PC 79-137
RESOLUTION N0. PC 79-137
A RESOLUTIOPI OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI~7G CONMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 3095 BE DEt~IED
NHER[A5, the Anaheim CICy Planning Commission did recetvc a verifled
Petition for Variance from GULF OIL CORPORATION, 24~!52 Qutntana Drive, Mlssion Viejo,
Caltfornia 92691, owner, anc! JOHN PRICE, 20001 Fernglen Drive, Yorba Ltnda,
California 92686, agent of certafn raal property situated in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of Californla described as:
THE NORTHERLY 195.00 FEET OF THE WEST 203.~0 FEET OF TME SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTIOtI 28, TOWNSHIP 4, SOUTH~ RANGE 10 WEST IN THE
RANCHO LOS BOLSAS AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECOftOED IN BOOY, 51, PAGE 10
OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORA~lGE COUNTY, CALIFORIJIA.
WHEREAS, the City Planning C arcnissfon dTd hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on July 2, t979, at 1:30 p.m., notice of sald public
hearing having been duly yiven as requlred by law and in accordance with [he
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed varlance and to tnvestigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEP,EAS, said Commission, after duc tnspection, investigation and study made
by i[self and In (ts behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at saTd hearing, does find and determine the following `accs:
1. That the petitioner proposes a watver of the foliowing to construct a
commercial shopping center:
SECTION ta.06.060.022 - Hinimum number of arktn s aces.
3 requ re ; propose
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on che basis that the
petitloner demons[rated that n4 hardship exists and that cxisting parking in the area
is already inadequate ar,d approval of this petition would lncrease the problem.
3. That there are na excepttonal or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property i~volved or to the Intended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vTctnity and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for [he preservatlon and
enJoyment of a substantlal property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinlty and zone, and denled to the p~aperty ln questlon.
5. That the requested variance o:ill be materially detrimental to the
publ(c welfare or inJurfous to the property or improvements in such vicTnity and zone
In which the property is located.
PC79-137
~~ ~ i
6. That 8 persons indicated thetr presence at sald public hearing in
opposltton; and that a petltion containing approximately 58 signatures was receTved
in opposit(on to the subJect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FlNDING: The Planning Director or his authorTzed
representative has determined [hat Che proposed proJect 1'alls wtthin the definition
of Categorical Exempttons, Class 5. as defined in Paragraph 2 of the Ctty of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Repart Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt f rom
the req~eirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED that thc Anaheim City Planning Canmisslon
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOIIJG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me [his 2nd day of July,
1979. /7 ~~e ~ 1 ~
~-t'flA fit~t AFT. ANAff~ fFYiC I TY PCAHN ( NG GOMM I 55 I Oy
ATTEST:
~~ ~~
SECRETARY, A~~AHE IAt C ITY PLAH~! I!!G COMY I S51 QM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUt~TY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harr(s, Secretary of the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission, do
hereby cert(fy that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission hcld on July 2, 197g, by the following vote of
the rterbers L~tereo`:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE, DAVID. FRY, HER85T~ KING, 70LAR
NOES: COMHISSIONERS: tiONE
ABSENT: LOMN15510tIER5: NONE
IN WITt~E55 ~1HEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of Juty~ 1979.
~eQ,f~ ~ ~~,(~i(/l,G4
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLA4NING COMMISSION
-2- PC79-~37