Resolution-PC 93-104~
RESOLUTION NO, PC93-104
A RESOLUTION QF THH ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS310N
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3608 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Piennlnp Commfsalon did receNe a verHisd Petition for
C~ndltional Use Permft for cartain real propeRy situated In the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as:
THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAS7 ~UARTER OF THE NOFITHEAST
OUART~R QF THE NORTHEAST QUARTEii OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIp 4
SOUTH, RANaE 11 WE3T, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, AS PER MPP
NECORDED IN 900K 51, PAG~ 11 OF MISCEUANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT THEREFRON! THE EA3TERLY 40.00 FEET THEAEOF, AS PER DEEn 70
THE 3TATE OF CAU~ORNIA, RECORDED APRIL 13, 1951, IN BOOK 2175, PAOE
324, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, thF City Planning Comm~.sfon did hold a public hearing at the Civic CeMe~ In
the City of Anaheim on July 12, 1953 at 1:30 p.m., :~otict~ of said public h~a~inp hsvl~~ been duly givan es
requlred by taw and fn acaordance with the provislons of the Anahetm Municipal Cude, Chapter 18.03, to
hear and consider evkience for and epainst safd propossd condiUonal use permft and to irnestipato and
make flndings and recommendations tn connection therewfth; end that said publ(c hearing was corKinued
to the July 26, September 8, arxi September 20, 1993 Planning Commisaion meetings;
WIiERFJ13, eatd Commtaston, aRer due inspection, Irn-estlqatlon and atudy made by kself
and in Ra behalf, and aRer due consideratbn of dll evidence end ropoRS offered at aakl heartnp, does flnd
and determtne the fdlowtng Mcts:
1. That the propoeed uae Is properly one la• which a conditlon~l uso partnR is authorfzad bf~
Anahehn Municipal Code Sectbna 18.44.050.080 and 10.44.050.085 to pa-mk cn autornobil~ fluld dr~ina9a
fecility anrJ e usod automob(le aaies lot in conjunction wlth an autumobAe dismantltnq end recycling iacNity
on the ed~acent parcel to the south (In the Cfry of StarNon) with waivar M the fdlowinp:
~,~Rs t8.04.043.1Q2 - ~ax~mum lence heiaht.
end 18.aa.oea l~test pem,nt~d: 10.is~t P~o~`~1
2. Thet the proposed waHor of maximurn lence t~efpM :s deniad on the besis that there Are
no ep~ciai circumatances appik;abie to the proverty auch aa afze, ahepe, toFonraphy, locatbn or
~urrourtdinps, wh~ch do rwt apply to ot~ar ldeMfcaily zonod nropeKfe~ ~n the vicinky bacauee subJect
property is a Ilat, rectangularty shaped percol wtth no epp~rent '~~ ~lopcnaM c~onrirainte; and thet the need
for th~ ience he~pM weivor is the resuh d tho petntoner'~ destre to prevent the etfoct4 d the propoaad land
use on edlecen: resWencea end that thia desire atwutd not be wed as a beala for qrentlnp ~ Code weNer,
3. That tt~iCt appl(catbn ot ths Zonirp Codu sloos not deprlve the proparty ot prwUeqet
enJoyed by other propoRies under lder,tical zoning cMssiticstbn In the viclnlty;
4. Thet the propo+ted use Is properly ono for wh~ch e aorxlltbnal uue permk la puthorfzed by
tho 7ontnq Code;
ca~e~sMS.wp -+• Pcvo-'oa
i
1
s
;
i
9
... ~"`~ ;~,
Y
u
5. That the proposvd use would edversely a(tect the ad~ofning land uses and the flrowth and ~
developmont of the erea In which it Is proposed to be la:ated bec~use tha proposed suto saiveea and ~~
outdoor storago Is Incompatible wlth the residences to the north and west; and, although the petitiAner has
amended the scope of the projdct fn Anahefm to include the sale of used autos (thereby elfminating the need !y
