PC 1964-1965-1625~ ~ ; a
RESOLUTION N~. 1625, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY PLANNIIQG CONNISSION OF THE CI'fY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PBTITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. b,QQ BE DF.NIED
WHEREAS, the Clty Plaaaine Commisaioo of the City of M~hdm did recdve ~ verlfled PetlUon for Conditional
Use Peemltfrom EUNARD LEINIS AND PAULINA M. JONES, 1105 East Katella Avenue, A~aheim, California,
Ownerss PAUL HATFIELD, 4924 Elsinore Avenue, Orange, California, Agent, of certain real
property Situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
as Parcel 1~ The West 240 feet of that portion of the Southeast quarter of the Souttnrest
quarter of the Southeast quarter of Sectio~ 23, Township 4 South, Range 10 West~ S.B.B.BM.,
lying East of the East line of the West 1 acre of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest
quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 23! Except from said West 240 feet that
portion lying Mithin Lhe North 10 feet of the East 60 feet of the West 336 feet of the
Southeast quarter of the Soutnwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 23
; aad
WHEP.EAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public headng at the City Hdl in the City of Aaaheim on
May 10~ 1965~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notlce of s~ld public hearing hevine beep duly ~ivea as requiced by
law and ta ~ccordaace with the provisions ofthe M~heim Munidpd Code, Ch~pter 18.61, to hear ~nd oonsider evideace
for wd ~gainst sdd proposed coaditioaal uee and to investigate and make fiadiags ~nd recommendatiw~ la coanection
therewith; aad
WHEREAS, seid Commiasion, aftec due inepection, invesUgation, and study made by itself end in its behalf,
aed aher due consideroHoa oE all evidence and reports offered at said he~dnQ, does fled and deteemine the 6ollowing fa~ts:
1. That the propoaed use is pmpaly one for which e Conditioeal Use Permtt ts authotized by thia Code, to wit:
establish an aut!unotive test and repair facility on subject property,
2e That the proposed use wiil adversely affect the adjoining industrial land uses and
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be locatede
3o That the integrity of the southeast industriai area should be maintained, and the
proposed use is more retail in nature than permitted in the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone.
4e That the proposed use wouid not serve as the highest and best use of the land.
5a That one person appeared representing the principai owners of vacant industrial
land in the area, and two letters were received from existing industrial property owners
in the area opposing subject petitiono
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th~t the An~heim CitY Pl~eniag Commisdoa does 6etebq deay subject
PetlUoa for Coadition~l Uie Pecmit on tha b~sis of the ~h~tementiaud fiadlnQs.
THE FOREGOIIQ(i RESOLUT'fON is si~ed ~nd ~pproved by me.this 20t y of May, 1965.
/ ' ~
CF~AIRMIAN ANAHE~1 CTfy p G COM1[ISSION
ATTEST:
-LALK~t ~f~~Y e~G~(Y~
SECRETARY ANAHF.~I CITY PLANNIIQG COMYISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNU )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ~•
C1TY OF ANAHEIY )
I, Ann Krebs ~ Secret~ry ot the City Pl~nnie` Commissioa of t6e City oE Aaahalm, do hsrebY cectiEY that t6e Eore-
~oing resolution wu pused ~nd ~doptsd at ~ meetia~ of the Gty Pl~aaina Commis~ioa of the City of And-eim, held on
May 10, 1965, . at 2:00 Q'clodc P.61., by We tollowia` vote of We memben ehereof:
AYES: CO~IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: C019QSSiONEl2S: Nona.
ABSENT: ro~~N~~ None.
IIJ WITrIESS WHEREOF, I hwe he:ennto sat my ~~ad thi~ 20th day of May, 1965.
~iLi/!~~/~.~jl'Z~/~c-~~
SECRE7'ARY ANAHED[ CCl'Y PLANNIIIG COItMILSSION
RESOLL":'ION NO. 1625
C2~D "~