HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RESO 15,207RESOLUTION NO. 15,207
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW
THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20 LIQUOR LICENSE)
AS AN INCIDENTAL USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
MARKET AT 2220 E. PLAZA BLVD., SUITE A
CASE FILE NO. CUP-1986-18
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City,
California, considered a Conditional Use Permit application and proposed
Negative Declaration for the proposed sale of beer and wine at the
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on December 1, 1986, at
which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission considered
the entire contents of Case File Nos. CUP-1986-18 and IS-86-58 which are
maintained by the City, and incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission denied
Conditional Use Permit 1986-18,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City, California
held a public hearing on January 27, 1987 to consider an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision denying Conditional Use Permit 1986-18,
WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable
procedures required by State and City law; and,
WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for
the preservation of public health, safety and general welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at the public hearing held on January 27, 1987, failed to
support the following findings which are required by Section 18.116.020 of
the Municipal Code for granting any conditional use permit:
That the proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the
public convenience or welfare and that the proposed use will not
have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use
Permit is denied for the following reason:
1) The proposed use is not deeiiied essential and desirable to the
public convenience and welfare, since it would be located in a
shopping center for which plans had been approved after the
project applicant expressly agreed that no alcoholic beverages
would be sold in the center. This promise was made in response to
concerns expressed by members of the public who objected to
construction of the shopping center.
2) The proposed use is not deemed essential and desirable to the
public convenience and welfare, since there are objections from
adjacent residents to the sale of alcohol in this shopping center,
which is in close proximity to a residential neighborhood.
3) The proposed use will have an adverse effect on adjacent or
abutting properties, since a sufficient number of stores selling
alcoholic beverages already exists in proximity to this shopping
center.
4) The proposed use will have an adverse effect on adjacent or
abutting properties, since the adjacent residential neighborhood
has already been seriously impacted by commercial development.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the time within which judicial review
of this decision may be sought is governed by the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
PASSED and ADOP 1D this 3rd day of February, 1987.
George Wateryo�--`
AY Tr,ST:
Ion Campbell, CCity clerk ��
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George H. Eiser, III -City Attorney