The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2010/09/27H:\TOOLS\PC Admin\PC Agendas\(092710).doc City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, September 27, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Stephen Faessel • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Peter Agarwal • Commissioners: Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki, Harry Persaud Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, September 23, 2010, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 2 of 13 Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Minutes ITEM 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 16, 2010. These minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Motion 09/27/10 Page 3 of 13 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00238 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04815 (DEV2010-00087) Owner: Donovan Anaheim, LLC Chad Brown, Development Manager 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Melia Homes Chad Brown, Development Manager 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 851 and 905 South Western Avenue The applicant proposes to: rezone this property from the Transition (T) zone to Single Family Residential (RS-4) zone designation; establish a 32-lot residential subdivision; permit 32 single-family residences with certain lots having rear yard setback areas measuring 13-feet, 6-inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental impact determination for this request. Continued from the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 4 of 13 ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05513 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04830 (DEV2010-00113) Owner: Daniel T. Sun Church In Anaheim 2528 West La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: John Pester 2431 W est La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 2560 East La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to permit a church in an existing commercial building with smaller setbacks and fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 728A (DEV2010-00139) Owner: Dominican Sisters of Mission San Jose 215 N. Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Sister Johnellen Turner, OP St. Catherine’s Academy 215 N. Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 215 North Harbor Boulevard The applicant proposes to amend a conditional use permit to construct a readerboard sign. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 5 of 13 ITEM NO. 5 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04827 (DEV2010-00142) Owner: Bayport Imperial Promenade Associates, LP 3090 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Applicant: Brittany DeBeikes DeBeikes Investment Company 5289 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92604 Location: 5645 - 5675 East La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to construct a freestanding shopping center identification sign with a size and design that is greater than permitted by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04831 (DEV2010-00145) Owner: Richter Farms Trust 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., Suite 150 Westminster, CA 92683 Applicant: Cheryl Fry El Pollo Loco, Inc. 3535 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: 1098 North State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to modify a legal nonconforming pole-mounted freestanding sign. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 6 of 13 ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05516 (DEV2010-00119) Owner: Allison Lynch Anaheim Center Co. 2716 Ocean Park Santa Monica, CA 90405 Applicant: Celso Gutierrez Pinoy Fiesta Restaurant 160 W. Lincoln Ave. Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 160 West Lincoln Avenue The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for on- premises consumption in an existing restaurant. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Dave See dsee@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361 (DEV2010-00117) Owner: Nikokau Living Trust Attn: Paul Nikolau 10387 Los Alamitos Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Applicant: Michael Ayaz 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Location: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard The applicant proposes to amend a conditional use permit to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation and to increase the permitted number of patrons for an existing nightclub. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 7 of 13 ITEM NO. 9 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00092 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00071 (DEV2010-00128) Owner: John Knaak Knaak Family Trust 4016 Crown Rch. Road Corona, CA 92881 Applicant: Law Office of Rick Blake Mike Ayaz 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Location: 2162 West Lincoln Avenue The applicant proposes a zoning code amendment to allow the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor (BCC) Overlay Zone. The applicant also requests approval of a conditional use permit and determination of public convenience or necessity to allow the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming bar. Environmental Determination: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Continued from the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 8 of 13 ITEM NO. 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05519 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE NO. 2010- 00066 (DEV2010-00124) Owner: Antonio Cucalon Jr. Walcuca,L.P. 625 El Camino Del Mar San Francisco, CA 94121 Applicant: Brian Fish/Jennifer Chavez Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps 600 W est Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Location: 1720 West La Palma Avenue The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for off- premises consumption in an existing drive-thru drugstore (Walgreens). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. _____ Resolution No. _____ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 9 of 13 ITEM NO. 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05520 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE NO. 2010- 00067 (DEV2010-00125) Owner: Ronald P. Bearde, Trustee c/o Southland Equities 15 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 240 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Brian Fish/Jennifer Chavez Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps 600 W est Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Location: 2560 West Ball Road The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for off- premises consumption in an existing drive-thru drugstore (Walgreens). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. _____ Resolution No. _____ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 10 of 13 ITEM NO. 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05524 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE NO. 2010- 00070 (DEV2010-00141) Owner: Michael Redstone Walgreen Company 104 Wilmot Road, Tax Department MS 1435 Deerfield, IL 60015 Applicant: Brian Fish/Jennifer Chavez Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps 600 W est Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Location: 3446 West Ball Road The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for off- premises consumption in an existing drive-thru drugstore (Walgreens). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net 09/27/10 Page 11 of 13 ITEM NO. 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05521 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE NO. 2010- 00068 (DEV2010-00126) Owner: Michael Redstone Walgreen Company 104 W ilmot Road, Tax Department MS 1435 Deerfield, IL 60015 Applicant: Brian Fish/Jennifer Chavez Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps 600 W est Broadway, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101 Location: 128 South State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to permit beer and wine sales for off- premises consumption in an existing drive-thru drugstore (Walgreens). Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net Adjourn to Monday, October 11, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. 09/27/10 Page 12 of 13 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:30 p.m. September 22, 2010_ (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. 09/27/10 Page 13 of 13 S C H E D U L E 2010 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 6 December 20 T DEV 2010-00087 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 CONDOS RM-2 TOWNHOMES 21 DU RS-2 SFR RS-2 AGRICULTURE RM-2 TOWNHOMES 11 DU C-G VACANT T RELIGIOUS USE RM-3 OLIVEWOOD APARTMENTS 13 DU RM-4 BRIAR COURT APTS 21 DU RM-4 BELL COURT APARTMENTS 52 DU T VACANT RM-4 APTS 8 DU C-G OFFICES RM-4 APTS 15 DU RM-4CHEZ PAREEAPARTMENTS23 DURS-2 SFR C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL T OFFICES T SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR T SFR T SFRRS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-3SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR ||240'RM-3 WESTERN GARDEN APARTMENTS 17 DU ||165'W BALL RD S WESTERN AVEW TERANIMAR DR S WESTCHESTER DRS COURSON DRW ROM E AVE S OAKHAVEN DRW DEERWOOD DR W GLEN HOLLY DR S RAMBLEWOOD DRW. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. DALE AVES. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE 11010851 & 905 South Western Avenue DEV2010-00087 Subject Property APN: 079-441-11 079-441-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W BALL RD S WESTERN AVEW TERANIMAR DR S WESTCHESTER DRS COURSON DRW ROM E AVE S OAKHAVEN DRW DEERWOOD DR W GLEN HOLLY DR S RAMBLEWOOD DRS NEVEEN LNS CABERNET CIRW. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. DALE AVES. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE 11010851 & 905 South Western Avenue DEV2010-00087 Subject Property APN: 079-441-11 079-441-10 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00238 (DEV2010-00087) (851-905 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Reclassification, designated as Reclassification No. 2010-00238, for that certain real property situated at 851 - 905 South Western Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with two single family residences and is located in the T (Transition) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Corridor Residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests to reclassify or rezone the property from the T (Transition) Zone to the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) Zone; and WHEREAS, Reclassification No. 2010-00238 is proposed in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 17387, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010- 04815 to construct 32 single family homes with certain lots having smaller rear yard setback areas and shorter driveway lengths than allowed by code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010 at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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. Reclassification of the subject property from the T (Transition) to the RS-4 (Single Family Residential) Zone is consistent with the existing Corridor Residential land use designation for the subject property. 2. The proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the properties to the north which are designated for Corridor Residential and zoned Multiple Family - 2 - PC2010-*** Residential (RM-3) and properties to the south, east and west which are designated for Low Density Residential and zoned RS-2 (Single-Family Residential). 3. The proposed reclassification of subject property does properly relate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby unconditionally approve Reclassification No. 2010-00238 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to rezone and reclassify the subject property into the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential) Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the subject property; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council at its sole discretion. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ___________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 3 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. ___________________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 -1- PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387 (DEV2010-00087) (851- 905 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Tentative Tract Map No. 17387 to establish a 34- lot subdivision to permit the construction of 32-single-family residences, including two lettered lots for non-residential purposes, for that certain real property located at 851 - 905 S. Western Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 17387 is proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 2010-00238, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010- 04815; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Anaheim Civic Center, Council Chamber, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed project actions, including Tentative Tract Map No. 17387, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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 tentative tract map, including its design and improvements, is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan designation of Corridor Residential land use. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development at the proposed density and therefore would not cause public health or safety problems or environmental damage. 3. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. -2- PC2010-*** 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby grant the subject Petition for Tentative Tract Map subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission 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. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby grant the subject Petition for Tentative Tract Map subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission 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. -3- PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the approval of the final map for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the approval of the final map or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, “Zoning Provisions – General” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. _____________________________________________ CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September 2010. ______________________________________________________ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION -4- PC2010-*** -5- PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17387 (DEV2010-00087) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 1 All existing structures shall be demolished. The developer shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division. Public Works – Development Services 2 The vehicular access rights to Western Avenue, except at the private street opening, shall be released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim. Public Works – Development Services 3 All lots shall be assigned street addresses by the Building Division. The street name for the private street shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division. Planning – Building Division 4 A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of private facilities such as private sewer, private street, and private storm drain improvements; compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan; and a maintenance exhibit. Maintenance responsibilities shall include all drainage devices, parkway landscaping and irrigation on Western Avenue and the Private Street. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. Public Works – Development Services 5 The legal property owner shall execute a Subdivision Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to complete the required public improvements at the legal property owner’s expense. Said agreement shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Subdivision Section approved by the City Attorney and City Engineer. Public Works – Development Services [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 4 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04815 (DEV2010-00087) (851- 905 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010-04815 to permit the construction of 32 single-family residences with certain lots having rear yard setback areas measuring 13-feet, 5-inches in depth; and, to allow certain lots to maintain driveway lengths smaller than required by code on a 3.39-acre parcel for that certain real property located at 851- 905 South Western Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State Of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "subject property"); and WHEREAS, the subject property is currently developed with two single-family residences and is located in the T (Transition) Zone proposed to be reclassified to the RS-4 (Single Family Residential) Zone in connection with this application. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for corridor residential land uses; and WHEREAS, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010- 04815 are proposed in conjunction with Reclassification No. 2010-00238 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17387; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010 at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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 with respect to the request for an amendment to the conditional use permit and a variance, does find and determine the following facts: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 with a deviation from the following code section to permit the construction of 32 single family homes with a rear yard setback: SECTION NO. 18.04.10.0101 & 18.04.160 Minimum rear yard setback. (15 feet required; 13 feet5 inches proposed). - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. The uses within the project are compatible because all proposed uses are residential and consistent with the existing neighborhood characteristics. 2. The proposed structures related to the project are compatible with the scale, mass, bulk, and orientation of existing buildings in the surrounding area and further conform with the provisions of the proposed zoning; 3. Vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate to allow safe ingress and egress into the site; 4. The construction of 32 single-family residences having reduced rear yard setbacks than allowed by code will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because surrounding properties are also residential properties. 5. The impact upon the surrounding area has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by providing variation in the reduced rear yard setback in order to stagger the footprints of the structures to provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape; 6. The project complies with the General Plan and Subdivision Map Act; and 7. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety and 32 single-family residences are consistent with the neighborhood characteristics and surrounding land uses. 8. The traffic generated by the proposed 32-lot residential subdivision will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance of a reduced driveway length should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.030.040 Minimum driveway length. (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). 1. The variance pertaining to the minimum driveway length is hereby approved because strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because of the narrowness of this property’s width. In addition, approval of this variance would create a visually appealing streetscape that provides variation in the building footprints which enhances the overall quality of the project. 