1982-360RESOLUTION NO. 82R-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2340 .
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use permit
from LA PALMA PARTNERS, owner, and YONG H. PARK, agent, to
permit a golf clinic with retail sales on certain real prop-
erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
THOSE PORTIONS OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF
SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, MARCH 23,
1875, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
18 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; and
-1-
BOOK 94, PAGE
COUNTY RECORDER
ATTY -26 (Pays I of 2 Pages)
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of
Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly given as re-
quired by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investi-
gation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing,
did adopt its Resolution No. PC82 -116 , denying_
Conditional Use Permit No. 2340 and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law,
an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion, caused
the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly noticed
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public
hearing, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such hearing
and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be
heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consider-
ation of the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and
all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, that:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a conditional
use permit is authorized by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it
is proposed to be located.
3. The size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular,area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare.
4. The traffic generated by the proposed use will not im-
pose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area.
5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the
conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning Commission
denyin said conditional use permit be, and the same is
hereby, reversed and that Conditional Use Permit No. 2340 be,
and the same is Fereby, granted permitting a golf clinic with re-
tail sales on the hereinabove described real property subject to
the following conditions:
—2-
ATTY -26 (Page 2 of 2 Pages)
1. That the owner of subject property shall pay the difference
between the industrial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees
(Ordinance No. 3896) for an area of 2,160 square feet in an amount as
determined by the City Council. Said fee shall be paid within a period
of sixty (60) days from the date hereof.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in
accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of
Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; provided, however, that a maxi-
mum of twenty -two percent (22 %) of the building gross floor area
shall be used for purposes of retail display.
3. That no on -site advertising signs shall include the terms
"open to the public," "retail sales" or other similar terms designed
or intended to attract retail customers.
4. That there shall be no advertising in magazines, newspapers
or the telephone directory which advertising includes the terms "open
to the public," "retail sales" or other similar terms designed or in-
tended to attract retail customers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Anaheim does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution
is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all
of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition,
or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final
judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted this 6th
day of July, 1982.
MAYOR OF THE CITY QP ANAHEI
ATTEST:
CITY ..LERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW :fm
-3-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 82R -360 was introduced and adopted at a regular
meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on
the 6th day of July, 1982, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said
Resolution No. 82R -360 on the 6th day of July, 1982.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the
City of Anaheim this 6th day of July, 1982.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY F ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that
the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 82R -360 duly passed and
adopted by the Anaheim City Council on July 6, 1982.
CITY CLERK