for an Industrial zone designatlon), the proJect as a whae is industrlat In nature and shauld not be loceted ~
ad~acent to resldential uses; ~
8. Thnt the size and shapa of the sRo for the proposed use Is not adequate to allow tho full I
devetopment of the proposed use In a manner not detrimental to the partlcular erea nor to the peace, heelth, ~
safety, and generat welfaro; ~
7. That the traHic penerated by the proaosed use will fmpose an undue l~urden on the streets
and hfghways desiyned and Improvpd to carry the traHic in the area;
Ef. That the p~anting oi the condftional use permk would be detrimentaf to the peeco, health,
eafety and generai weliare ol the cftizerss of the City of Anaheim;
9. That, althouph this project hea been preserned as a ahort term use (5 years), it wAl
potentially need to oporeto well bsyond ilvo yeara fn order for the petftioner to realize a retum; and, In
addition, if subject use is terminated In tive years, it Is posslble ttu~t the propoaed structurea would not be
removed and the vacated properry couid become a nutsance; and
10. That one (1) person In tavor and three (3) people In oppositlon Indiceted thelr presence at
tha 3aptember 20, 199.'~ publfc he~a~ing; und that con~spondence was receNed In opposkfon to the subJect
petitlon.
~Al.lFORRIA ENVIRONMENTAL dllAL!'fY ACT FIND~3,: That the Anahelm City Plenning
Commisalon has revlewed the propo~al and doea hereby ceRly:
That Fina! EIR Na. 312 is in compllance with CECA and ~he State and City CEQA Ciuid~lfnes;
2. That prtor to consldering the Pick-Yrwr•PaR pmJect, Commisslon revlev~ed and conaidered
the IMom~etion In Flnal EIR No. 312 tor tha proposed pro~ect and reviewed evidence presentod, both written
And orel, to supplement Final EIR No. 312;
3. Thet, when cor~aide~ing tho roconl •~s $ whde, there is no evidence be(ore the a~oncy that
tha proposed proJact wlll have potern(al for adverae eHect, Indlvldua~ly or cumuletlvely, on wpolNe ~ourc4s
or the habket upon which the wndlile depdnds as dollnod In 3action 711.2 ot the Flsh and (iame Code;
That Final EIR No. 312 ro8ecta the Indepdndent ~ud~emeM oi the load apency; and
5. Mekes ono or moro w~ttun Ondings aa amendecl et the 8eptember 20, 1993 Plannln~
Commiulor. meotin~ with an oxplanetbn ol the retioriale for aech pndtnp ~or each siqnNfcant ~nvironmentei
eHact ideMllled In Final EIR No. 312 end 8ndings relativ6 to the reJection of altomatlve~ ss set toKh In the
Statemant Qf Findtnps oF Facte.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~D tt~at the Maheim Ciry Planninp Cr~mm!selon does
heroby deny tub~ect PetRl~n tor Cond(tional Uw Prtrtnit, on the beela ot the sForemernionsd ffndfngs.
'r:i
{k~'~.
.2. PC~3-104
_, ~
THE FORECi01NG RESOlUT10N was adoptecl at the Plannfng Commisalon meeting of
8eptember 20, 1993.
G AIRMAN, ANAHE M CITY NNIN(3 COMMI3SION
ATTES7:
S RY,~IM I ANNING COMMISSION
STA7E OF CAUFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
i, Janet L Jonaen, Secretary of the f~~iaheim City Planning Gommiasion, do hereby cert{ty
that thd toregoing resolutlon was pasaed arxi adopted at a meeting of the Anahelm Clty Plannfng
Commiaslon held on 8optember 20, 1993, by the totlawin~ vote of tha memba~s thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONER3: BOYQSTUN, CALdWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, ME88E
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PERAZA, TAIT
ABBENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNE3S WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thi~ dey of ~~~~,~,,+
1993.
CRET/1RY, AN I CITY i'LANNINQ COMMI3310N
,:;~~~,
~
',^
,3. PCA3•104