2. There are also special circumstances with respect to the property’s size, shape and depth in relation to other residentially zoned properties in the immediate vicinity which are larger than the independent parcels proposed in conjunction with this request. - 3 - PC2010-*** Improvement of this property is restricted by these characteristics creating a development hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010-04815 as requested by the applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010-04815, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which conditions are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 and Variance No. 2010-04815 are hereby approved subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 2010-00238 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17387, now pending. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not - 4 - PC2010-*** include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. _______ SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05515 (DEV2010-00087) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 All backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Said information shall be shown on plans and approved by Water Engineering and the Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for building permits. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 2 All requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modification, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 3 This project has a new landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 4 All existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 5 The legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim (Water Engineering Division) an Easement twenty (20) feet in width for water service mains and/or an Easement for large meters and other public water facilities. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 6 Prior to apply for water meters, fire line or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the developer/owner shall submit to the Public Utilities Water Engineering an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands. Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. Public Utilities- Water Engineering - 7 - PC2010-*** 7 Water improvement plans shall be submitted to the Water Engineering Division for approval and a performance bond in the amount approved by the City Engineer and from approved City Attorney shall be posted with the City of Anaheim. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 8 Prior to rendering water service, the developer/owner shall submit a set of improvement plans for Public Utilities Water Engineering review and approval in determining the conditions necessary for providing water service to the project. Public Utilities- Water Engineering 9 Prior to approval of permits for improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with Electrical Engineering to establish electrical service requirements and submit electric system plans, electrical panel drawings, site plans, elevation plans, and related technical drawings and specifications. Public Utilities- Electrical Engineering 10 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim a Public Utilities easement with dimensions as shown on the approved utility service plan. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 11 Prior to connection of electrical service, the legal owner shall submit payment to the City of Anaheim for service connection fees. Public Utilities, Electrical Engineering 12 Street improvement plans shall be submitted for improvements along the frontage of Western Avenue and the private street. Improvements shall conform to the City Standards and as approved by the City Engineer and shall include sidewalk, curb and gutter, catch basins, parkway landscaping, accessible ramps, utility and street light relocation as required, and parkway irrigation connected to the private on-site main. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a bond shall be posted for the public improvements in an amount approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney. Public Works – Development Services 13 Prior to issuance of the first building permit and right-of-way construction permit for the storm drain and sewer, whichever occurs first, a Save Harmless in-lieu of Encroachment Agreement is required to be recorded on the property for any private storm drains connecting to a City storm drain. Public Works – Development Services 14 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, excluding model homes, the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim Department of Public Works and the Orange County Surveyor for technical review and that all applicable conditions of approval have been complied with and then shall be filed in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. Public Works – Development Services 15 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans shall be submitted showing stop control for the private street. A stop sign shall be installed and STOP legend shall be painted in the eastbound direction at Western Avenue prior to final building and zoning inspection. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. Public Works – Traffic and Transportation Services - 8 - PC2010-*** 16 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that: • Addresses Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. • Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in DAMP. • Describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs, and describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. Public Works – Development Services 17 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the OWNER shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Water Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. The OWNER shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for City review on request. 18 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the OWNER shall submit a Drainage Study prepared by a registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual and the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be maintained, including applicable off-site areas. The study shall include an analysis of 10, 25, and 100-year storm frequencies, an analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system based upon the ultimate project build-out condition, and address whether off-site and/or on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/retention basins or surface run-off reduction) will be required to prevent downstream and upstream properties from becoming flooded. Public Works – Development Services 19 Within ninety (90) days of the date of this resolution, or prior to the issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first, a conformed copy or a copy of recorded agreement to reserve drainage easements shall be submitted for the following: 5-foot wide private drainage easements for the proposed private storm drains located within the lots that accept off-site drainage across the north Tract boundary. Public Works – Development Services - 9 - PC2010-*** PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTIONS 20 The required public improvements shall be installed prior to final zoning and building inspection. Public Works – Development Services 21 The property owner/developer shall:submit the Final As-Graded Grading Plan and demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. Public Works – Development Services 22 That prior to final building and zoning inspection, the applicant shall: • Demonstrate that all structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. • Demonstrate that the applicant is prepared to implement all non- structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. • Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Projects WQMP are available onsite. Submit for review and approval by the City an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all structural BMPs. Public Works – Development Services 23 That prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works – Development Services GENERAL 24 Implementation of this conditional use permit is contingent upon City Council adoption of an ordinance finalizing Reclassification No. 2010-00239, reclassifying subject property from the T (Transition) to the RS-4 (Single-Family Residential Zone. Planning Division 25 On going during project operation, no parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage purposes. Code Enforcement 26 Prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and approved by the Fire Department. Fire Department 27 An all-weather access road as approved by the Fire Department shall be provided during construction. Fire Department 28 Fire hydrants shall meet minimum Fire Department Specifications and Requirements for spacing, distance to structure and available fire flow. Fire Department 29 Emergency vehicular access shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Fire Department Specifications and Requirements. Fire Department - 10 - PC2010-*** 30 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 (Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan) Exhibit No. 2 (Elevation Plans) Exhibit No. 3 (Floor Plans) Exhibit No. 4 (Landscape Parkway Plan) Exhibit No. 5 (Conceptual Landscape Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning Division ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Dear Commissioners, The attached letter of opposition from Mark and Joy Patton was received by staff on September 20, 2010. It has been determined that the comments prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Patton were prior to completion of the actual staff report. The staff report referred to in their letter was the continuance report dated September 13, 2010 which contained no project information. The staff report for the September 27, 2010 hearing has been forwarded to the Pattons for their review. Vanessa Norwood ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Mark and Joy Patton 3222 W. Teranimar Drive Anaheim, CA 92804 September 20, 2010 VIA EMAIL (vnowood@anaheim.net & planningcommission@anaheim.net) Planning Commissioners C/O City of Anaheim Planning Department 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Re: Planning Commission Report for Item No. 5: Tentative Tract Map 17387 Reclassification No. 2010-238 Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05515 Variance No. 2010-04815 Dear Planning Commissioners: We live adjacent to the proposed development and are concerned about the density and unaddressed impacts to our property. We are not opposed to reasonable and compatible single family residential development on this property and that does not adversely impact our property. This proposed project is not such a project. The majority of the neighborhood is zoned RS-2. This project proposes a zoning density of RS-4. The proposed density combined with narrow side yards and reduced driveway lengths creates insufficient space for on-street parking. The reduced rear setbacks and two foot difference in grade allow for the proposed two story homes to overlook the backyards of the adjacent existing homes. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission disapprove this project until a development is proposed that is consistent and compatible with the existing density in the surrounding neighborhood and does not adversely impact adjacent properties. Our concerns are more fully outlined below: 1. There is inadequate information available in the Staff Report. The staff report available on the City’s website provides no information as to what exactly are the requested reclassification, conditional use permit, and variance. Where are the conditions of approval? For example, the elevation of the new development will be built up two feet higher than our property and a drain is proposed to be installed at the base of the new wall for water in our yard to drain to the new street. How will we know this drain will be properly sized to prevent flooding of our property? Who is responsible to maintain the drain? What happens if it is not sized properly or does not work as intended? There is no copy of the tentative tract map in the staff report. How can the Planning Commission consider approving a tentative tract map that the public, and possibly the Page 2 Planning Commission, have never seen? The Planning Commission is also supposed to consider when approving a subdivision whether the property is physically suitable for this type of development and density, but there is no information in the staff report about this. Attachment No. 1 to the staff report should show the lots that will be created on the subject property so that the public and Planning Commission will be able to visually see the incompatible density. There are vague statements in the staff report as to the applicant being allowed rear yard setbacks less than required by the Municipal Code and for some lots to maintain less driveways lengths then the Code requires, but no specific information is provided. Our rear yard abuts this property and we object to the rear yards of the proposed development being less than required by Code. Under state law, a variance may only be granted when there are facts showing that: (1) there are specific physical circumstances that distinguish the project site from its surroundings; and (2) these unique circumstances would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the usual zoning standards were imposed. There is no such justification provided in the staff report, nor could there be as this property is rectangle in shape and there is nothing unique about it. It appears more likely that this variance is being recommended for the sole purpose of increasing density. As to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA”), the Planning Commission is asked to find there are no adverse impacts and adopt a Negative Declaration, but again there is no information in the staff report justifying why a Negative Declaration is appropriate. We believe it is not appropriate in light of the fact that this project proposes to change the existing general plan and zoning to a proposed density that is not consistent with or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as because of all of the other impacts described more fully below. 2. The proposed density of the project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The adjacent properties to the north and west and across Western Avenue to the east are zoned RS-2. When the City approved another similar infill project on the north side of Teranimar and Western Avenue it did so at a zoning density of RS-3. The proposed project proposes a zoning density for single family homes that is not found anywhere in the surrounding neighborhood. There is no reason for the City to allow this project to have any greater zoning than RS-3. Rather, this density violates the City’s General Plan, specifically the land use planning objective of preserving the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods and Goal 4.1 that requires the promotion of development that integrates with and minimizes impacts to surrounding land uses. 3. The rear yard setback should comply with the Municipal Code. There is no justification for allowing a reduced rear yard setback. These new homes will be two-stories in height and the ones that will border our property will be 15.8 and 18.8 feet from our property line. In addition, the project will be elevated two feet above our property. This combination of circumstances will allow the new homeowners to have an Page 3 unobstructed view into our backyard and rear windows and invade our privacy, thus defeating the purposes of a setback. In addition, we are concerned about the closeness and height of the buildings causing increased shadows and loss of sunlight to our backyard and rear windows. There is no evaluation or consideration of these impacts. The project should be re-designed to avoid impacting the adjacent properties. 4. There should be more on-street parking. The City proposes to allow this project to have driveway lengths of 18 feet that are less than required by the Municipal Code. Therefore, there will not be as much space for vehicles to park on each lot’s driveway. On-street parking will not be an option because of the increased density. The proposed lots are only 40 feet wide and the proposed houses are only 10 feet apart. The result is that the entire new street is driveways. At the most, we have been able to determine there will only be on-street parking spaces for 12 vehicles to service a development of 32 homes. Where will the residents and their guests’ park? We understand the applicants are proposing re-striping Western for a north bound left hand turn lane. This means the entire area will be losing on-street parking on Western because of this project and that Western will not be an on-street parking option for the new development. Therefore, it means that Teranimar will be the likely location to accommodate the insufficient parking that is being proposed. Again, there is no consideration or analysis of this problem. 5. There should not be a grade difference between the existing and proposed homes. The elevation of the new development will be built up two feet higher than our property. In addition to the fact that this elevation difference allows for unobstructed views into our backyard and rear windows, we are also concerned about water draining and flooding our property during a storm event and the height of the proposed wall. We currently do not have a flooding problem as the subject property’s elevation and our property are the same. The property is mostly in an undeveloped state so that water drains into the soil and not onto adjacent properties. All of this will change with the proposed development. There will be more water runoff because the development will reduce the amount of vacant area for water to drain. We understand that a drain is proposed to be installed at the base of the new wall, which we agree must be done, for water in our yard to drain to the new street. But, we have no assurance that this drain will be properly sized to prevent flooding of our property, or who is responsible to maintain the drain, or what happens if it is not sized properly or does not work as intended. This is yet another issue that is not addressed in the staff report. In addition, we understand that a wall will be constructed adjacent to our property. Our concern is that because of the elevation difference the wall will be six feet tall on our side, but much shorter, 4 feet tall, for the new development. This will allow for the new neighbors to look into our backyard. We do not want a wall that is higher than 6 feet on our side and believe there is no need for the two foot grade differential. Therefore, this problem can be solved by requiring the properties to have similar ground elevations. Page 4 Page 5 6. There should be more mitigation of construction impacts to protect existing homes. It is our understanding that the applicant will use what has been described to us as “normal water trucks” to minimize dust and that construction will be allowed from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday thru Saturday. This may be sufficient when dealing with large tracks of land. However, here there will be residents living adjacent to the development. The applicants should be required to ensure that dust does not migrate to the adjacent homes during construction and that construction will not start before 8 a.m. on Saturday. In addition, we understand that the project will be constructed in phases over several years. The applicant should be required to take precautions to ensure that once the property is graded and is awaiting construction that wind does not blow dust into the neighborhood and water does not drain onto our properties. Conclusion. We would not be opposed to a reasonable and compatible single family residential development on this property. This development needs to be reduced in density, be required to provide sufficient on-street parking, and sufficiently address the impacts we have identified above. Until this occurs we respectfully request that the Planning Commission disapprove this project. Sincerely, Mark and Joy Patton ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00113 KINDER CARE LEARNING CENTER C-G RETAIL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 VALENCIA APTS 156 DU T SUNKIST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL C-G SERVICE STATION C-G RETAIL T PIONEER PARK RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T (MHP) PALM LODGE MOBILEHOME ESTATES 152 SPACES RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR T SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR ||221'||458'! ! E LA PALMA AVE N SUNKIST STE MIRALOMA AVEN TAORMINA DR91 57 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVE E . M I R A L O M A A V E N. ACACIA STN. BLUE GUM STE . B R O A D W A Y N . P L A CENTIA AVEN. RIO VISTA ST110172560 East La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00113 Subject Property APN: 083-020-62 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 200957 FREEWAY E LA PALMA AVE N SUNKIST STE MIRALOMA AVEN CHERRY TREE LNN TAORMINA DR91 57 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVE E . M I R A L O M A A V E N. ACACIA STN. BLUE GUM STE . B R O A D W A Y N . P L A CENTIA AVEN. RIO VISTA ST110172560 East La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00113 Subject Property APN: 083-020-62 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 200957 FREEWAY [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05513 & VARIANCE NO. 2010-04830 (DEV2010-00113) (2560 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05513 and Variance No. 2010-04830, to permit a church in an existing commercial building with a smaller setbacks and fewer parking spaces than required by code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a 10,304 square foot vacant building and is located in the C-G (General Commercial) zone. The General Plan designates this property for general commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60, 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 Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The request to permit a church in the C-G (General Commercial) zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.08.030.010 (Community & Religious Assembly) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. The church will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the site can accommodate the proposed use and there will not be an adverse affect on the adjacent residential or school uses in the vicinity. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because this use will be conducted entirely within the building. Code permits a parking reduction up to ten percent thereby allowing 60 parking spaces as proposed by the applicant and in compliance with the code. - 2 - PC2010-*** 4. The traffic generated by the church will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because this activity is consistent with other commercial and multiple-family residential uses and levels of activity in this area. Further, 60 on-site parking spaces are determined to be adequate for the church because many congregation members include families that will arrive at the church in the same vehicle. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim because the use is consistent with other commercial and multiple family residential uses along La Palma Avenue. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance of a smaller side yard setback and fewer parking spaces than allowed by code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.40.040.040 Minimum side yard setback. (15 feet required; 0- 3 feet proposed). SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of required parking spaces. (66 spaces required; 60 spaces proposed). 1. The variance pertaining to the minimum side yard setback is hereby approved because strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because development limitation posed by the size of the property and the constraints posed by the retention of the existing building and required parking area needed to support the church use. 2. There are also special circumstances pertaining to the minimum side yard with respect to the number of parking spaces required for a church use, the layout and retention of the existing commercial building which restricts the ability to provide the minimum side yard setback. 3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed will not cause fewer off- street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed church than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of the church because the on-site parking for the church will adequately accommodate peak parking demands of church; 4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the church will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the church; 5. The variance will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas provided for the church since all parking is contained on-site and will not encroach into other parking facilities and the supply of parking is adequate for the church. Further, the project does not propose new ingress or egress points and is designed to allow adequate on-site - 3 - PC2010-*** circulation and therefore will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the church. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05513 and Variance No. 2010-04830 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration or hours of operation for the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05513 AND VARIANCE NO. 2010-04830 (DEV2010-00113) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 No required parking area shall be fenced-off or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Code Enforcement 2 Curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. Prior to final building and zoning inspection, fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Public Works 3 The property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within two (2) business days from the time of discovery. Code Enforcement 4 The location of a trash enclosure shall be provided in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Public Works 5 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan) and 2 (Floor Plan), and as conditioned herein. Planning Letter of Operation: Current Size of Congregation: 85 adults, not including children Hours of Services: Tuesdays: Prayer meeting, 7:00 P.M—9:00 PM Fridays: Meeting for Junior High and High School students, 7:00 P.M—9:00 PM Saturdays: Landscaping and maintenance service, 9:00 A.M—12:00 Noon. Some members of the congregation help with landscaping and maintenance. Saturdays: Meeting for young adults, 7:00 P.M—9:00 PM Sundays: General assembly meeting, 9:00 AM—12:00 Noon Office Hours: Church office opens one hour before and typically closes within one hour after the end of scheduled meetings. Other Operational Characteristics: Apart from the scheduled uses above, there are occasional meetings for the purpose of gospel outreach. These meetings for the most part occur on Friday or Saturday evenings, but when scheduled, they replace any regularly scheduled meeting. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 -Page 1- PARKING VARIANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION Section 18.42.110 of the Anaheim Municipal Code requires that before any parking variance may be granted by the Planning Commission, the Parking Demand Study must provide evidence that the project complies with the following: 1. The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; The constraints of the existing footprint of the building within the property lines and the desire to provide ample turning radii for interior movement within an efficient ingress and egress pattern limits the ability to include additional spaces (6) that would normally be required. However, the proposed site plan more than doubles off-street parking. Most of the uses scheduled for the site involve subsets of the membership (i.e., young and young adult meetings), all of which reduce parking demand considerations. When meetings of the entire membership occur (Sunday mornings only), it is common for vehicles to contain 2 to 3 or more attendees. 2. The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; Although public parking on East La Palma is available, none of spaces in this frontage area have been considered in our count of the available parking supply. All parking related to the proposed use can be accommodated on site. 3. The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not expressly provided as parking for such use under an agreement in compliance with subsection 18.42.050.030 (Non-Residential Uses — Exception); All parking related to the proposed use can be accommodated on site. 4. The variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and The highest level of ingress and egress traffic will occur on Sunday mornings, a time that is traditionally one of the lowest in terms of level of service on major arterial streets. Other meeting times are scheduled for low traffic impact times in the evenings and early Saturday mornings. 5. The variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use Traffic flow patterns into the site have been adjusted to provide for the safest and also quickest option for ingress and egress traffic. -Page 1- JUSTIFICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION The Planning Commission is required by law to make a "Finding of Fact" justifying the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Before a CUP can be approved, all of the following must be demonstrated: 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority) of the Anaheim Municipal Code; 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is located; 3. That 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 or to health and safety; 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim. The granting of a conditional use permit is dependent upon demonstration that the proposed use meets the above listed criteria. The following questions are designed to assist you in satisfying that requirement. Provide a letter of justification addressing the following issues. A. Indicate how the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area: The proposed site is situated in an area designated as General Commercial in the General Plan of the City of Anaheim. There are commercial uses to the west. Sunkist school abuts the site to the south, and one low density residential lot abuts to the east. The site is situated on the south side of E. La Palma Ave., a major arterial street, and it contains two entrances onto E. La Palma Ave. Assembly uses will be conducted principally during the evenings and on weekends. B. Explain how the site proposed for the use is large enough to accommodate anticipated growth of the development and allow the continued operation without causing a detriment to the particular area or to health and safety: The proposed parking and current square footage associated with the site is sufficient to accommodate current and anticipated levels of use. C. Indicate how the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the roads designed and constructed to handle the traffic in the area: Traffic generated by the proposed use can be adequately accommodated by the capacity of E. La Palma Ave. Additionally, close proximity to SH 57 will significantly reduce arriving and departing traffic on interior streets. Hours of use and change in use will also mitigate traffic impacts by moving traffic streams to the evenings and weekends and by eliminating the ingress and egress impacts on public streets associated with dropping off and picking up children at a day care facility during peak hours. D. Indicate how approval of this Conditional Use Permit with any conditions of approval, will not harm the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim: No activities that could potentially impact the health and safety of the citizens of Anaheim will be conducted at the site. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 2560 E. LAPALMAAVENUEPROPERTY ADJACENT TOWEST PROPERTY LINE(1)PROPERTY ADJACENT TOWEST PROPERTY LINE(2)PROPERTIES ADJACENT TOEAST ANDSOUTH PROPERTY LINESNORTH SIDE ENTRANCEEAST SIDE,FACINGNORTHEAST SIDE,FACINGSOUTHATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. R M -4 D E V 2 0 1 0 -0 0 1 3 9 S T . C A T H E R I N E 'S M I L I T A R Y A C A D E M Y R S -3 S F R C -G R E T A I L R S -3 S F R T T R I P L E X O -L O F F I C E S R S -2 T R I P L E X C -G R E T A I L R M -3 O A K T R E E T E R R A C E A P T S 9 D U R S -2 D U P L E X T S F R T D U P L E X O -L O F F I C E S T S F R C -G R E T A I L C -G B A N K R S -2 R E T A I L C -G S F R R S -2 L I B R A R Y T S T . C A T H E R I N E 'S M I L I T A R Y A C A D E M Y T S T . C A T H E R I N E 'S M I L I T A R Y A C A D E M Y C -G S T . C A T H E R I N E 'S M I L I T A R Y A C A D E M Y C -G R E T A I L C -G V A C A N T T S F R T S F R R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R R S -3 S F R T S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F RRS-2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R R S -2 S F R T P E A R S O N P A R K ||373'||419' ! ! W L I N C O L N A V E N HARBOR BLVDS HARBOR BLVDN RESH STW C Y P R E S S S T N CITRON STN JANSS STN PINE STW C H A R T R E S S T N JANSS ST5 W. LINCOL N A V EN. EUCLID STW. BROADWAY N. EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y E . LI N C O L N AV EN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. LOARA STN. HARBOR BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y S. ANAHEIM BLVD11021215 North Harbor Boulevard DEV2010-00139 Subject Property APN: 255-052-01 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W L I N C O L N A V E N HARBOR BLVDS HARBOR BLVDN RESH STW C Y P R E S S S T N CITRON STN JANSS STN PINE STW C HA R T R E S S T W C H A R T R E S S T N JANSS ST5 W. LINCOL N A V EN. EUCLID STW. BROADWAY N. EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y E . LI N C O L N AV EN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. LOARA STN. HARBOR BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVDW . B R O A D W A Y S. ANAHEIM BLVD11021215 North Harbor Boulevard DEV2010-00139 Subject Property APN: 255-052-01 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 728 (TRACKING NO. CUP728A, DEV2010-00139) (215 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, on July 19, 1965, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. 1705, did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 728 to expand an existing educational facility for that certain real property located at 215 North Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2005, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 2005-40, did approve Variance No. 2005-04647 to construct a replacement sign for a private school for that certain real property located at 215 North Harbor Boulevard in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 728, designated as Conditional Use Permit 728A, to amend said conditional use permit to modify the existing sign and construct an electronic readerboard sign; and WHEREAS, this property is developed with a private school located in the RM-4 (Multiple-Family, Residential) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for School land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 728 and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The applicant’s proposal to construct an electronic readerboard sign in the RM-4 (Multiple-Family, Residentiall) Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section 18.44.050.010.0101.05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. - 2 - PC2010-*** 2. The existing private school has demonstrated compatibility with the surrounding area and the addition of an electronic readerboard will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is currently located. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed private school with an electronic readerboard sign in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety. 4. The traffic generated by the request will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site is consistent with existing private school. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The private school has operated in this location since 1925 and has proven to be compatible to the area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 728, designated as Conditional Use Permit No. 728A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Planning Commission Resolution No. PC91-63, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3410, to read as stated in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this conditional use permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not - 3 - PC2010-*** include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, except as expressly amended herein, the provisions of Resolution No. 1705, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 728, shall remain if full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 728A (DEV2010-00139) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 The property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Sign Plans), and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 DEV 2010-00142 RETAIL C-G (SC) VACANT SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 RELIGIOUS USE SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 O.C.F.C.D. C-G (SC) BEST WESTERN ANAHEIM HILLS RM-4 (SC) CANYON VILLAGE APARTMENTS 198 DU C-G (SC) RETAIL SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 CINEMA CITY THEATER SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 SERVICE STATION C-G UNDER CONSTRUCTION SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 CANYON OFFICE CENTER C-G (SC) RETAIL SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 BANK C-G (SC) RETAIL C-G (SC) RETAIL SP 94-1 (SC) DA 2 INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 CANYON OFFICE CENTER Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area Alpha (Northeast Area)Redevelopment AreaSP 94-1 (SC) DA5 RETAIL E LA PALMA AVE N IMPERIAL HWYE ORANGETHORPE AVE ES P E R AN ZA R D VISTA LOMA91 E. LA PALMA AVE N. IMPERIAL HWY. S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D E. ORANGETHORPE AVE 110235645-5675 East La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00142 Subject Property APN: 346-281-06 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009All properties are in the Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area ORANGE COUNTY BOUNDARY ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARY E LA PALMA AVE N IMPERIAL HWYE ORANGETHORPE AVE ES P E R AN ZA R D VISTA LOMA91 E. LA PALMA AVE N. IMPERIAL HWY. S A N T A A N A C A N Y O N R D E. ORANGETHORPE AVE 110235645-5675 East La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00142 Subject Property APN: 346-281-06 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009All properties are in the Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area ORANGE COUNTY BOUNDARY ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARY [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2010-04827 (DEV2010-00142) (5645-5675 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests a variance to construct a new freestanding sign with a size and design that is greater than permitted by code in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Commercial Area (Development Area 5 -Scenic Corridor Overlay) (SP94-1, DA5) (SC) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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 applicant requests a variance to construct a new freestanding sign with a size and design that is greater than permitted by code: SECTION NO. 18.44.080.090 Permitted Location of Freestanding Sign (minimum of 50 feet from adjacent property required; 6 feet proposed) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020.0201 Maximum Size of Freestanding Sign (60 square feet permitted; 81 square feet proposed) SECTION NO. 18.44.090.020.0201 Maximum Height of Freestanding Sign (8 feet permitted; 25 feet proposed) - 2 - PC2010-*** SECTION NO. 18.18.090.050.0502.02 Permitted Text (3 tenant signs permitted; 6 tenant signs and directional language proposed) 2. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property because of the lack of visibility of the center due to the increased grade of Imperial Highway. 3. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because there are other businesses in commercial retail centers with visible wall signs within the vicinity. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2010-04827 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Variance is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not - 3 - PC2010-*** include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2010-04827 (DEV2010-00142) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 (Site Plan and Sign Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning Division ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Effect of Imperial Highway Bridge Construction on Imperial Promenade Shopping Center-Photo Timeline March 7, 2008 Figure 1: View of Imperial Highway from Imperial Promenade looking towards Orangethorpe indicating Imperial Promenade was at grade with Imperial Highway prior to construction of bridge. Figure 2: View of Imperial Highway from Imperial Promenade facing Orangethorpe. Caltrans begins creating change in grade at the back corner of Imperial Promenade. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Figure 3: View of Imperial Highway from Imperial Promenade. View looking across Imperial Highway towards Canyon Village Shopping Center on the corner of La Palma & Imperial Highway. Figure 4: View of Imperial Highway from Imperial Promenade indicating property at grade with Imperial Highway at this point in bridge construction. View looking across Imperial Highway at Canyon Village Shopping Center. Figure 5: View of Imperial Highway from Imperial Promenade facing La Palma indicating property at grade with Imperial Highway. Post Construction of Imperial Highway Overpass April 28, 2010 Figure 6: View of Imperial Highway overpass from Imperial Promenade Figure 7: Front area of Imperial Promenade has lost most visibility due to Imperial Highway overpass. Figure 8: Portion of Imperial Promenade that has lost all visibility due to Imperial Highway bridge construction. Figure 9: Portion of Imperial Promenade that has lost all visibility due to Imperial Highway bridge construction. Figure 10: View of Imperial Promenade from across Imperial Highway. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Illustration View Not To Scale 1 Imperial Promenade Enter on La Palma TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME Imperial Promenade Pylon 5675 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA Project:Revisions: Initial Design ER 8/19/09 Page of 4 Filename: 81278 IP-Pylon R1 Client: DeBeikes Investments Contact: Natalie Korthamar CA State Lic #724929 P: 951-734-6275 F: 951-735-9667 1611 Jenks Dr. Corona, CA 92880 E: info@southwestsign.com W: www.southwestsign.com This sign is intended to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.SS Imperial Promenade ATTACHMENT NO. 6 Imperial Promenade Enter on La Palma TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME Illustration View Not To Scale 2 Imperial Promenade Enter on La Palma TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME Imperial Promenade Pylon 5675 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA Project:Revisions: Initial Design ER 8/19/09 Page of 4 Filename: 81278 IP-Pylon R1 Client: DeBeikes Investments Contact: Natalie Korthamar CA State Lic #724929 P: 951-734-6275 F: 951-735-9667 1611 Jenks Dr. Corona, CA 92880 E: info@southwestsign.com W: www.southwestsign.com T h i s s i g n i s int e n d e d t o b e installed in accordance with the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r t i c l e 6 0 0 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.SS Imperial Promenade Illustration View - View is Approximate Not To Scale 3 New planter Imperial Promenade Pylon 5675 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA Project:Revisions: Initial Design ER 8/19/09 Page of 4 Filename: 81278 IP-Pylon R1 Client: DeBeikes Investments Contact: Natalie Korthamar CA State Lic #724929 P: 951-734-6275 F: 951-735-9667 1611 Jenks Dr. Corona, CA 92880 E: info@southwestsign.com W: www.southwestsign.com T h i s s i g n i s int e n d e d t o b e installed in accordance with the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r t i c l e 6 0 0 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.SS Imperial Promenade Imperial Promenade Sign Detail Scale 3/16" = 1' 0" Verify all dimensions in field 9'-2"9'-10"27" 8'-7" 4 Enter on La Palma TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME 24'-10 1/4"7'-10 1/8"15'-0"19" New Planter Imperial Promenade Pylon 5675 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA Project:Revisions: Initial Design ER 8/19/09 Page of 4 Filename: 81278 IP-Pylon R1 Client: DeBeikes Investments Contact: Natalie Korthamar CA State Lic #724929 P: 951-734-6275 F: 951-735-9667 1611 Jenks Dr. Corona, CA 92880 E: info@southwestsign.com W: www.southwestsign.com T h i s s i g n i s int e n d e d t o b e installed in accordance with the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f A r t i c l e 6 0 0 of the National Electrical Code and/or other applicable local codes. This includes proper grounding and bonding of the sign.SS Imperial Promenade 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00145 RETAIL T FOURPLEXC-G MEDICAL OFFICE RM-4 SUMMERHILL VILLAGE APTS 92 DU RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 APTS 5 DU T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-3 DUPLEX C-G RETAIL T RELIGIOUS USE C-G RETAIL C-G RESTAURANT RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR||213'||444'! ! !E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN WHITTIER STN ADAIR PLE BANYAN LN E REDWOOD DR N. E BANYAN DR E NORTH REDWOOD DR 91 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVEN. EAST STN. ACACIA STE. M IR A L O M A A V E E . B R O A D W A Y N . P LACENTIA AVEN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST110241098 North State College Boulevard DEV2010-00145 Subject Property APN: 268-231-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 E LA PALMA AVEN STATE COLLEGE BLVDN WHITTIER STN ADAIR PLN CURTIS CTE BANYAN LN E REDWOOD DR N. E BANYAN DR E NORTH REDWOOD DR 91 E. LA PALMA AVE E. LINCOLN AVEN. EAST STN. ACACIA STE. M IR A L O M A A V E E . B R O A D W A Y N . P LACENTIA AVEN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST110241098 North State College Boulevard DEV2010-00145 Subject Property APN: 268-231-18 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A CLASS 11 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2010-04831 (DEV2010-00145) (1098 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the petitioner requests a variance to modify a legal nonconforming pole-mounted freestanding sign in the Commercial, General (C-G) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Center land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning 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 applicant requests to modify a legal nonconforming pole-mounted freestanding sign under the following Code provision: SECTION NO. 18.56.060.020 Continuation of Non-Conforming Signs 2. The requested variance is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to the property because of the narrowness of the public right-of-way and landscaped setback due to the widening of State College Boulevard. 3. Strict application of the Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under the identical zoning classification in the vicinity because there are three other pole signs located in narrow landscape setbacks in the vicinity on State College Boulevard. - 2 - PC2010-*** WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 11 (Accessory Structures) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Variance No. 2010-04831 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition (s), (ii) the modification complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Variance is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2010-04831 (DEV2010-00145) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 (Site Plans and Sign Plan) as conditioned herein. Planning Division 1. Identify any special physical characteristics of the property such as shape, topography, location or surroundings that cause the requested development to not meet zoning codes. This project proposes an alteration to an existing pole sign. The existing pole sign was most recently permitted in 1992 at 25’ high two internally illuminated cabinets with a combined sign area of 122 sq ft. The proposed alteration would result in no changes to the structure of the existing footing or pole. The existing 122 square feet of sign cabinets would be removed and replaced with one internally illuminated 31.31 square foot cabinet on the existing 25’ pole. The location of the existing sign is unique because its existing base is positioned in a narrow area between the street facing side of the building, and the property’s street frontage along State College Blvd. 2. Do other properties in the vicinity have the same type of physical characteristics as this property? If so, please identity a few of them. There are nearby pole signs, similar in shape, but with much larger square footages and overall heights than the existing and proposed sign. The neighboring existing pole signs have the benefit of being larger in area and their location maintains adequate distance away from their adjacent buildings. 3. Identify any other neighboring properties that have the same type of improvement that you are requesting. Neighboring pole signs that are adjacent to street facing buildings, but maintain enough space to be visible to motorists include the McDonalds pole sign, adjacent to McDonalds; the multi- tenant “Granada Square” pole sign adjacent to Wendy’s; the Stater Bros sign adjacent to the multi-tenant building directly across the street from the subject property 4. Identify the cause of special characteristics of the site that limits the ability to comply with code requirements? (e.g. natural slope of the land, placement of other structures). An alteration that complies with code requirements would result in a sign with area and height that will suffer from a significant negative impact because of it’s location in a narrow space between the subject building and the street along State College Blvd. In addition, due to the widening of State College Blvd by the city of Anaheim, there is not enough landscaping provided for the recurred setback for a conforming monument sign allowed by code. Inadequate space for a monument as an alternative ground sign would further prohibit El Pollo Loco from adequate exposure to State College Blvd as currently enjoyed by neighboring pole signs. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 4530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comSITE PLAN & SITE KEYSHEET TITLESHEET TITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISION NO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT #CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsEL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONMITCH CHEMERS08/25/10NOTEDPHOTO KEYSCALE: NTS00/00/00DESIGNERA1B210-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10EXISTING POLESIGN LOCATION010203040506070809101112ATTACHMENT NO. 4 4530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comSITE PLAN & SITE KEYSHEET TITLESHEETTITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISIONNO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT#CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsEL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONMITCH CHEMERS08/25/10NOTEDPHOTOSSCALE: NTS00/00/00DESIGNER10-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10010203040506 4530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comSITE PLAN & SITE KEYSHEET TITLESHEETTITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISIONNO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT#CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsEL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONMITCH CHEMERS08/25/10NOTEDPHOTOSSCALE: NTS00/00/00DESIGNER10-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10070809101112 174530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comOVERALL SHOPPINGCENTER SITE PLAN & SITEKEYofSHEET TITLESHEETTITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISIONNO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT#CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsEL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONJEREMY READ07/26/10NOTEDD/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PYLON SIGNW/ 6’-0” X 5’-2 5/8” CABINET @ 25’-0” OAH.D/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SHOPPINGCENTER PYLON SIGN.INT. ILLUMINATED 3’-0” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSINT. ILLUMINATED 3’-0” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSINT. ILLUMINATED 3’-0” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSEXISTINGNEWEXISTINGA1KEYOVERALL SHOPPING CENTER SITE PLANSCALE: 1”=80’-0”CUSTOMER APPROVALDATE:APPROVED BY:APPROVEDBY:00/00/00DESIGNERA1A2A2B1B2B3B1B2B310-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10ATTACHMENT NO. 5 274530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comSITE PLAN & SITE KEYofSHEET TITLESHEETTITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISIONNO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT#CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsEL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONJEREMY READ07/26/10NOTEDD/F INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PYLON SIGNW/ 6’-0” X 5’-2 5/8” CABINET @ 25’-0” OAH.INT. ILLUMINATED 3’-1” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSINT. ILLUMINATED 3’-1” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSINT. ILLUMINATED 3’-1” X 2’-8 1/4” WALL SIGNW/ INT. ILLUMINATED 2’-0” X 15’-4” CHANNEL LETTERSEXISTINGNEWA1A1KEYSITE PLANSCALE: 1”=30’-0”CUSTOMER APPROVALDATE:APPROVED BY:APPROVEDBY:00/00/00DESIGNERB1B2B3B1B2B310-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10 A1374530 Mission Gorge PlaceSan Diego, CA 92120Tel: 619.283.2191Fax: 619.283.9503Web: www.cnpsigns.comPYLON SIGNofSHEET TITLESHEETTITLEPROJECTPROJECTLOCATIONDWG#134562REVISIONSWO#REVISION NO.REVISIONNO.KEY NO.The original concepts and/or illustrationscontained in this document/design are Theexclusive property of CNP Signs & Graphics.Disclosure or reproduction of this design, in anymanner or medium without authorized andwrittenconsentofCNPisexpresslyforbidden.791011128PROJECT #PROJECT#CLIENTCLIENTACCT. REP.ACCT.REP.DESIGNERDESIGNERSCALEUNLESS SPECIFIED, THISDRAWING IS NOT FORPRODUCTION.Theinformationshownis for permitting and design intent only.Colors shown are representations ofthe indicated specifications, and maynot be an exact match of the finishedproduct.DATECUSTOMER APPROVAL2010 CNP Signs & GraphicsSCALE: NTSEXISTING PYLON SIGN W/ NEW 6’ X 5’ CABINET“EL POLLO LOCO”CUSTOMER APPROVALDATE:APPROVED BY:APPROVEDBY:EL POLLO LOCO #60891098 STATE COLLEGE,ANAHEIM, CA308571000000CHRISSY GIBSONJEREMY READ07/26/10NOTEDPROPOSED 6’ X 5’ CABINET ONEXISTING PYLON“EL POLLO LOCO”EXISTING CONDITIONS6’-0”5’-2 5/8”25’-0”ELEVATION VIEW SIDE VIEW1’-6”POLE COVER PAINTEDTO MATCH BUILDINGLANDSCAPED AREA10-531JR08/20/102JR08/20/10 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C -G (D M U ) D E V 2 0 1 0 -0 0 1 1 9 R E T A I L C -G (D M U ) P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E C -G (D M U ) C I T Y H A L L C -G (D M U ) M U S E U M C -G R E T A I L C -G (D M U ) M I X E D U S E 9 5 D U C -G (D M U ) M I X E D U S E R S -3 F O U R P L E X C -G (D M U ) A N A H E I M I C E R S -3 D U P L E X R S -3 T R I P L E X C -G (D M U ) R E T A I L C -G O F F I C E S T O F F I C E S R S -3 S F R C -G (D M U ) P A R K I N G S T R U C T U R E C -G O F F I C E S C -G M E D I C A L O F F I C E C -G O F F I C E S C -G O F F I C E S C -G O F F I C E S C -G (D M U ) R E T A I L C -G (D M U ) R E T A I L C -G (D M U ) R E T A I L C -G (D M U ) R E T A I L ||1 2 1 'W L I N C O L N A V E S ANAHEIM BLVDE L I N C O L N A V E W O A K S T S CLEMENTINE STS LEMON STW C Y P R E S S S T N LEMON STN CLEMENTINE STE C E N T E R S T W C HA R T R E S S T W C E N T E R S T R E E T P R O M E N A D E 5 S. EAST STW. LIN C O L N A V E E . B R O A D W A Y E . L I N C O L N AV EN. EAST STW . B R O A D W A YN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. HARBOR BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVDW. B R O A D W AY 11015160 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00119 Subject Property APN: 255-161-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 All Properties are in the Commercial/Industrial (South Anaheim Blvd Area)°0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W L I N C O L N A V E S ANAHEIM BLVDE L I N C O L N A V E W O A K S T S CLEMENTINE STS LEMON STW C Y P R E S S S T N LEMON STN CLEMENTINE STE C E N T E R S T W C HA R T R E S S T W C E N T E R S T R E E T P R O M E N A D E 5 S. EAST STW. LIN C O L N A V E E . B R O A D W A Y E . L I N C O L N AV EN. EAST STW . B R O A D W A YN. ANAHEIM BLVDN. HARBOR BLVDS. ANAHEIM BLVDW. B R O A D W AY 11015160 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00119 Subject Property APN: 255-161-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 All Properties are in the Commercial/Industrial (South Anaheim Blvd Area)°0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1, CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05516 (DEV2010-00119) (160 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05516, to permit the sale of beer and wine for on- premises consumption within an existing restaurant in an existing commercial center proposed for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, this property is developed with a commercial building located in the Commercial General (CG) zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for Mixed Use land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, at 5:00 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 18.60, 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 Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit, does find and determine the following facts: 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. The request to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant in the C-G (General Commercial) Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.08.030.040.0402 (Conditionally Permitted Uses) of the Zoning Code. 2. The request to permit the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant would not adversely affect the surrounding land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the property is currently developed with a commercial shopping center and the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. - 2 - PC2010-*** 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the health, safety and general welfare of the public because the property is currently improved with a commercial center with no proposed expansion. 4. The traffic generated by permitting the sale of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an existing restaurant would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site are consistent with existing restaurant and permitted businesses within the commercial center. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 6. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 ((Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05516 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Zoning Provisions - General” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05516 (DEV2010-00119) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 At all times when the premise is open for business, the premise shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurant. Police 2 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police 3 The sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption shall be prohibited. Police 4 There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Police 5 That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premise (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the Business and Professions Code. Police 6 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police - 6 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 7 The parking lot shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Code Enforcement 8 All doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. Fire 9 There shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police 10 Subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked as Exhibit No. 1 (Site Plan) and Exhibit No. 2 (Floor Plan). Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( P Proposed Site160 W LINCOLN AVE 873.00 872.00 874.01 865.01 ST. BONIFACE SCHOOL BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ELEM SCHOOL PEARSON PARK GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK LITTLE PEOPLES PARK COLONY PARK BROADWAY LINCOLN AVEHARBOR BLVDANAHEIM BLVDHARBOR BLVDANAHEIM BLVD PCN Proximity Map for 160 W Lincoln Ave 1 inch = 500 feet 0 250 500 750125Feet 4 LEGEND !((3) On-Sale License !((5) Off-Sale License Quarter Mile Buffer Churches Parks Schools City Boundary Census Tracts ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. S P 9 4 -1 D A 3 D E V 2 0 1 0 -0 0 1 1 7 R E S T A U R A N T S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 3 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 3 S U B S T A T I O N S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 3 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 B U S I N E S S P A R K S P 9 4 -1 D A 2 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 2 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 1 I N D U S T R I A L S P 9 4 -1 D A 3 O F F I C E S ||175.70'||225' ! ! !N KRAEMER BLVDE C O R O N A D O S T N KRAEMER PLE . L A P A L M A A V E E . M I R A L O M A A V E N. MILLER STN. BLUE GUM STN. TUSTI N A VEE. FRONTERA ST N. TUSTIN AVE110161160 North Kraemer Boulevard DEV2010-00117 Subject Property APN: 345-101-12 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 All properties are in the Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area°0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 N KRAEMER BLVDE C O R O N A D O S T N KRAEMER PL57 91 E . L A P A L M A A V E E . M I R A L O M A A V E N. MILLER STN. BLUE GUM STE. FRONTERA ST 110161160 North Kraemer Boulevard DEV2010-00117 Subject Property APN: 345-101-12 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 All properties are in the Alpha (Northeast Area) Redevelopment Area°0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361 (DEV2010-00117) (1160 NORTH KRAEMER AVENUE) WHEREAS, on July 8, 2009 the Anaheim Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. 2009-067 did approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2008- 05361 to permit a nightclub on certain real property located at 1160 North Kraemer Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and; WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361, to modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a previously-approved nightclub and to increase the permitted number to 650 patrons for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, the property is developed with a freestanding nightclub located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, La Palma Core Area (SP94-1, DA3) zone and the Merged Redevelopment Project Area and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Industrial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed amendment 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. The facts necessary to support each and every finding for the original approval of the entitlement as set forth in this chapter exist. 2. The permit is being exercised substantially in the same manner and in conformance with all conditions and stipulations originally approved. 3. The permit is being exercised in a manner not detrimental to the particular area and surrounding land uses, nor to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare as there have not been any code violations on this property. - 2 - PC2010-*** 4. With regard only to the deletion of a time limitation, such deletion is appropriate because it has been demonstrated that the use has operated in a manner that is appropriate in the underlying zone and the surrounding area. A Report and Recommendation shall be presented to the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item one year from the date of this approval in order to demonstrate that this business continues to operate in compliance with conditions of approval. 5. The existing use at the time of approval was properly one for which a conditional use permit was authorized by the Zoning Code. 6. The use, as amended, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located as the nightclub has been operating in conformance with conditions of approval along with the approved security plan and further there have been no code violations on the property. 7. The size and shape of the site for the existing use is adequate to allow the full development of the use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety as the nightclub has been operating in conformance with all conditions of approval and there have been no code violations on the property. 8. The traffic generated by the nightclub use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area as the nightclub has been operating in conformance with conditions of approval and there have been no code violations on the property. 9. The granting of the reinstatement of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008- 05361 to delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a previously- approved nightclub and to increase the permitted number to 650 patrons as requested by the applicant. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend, in their entirety, the conditions of approval adopted in connection with Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2009-67, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05361, to delete the time limitation and allow up to 650 patrons and to read as shown in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which conditions are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. - 3 - PC2010-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361 (DEV2010-00117) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY ONE YEAR FROM APPROVAL DATE 1 The applicant shall submit a request for this matter to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a “Reports and Recommendations” item one year from the date of this approval to determine that the property continues to operate in compliance with conditions of approval. Planning GENERAL 2 The maximum occupancy for this establishment shall be 650 persons. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. Fire, Police, Code Enforcement 3 Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and from 7 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Code Enforcement 4 All property used for off-site parking shall be under agreement approved as to form by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and a recorded copy filed with the Planning Department and, further, shall specify the number and location of the off-site parking spaces and assure that the spaces shall be accessible and available at all times for parking in conjunction with the use for which the parking spaces are required. Planning City Attorney 5 A security plan shall be maintained as approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee that includes security measures that would deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise Police Planning - 7 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY created by patrons entering or leaving the premises shall be maintained. A copy of the security plan shall be maintained with the Police Department Vice Detail and the Planning Department. Any amendments to the plan shall be approved by the Chief of Police or his/her designee and shall also be filed with the Police Department Vice Detail and the Planning Department. 6 The Police Department and Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department may conduct an unscheduled inspection to gain and/or maintain compliance with State and local statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations. The property owner/applicant shall pay the costs of Code Enforcement inspections. Police Code Enforcement 7 All landscape material shall remain in compliance with approved landscape plans and be maintained in a healthy condition. Planning 8 The parking lot shall be resurfaced and restriped in conformance with City standards within 60 days of the date of this approval and thereafter shall be maintained in conformance with City standards. Planning 9 Valet parking and stacking of vehicles shall not be permitted. Police Planning 10 The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. Police Code Enforcement 11 Anytime the premises are providing entertainment, the applicant shall provide licensed, uniformed, security personnel. Police 12 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. Police 13 The doors shall remain closed at all times that entertainment is permitted, except during times of entry or exit, emergencies and deliveries. Police - 8 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 14 All entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not expose "specified anatomical areas" as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Police 15 No one under the age of 21 shall be allowed on the premises any time it is open for business. Police 16 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. Police 17 The floor space provided for dancing shall be free of any furniture or partitions and maintained in a smooth and safe condition. Police 18 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police 19 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited. Police 20 Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police 21 There shall be no requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. Police 22 Alcoholic beverages cannot be included in the price of admission. Police 23 Signs shall be posted at all exits of the premises including out to the patio area notifying patrons of the prohibition of alcoholic beverages from leaving the confines of the Police - 9 - PC2010-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY establishment. 24 One security officer must be posted in the patio area at all times. Police 25 Any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. Police Planning 26 The subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 (Site Plan) and 2 (Floor Plan) approved by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2009, and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: September 21, 2010 TO: Vanessa Norwood, Asssociate Planner FROM: Jesse Penunuri, Senior Code Enforcement Officer #4002 SUBJECT: 1160 N. Kraemer Blvd On September 17, 2010 & September 21, 2010 I conducted an inspection of the property located at 1160 N. Kraemer Blvd. The inspection was in regards to CUP 2008-05361 & DEV2010- 00117. Reinstate permit and amend conditions of approval to increase the occupancy for an existing nightclub (Xalos). Upon inspecting the property, I observed that the following condition was not in compliance: • Condition No. 3, The parking lot has not been re-surfaced or re-striped No other violations were observed at the time of inspection. If you need any additional information regarding this property, please contact me at ext.4148. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ITEM NO. 3 ADJUSTMENT NO. 11 TO THE NORTHEAST AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (SPN2009-00056) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05361 Owners: Paul Nikolau Nikolau Living Trust 10387 Los Alamitos Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Applicant: Juan M. Reynoso 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard The applicant proposes an adjustment to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP94-1), La Palma Core Area (DA3) to include conversion of a freestanding full- service restaurant into a nightclub as a conditionally permitted use. The applicant proposes a nightclub concurrent with the request to amend the specific plan. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Motion recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance approving SPN2009-00056 (Karaki) Resolution No. PC2009-067 approving CUP2008-05361, with the deletion of Condition No. 25 (Karaki) Motion recommending to City Council review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361 with the Specific Plan Adjustment (Karaki) Approved VOTE: 4 - 2 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Buffa and Romero voted no. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated July 8, 2009, along with a visual presentation. She also provided a correction to the staff report pertaining to the description of the business activities. She stated the applicant indicated that due to the closing of nearby businesses, they had not been able to successfully operate a restaurant and were no longer serving any food items. She further stated that one letter of opposition was submitted from an attorney representing the owner of 1140 North Kraemer Boulevard and one letter of support was submitted from the owner of 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard. She also stated that the applicant requested the deletion of Condition No. 25 so that alcohol service could be allowed on the patio and the Police Department staff was supportive of this request. Commissioner Buffa commented the staff report stated the Building Division increased the building capacity from 299 to 687 in 2006. She asked staff to describe the City’s process for the Building Division to take this kind of action and asked if they had an obligation to check the conditional use permit. She asked if an error was made. ATTACHMENT NO. 8 JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 7 of 26 CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded yes, an error was made and the capacity should have been reviewed in light of the approved conditional use permit on the property. Commissioner Buffa commented that Page 3 of the staff report stated that 128 parking spaces were provided; however, staff recommended a maximum occupancy of 550 people. She said she could not reconcile that occupancy with the number of parking spaces proposed. If four people arrived per car, she did not understand how 120 parking spaces would accommodate this need. She asked how this occupancy could be accommodated with 120 parking spaces and wanted to know how overflow parking was accommodated. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the Code required 111 parking spaces for this nightclub based upon 17 spaces per thousand square feet. She stated building occupancy was based upon the building code and egress and fire requirements and did not take into consideration parking requirements or demand. Chairman Karaki asked staff to confirm that the parking requirement required by code and the maximum building occupancy were not connected. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that was correct. Commissioner Romero commented that the business to the rear of the applicant’s site shared a common driveway with the nightclub property. He observed a lot of trucks in the applicant’s parking lot during the day. He asked if this reduced the number of parking spaces available for the nightclub. Ted White, Senior Planner, said he had observed trucks parking on the applicant’s property during the day; however, the trucks were not there at night when he visited the site. He suggested the applicant provide more details on this issue. Commissioner Faessel commented on a letter submitted by an attorney representing the owner of 1140 North Kraemer. He asked how many parking spaces on 1140 North Kraemer were impacted by the nightclub use. He said he understood that the owner of 1140 North Kraemer did not want any nightclub parking on his site. Mr. White responded that when he visited the site at night approximately four months ago, he parked at 1140 North Kramer Boulevard. The applicant’s security guard told him he could not park in this lot. Mr. White did not observe any other cars parked on that property at the time. He said there were several parking spaces on 1140 North Kraemer Boulevard adjacent to Kraemer Boulevard that would be visible to Kraemer Boulevard and would be the most logical place to park. Commissioner Faessel stated the Fire Station was located south of the project site. He asked if the Fire Station occupied the entire space that adjoins the City substation. Mr. White responded yes. Commissioner Faessel stated he understood the parking demand for this nightclub was so high that customers park at 1140 North Kramer Boulevard and walk about a half block or more to this business. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 8 of 26 Mr. White responded that the previous business had a valet parking agreement with a property to the west of the site. This was not deemed to be a safe location because patrons had to cross the street to get to the business. He stated that staff encouraged the applicant to enter into a parking agreement with the property to the north because of the proximity of parking and it would be safer for patrons to park on the same side of the street as the nightclub. He stated that patrons have also parked on a public street north of 1190 North Kraemer Boulevard Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Mike Ayaz, attorney representing the applicant, described the project and provided the following information: the nightclub owner had contracted with a security firm to patrol parking in the area to make sure that patrons parked only in permitted areas; he believed the number of proposed parking spaces was sufficient for the nightclub; regarding the letter submitted by the owner of 1140 North Kraemer, this was the first time they had heard concerns from this neighbor and the private security guards would patrol the area to make sure the nightclub patrons did not park on that property; he had worked with staff to resolve parking issues including removing the valet parking operation, providing additional parking areas and contracting with an outside security firm; forms identifying the building capacity would be available on site for inspection; 12 security guards would be provided in the nightclub; and, the owner had entered into a contract with a nightclub security expert to provide a security plan for the business. He stated the purpose of this application was to bring the nightclub into compliance with the Code. He believed the location was suitable for a nightclub because there were no residents near this site. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant to describe the relationship between this property and the business to the rear of this property. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information: the property to the rear of the nightclub was a construction yard; trucks from that business parked on the nightclub property during the day when the nightclub was closed; those trucks were removed before the nightclub opened in the evening; and, the nightclub owner did not have a business relationship with the owner of the construction yard. Commissioner Romero asked if the two properties shared a driveway. Mr. Ayaz responded yes, there was a shared access easement over the driveway. He stated he would provide a copy of the easement to staff. He also stated in the evening, the gates to the construction yard were closed and no nightclub patrons parked on the construction yard property. Commissioner Buffa asked where 500 people would park. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information: 500 people would be the maximum capacity; the nightclub did not always operate at the maximum capacity; typically there were five people per car; they had not experienced overflow parking problems since they added 44 parking spaces; and, they were taking actions such as contracting with a private security guard to monitor the patrons to make sure patrons were only parking in permitted areas. He also stated they had not heard any complaints from other properties, except for the letter submitted for today’s meeting. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 9 of 26 Commissioner Buffa commented that anyone could park on a public street. She stated when the economy gets better, the nightclub could achieve the maximum capacity and need additional parking. She also commented on the number of police calls during the last year and stated this did not demonstrate that this nightclub was a good neighbor. Mr. Ayaz responded with the following information about calls for police service: he did not believe there had been a significant increase in the number of calls for service during the past year; many of the calls for service did not generate police reports; the calls for service did not necessarily result from the operation of the nightclub; and, the calls for service for this nightclub tended to be lower than for other nightclubs in the City. He also reiterated they had taken the following actions to address security: retained an expert on nightclub security, implemented a series of police recommendations to mitigate the concerns; and brought on their own security staff. He said the Police Department was supportive of this request with the recommended conditions of approval. He further stated they had a vested interest in making sure they demonstrated compliance with these conditions. Commissioner Ramirez stated she was concerned about the difference between the code requirements for parking and the maximum building occupancy for the nightclub. She believed that because this was an industrial area, the business would be able to accommodate the parking. She asked the applicant if he was in the process of talking with the property owner of 1190 North Kraemer about securing some off-site parking for the nightclub. Mr. Ayaz stated parking would be provided on the site and at 1190 North Kramer Boulevard. He stated they were trying to add additional parking areas. Based upon the traffic studies, he believed there would also be public parking available on the street during the evening. He could not represent with any degree of certainty that they would be able to obtain additional spaces, but they were taking a proactive step to secure additional spaces. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the applicant would be amenable to a condition requiring the applicant to make best efforts at securing more parking areas. Mr. Ayaz responded this type of condition would be subjective and problematic. He said they were trying to secure additional parking spaces for the nightclub. Commissioner Ramirez stated that in addition to the calls of service, there have been other code violations. She asked if the business owner understood the zoning requirements. Mr. Ayaz responded that prior to his office becoming involved with this business, there had been some violations; however, now, his client understood the rules. Commissioner Ramirez stated these violations occurred in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Ayaz responded the violations occurred prior to his involvement with the business and he had explained the rules to his client. Chairman Karaki asked why the Police Department changed the recommended occupancy from 400 to 550. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 10 of 26 Kasey Geary, Police Sergeant, responded that over the last two years, the Police Department had conducted a number of inspections and observed between 600 to 800 people on the property. The Police Department would support a capacity of 550 subject to the recommended conditions. Chairman Karaki asked if Police staff would monitor this site and inspect the property over the next six months. Sergeant Geary responded yes. Commissioner Faessel commented on the Police Department’s recommendation that valet service be removed. He asked for an explanation of this issue. Sergeant Geary responded that valet service for a nightclub typically results in large groups of patrons congregating in one area at the close of business. This could result in calls for service related to fights breaking out and rival gang activity. Mr. Amstrup stated that with many nightclubs, disruptive activities tended to occur once people congregated outside at 2 a.m. waiting for their cars. Commissioner Romero commented that based upon this information, he understood why staff recommended Condition No. 7. He stated that even if four patrons arrived in each car, there would be a lot of cars. He wanted to know where the cars would park. Sergeant Geary responded that people parked their cars on the street on Coronado, across the street on the west side of Kraemer Boulevard and on Armando. If the patrons parked in the Fire Department parking lot, the cars would be towed. Commissioner Romero commented that if the patrons left at closing time and they had to walk a block away, that would give them time to sober up. Sergeant Geary responded the business conducted a hard closing time, which included making patrons exit the building by a defined time and this was a problem with valet service. The Police Department preferred the patrons to walk to their cars and not congregate in the parking lot. Commissioner Buffa stated that Page 3 of the Police Department memo refers to bottle service. She asked staff to explain this use. Mr. Amstrup responded that bottle service refers to a practice frequently seen in VIP areas of nightclubs where, instead of ordering cocktails, a full bottle of alcohol would be ordered to be consumed during the evening with mixers brought to the table. Commissioner Faessel referenced Condition No. 5 of the draft resolution. He asked Sergeant Geary to confirm whether the Police Department supported this use provided there was a review of this business in six months and that additional inspections occurred. Sergeant Geary responded this was correct. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 11 of 26 Chairman Karaki asked for confirmation whether the applicant was the property owner. Mr. Ayaz responded that the applicant leased the property and the property owner gave consent for this application. Chairman Karaki asked staff if the conditional use permit would stay with the property if the lease expired. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the conditional use permit would stay with the property; however, since the permit would expire in six months, the permit would need to be reinstated. If the permit is reinstated in perpetuity, it would stay with the land regardless of who is operating the business. Chairman Karaki asked if the conditional use permit expired, could the owner of the property request the permit be renewed. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded yes. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated there had been three code inspections over the last year. She asked about the second violation from July 25, 2008, regarding food being sold, but with no seating area provided. She asked if seating was supposed to be available for patrons ordering food. She wanted to know what the code violation involved. Mr. Amstrup stated the issue was the character of the business. The restaurant was permitted with a conditional use permit. Restaurants typically had fixed and plentiful seating. Once seating was not provided, the food tended to become finger foods and the use started to become more like a bar and less like a restaurant. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to confirm that the condition would require the permit to come back before the Planning Commission after a six month period. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the Planning Commission would need to consider a reinstatement of the permit in six months. Commissioner Ramirez stated there had recently been a lot of changes in the Northeast Area Specific Plan. She asked if staff was going to conduct a comprehensive review of the Specific Plan. Mr. Amstrup responded that a comprehensive change was not in the current workplan; but anticipates in the future, there may be a need for a comprehensive review. Commissioner Romero stated the landscape in the parking lot seemed to be neglected. He asked if the landscape would be improved. Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, responded that Code Enforcement would review the landscape issues. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 12 of 26 Mr. Amstrup stated that Condition No. 2 of the draft resolution required an approved landscape plan and improvements. Mr. White stated that Condition No. 3 required the parking lot to be re-surfaced and re-striped. Chairman Karaki asked about the lighting on the property. Mr. White responded there were no conditions of approval regarding lighting, but the applicant had stated they recently upgraded the lighting on the property. Commissioner Faessel stated that while there were no residential units in this industrial area, a fire station was located in this area. He referenced the memo from Code Enforcement which stated in 2008, the Fire Department had concerns about nighttime noise associated with this use; however, a sound study was conducted and no code violations were found. He asked if the Fire Department had concerns about this use. Mr. Bennion responded the Fire Department initially had some concerns regarding parking; however, they had not stated any recent concerns about sound issues. Commissioner Faessel commented on the issue of inconsistency between the maximum proposed occupancy and the required number of parking spaces for this use. During his three years on the Planning Commission, he did not recall any other application where this issue had come up and the occupancy had been compared with the parking requirement. He commented that this issue may need to be reviewed in the future in light of the discussion on this project. He said that based upon the discussion on this project, it did not seem like 17 spaces per thousand were enough for an occupancy of 550. However, since the applicant complied with the number of parking spaces required by code, the applicant had met the letter of the law. Chairman Karaki stated he had the same concern about the inconsistency between the parking requirement and the capacity of the building. He stated the City should revisit the parking requirements for a nightclub. Even though the applicant complied with the code, it did not appear that there were enough parking spaces for this use. He also referenced the letter submitted by the neighbor objecting to the nightclub. The letter indicated that the crime rate in this area was above average. Per the Police Department memo, the crime rate in this area was below average, not above average. He supported the six month review period for this use with periodic inspections as recommended by the Police Department to determine whether this business was complying with the code. Commissioner Buffa stated that her strongest objection to the six month period for the Conditional Use Permit was that the Conditional Use Permit was being processed concurrently with the Specific Plan Amendment. She stated the Specific Plan Amendment, if adopted, would go on forever even if the conditional use permit expired and was not renewed. She realized the code wording was very narrow and would only allow an existing restaurant approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance to convert to a nightclub. She stated she was not comfortable with a nightclub in an industrial area. She was not convinced it was a compatible use. Based upon the submitted evidence, the business had not been operating successfully. It seemed like the business had been impacting the neighbors and the Police and Fire Departments. She might be willing to give them a JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 13 of 26 permit for six months to prove the business would work, but she was not comfortable with amending the Specific Plan because it would not go away. She asked if there was a way to have a conditional use permit without amending the Specific Plan. As proposed, she did not support the application. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Buffa’s comments about the Specific Plan amendment. Once the Specific Plan was amended, this code provision could go on forever. He would be more comfortable if this could be considered in a different way. There are other similar businesses in this general vicinity like an existing business that is located adjacent to the 91 Freeway. He asked if that business would have a similar situation. Chairman Karaki clarified that this amendment would allow this existing restaurant to become a nightclub. He stated he preferred to have a nightclub in an industrial area instead of a commercial or residential area. The Police Department said that the crime rate for this area was below average. He did not have a concern with other restaurants converting to a nightclub. Commissioner Buffa stated that the memo indicated that this property was located in Reporting District No. 1432, which had a crime rate of 91% above average. Commissioner Ramirez stated she thought the crime rate was being driven by the nightclub because there were only 600 persons in this Reporting District. Chairman Karaki stated the memo said the reporting district to the north was below the average crime rate. Commissioner Buffa stated that the surrounding area was below the average crime rate; however, this district was a problem. If the crime rate was being driven by this business, then that was a problem. Mr. Amstrup stated if the Specific Plan Amendment was adopted, it would be a final decision. However, a request to amend the Specific Plan could be considered at a future date concurrently with consideration of extending the conditional use permit. If the Commission wanted to approve the extension of the conditional use permit, the Commission could deny the repeal of the Specific Plan Amendment. Chairman Karaki stated he believed that addressed his concerns. Commissioner Romero asked staff to explain why a six month period for the permit was proposed. He stated the economy probably would not change in six months and suggested a one year period for the permit. Mr. Amstrup stated this business had shown itself to be fairly resistant to economic pressures in the past. He did not believe the occupancy would change much during the next year; however, the traffic patterns in the area could possibly change during this time period. Commissioner Ament stated he wanted this business to be successful but was concerned about the parking impact on surrounding properties. He encouraged the applicant to obtain more parking areas within the next six months, potentially enough to equal three patrons per car, and to demonstrate that the nightclub had not created a negative impact on the surrounding properties. JULY 8, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 07/08/09 Page 14 of 26 Chairman Karaki offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the July 8, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361, with the deletion of Condition No. 25, and recommending to City Council adoption of an Ordinance approving Adjustment No. 11 to the Northeast Area Specific Plan (SPN2009-00056) and review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05361. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the resolution passed with four yes votes and two no votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Ament, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Buffa and Romero voted no. Commissioner Agarwal was absent. OPPOSITION: One piece of correspondence was received in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: One piece of correspondence was received in favor of the subject request. Bryn Morley, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 30, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 67 minutes (2:50 to 3:57) 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G (BCC) DEV 2010-00128 RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G (BCC) AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE C-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC)CRYSTAL INNC-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) CAR WASH C-G (BCC) BOWLING ALLEY T (BCC)RELIGIOUS USERS-2 (BCC)SFRC-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 RM-4 THE GRAND RESORT APARTMENTS 768 DU RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES C-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-2 (BCC) CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES C-G (BCC) MEDICAL OFFICE C-G (BCC) RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR C-G (BCC) RETAIL T (BCC) SFRC-G (BCC)RETAILC-G (BCC) RETAIL C-G (BCC) SFR T (BCC) SFR ||115'||278' W LINCOLN AVE S BROOKHURST STN BROOKHURST STW HIAWATHA AVEN LINDSAY STN BIRCHER STN RANCHITO STW LINDSAY RD N ROB WAYS LINHAVEN CIR W CHERRYWOOD LN 5 W. BROADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE S. EUCLID STN. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 110092162 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00128 Subject Property APN: 128-011-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W LINCOLN AVE S BROOKHURST STN BROOKHURST STW HIAWATHA AVEN LINDSAY STN BIRCHER STN RANCHITO STW LINDSAY RD N LINDSAY RDN ROB WAYS LINHAVEN CIRW CHERRYWOOD LN 5 W. BROADWAY W. CRESCENT AVE S. EUCLID STN. EUCLID STN. MAGNOLIA AVES. BROOKHURST STN. BROOKHURST STW. LINCOLN AVE W. LINCOLN AVE 110092162 West Lincoln Avenue DEV2010-00128 Subject Property APN: 128-011-03 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518 (DEV2010-00128) (2162 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission (hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010- 05518 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00071 to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming bar with a Type 48 Alcoholic Beverage Control license (On-Sale General for Public Premises), for that certain real property located at 2162 West Lincoln Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as more particularly shown in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a commercial building containing a bar, located in the C-G (BCC) (General Commercial; Brookhust Commercial Corridor Overlay) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 18.22.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, bars and cocktail lounges are a prohibited use within the BCC Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code does not permit the expansion of a legally created use that was in existence as of the date Chapter 18.22 was adopted (April 6, 1999), and that is prohibited by Chapter 18.22; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05518 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00071, the applicant has requested an amendment to subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit the expansion of a legal nonconforming use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.66; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 13, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, 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, the Planning 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 with respect to the request for a conditional use permit to expand a legal non-conforming bar, does find and determine the following facts. 1. Pursuant to section 18.22.080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, bars and cocktail lounges are a prohibited use within the BCC Overlay Zone. - 2 - PC2010-*** 2. Subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code does not permit the expansion of a legally created use that was in existence as of the date Chapter 18.22 was adopted (April 6, 1999), and that is prohibited by Chapter 18.22. 3. In conjunction with the Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05518 and Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00071, the applicant has requested an amendment to subsection .020 of Section 18.22.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit the expansion of a legal nonconforming use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.66. 