PC 70-1RESOLUTII„v N0,_ PC70_ 1
--------_~____Y_ . ;`
• A RESOLUTIOIV OF THE CITY PLqNNING COMMISSION OF .--' r
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE ?ERMlT j~•i9
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
BE GEN:ED
~yHEREAS, the City Plannin
ditional Use Per.mit fro g COmmission of the
Suite 500 m~RANCISCp DE Lq L~Z C!ty °F '~~he1m did receive a verified Petition for Co~_
, Fullerton, California 92633 'pET AL, % ERIC
Boulevard, t~range, California K• LEPlIS, 25~5 East Cha
Anaheim 92668 S Wner; DONqLD R, Y~qICK Pman Avenue,
, County of pz,an e ~ A ent of certain real ' 326 North State Colleqe
3 of Tract No. ~, 9+ State of California, described asr~Pert
y situatad in the City of
Lot No. 4 and North one-~:alf of
;:.:li ~ ~~.~
7~~ $
(1
~:: s
.~
;:7
:~
y
.:~
,.,'~ I
,i. ~ ~
~
1; i on Ja~~EREAS,tSeCityPle~~rtin
y 12, 1~; p B CO~""~~Blon d!d hold a ~ end
,~ I ae reqyEt~ K 2;~ p,~ P~b11c hearing at S~e CityHall 3n the :.It of
by !aw and !n accordAnce °Ok ~'•~•, notice of seId , Y Maheim
and consider evidence for vnd y ~tfi the provisions otthe Pub.ic hewrin¢ hevinQ been dul
r~mmandetions in oona dainst seld P-o osed A"ehetm Muaicipal code, C}~apter 18.61, Y 8iven
_ ectlon thereqy~h~ ~d p COndltional use und to inveatigete and t~ ~~
make fiadln~ Md
~ ' K'HEREAS, sWd Cor~misaion,
_ half, aad ehe~ ~e c efter due inspectlon, investigatlon, and stud
toilowin °II~jaeratlon of oll evldence ~d re o
- B fects: P rta offered at Y mede by ilself and tn its be.
seid bearin~, does find and dct~rm~n~ ~Q
~ ~ Ser,tion Th~ the D+apoood ~ue Is
.1 18.64.02012-d P~'OPerly ooe for whic6 s Coadit:ons! Use g
Li
~j ,; 9ht Industrial ~ iO wit: establish a e~i~ 1s euthorized by C:u:~._;
, Zone. 100-Space mobile home
2• That residents of mobile par~ ln tl~e ;,;_1~
:.~ ~' that single-famil home parks should be afforded the
adverse effects Y and ;nu.ltiple-family residents en'o
~ other ol` noise, odors same protection
•~~ ~ potential nuisance factois,lichts ~ Y~ including protection from the
~ to the san;e ~ incompatible ho~is of operation
~ protertzon from ' and by the same token y traffic ar~d
3• 7hat allowin the encroachment op 9 lndustry should be entitlecl~.
~~ f would not be 9~he encroachment of residentialausese uses.
.:~ ~ such encroachmentrcoul di s~bstry the same
into an industrial area
r esidents be Ject established~te c t i on that'is given to 0
r, residentiaIl gSesCO complain about the industries tc difficul~ ther uses, and
incompatible. lndustrial activities Pressures Whe~
. 4• That past zonin that maice industry and
ses have been permitted to
dustrial u 9 exPerience has indicated that wfiere resi.dentia~. and in-
V to~be incompatible because devel~p in close
mixture of the two type5 of °f conflicting noise, li htsroximity they have been p~o~Pn
.;~~~ ~~ wnich have been received andtinvesti a~st 9 ' lncompatible
I to the close 9 odors, etc., and hours of opera~ion,
p r o x i m i t 9 t e d b y t h e Cit ~ tha t o f t h e many complaints
•~ 5• That both the ~ f t hese two uses. Y~ the major
' past have atte Planning Commqssion Portion could be attributed
+' ` requ?sts f~r m~teU ±o maintain the i~tegritnd City Council of the Ci,t
re~idential uses, such as Y ~f the industrial areas b~f h~~tieim in
• d~vrloped, zoned, or mobile tiie
a~~~9, have PT0J2~ted for industrial home parks and a Y denying other
' established a reputation ~e~'elopment on thertments, within areas
; devoted primaril wii,n industr General Plan
a d• That Y t~ industr~- y of havin ~ and by so
~1 uses. 9 excellent industrial areas,
;~~ ~ th.roughout ~;heW~it i8 deemed by prapert ~
Y°W~e~s to be the hi
have a detrimental ~fpECtn~Y be `0nsidered favorabl 9hest and best use op r ~
., ' park would have p°~ the adjoininq Pro Y so long as the proposed use doespnot1es ~
an adverse effect on the ex.istin~erties• and that the pro osed mobile
+ `p,i industrialUrrounding subject propert ' p
9 industries which have been established~gn
parcels in this Y~ Sznce any further development of
~.,~ i uses are introduced into tharea for industrial
purposes would be the remaining
I area, do~btful if residential
~
I
'I a~ i: .
~.•
~
7. That two persons appeared representing five persons present in the Coun ii
Chamber, all ~n opposition; and that eight letter~ from various in~~~,.triesy bot!~
directly and indirectly affected by the proposed use9 were receivedy al.i in oppo=ition
to subject petition.
NOW, THEftEFORE, BE IT RESULVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby deny subject petition f or Conditional Use Permit on the basis of, the aforementid~r_d
findings.
THE FOREGOING RFS GLUTION is signed and approved by me t}~ s 22~~d da of January,
1970. / ~`. ~ \
CHAIRMAt~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTES I':
/ ~
~~G..~2~- 2C_~L~-~'
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNiISSI0i4
STA.TE OF (;ALIFOP,NIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kreb~, Secretary of the Ci'~y Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and ad~pted at a meetiny of the
City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, hel.d on Januai•y 12, 1970, at 2:00 0'
clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMPAISSIONERS: Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt Allred.
IN WITNESS WHHREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of January, 1970.
( L -'-? .L_;<• ( ' ~L1 ~ ?~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANMI~G COMMISSION
4es. No. 1
-:{ ~
~~~ ~
?,~ ~
_..._,.; ~,, _ _ _._.._... ,.,-...,,
= - ---~.-,,,-..M~,.. ..
_ .... . ~ -` . .. f 1'*F,~.-,_ .
C , •