
e~ ~°?~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLA~It1111G COM"1lSSIQN
STATE OF LAL I F~JRh! I,A
COUtITY OF OP,ANGE ) ss.
CITY OF AN~HEIM )
1, Edith L. t!arris, Secretary o` the Anahcin City Planninn ~o"*^;ssion, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution rras passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Lommisslon held on February 27, 1q7°, at 1s3~ P•m., by the
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: CD!1!115510NER5: BAR~JES, DAVID, HERBST, JONNS!lil, K11~~, TOLA°.
NOES: C011'1155IONERS: NONE
ABSE!!T: CON'115510NER5: LIfIN
i9~a.
lil WITNESS 41NEP,EOF, I have hereunto set my hand [his 1.7th day of February,
~~. ~.° ~,~:.
5[CRETARY. ANP.H[IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC78-33