PC 79-32P,ESOLUTION N0. PC 79'32
A RESOLUTION OF THE A4ANEIM CITY PLANNING CO'IMISSION
THAT PE7ITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 3076 BE DENlED
WttEREAS~ the Anahelm City Planning Lommissi~n did receive a verified
Petitlon for Variance from ROgERT D. ETCHANDY, ET AL, 2800 South Maln Street, Santa
Ana, California 927~7, o-Ters. and ELDEN BAINBRID~E, 2500 South tiain Street, Santa
Ana. Californla ?27~7, agent, of cer[ain real property situated in ihe C1ty of
Anaheim. County of Orange, St~te of Californ(a described as:
PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST ~UARTER OF FRACTIONAL
SELTION 4, TOilNSHIP 4 SOUTH. RA1~GE 9 WE57 OF THE SAN BERt1/~R01N0
MERIDIAN. IN THE CITY OF ANAlIEIr. COIINTY OF ORAHGE, STATE OF
CALIfORNIA~ AS PER THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SRID LAIID FILED 1-1 7HE
DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, OESLRIBE7 AS FOLL04f5: BEGIy41N; AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHIJEST QUARTER Of SAID SECT10~1; THENCE
t10RTH 2° 16' 3~" EAST 789 .50 FEEf ALONS THE WEST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 70 A POINT 1~1 THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LA~JD GONYEYED 70 PETER
ALLEC, JR. and RODERT JOHN ALLEC 9Y DEED RECO4DED MARCl1 2, 192a IN
BOOK 1~+0 PAGE 93 OF OFFICIAL R~CORDS. PRODUCEO ~1ESTEP.LY, 541D
POINT BEIIIG ALSO IN THE HESTEP,LY EXTENSIO-I OF 7HE SOUTH LINE OF
THE LFttD DESLRIBEO IN THE A;AEEMEIiT IIETk'Ef~! J. 1f, urtLLS ANn vIFE
AND GEORUE LEMKE AND WIFE~ RECORDED FEBRUAR.Y 20. 1~31 IN BOOY, 450
PAGE 283 OF OFfIC1AL RECORDS; TkENCE SOUTH 88° 27' 0~" EAST 360.00
FEET PARALLEL wITH THE SOUTH L14E OF SAIO NORTHNEST QUARTER;
THENCE SOUTH 2° 16' 30" WEST 784.5~ FEET TO SP.ID SOUTN LINE;
THENLE NORTH 88~ 27' 00" 4-E5T 360.~0 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO
THE POINT OF BEG~NNING. EXCEPT THEREfROH TMAT PORTION DESCRIBED
IN THE DEED TO TIiE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 5. ~967 IN
BOOK 8216 PAGE 857 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAID LANO IS INCLUDED
WITHIN THE AREA SHOtiIN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 90 PAGE 19 OF RECORD
OF SURVEYS. fN THE 6FFiCE OF Ti?E CQt2t:TY P.Et6.°.DEP. Q~ S~+f~ COUNTY.
WHEREAS. che Lity Planning Commisslon did hold a public hearing at the Clty
Hall ln the Clty of Anaheim o~ February 12, 1°79. at 1:30 p.m.. notice of sald public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisTo~s of [he Anaheim Munlcipal Code, Chapter 18,03. to hear and consider
evidence for and agaTnst satd proposed variance and ta investigate and make findings
and recommendatlons tn connection therewith; and
IaHEREAS, sald Canmission. afier due t~spectTon~ investigation and study made
by ltself and tn its behalf, and after due consideratlon of al~factsence and repor[s
offered at said hearing, does find and determT~e the folla+tng
1. That the pe[ttioner proposes a waiver of the foilowing to es[ablTsh a
3-lot Tndustrlal subdivtsion:
SECTION 18.01.130 - Re ulrement [hat all loCS abut a ublTc street.
2 ots w thout street ~ontage proposed
PC79-32
2. That the proposed waiver is here6y denied on the basTs that if the
property were subd(vided as proposed~ Tt would not be sultable for typical Tndustrial
users because access v+ould be along an easement. that there are no spectal
circumstances appiicabla to the property. including size~ shape, topography, location
or surroundings. which do not appiy to other property under identtcal zonTng
classification tn the vicinity; and [hat strict application of the zoning code dces
not deprive the property of privlleges enJoyed by other property u~der identtcal
zoning classtficatlon Tn the vicinity.
3. That [here are no exceptional or extraordinary clrcumstances or
condlttons applicable to the property involved or to the tntended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use In the same vicinTty and
zone.
4. That the requested varTance is not necessary for the preservatton and
enjoyment of a substantial property rlght possessed by oiher property (n the same
vicinity and zone~ and denled to [he property tn questton.
5. That the requcs[ed var(ance wtll be mate~talty detrimental to the
pubitc welfare or injurious to the proper[y or Improvements in such vtcinity and zone
In Nhich the property Ts located.
6. That no one indlcated thefr presence at said public hea~ing in
opposttion; and that no correspondence was received In opposition to the subJect
petition.
ENYIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINOING: The Pianning Dtrector or his authorized
rep~esentat ve has etern~ ned that the prooosed nroJect falls wtthin the definitlo~
of Categorical Exempttons, Class 5. as defined tn Paragraph 2 of the Clty of AnaheTm
Environmental Impact Report Guidellnes and is. therefore. categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, TNEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahetm City Planntng Comnission
does hereby deny subject Petitton for Variance on che basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION Is signed and approved by me this 12th day of
February~ 1979.
,• N N MM S N
ATTEST:
3ECRETA ~ NANEIM CIT L~ COMMISSION
'2' PC79°32
STATE OF CALIFOaNIA )
COUtJTY OF ORANGE ) ss,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Edith L. Harrts. Secretary of the Anaheim Ciiy PlannTng CammTsslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoTng resulution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anahelm City PlannTng Cortmisslon held on February 12. 1979~ at 1:30 p.m.~ by the
foilowing vote of thc members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE, HERBST~ JONNSON~ KING
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ DAVID, TOLAR
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
~979.
IN WITNESS NHEREOF~ ! have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of February~
G ~1~ .~ ~1~A~+.~..~
~ELRETAR ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- Pt79-32