PC 82-116; "^.. ,--~.
RFSOLUTION NO. PCII2-116
7~ RESOLUTION OF Tt{~ I~N1~I[EIDt CITY PLnNNING CONII+IISSI~PJ
TII.~1T PETITIOPI POR CO:7DITIONI~L USE PERl~?Tm DTO, 23d0 I3E DGIIIED
411I~R~AS, the 2lnaheim City Planning Comr,iission did receive a verified
Petition for Conditional Use Permit .from L71 PAt;MT~ PAP.TldERS, q~3 Upper Newport
Plaza Drive, NeF~port IIeacii, California 92GG0, oconer, and YOP1G II. PAFUC, 816 South
Calle Venado Street, Anahei.m, Calif.ornia 92807, agent oE certain real property
situated in the City of Analzeim, County of Orange, State of Californi.a,
described as:
TFSOSE PORTIONS OP TFIE WEST f1ALF OF T?IE DIORTFR+I~ST QUAP,TER OF
SECTION 4, TOW175IIIP 4 SOUTII, RAPd(,'E g 6~]EST, 511:7 IIERidAFD2id0
b1~R2DI7u~I, ACCORDINC, TO TH~ OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LA27D FII~D IN TH~
DISTR'CCT 7~ND OFFIC~, DIARCH 23~ 1875, DFSCRIB~D AS FOLIAWS:
P711iCEL 3~ AS SHO~~7N ON A M}1P R~COPS~~D It1 BOOK 94, PAG~ 1$ OF PARCEL
D~PS I2I TfIE OFFICE OI' Tf1E COUfdTY RECOP.UER OF ORANGE COUDTTY,
CALIFORNIn.
[~ItERt;AS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City ~
Hall in the City of Anaheim on June 2, 19A2, at Z:30 p.m., notice of said public
nearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim riunicipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evi.dence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
mal;e findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and ,
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due insPection, investigation ancl study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due cons~deration of all evidence and reports
oEfered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
j. inat the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1II.61.050.605 to wit: to
permit a golf clinic witli retail sales in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone.
2. That the proposed use is hereby denied on the basis the industrial zone
is not the proper place for retail sales and approval would cause a further intrusion
into Anaheim's industrial area.
3. That the oroposed use r~ill adversely af.f.ect the adjoininq land uses and
the growth and developnent of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
4. That the size and shape of the site proposecl for the use i~ not
adequate to allow the full development oi the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to ttse particular area nor to the peace, ]iealth, safety, and general
welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
5. That the grantinq of the Conditional Use Permit will be detr~mental to
the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens r.f the City of Anaheim.
PC82-116
.
~.r..~-.~....~,~..__.,,........__.._.__._ .... _ _ . _
;~~ r'~
G. That the traf.fic generated }.>y the proposed use will impose an undue
burden upon the stree ts and highorays designed and impr.oved to carry the traffic in
the area.
7. That no one indicated their presence at said Public hearing in
opposition; and t]iat no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
ENVIRONt•'1EDITAL IMPACT FINDIPIG: That the Anahe.im City Planning Commission has
reviewed the nro,posal to permit a golf clinic with retai.l sales in the NiL
(Industrial, Limited) 7.one on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of.
appmximately 0.61 acre, having a frontage of aporoximately 124 feet on the north
side of La Palma Avenue (39?.1 Sa,t La Palm~ Avenue); and does hereby approve ,a,,
idegative Daclaration from the requirement to nrepare an environmental impact report
on the basis that there a~ould be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environnental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the
Ana'r~eim General Plan designates the suk~ject pronerty for general industrial land uses
co~anensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved
in the proposal; that the Initial Study subr,titted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the
Plegati.ve Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of
Anaheim Planninq Dep artrnent.
:iOF7, TIIEREI'ORE, B~ IT RESOLV~D thzt the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Condi.ti.onal Use Pez-mi.t on the basis of the
aforementioned findinqs.
TFIE FOI2EGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 2nd day o£ June,
1982.
; ~,/~
~~,~~
CHAIFfMAN PRO TEt~OR~
~1NPFiEIbi CITY PLAIJP72NG C0t4f~QSS20P1
ATTEST:
`~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
S~CRETARY, APIAfTE2bi CITY PLANNING COb4•ffSSION
STAT~ OF CALIFORIJIA )
COUPITY OP ORAid(~ ) Ss.
CITY OP' ANAIiF.II4 )
I, Edith L. FIarris, Secretary of ttie Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
]iereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on June 2, 19R2, by the followinq vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMN'SSSION~RS: BARN~g, ]3pUAS, FRY, IiERBST, KING, fiC BURNEY
NOES: COPdI~ttSSION~RS; DIODI~
AHSENT: CONPIZSSIOf1ERS: BUSIIORE
II1 ~~ITD]ESS WtiEREOP, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day ~f June, 19A2.
v ~ ~.! ~A~f i~ "
SECRETARY, ADIAFiEIt1 CITY PLAfINING COHII~IISS70N
-2