PC 70-8., )
RESOLUTION N0. PC70-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMAfISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1154 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commis~ion of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Con-
ditional Use Permit from PRIMUS HOLDING COMPANY, 9889 Santa ~.'anica Boulevard, Beverly Hills,
California 90210, O,~ner; LARF.Y CHAFFERS, 500 5outh Main, Suite 405, Orange, California 92668,
Agent of certain rea? property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Oranoe, State of
California, described as commencing at the southwesterly corner of Lot 16 in Block K of
~ said Kraemer Tract as said corner is shown on a Record of Survey Map filed in book 57 page
17 of Records of Orange County; thence along the southerly line of said Lot 16 North
73° 44' 00" East 123.30 feet; thence South 14~ 42' 17" East 679.74 feet to the southeasterly
corner of the land described in the deed to Long Beach Leasing Corporation recorded March 12,
1965 in book 7443 page 695 of Official Records, said point being the true point of beginning;
thence continuing South 14 44' 17" East 180.00 feet; thence South 75° 15' 43" West 225.00
feet; thence North 14~~ 44' 17" West 250.00 feet; thence No:th 75° 15' 43" East 155.00 feet;
thence South 14~ 44' 17" East '70.00 feet; thence North 75° 15' 43" East 70.00 feet to the
true point of beginning. EY.CEPT that portion thereof included within the deed to the City
, of Anaheim, recorded December 9, 1965 in book 7769 page 192, Official Records.
; end
41HEREAS, tLe City Ploaaing Cammiseion did hold e public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Meheim
on January 26, 1970, at 2:pp o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearinQ heving been duly given
es required by lew ead in accotdence with tLe provisiona of the Meheim Mwtlcipal code, Cheptet 18.64, to hear
and consider evidence for oad egainst seid proposed conditioaal uso ead to inveatigate and make Eindin6s and
r~coe~m~ndationa in connection there~vith; and
WNEREAS, aaid Commiuion, aher due inapeetion, investigation, and a;udy made by ltaelf aad in ita b~
helE, end after dne coneideratian of eli evidence ond reporta of~`ered et said hearin6, does Eind aad determine the
followin~ f~cte:
1• That the proposed uae is properiy one for which a CondStionei Use Perrnit ts outlariaed by CoJc:
Section 18.64.020(1-b) to wit: establish a child care center on subject property.
2. That the proposed use is incompatible to the industrial development already
existing adjacent to subject proper.ty and in this general area.
3. That conflicting traffic patterns could result, since the proposed use would
be at the inters?ction of two local streets used for access to and from parking areas
ot a very large industrial complex (Autonetics).
4. That the size and scope of tF~e proposed use would indicate that children of
other than the employees of the major industrial complex in this area would be utilizing
this facility, thus injecting acoiti.ona' non-industrial traffic into an area reserved
for indust:ial purposes.
5. That the prooosed use would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed ±o be located.
6. That the Plannin9 Cummission and City Council have attempted to retain the
industrial integrity of the Northeast Industrial Area and approval of the oroposed use
could set ar. undesirable precedent by allowing other than industrial uses into an area
projected on the General P1an and being developed for industrial purooses.
7. That one person appeared, representing the major industrial complex
~^+hich the petitioner proposed to serve, in opposition to the proposed use as beinq an
encroachment of non-industrial uses into a:i erea being de:elopeo for industrial ourposes;
anc'. th~t two l~~te:s from industry and industrial developers, were received also in
opposition to the proposed use.
Cl•D _ 1 _
i
~
F- ~
I
7.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does heceby deny subject
Petition for Conditional Use Permit on the basis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this h day of Febr ary, 1970.
~
~~
CHAIR AN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
f~~ ~~~-<_,~`~~-~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes passed and adopted et a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on
January 26, 1970, , at 2:00 o'clock P.Ri., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 5th day of February, 1970.
ir •
F,'
~• . ~
R`; ~.
~.:
RESOLUTION fQO. 8
~.
,,;~ ;
C2-D
f~ ~
' ig ~ 't
~.1 ~atx , .`'
/ /L~-' -l-• ~ /~7~ ~ ~C'~ /
SECRETARY ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-z-
~
iA
~. :..:~.. : ,.~..:. _.., ,.. , . - -
. ,, .. ~
. ' ~. ~ . k y~ .
. ~a~
` ~ 1