Resolution-PC 2001-101•
RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-101
•
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 89R-243,
ADOPTED IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3124
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1989, the Anaheim City Council adopted Resolution No. 89R-
243, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 to permit a bowling alley (with accessory and incidental
sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages) and waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces on
property located at 3364 East La Palma Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on September 1, 1998 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 98R-186,
denying a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 to permit a dance hall as an accessory use
to the bowling alley; and
WHEREAS, this property is developed with a bowling alley (Concourse Bowling Alley)
and a telecommunication antenna located in Development Area 3(La Palma Core Area) of the Northeast
Area Specific Plan No. SP94-1; that the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element designates this
property for General Industrial land uses; and that the property is located within the Project Alpha
Northeast Redevelopment Area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an amendment to this conditional use permit to
permit live entertainment and a cover charge for promotional events as an accessory use to the existing
bowli~g alley. - -.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on Jul_y 30, 2001 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by
itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use, live entertainment and a cover charge for promotional events as
an accessory use to the existing bowling alley, is not listed in the Anaheim Municipal Code as being a
permitted use.
2. That the proposed amendment is hereby denied on the basis that accessory live
entertainment and cover charge activities (for promotional events) to an existing bowling alley are not
properly uses for which a conditional use permit is authorized in Development Area 3(La Palma Core
Area) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan No. SP94-1.
3. That the proposed accessory live entertainment and cover charge activities would
adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be located because these activities would be incompatible with the goals of the Project Alpha
Northeast Redevelopment Area.
4. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow full
development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Tracking No. CUP 2001-04397
CR5145PK.DOC -1- PC2001-101
~ ~
5. That amending this conditional use permit, as proposed, would be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to the late hours
proposed (from 9 p.m. to 3 a.m.), which is out of character with the surrounding office and industrial land
uses; and that there have been no significant changes to the Northeast Area Specific Plan nor to the
surrounding office and industrial community that would support reconsideration of the City Council's
denial of a similar proposal on September 1, 1998.
6. That the traffic generated by the proposal would impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
7. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny the proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 89R-243 previously adopted in
connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3124 shall remain in full force and effect.
July 30, 2001.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the ~lanning Commission meeting of
SON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ~ J
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on July 30, 2001, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AY~$: ~Q~VIMISSIONERS: BRISTOL; EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOYDSTUN
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK
/~ ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this o2 8T'~ day of
(~w , 2001.
~.1~.~-~
S~ECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2001-101