PC 76-150r: ~ ~
RES~LUTI~M NQ. PC7~i-15~
A RESOLIITIOM OF THf: Ar1~HFln CITY PLArINING CQMMISSION
THAT PFTITIQ~I Ff1R VARIANCF. N0. 2fl3~ BE DFMIF.(1.
WHEREAS, the Anal~eim City Planning Commission did receive a veriflecl
Petition for Variance from AAROP~, FAtINY, R~f1ERT APJD R(1SALIE FOI~EL'~AN, 651 PJ. Main
StreeC, Orange, California 42~(7 (~wners); CONTIIdF.rlTAL LIMITED P1IRTNF.R~f!tP, tnp9~
Wilshire Boulevard, Los An9eles, California ~10n7.1i (Agent) of certain rea'1 property
situat~~d in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
Lot 2 of Tract ~lo. 568II. as shown on a Nap recorded in Booic ?.~~3, pages 3? and ~Q
of Hiscellaneous Maps, recnrds ~f Orange County, Calif~rnia.
Excepting t`erefrom the Southerly ln~ feet of said Lot 1., the Nori:herly line of
said Southerlv 1(10 feet bein~ paralir:l witfi the tan~7ent portion of the Southerly
line of said Lot 2, and the Easterly prolongatlon thereof.
Also excepting therefr~m that ~ortion of said Lot 7., the follooiing:
Be~inning at the Southaiest corner of the land conveyed t~ Union tiank by Trustee's
Deed recorded August 3~, 1~~R in Book A7r18, pa9e 577 of Official Records of said
Orange County, said point being in the IJesterly line of said Lot 2; thence along
said Westerly line North 1° 2fI' ifi" West 2a$.~R feet to the begin~ing of a
tangent curve concave ShutheastFrly and having a radius of 17.50 feet; thence
Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 3~F° 13' lt~~" an arc
distance of 10.~iS feet to a noint of intersection with a non-tangent curve
concave Sauthwesterly and having a radius of 7~.on fer_c, a radial line of said
last menti~ned curve passing through said point bears IJorth 5Q° 23' 3°" East;
thence Southeasterly along said curve, througl~ a central angle of 3R° 1F,' n>" an
arc distance of 52.76 feet; thence tan9ent to sald curve and parallel to the
1Jesterly tine of said Lot 2, South 1° 2f1' iF" East 2G~.27 feet C~ the Southerly
line of said land of Union f3ank; thence aiong said last mentioned Southerly line
South 8,~i° 43' 4~E" West 2f:.Qi feet t~ the point of heginn+ng.
WHERFAS, the City Planning Commission did h~ld a publ?c hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on August 2, l~llfi, at 1:3~ P•m., notice of said puhlic
hearing having been duly ~iven as required hy la~~i and irt accordance toith th~
provisions of Yhe Anaheim !tunicipal Code, ChapCer 1$.Q3, to he<. and consider
evidence for and against said propr,sed variance and to investigate and m~ke findin~s
and recommendati~ns in connection therewlth; and
WHEREAS, said C~mmission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and re~orts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the folloo~ing facts:
l. That the petitianer proposes the follou~~ing waivers from the Anahein
Municipal Code, to le~~lly est~blish an existin~ billboard:
(a) SFCTIOt! 1".05.111 - Permitted billhoar•d location.
200 feet rom t e intersection of two
hinh~' ways required; 9Q~ feet existing)
(b) SECTI0~1 ~n.~5.111.'l2'L1 - Prohibition of billboards near certain
arteria ig wa~. B oar s not
permitted on Her~or Boulevard)
2, That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby denied on tha 6asis that
approval oF tfie prop~sal would set an undestra6le pcecedent for future similar
requests for biliboards on Harbor Boulevard; that the petitioner did not demonstrate
that a hardship would be created if said waivers were not granted; and, furthermore,
that said biliboard is ~ietrimental to the adjacent pro~erty and the owner of said
property objecCed to the pro~+osal.
3, Tliat there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
con~iitions applicayle to the property involved or t~ the intended use of ehe prop~rty
that do not apply yenerally to the property or class of usz in the same ~eiclnity and
zone.
RFSOLUTI(1~l M0. PC76-15~
~~ ~
~~, That the reqursted viriance is not necessary for the preservation and
enj~yment of a s~ihstantial property riqht possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the proprrty in question.
5, That the re~ue.ste~l variance will be m~terially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious tn the property or improvements in such viclnity and zone
in o~hich the prnperty is locate~l.
fi. That buo (2) persons appeared al• said public hearing in opoosition; and
no correspon~lence was receive~l in opposition to subject petition.
EIII~IROIIHF.NTAL IMPACT REf'QRT FI!•IDING; That the Director of tLe Planriin9 Department
has rietermined th~t tlie propnsei activity falis within the definition of Section
3.Q1, Class ~, ~f thc City of Anaheim Guiclelines to the Requirer.+ents for an
Environmental Impact Report ane! is, therefare, cTtenorically e>:empt from the
reyuirenent to file an EIR.
I10~1, T!?EREF~RE, Eif IT RFSOLVE~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby cleny suhject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findinns.
THE FOREROING RFSQLUTION is signed and approved by me this 2nd day of
August, 1976•
~,~~ ~/ ~~ - -
CHAIRNAM PRO TEt4POR
AtlAHE I M C I TY PLANN I N~ CQ'1H I SS I Ot!
ATTC•ST:
~~/~i~i~ctJ .V a~~,,.~A~rC~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIH CITY PLArRi?IJG COHHISSI0~1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUtdTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF AFIAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. S~anlan, Secretary of the Anaheim City Ptarning Commission,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution ~vas passed and adopted at a meeting
of the Anaheim City Planniny Commission, held on August 2, 197/,, at 1:3~ p.m., hy the
following vote of the mEmbers thereof:
AYES: f,OHMI5SI0tdERS: BAR~lES, FARA~7Q, HERE35T, KItJG~ MqRLEY, TOLAR
~~OES: CQM!1155101JERS: tlQllE
ACSEtlT: COMI115SInMERS: JQHNSQN
I11 411TNc5S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ny hand this 2nd day of August 1?7f~.
~~ ~• ~ c./
SECRETARY, ANAHEIH CITY PLAMHING CONMISSIQ~I
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. °C76-150