4. That the proposed amendment to permit the expansion of a legal nonconforming bar subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, as requested by the applicant, is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 18.22, which is to provide a mechanism for the orderly development of property within the Brookhurst Sub-Area of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project Area so as to assist in the elimination of blight and blighting influences and to encourage suitable residential development at mid-block and other appropriate locations in the Brookhurst Sub-Area. 5. On December 7, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5412 approving the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project area. 6. That the proposed amendment to permit the expansion of a legal nonconforming bar subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, as requested by the applicant, is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Project area, including, but not limited to (i) the elimination of uses that either individually or collectively contribute to blight in the Project Area or that are incompatible with adjacent uses including surrounding residential neighborhoods; (ii) the development of programs to alleviate negative physical, social, and economic impacts and liabilities associated with a concentration of liquor-serving establishments in the Project Area; (iii) the establishment of modern convenient commercial centers to serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and the City; (iv) the expansion of the community's supply of housing including opportunities for low- and moderate- income household; and (v) the expansion and upgrading of housing opportunities in the community to eliminate blight and improve housing stock and standards for the present population. 7. That the expansion of the existing legal nonconforming use would have an adverse affect on the single-family residential land uses, located south of and directly adjacent to the bar, as the result of increased traffic and noise associated with the expansion of the existing premises from about 1,460 square feet to about 2,695 square feet with 3,705 square feet of storage as proposed. 8. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows 22 on-site parking spaces; the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 52 on-site parking spaces. 9. The applicant proposes to meet code required parking by entering into shared parking agreements with surrounding property owners, including use of the parking lot to the west of subject property to the detriment of the adjacent single-family residences. 10. The applicant has represented that a tentative agreement has been reached with the owner of the property located to the west of the subject property, a dentist office, for the use of 22 additional parking spaces for a total of 44 parking spaces. - 3 - PC2010-*** 11. The Planning Department has received correspondence from the owner of the property to the east of the subject property, located at 2146 and 2156 West Lincoln Avenue, stating that the property owner will not agree to allow shared parking for use by employees or customers of the bar. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated, does hereby deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05518. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00071 (2162 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the expansion of a Type 48 Alcoholic Beverage Control license to permit the sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption in conjunction with an existing bar on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license 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: - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. That California state law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the average and has an over-concentration of licenses; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 2. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and when the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption is permitted by the Municipal Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 3. That subject property is located within Census Tract No. with a population of 4,890 that allows for three off sale ABC licenses and there are presently six licenses in the tract; and, three on-sale licenses and there are presently seven in the tract. Police Reporting District No. 1720 has a crime rate that is 128% above the city average based on reported calls of service, thereby necessitating subject determination of pubic convenience or necessity. The crime rate within a ¼ mile radius of this site is 235% above the citywide average. The high crime rate and overconcentration of alcohol licenses in this area was one of the principal reasons that led to the creation of the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Overlay Redevelopment Project Area. 4. That the expansion of the existing legal nonconforming bar with on-premises alcohol sales would have an adverse affect on the single-family residential land uses, located south of and directly adjacent to the bar, as the result of increased traffic and noise associated with the expansion of the existing premises from about 1,460 square feet to about 2,695 square feet. 5. That the traffic generated by the expanded bar will impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area as the site does not have sufficient parking on-site and in order to meet code required parking the applicant proposes to enter into shared parking agreements with surrounding property owners, including use of the parking lot to the west of subject property to the detriment of the adjacent single-family residences. 6. That the location of the parking for the expanded bar may be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim due to this location’s proximity to residential property to the south. The expanded bar is proposing to use adjoining parking for a portion of the code required parking with a number of parking spaces that are located directly adjacent to or in close proximity to the sides and rear of several single-family residences to the south. The adjacency of the proposed parking area to theses residences would create a significant negative impact on these properties due to the noise created by voices, car stereos and alarms, and engine noise. - 3 - PC2010-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will not be served by the license for the expanded bar for the on-sale of alcoholic beverages at this location. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice for this project. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05518 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 The business shall be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Police Department 2 Complete a Burglary/Robbery Alarm Permit application, Form APD 516, and return it to the Police Department prior to initial alarm activation. This form is available at the Police Department front counter, or it can be downloaded from the following web site: http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=678 Police Department 3 Closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras are recommended, with the following coverage areas: • Entrances • Cashier’s area Police Department 4 If security cameras are not monitored, signs indicating so should be placed at each camera. Police Department 5 CCTV monitor and recorders should be secured in a separate locked compartment to prevent theft or, tampering with the tape. Police Department 6 CCTV recording should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before being recorded over. Police Department 7 CCTV videotapes should not be recorded over more than 10 items per tape. Use of digital recording equipment as an alternative to videotape is encouraged. Police Department 8 On-site, California-licensed security personnel (uniformed recommended). Police Department 9 Address numbers shall be positioned so as to be readily readable from the street. Numbers should be visible during hours of darkness. Police Department 10 Rear entrance doors shall be numbered in the same address numbers or suite number of the business. Minimum height of 4” recommended. The rear doors of the premises shall be equipped on the inside with an automatic locking device and shall be closed at all times, and shall not be used as a means of access by patrons to and from the licensed premises. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 6 NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY Temporary use of these doors for delivery of supplies does not constitute a violation. 11 All exterior doors to have adequate security hardware, e.g. deadbolt locks. The locks shall be so constructed that both the deadbolt and deadlocking latch can be retracted by a single action of the inside doorknob/lever/turn piece Police Department 12 Wide-angle peepholes or other viewing device should be installed in solid doors where natural surveillance is compromised. Police Department 13 Adequate lighting of parking lots, and grounds contiguous to building shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all person, property and vehicles on-site. Police Department 14 All exterior doors shall be their own light source, which shall adequately illuminate door areas at all hours to make clearly visible the presence of any permission on or about the premises and private adequate illumination for persons exiting the building. Police Department 15 “No Trespassing 602(k) P.C.” posted at the entrance of parking lots/structures and located in other appropriate places. Signs must be at least 2’ X 1’ in overall size, with white background and black 2” lettering. Police Department 16 The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. (Section 4.16.100.010 AMC) Police Department 17 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 18 Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police Department NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 19 Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code. Police Department 20 The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.16.100.010 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 21 No one under the age of 21 shall be allowed on the premises any time it is open for business. Police Department 22 There shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. Police Department 23 The business shall not employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. (Section 24200.5 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act) Police Department 24 Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied Police Department 25 The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited. Police Department 26 There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police Department 27 Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee. Police Department 28 The petitioner(s) shall provide security personnel in the parking lot and shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the nearby residents. Police Department 29 Trash pickup at the premises will be made no earlier than 7 a.m. and no later than 10 p.m. Police Department 30 There shall be no live entertainment, DJ or amplified music permitted on the premises at any time. Police Department NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY 31 An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be designed, installed and maintained as required by the Fire Department. Fire Department 32 The project shall be shown to comply with the requirements of an A2 occupancy in accordance with the 2007 CBC Fire Department 33 Closed circuit television (CFTV) security cameras are recommended for the parking lot area. Recordings should be kept for a minimum of 30 days before recorded over. Recorders should be secured in a locked compartment to prevent theft or tampering with the tape. Police Department 34 That on-going during project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. Traffic and Transportation Division 35 Wheelstops shall be provided for the six parking stalls facing Lincoln Avenue to prevent parked vehicles from encroaching over the sidewalk. Traffic and Transportation Division 36 That a designated loading and unloading area with minimum dimensions 12 feet by 20 feet (or otherwise approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager) per AMC Section 18.42.100 shall be provided Traffic and Transportation Division 37 That a trash enclosure shall be provided as required by AMC Section 18.08.110. Streets and Sanitation Division 38 That no outdoor storage shall be permitted. Code Enforcement 39 That the 3,695 square feet of storage shown on the plans shall be only used for storage only. No bar use or other licensed business activities are allowed to take place in that area. Code Enforcement 40 The applicant shall obtain an Off-Site Parking Permit from the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The permit(s) shall ensure use of a minimum of 30 additional off-site parking spaces during operating hours for a total of 52 spaces. Planning 41 That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. Planning ATTACHMENT NO. 7 5 !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( W BALL RD W BROADWAY W LA PA LM A AVE S EUCLID STN EUCLID STW CR E SCENT AVE S MAGNOLIA AVEN MAGNOLIA AVES GILBERT STW LIN COLN AVE W ROMNEYA DR W ORAN GE AVE W CRESCENT AVE W LINCOLN AVE S BROOKHURST ST3181 Map Location °0 500 1,000 Feet Key to Features !(On-Sale License !(Off-Sale License Anaheim City Boundary Brookhurst Commercial Corridor City of Anaheim Planning GIS August 5, 2010 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 14 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00124 RETAIL C-G SERVICE STATION RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 APTS 8 DU T MORTUARY C-G RETAIL C-G RESTAURANT RM-4 THE VIRGINIAN APTS 14 DU RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RS-2 SFR C-G MEDICAL OFFICE RS-2 DAY CARE C-G RETAIL C-G SERVICE STATION RS-2 SFR C-G AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE RS-2 SFR RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS/ TOWNHOUSES C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RS-2 SFR RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEXRS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SFR ||241'||238'! !N EUCLID STW LA PALMA AVE W GLEN AVE W C ATHERINE DRN MOHICAN AVEN MOHAWK AVEW FRANCIS DR W DOGWOOD AVE 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. BROOKHURST STN. HARBOR BLVDW. ROMNEYA DR 110181720 West La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00124 Subject Property APN: 272-141-14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 N EUCLID STW LA PALMA AVE W GLEN AVE W C ATHERINE DRN MOHICAN AVEN MOHAWK AVEW FRANCIS DR W DOGWOOD AVE 5 W. LA PALMA AVE N. EUCLID STN. BROOKHURST STN. HARBOR BLVDW. ROMNEYA DR 110181720 West La Palma Avenue DEV2010-00124 Subject Property APN: 272-141-14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05519 (DEV2010-00124) (1720 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05519, to permit beer and wine sales with a Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) ABC license for off-premises consumption in an existing drugstore that is less than 15,000 square feet pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a drive-thru drug store, located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, 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. The proposed sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a drugstore less than 15,000 square feet is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010. 2. The drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the existing drugstore is compatible with other commercial and uses within the area; 3. The size and shape of the site for the drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the existing drugstore will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area; - 2 - PC2010-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05519 to permit beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an existing drug store on property located at 1720 West La Palma Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05519 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05519 (DEV2010-00124) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00066 (1720 WEST LA PALMA AVENUE) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage Control license to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing drug store on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license 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: - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. That California state law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the average and has an over-concentration of licenses; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 2. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and when the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Municipal Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 3. That subject property is located within Census Tract No. 867.02 with a population that allows for four off sale ABC licenses and there are presently three licenses in the tract; and, seven on-sale licenses and there are presently six in the tract. The Anaheim Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rates within the police reporting district by utilizing a ¼ mile radius for the subject site. This site has a ¼ mile radius crime rate of 215% percent above the average. 4. That the proposal, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the overall product mix provided by the full service drug store, the store area dedicated to alcohol sales represents 2% of the sales floor area. 5. That the traffic generated by the continued use of the property as a drug store with off-premises alcoholic beverage sales will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area and; 6. That the granting of the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the drug store and would serve as an added convenience to those who choose to shop at this establishment. The Police Department indicates that the business owner has strict policies and provides training for its employees regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore the Police Department does not feel that the granting of the license will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, subject to the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. - 3 - PC2010-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at this location subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice for this project. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT ‘B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT NO. 2010-00066 (DEV2010-00124) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00125 RETAIL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SUBSTATION C-G VACANT C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL T DAY CARE RM-2 CONDOS 24 DU C-G OFFICES T SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RM-4 COURTYARD APARTMENTS 52 DU RM-4 MONTICELLO APARTMENTS 48 DU T MAGNOLIA HIGH SCHOOL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL C-G SFR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ||373'||200'! ! West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Area West Anaheim Commercial CorridorsRedevelopment AreaWest Anaheim Commercial CorridorsRedevelopment AreaW BALL RDS MAGNOLIA AVEW HEFFRON DR S VELARE STLOLA AVES KENMORE STS TEXELLA CTS IRA CTW MEADOWVIEW LN W. BALL RDS. DALE AVEW. CERRITOS AVE S. BROOKHURST STS. MAGNOLIA AVES. GILBERT STS. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. CERRITOS AVES. BEACH BLVD110192560 West Ball Road DEV2010-00125 Subject Property APN: 127-333-33 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYSTANTON CITY BOUNDARYANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARY STANTON CITY BOUNDARY W BALL RD S MAGNOLIA AVEW HEFFRON DR S VELARE STLOLA AVES KENMORE STS TEXELLA CTS IRA CTW MEADOWVIEW LN W. BALL RDS. DALE AVEW. CERRITOS AVE S. BROOKHURST STS. MAGNOLIA AVES. GILBERT STS. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. CERRITOS AVES. BEACH BLVD110192560 West Ball Road DEV2010-00125 Subject Property APN: 127-333-33 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009ANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARYSTANTON CITY BOUNDARYANAHEIM CITY BOUNDARY STANTON CITY BOUNDARY [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05520 (DEV2010-00125) (2560 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05520, to permit beer and wine sales with a Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) ABC license for off-premises consumption in an existing drugstore that is less than 15,000 square feet pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a drive-thru drug store, located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Neighborhood Center Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, 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. The proposed sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a drugstore less than 15,000 square feet is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010. 2. The drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the existing drugstore is compatible with other commercial and uses within the area; 3. The size and shape of the site for the drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the existing drugstore will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area; - 2 - PC2010-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05520 to permit beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an existing drug store on property located at2560 West Ball Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05520 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05520 (DEV2010-00125) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00067 (2560 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage Control license to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing drug store on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license 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: - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. That California state law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the average and has an over-concentration of licenses; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 2. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and when the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Municipal Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 3. That subject property is located within Census Tract No. 878.06 with a population that allows for four off sale ABC licenses and there are presently three licenses in the tract; and, six on-sale licenses and there are presently seven in the tract. The Anaheim Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rates within the police reporting district by utilizing a ¼ mile radius for the subject site. This site has a ¼ mile radius crime rate of 39% percent above the average. 4. That the proposal, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the overall product mix provided by the full service drug store, the store area dedicated to alcohol sales represents 2% of the sales floor area. 5. That the traffic generated by the continued use of the property as a drug store with off-premises alcoholic beverage sales will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area and; 6. That the granting of the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the drug store and would serve as an added convenience to those who choose to shop at this establishment. The Police Department indicates that the business owner has strict policies and provides training for its employees regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore the Police Department does not feel that the granting of the license will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, subject to the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. - 3 - PC2010-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at this location subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice for this project. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT ‘B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT NO. 2010-00067 (DEV2010-00125) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00141 RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE O-L CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G RESTAURANT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T HANSEN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL C-G SELF STORAGE FACILITY C-G RETAIL RM-3 CONDOS 40 DU O.C.F.C.D. T NURSING HOME RM-4TERRACE VIEWAPARTMENTS28 DUC-G RESTAURANT C-G AUTO REPAIR/SERVICE RM-2 CONDOMINIUMS/TOWNHOUSES 332 DU C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR RS-3 SFR C-G SERVICE STATION RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-GCONVALESCENTHOSPITAL||185'||190'! ! W BALL RD S KNOTT AVES MASTERS LNW GREENTREE CIR W EUREKA DR S GOLDSTONE CIRW CARROTWOOD CT W. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVES. WESTERN AVES. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD110223446 West Ball Road DEV2010-00141 Subject Property APN: 079-941-22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 W BALL RD S KNOTT AVES MASTERS LNW GREENTREE CIR W EUREKA DR S GOLDSTONE CIRW CARROTWOOD CT W. BALL RD W. ORANGE AVE S. KNOTT AVE. CERRITOS AVES. WESTERN AVES. BEACH BLVD. BEACH BLVD. BALL RD W. CERRITOS AVE S. BEACH BLVD110223446 West Ball Road DEV2010-00141 Subject Property APN: 079-941-22 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05524 (DEV2010-00141) (3446 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05524, to permit beer and wine sales with a Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) ABC license for off-premises consumption in an existing drugstore that is less than 15,000 square feet pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a drive-thru drug store, located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, 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. The proposed sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a drugstore less than 15,000 square feet is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010. 2. The drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the existing drugstore is compatible with other commercial and uses within the area; 3. The size and shape of the site for the drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the existing drugstore will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area; - 2 - PC2010-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05524 to permit beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an existing drug store on property located at 3446 West Ball Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05524 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05524 (DEV2010-00141) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00070 (3446 WEST BALL ROAD) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage Control license to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing drug store on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license 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: - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. That California state law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the average and has an over-concentration of licenses; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 2. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and when the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Municipal Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 3. That subject property is located within Census Tract No. 878.01 with a population of 4,890 that allows for three off sale ABC licenses and there are presently six licenses in the tract; and, three on-sale licenses and there are presently seven in the tract. The Anaheim Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rates within the police reporting district by utilizing a ¼ mile radius for the subject site. This site has a ¼ mile radius crime rate of 27% percent below the average. 4. That the proposal, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the overall product mix provided by the full service drug store, the store area dedicated to alcohol sales represents 2% of the sales floor area. 5. That the traffic generated by the continued use of the property as a drug store with off-premises alcoholic beverage sales will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area and; 6. That the granting of the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the drug store and would serve as an added convenience to those who choose to shop at this establishment. The Police Department indicates that the business owner has strict policies and provides training for its employees regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore the Police Department does not feel that the granting of the license will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, subject to the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. - 3 - PC2010-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at this location subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice for this project. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT ‘B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT NO. 2010-00070 (DEV2010-00141) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. C-G DEV 2010-00126 RETAIL T S F R O-L MEDICAL OFFICE C -G O F F I C E S C-G OFFICES C-G RETAIL C-G SERVICE STATION RS-2 SFR T SFR O-L OFFICE C-G RETAIL RS-2 SFR RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G RESTAURANT C-G RESTAURANT C -G E V E R G R E E N R O Y A L L E C-G AUTO REPAIR/ SERVICE T N U R S I N G H O M E C -G R E S T A U R A N T RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G RESTAURANT C-GFOURPLEXO-L RETAIL C-G MEDICAL OFFICE C-G OFFICE C-G RETAIL C-G RESTAURANT C-G TAMPICO MOTEL C-G RESTAURANT RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCERS-2SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEC-G ANAHEIM TOWN SQUARE C-G ANAHEIM TOWN SQUARE||113'|| 390' E LINCOLN AVE S STATE COLLEGE BLVDE B R O A D W A Y E C E N T E R S T S ASH STE UNDERHILL AVE E WARD TER S OLANA WAY57 E. LINCOLN AVE E. LA PALMA AVE N. EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y E. SOUTH STS. EAST STS. RIO VISTA STN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST11020128 South State College Boulevard DEV2010-00126 Subject Property APN: 083-343-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 E LINCOLN AVE S STATE COLLEGE BLVDE B R O A D W A Y N STATE COLLEGE BLVDE C E N T E R S T S ASH STE UNDERHILL AVE E WARD TER S OLANA WAYS CENPLA WAY57 E. LINCOLN AVE E. LA PALMA AVE N. EAST STE . B R O A D W A Y E. SOUTH STS. EAST STS. RIO VISTA STN. SUNKIST STN. RIO VISTA ST11020128 South State College Boulevard DEV2010-00126 Subject Property APN: 083-343-31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo: April 2009 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 2 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05521 (DEV2010-00126) (128 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05521, to permit beer and wine sales with a Type 20 (off-sale beer and wine) ABC license for off-premises consumption in an existing drugstore that is less than 15,000 square feet pursuant to Code Section No. 18.60.180 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, this property is currently developed with a drive-thru drug store, located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, at 5:00 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 18.60 “Procedures”, 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. The proposed sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in a drugstore less than 15,000 square feet is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Code Section No. 18.08.030.010. 2. The drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the existing drugstore is compatible with other commercial and uses within the area; 3. The size and shape of the site for the drug store with off-premises consumption of beer and wine is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4. The traffic generated by the existing drugstore will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the volume of traffic planned for the streets and highways in the area; - 2 - PC2010-*** 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim and will provide a land use that is compatible with the surrounding area. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated does hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05521 to permit beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an existing drug store on property located at 1720 West La Palma Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05521 subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice. Failure to pay all charges shall result in the revocation of the approval of this application. - 3 - PC2010-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** - 5 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05521 (DEV2010-00126) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 3 - 1 - PC2010-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2010-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES) AND APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2010-00068 (128 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, on July 11, 1995, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95R-134 establishing procedures and delegating certain responsibilities to the Planning Commission relating to the determination of "public convenience or necessity" on those certain applications requiring that such determination be made by the local governing body pursuant to applicable provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and prior to the issuance of a license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); and WHEREAS, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem, or if issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses, except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of a license; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage Control license to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing drug store on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on September 27, 2010, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by Resolution No. 95R-134 and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60 “Procedures”, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed determination of public convenience or necessity for an alcoholic beverage control license 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: - 2 - PC2010-*** 1. That California state law requires a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity when property is located in a reporting district that has a crime rate above the average and has an over-concentration of licenses; and that Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code provides that the ABC shall deny an application for a license if issuance of that license would tend to create a law enforcement problem except when an applicant has demonstrated that public convenience or necessity would be served by issuance of a license. 2. That Resolution No. 95R-134 authorizes the City of Anaheim Police Department to make recommendations related to the public convenience or necessity determinations; and when the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is permitted by the Municipal Code, said recommendations shall take the form of conditions of approval to be imposed on the determination in order to ensure that the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages does not adversely affect any adjoining land use or the growth and development of the surrounding area. 3. That subject property is located within Census Tract No. 864.02 with a population that allows for four off sale ABC licenses and there are presently four licenses in the tract; and, six on-sale licenses and there are presently none in the tract. The Anaheim Police Department evaluates these requests based on the crime rates within the police reporting district by utilizing a ¼ mile radius for the subject site. This site has a ¼ mile radius crime rate of 2% percent above the average. 4. That the proposal, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is located because the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the overall product mix provided by the full service drug store, the store area dedicated to alcohol sales represents 2% of the sales floor area. 5. That the traffic generated by the continued use of the property as a drug store with off-premises alcoholic beverage sales will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area and; 6. That the granting of the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the sale of alcoholic beverages is ancillary to the drug store and would serve as an added convenience to those who choose to shop at this establishment. The Police Department indicates that the business owner has strict policies and provides training for its employees regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages; therefore the Police Department does not feel that the granting of the license will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, subject to the conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities) as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. - 3 - PC2010-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a license for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at this location subject to the conditions of approval described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by this reference which are found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED this permit is approved without limitations on the duration of the use. Amendments, modifications and revocations of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment of Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City- Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Anaheim Municipal Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the findings hereinabove set forth. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice for this project. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2010. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 “Procedures” of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 4 - PC2010-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Grace Medina, Senior 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 September 27, 2010, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of September, 2010. SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION - 5 - PC2010-*** - 6 - PC2010-*** EXHIBIT ‘B” PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT NO. 2010-00068 (DEV2010-00126) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVIEW BY SIGNED OFF BY GENERAL 1 No display of alcoholic beverages shall be located outside of a building or within five (5) feet of any public entrance to the building. Police Department 2 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 3 The area of alcoholic beverage displays shall not exceed 25% of the total display area in a building. Police Department 4 Sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made to customers only when the customer is in the building. Police Department 5 The possession of alcoholic beverages in open containers and the consumption of alcoholic beverages are prohibited on or around these premises. Police Department 6 The gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of alcoholic beverages and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official when requested. Police Department 7 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department 8 Petitioner(s) shall police the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons around the premises. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item.