Laserfiche WebLink
• 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public <br />welfare or injurious to surrounding property. <br />The granting of a variance may be detrimental or injurious to the <br />surrounding properties due to an appearance that is aesthetically <br />incompatible with neither the surrounding properties nor the direction <br />of the recently adopted South Main district. <br />4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of <br />the City. <br />The requested variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, <br />as it does not have a negative impact on the goals and policies <br />expressed in that document. <br />D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Categorical Exemption <br />Environmental Review No. 2001-35 will be filed for this project. <br />Section 2. After conducting the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby <br />denies Variance No. 2002-02. <br />ADOPTED this 25~ day of February 2002 by the following vote: <br />• AYES: Commissioners <br />NOES: Commissioners <br />ABSENT: Commissioners <br />ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners <br />Cribb, Doughty, Mondo, Richardson (4) <br />Leo, Nalle, Verino (3) <br />None (0) <br />None (0) <br />9 <br />L- <br />~ ~~ <br />Alexa der Nalle <br />_ Chairperson <br />APPROVED AS TO FORM: <br />Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney <br />By: <br />Kylee ette <br />Dep City Attorney <br /> <br />Resolution No. 2002-03 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />