Loading...
PC 2015/05/18City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, May 18, 2015 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Chairman: John Seymour Chairman Pro-Tempore: Michelle Lieberman Commissioners:Peter Agarwal, Paul Bostwick, Mitchell Caldwell, Bill Dalati, Victoria Ramirez Call To Order -5:00 p.m. Pledge Of Allegiance Public Comments Public HearingItems 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 websitewww.anaheim.net/planningon Thursday, May14, 2015, 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 planningcommission@anaheim.net e-mail address: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, 10calendar days Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 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. 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. AnaheimPlanning 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 publichearing items. 05/18/15 Page 2of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05793 Resolution No. ______ VARIANCE NO. 2015-05012 (DEV2015-00037) Location:5610 East La Palma Avenue Request: Topermit a physical fitness facility within Project Planner: Amy Vazquez an existing industrial building with fewer parking avazquez@anaheim.net spaces than required by the Code. Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt fromthe provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption. ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05794Request for continuance (DEV2015-00038)to June 1, 2015 Location:2100 South Euclid Street Project Planner: Request: To permit an automobile dealership office David See within an existing multi-tenant office complex. dsee@anaheim.net Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)Categorical Exemption. 05/18/15 Page 3of 5 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2010-05486D Resolution No. ______ (DEV2009-00083D) Location:2232 South Harbor Boulevard Request: For a six-month compliance review of a Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi conditional use permit for an existing dinner theater, ethien@anaheim.net restaurant, and accessory uses. The applicant also requests to amend the business operation by eliminating the requirement to provide dinner in conjunction with shows in the theater area, to extend the permitted hours of operation, and to modify previously approved floor plans. Environmental Determination:The Planning Commission will consider whether apreviously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. Adjourn to Monday, June 1, 2015at 5:00 p.m. 05/18/15 Page 4of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:45p.m.May 13, 2015 (TIME)(DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearingsaccessible 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. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. LaCiudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. 05/18/15 Page 5of 5 ITEM NO.2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:MAY18, 2015 SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05793 LOCATION: 5610 East La Palma Avenue (Primitive CrossFit) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Primitive CrossFit, LLCand the property owner is Frome Developments Omega. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permitto retaina physical fitness facility within an existing industrial complex.The applicant also requests avariance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 1,Existing Facilities), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05793. BACKGROUND: This 8.8-acre propertyis developed with a 124,930 square foot industrial complex and is located in the Northeast Area Specific Plan, Development Area 2 -Expanded Industrial (SP94-1, DA2) and in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone. The General Plan designates this property for Low Intensity Office uses. Surrounding land uses include a retail center to the east, industrial uses to the west, an office building to the north, across La Palma Avenue, and the Santa Ana River to the south.This application was filed as a result of a complaint received by Code Enforcement since the business has been operating without the proper permits. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to permit and retaina2,950square foot physical fitness facility.No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. Classes are held at 5:00 a.m., 5:45a.m., 9:00 a.m., 4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.Each class would last 45 minutes. Weekend classes take place on Saturdays at 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.and on Sundays at 12:00 p.m. CrossFitclasses and personal training are offered at this facility.Fitness activities occur primarily indoors, however, limited outdoor fitness activities occur in the service drive aisle at the rear of the building. Thetypicalclass size would be 12 to 20participantswithone certifiedtrainer. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05793 May 18, 2015 Page 2of 3 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit:Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1)That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this 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 proposed to be 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 either the particular area or 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 the City of Anaheim. Aconditional use permit is required to permit physical fitness facilities in this zonein order to determine compatibility with the surrounding area.Staff believes that the proposed use wouldbe compatible with other businesses in the surrounding area because fitness activities would occur primarily duringoff-peak hours for the industrial businesseswithin the complex.Outdoor fitness activities would be limited to the service drive aisle near the southern property line where there is minimal vehicular circulation.Large traffic cones are set out anytime fitness activities take place outside. There would be no fitness activities onpublic streets or sidewalks.With the conditions imposed, such as restrictingoperation to those outlined inthe attached Letter of Request and limiting the class size to 20 participants, the establishment of this use would not impactthe operationsor opportunities for expansion of other nearby industrial businessesor be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. ParkingVariance:A variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1)That 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; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05793 May 18, 2015 Page 3of 3 2)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; 3)That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 4)That 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 5)That 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. The Zoning Code requires that parking requirementsbe calculated by combining the needs of the physical fitness facility and the industrialuseson the property. The fitness facility and industrial businessesrequirea total of 329parking spaces;16are required for the fitness facility and 313spaces for the other uses within the industrialcomplex.The property contains a total of 305parking spaces.Staff has made several visits to this property since the submittal of this application and observed that there is adequate parking available on the property and there is no evidence of parking impacts from this site on adjacent streets or properties. The applicant has submitted a Letter of Request indicating thatclasses take place on weekday morningsandevenings,and weekends. The industrial uses on the property primarily operate Monday through Friday during regular business hours. Because of the off-peak operating hours of the fitness facility,staff believes that the proposed numberof parking spaces is adequatefor all uses on the site. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the conditions exist for Planning Commission to make the required findings to approve this request.Theproposed physical fitness business is compatiblewith on-site industrialuses and the industrial and commercial uses inthe surrounding area. The number of parking spaces provided is adequate to accommodate the fitness facility since it operates at off-peak hours for the industrial business within the complex. Staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by,Submitted by, Amy VazquezJonathan E. Borrego Associate Planner, Lilley Planning GroupPlanning Services Manager Attachments: 1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Applicant’s Letter of Request 3.Photographs 4.Site Plan 5.Floor Plan SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 CANYON OFFICE CENTER SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 SP 94-1 (SC) RETAIL DA2 SP 94-1 (SC) INDUSTRIAL DA2 SP 94-1 (SC) RELIGIOUS USE DA2 CANYON SP 94-1 (SC) OFFICE DA2 SP 94-1 (SC) CENTER ANAHEIM SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 SP 94-1 (SC)HILLS DA5 CANYON DA2HEALTH CINEMA OFFICE INDUSTRIALPLAZA CITY SP 94-1 CENTER THEATER (SC) DA5 C-G (SC) BANK RETAIL SP 94-1 (SC) C-G (SC) DA5 VACANT RETAIL SP 94-1 (SC) SP 94-1 (SC) DA 2 C-G (SC) DA 2 INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 (SC) BEST WESTERN INDUSTRIAL DA2 ANAHEIM HILLS INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 (SC) DA5 SP 94-1 (SC)RETAIL DA 2 INDUSTRIAL SP 94-1 (SC) DA2 T (SC) INDUSTRIAL SANTA ANA R T (SC) SANTA ANA RIVER T (SC) SANTA ANA RIVER 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 346-451-31 DEV No. 2015-00037 5610 East La Palma Avenue 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 346-451-31 DEV No. 2015-00037 5610 East La Palma Avenue [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2015-05793 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05012AND MAKINGCERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00037) (5610 EAST LA PALMAAVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05793to permitaphysical fitness facility,and (ii) Variance No. 2015-05012to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at that certain real property at 5610 East La PalmaAvenuein the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 8.8acres in size and is currently developed with an industrial complex.The Property is located in the Expanded Industrial Area (Development Area 2) of the Northeast Area Specific Plan Area and is subject to the zoning and development standards of Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP 94-1) Zoning and Development Standards) of the Code. The underlying base zone for the Property is the "I" Industrial Zone. The Property is also located within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone, meaning that the regulations contained in Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone) of the Code shall apply to the Property and shall supersede any inconsistent regulations of the "I" Industrial Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates the Property for Office-Low land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 18, 2015at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05793and Varaince No. 2015-05012, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Proposed Project is within that class of projects (i.e., Class 1 –Existing Facilities) which consist of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of this determination, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and -1-PC2015-*** 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05793, does find and determine the following: 1.The proposed request to permit a physical fitness facility within an existing industrial complex is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the classes of allowable uses set forth in Table 10-A as "Dance & Fitness Studios-Small", as referenced in paragraph .0402 of subsection .040 of Section No. 18.10.030 of the Code. 2.The proposed conditional use permit to permit a physical fitness facility, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the building is surrounded by compatible buildings and uses; and, the physical fitness facility would be located within an existing building with no adverse effectsto adjoining land uses. 3.The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the physical fitness facility in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facility would be located within an existing industrial building that is surrounded byretail,industrial and office uses. 4.The traffic generated by the physical fitness facility will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carrythe traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use. 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 as the proposed land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding office and industrial area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, based upon the requestletter submitted by the applicant and observations made by staff,the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010Minimum number of parking spaces. (329spaces required; 305spaces proposed) 1.Based, in part, upon a review of the letter of request submitted by the applicant and observations made by staff,that the variance, under the conditions imposed, 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 suchuse under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because the physical fitness facility and the other uses witihin the industrial complex take place during separate hours and days of the week; -2-PC2015-*** 2.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, 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 will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the proposed physical fitness facility; 3.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking for the industrial complexwill adequately accommodate peak parking demands of the use on the site; 4.That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because the project site provides adequate ingress and egress points to the property and are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular 5. ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the project site has existing ingress or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and,therefore,will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the industrial property. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials inthe project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution.The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2015-05793and Variance No. 2015-05012, contingent upon and subject to theconditions of approval set forthin Exhibit Battached heretoand incorporated herein by this reference, whichare hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property underVariance No. 2015-05012and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05793in 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 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, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. -3-PC2015-*** 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 Code. 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 anyapprovals 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 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. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 2015. 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, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -4-PC2015-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 18,2015by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: NOES:COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 18day of May, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5-PC2015-*** -6-PC2015-*** EXHIBIT “B” VARIANCE NO. 2015-05012 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05793 (DEV2015-00037) RESPONSIBLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT NO. OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent Planning Department, area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or Code Enforcement painted over within 24 hours of being applied.Division 2. The operator of the business shall not permit and shall take all steps Planning Department, necessary to prevent its patrons from using any portion of a public Planning Services street for any exercise or physical fitness activities associated with Division the business. 3. There shall be no outdoor fitness activities or storage of physical Planning Department, fitness equipment.Planning Services Division 4.The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Planning Department, Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the Planning Services business operation as described in that document shall be subject to Division review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. 5.That all CrossFit classes shall have a maximum of 20 participants at Planning Department, any time. Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 6. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Planning Department, and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively Planning Services referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any Division and all claims, actions or proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, orto determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. -7-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT NO. 7. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the Planning Department, processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the Planning Services issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building Division permits for this project, whichever occurs first.Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. 8. The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance Planning Department, with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by Planning Services the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Division Department, and as conditioned herein. -8-PC2015-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:MAY 18,2015 SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2015-05794 LOCATION: 2100South Euclid Street, Suite 102 APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicantisJonathan Shin with Embassy Motorsand the property owner isJames Shin. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting aconditional use permit to permit an automobile dealership office within an existing multi-tenant office complex. DISCUSSION: Staff requests a two week continuance of this hearing to allow additional time to re-noticethis item to include a request for a parking variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this hearing be continued to the June 1, 2015 Planning Commission meetingto allow staff to re-notice this item to include a request for a parking variance. Prepared by,Submitted by, David SeeJonathan E. Borrego Senior PlannerPlanning Services Manager 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net SING O-L RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RS-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C-G RETAIL C-G RETAIL RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX C-G OFFICEST VACA RM-4 RM-4 RM-4 APTS FOURPLEX FOURPLEX 21 DU RM-4 RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX FOURPLEX RM-4 FOURPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX RM-4 RM-4 RM-4 FOURPLEX FOURPLEX FOURPLEX RM-4 TRIPLEX 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 090-631-15 DEV No. 2015-00038 2100 South Euclid Street 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 090-631-15 DEV No. 2015-00038 2100 South Euclid Street City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO.4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE:MAY18, 2015 SUBJECT:CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D LOCATION: 2232 South Harbor Boulevard (M3Live) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Musa Madainand the property owner is P.A. Poon and Son, Inc. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a six-month compliance review, as required by the conditional use permit.The applicant also requeststhe followingamendments tothe business operation:to1) eliminatethe requirement to provide dinner in conjunction with shows in the theater area, 2) extend the permitted hours of operation; and,3) modify previously-approved floor planstorelocate the bar to accommodate large banquet events in the main dining room. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining thata previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this request, and approving, in part,an amendment to the conditional use permit. BACKGROUND: In July 2010, aconditional use permit was approved to permit a 43,500 square foot dinner theater venue known as Battle of the Dance. The dinner theater opened for business in February 2011. Thedinner theater business struggled shortly after opening andthe operatorsubsequently began allowing night club and concert promoters to use the venue in violation of the conditional use permit, resulting in negative impacts to the surrounding community.Complaints were generally related to loud music emanating from the building and disruptive customers loitering in the parking lot. There had previously been no issues or complaints from the residential community when the Battle of the Dance operated solely as a dinner theater,in compliance with the conditional use permit. In May 2012, the conditional use permit was amended to allow various activities accessory to the dinner theatreoperations, including private parties, meetings and banquets; religiousassembly; and, sporting and convention events. Additional activities, including public dance hall activities and music concertswere requestedat this time, but deniedby the Planning Commission. Battle of the Dancesubsequently closed in late 2012 and the building remained vacantuntil occupied by the current tenant, M3 Live. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 2of 7 M3 Live opened for business in September 2014 and the first dinner theater show was held on October 17, 2014.The initial business description for M3 Live included dinner theatershows on Friday and Saturday nights and a restaurant that would operate from Sunday through Thursday. Prior to its opening, the Commission reviewed revised floor plans for M3Live to convert the front portion of the building to a restaurant dining area.This area had previously been used as a large lobby area, including a small stage. Theapproved modification did not include changes to the conditions of approval, and the new operator agreed to abide by all of the pre-existing conditions of the conditional use permit. The permit requiresthat a compliance review be consideredby the Commission at a noticed public hearing six months followingthe start of operations. On November 17, 2014, the Commission approved a conditional use permit to operate a tour bus company with on-site office, ticketing, customer pick up and bus storageon this property. In February 2015, the applicant approached Planning staff with a proposal to serve dinner in the main dining area prior to the show, with the explicit requirement that the meal would be included in the show ticket price. Prior to this change, dinner had been provided to guests within the theater area during shows. Staff approved this request administratively, having made the determination that the proposed operation wassubstantially in conformance with the intent of the original conditional use permit, which identifies “dinner theater” as the primary use of the facility. PROPOSAL: In addition to the six month review, theapplicant is requestingthree modifications to the CUP, as follows: Change from DinnerTheater to Live Performance Theater: 1.The 2012 amendment to this CUP expressly prohibits “concerts” in the theater in light of the negative impacts created when concerts were held by the former tenant. The applicant requests the ability to hold live performances, including,but not limited to,concerts, comedians, and magic shows, in the theater without the requirement that dinner be providedin conjunction with a show.As required by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC),and based on the type of alcohol sales license maintained for the facility, food service would continue to be available at all times, but dinner would not be a required component of the theater.When events are held in the theater, the restaurant would only be open to ticketed guests. Modify Floor Plans: 2.Modifications include changing the floor plan layout of the front main dining areato facilitatebanquet events. This includesthe relocation ofthe bar from the center to the southend of the room to allow room fora portable stage and dance floor on the north end of the room.If approved, the applicant plans to implement this change within the next year.When the main dining room is reserved for a private event, the restaurant and live performance theaterwould not operate. Extend Permitted Hours of Operation: 3.The operator also proposes to expand the venue’s permitted hoursof operation, which arecurrently Sunday –Thursday,9:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Friday/Saturday, 9:00a.m. to 11:30 p.m.for all uses.Proposed hours for each of the uses are as follows: Banquets: Daily, 9:00 a.m. to midnight CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 3of 7 Theater: (No change proposed) Sunday –Thursday,9:00a.m. to 10:00p.m.; Friday/Saturday, 9:00a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Bar/Restaurant: Daily, 9:00a.m. to 2 a.m. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this 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 proposed to be 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 either the particular area or health and safety; 4)That the traffic generated by the proposed usewill 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 the City of Anaheim. Six Month Review: Per the conditions of approval for this CUP,the business is subject to asix- month review by the Commission to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. The CUP also requiresCode Enforcement staff to conduct four unannounced inspections during the six month review period.Four inspections were conducted during evening events held on December 20, 2014, February 20, 2015, April 25, 2015 and May 9, 2015. Code Enforcement staff prepared the attached memorandums, dated April 27, 2015 and May 9, 2015,documenting the findings of each of the inspections, as well as other ongoing activities related to the operations of the business. During the December 20thinspection,violations pertaining to the Starline Tours bus parking were observed, but there were no violations associated with the dinner theater event.On the latter three visits,there were issues with the operation of the valet servicesince the vehicles were not being parked in thenumbered spacesreserved for valet. This resulted in the valet attendants beeping key fobs in order to find the correct vehicles, causing unnecessarynoise late at night.On one of the three visits, the valet stand was set up in a location not approved by the Public Works Department, Traffic EngineeringDivision.Staff’s concern with that item relates to the potential for the vehicle queue to reach Harbor Boulevard and impact the movement of vehicles on the public streetif the valet stand is not properly sited. During the April 25thshow, considerable noise and vibration from the music was observed beginning about halfway through the show.Following that show, staff received complaints from residents to the south indicating that were able to clearly discern the voicesof the performers and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 4of 7 feel bass vibrationsthroughout much of the show.Based on these noise impacts, which were validated by staff during site visits, asound check was conducted on May 4, 2015 in which Planning, Code Enforcement and Police staff met with the business operator and his sound technicians on-site. The sound check was held during daytime hours. During the check, sound levels were elevated within the theater to simulate a concert event. Staff confirmed that at this level, sound was leaking from the doors of the venue even when closedand thumping from the bass was perceptiblewhen the volume was elevated. Staff and the applicant agreed that,in order to prevent disturbances to the neighbors, the collective goal is for the venue to generate zero noise as measured at the property line, and preferably zero noise immediately adjacent to the building. Based on these discussions, the applicant agreed to install additional sound proofing along all of the east and south doors; however, at the time of this report,the sound proofinghas not been fully installed. During this meeting, the applicant also mentioned that he had hired an in-house sound technician who would be responsible for managingoperation of the venue’s sound board during all concert events to ensure that volumes are kept to a level that would not disturb the adjacent area. On May 9th, the same group of staff that attended the sound check visited the site and the adjacent townhome complex during anothershow to observe any impacts first hand. The applicant indicated that the sound levels in the theater, particularlythe basslevel, werereduced significantly compared to the prior show; however, staff found that there were still noticeable sound and vibration impacts upon homes to the south.Although the applicant has taken several steps to reduce noise impacts, staff is concerned that even when the sound levels in the theater are reduced, impacts may still be heard and felt off-siteunless additional physical modifications are made to the venue. Amplified sound is regulated under Chapter 6.72of the Code, such that within 200 feet of a residential zone, sound amplifying equipment is not permitted unless the sound from such equipment is only heard by occupants of the premises in which the devices are located.In addition, the Code requires that all uses be conducted in a manner in which noise and vibrationare not detrimental to the general welfare.Staff recommends that concert or musical events be prohibited in the theater until the City can confirm that noise and vibration could be contained within the property. At that point, the applicant could file an application toamend the CUP, allowing concerts to resume at the venue. This request would be considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. The CUP requires that the site be well lit during all hours of darkness. The lighting is required for security purposes, as the east parking area is well hidden behind the building and neighbors have observed various illegal activities in that area when not lit. As described in the Code Enforcement memo,dated April 27, 2015,there have been complaints that the parking lot lightingwas found to be off at night, and staff confirmed on 11 of 19 late night/early morning inspections that the lights were offover the course of a few months.The applicant has cited amalfunctioning timer as the cause of the problem,but recognizes that it is a condition of the permit.The lights were inspected eachmorning from May 4ththrough May 8thand were found to be on every time. The applicant has demonstrateda good-faith effort to mitigate impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Prior to the start of operations for the dinner theater, he reached out to some of his neighbors, inviting them to the venue and providing his contact information should they have any concerns.The applicant has also complied with nearly all of theconditions of the permiton an on- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 5of 7 going basis, including required physical improvements to the building and property, requirements pertaining to alcohol service, security measures and capacity limitations.In contrast to the former operator, there have been minimal calls for police service to this location, which is a testament to the applicant’s efforts to operate theestablishmentin a responsible manner.In order to ensure clarity with respect to how the business is run, however, staff is recommending certain additions and modifications to the conditions of approval. These additions and clarifications relate to parking,security and noise.Staff is also recommending an additional compliance review be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration in six months to verify on-going compliance. Request for Change in Operations: As part of this request, the applicant seeks three modifications to the operation of the business. Change from Dinner Theaterto Live Performance Theater: 1.Staff believes that the most important factors for any noise generating use relate to the permittedhours of operation, keeping the sound contained within the building, and having adequate security both inside and outside of the venue. Staff does not believe that the requirement to serve dinner with the shows provideany benefit to the adjacent residents, in terms of reduced impacts. Therefore, staff supports the requested change. The venue currently maintains a Type 47alcohol sales license issued by ABC. This type of licenserequires that the facility be maintained as a “Bona Fide Eating Place,” which means that the premises must have suitable kitchen facilities and supply an assortment of foods commonly ordered at various hours of the day.While a meal would not be included with the cost of the show, a full menu would be available to patrons during all hours of operation. Staff is supportive of the request to allow live performances without the requirement to serve a meal; however, staff is not supportive of concerts in the theateruntil such time that the applicant has demonstrated that he has taken all steps necessary to ensure that noise and vibration from the venue will not disturb the adjacent residential community. Other types of live performance may be held, such as magic shows or comedy acts, until such time that the building is properly sound proofed. Additionally, the theater may be rented for presentations since the facility is also approved for meetings and convention events. Modify Floor Plans: 2.The CUP currentlyallows the operationof banquet, meeting, convention and other private events. The proposed modifications to the floor plan would facilitate the ability to host larger eventsin the area that is currently used for restaurant dining.The restaurant would continue to operate in this space, except when reserved for a private banquet event. No impacts associated withbanquet orprivate events at the facility have been identified since the start of operation. Staff is supportive of the change in floor plan. Extend Permitted Hours of Operation: 3.The applicant requests later hours of operation for the restaurant and banquet facility than are currently permitted. No changesto the theater hours are proposed. The table belowshows the previously-approved hours, hours proposed by the applicant, and hours recommended by staff. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 6of 7 UseApprovedProposedRecommended Sunday –Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.; Theater No changeNo change Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Sunday –Thursday:Sunday –Thursday: 9:00 a.m.to 10:00p.m.; Daily:9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Banquets Friday/Saturday:9:00a.m. to midnightFriday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.9:00 a.m. to midnight Sunday –Thursday:Sunday –Thursday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.; Daily:9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Restaurant Friday/Saturday:9:00a.m. to 2:00a.m.Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.9:00 a.m. to midnight Staff is not supportive of any hours that extend beyond 10 p.m. on weeknights or midnight on weekends. There are similar limitations to the hours of operation for banquet facilities throughout the City, particularlywhen located in close proximity to residences. Noise associated with the end of an event, including car alarms, music being played from cars, and patrons talkingand loitering in parking areasare inevitable; therefore,the facility should close at an acceptable hour so as not to affect the peaceful enjoyment of the surrounding homes. Theproposedcondition of approval pertaining to hours of operation includes language that requires that guestsmust be cleared from the property within 30 minutes of the time limits stated above. Security personnel shall be responsible for maintaining orderly conduct and swift exiting from the property. The disassembly and/or loading of equipment following each event shall cease no later than one hour beyond the time limits stated above. There is no limitation to the hoursfor employees, who may be on-site for maintenance and general cleanup of the facility. A recommended condition of approval has been added to the draft resolution indicatingthat trash may not be taken to the outside receptaclebetween the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. It should also be noted, that onnightsthat shows are held in the theater, the applicant proposes to only allow ticketed guests to enter the building; therefore, the restaurant would be closed to the general public during shows. This operational feature has been included as a condition of approval to ensure that parking is not impacted by concurrent events and to eliminate ambiguity from an enforcement stand point. Letter of Opposition: Staff received the attached letter of opposition, dated April 27, 2015, from Accell Property Management, on behalf of the Smoketree Home Owners Association, which represents the 218 townhomes immediately south of the subject property. The letter states that the previous and current business operations have created a tremendous negative impact to the homeowners. The association is opposed to the theater being used for general purposes rather than the dinner theater use that was originally approved. Theassociation is also opposed to the requested hours of operation until 2:00a.m. Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that thesubject request is within the parameters and assumptions analyzed in the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declarationprepared for the original theater venue, since there is no physical change to the building orpropertyand no increase in the maximum capacity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486D May 18, 2015 Page 7of 7 CONCLUSION: Staff believes the applicant has made significant progress towards ensuring that thebusiness operates in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding community. Staff supportstherequested changes,in part, including modifications to floor plans, the change from a dinner theater to a live performance theater, and an extension of operating hours for the restaurant and banquet facility on weekends from 11:30 p.m. to midnight. Staff does not support the request to allow concertsand the extension of operating hours on weeknights past 10:00 p.m. or weekends past midnight, for the reasons described in the report. Prepared by,Submitted by, Elaine ThienprasiddhiJonathan E. Borrego Associate PlannerPlanning Services Manager Attachments: 1.Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2.Prior Resolution 3.Code Enforcement Memorandums 4.Police Memorandum 5.Applicant’s Letter of Operation 6.Letter of Opposition 7.Photographs 8.Site and Floor Plans DA1RM4 HARBOR CLIFF ANAHEIM APARTMENTS OVERNITE 130 UNITS TRAILER PARK SP 92-2 DA1 SP 92-2 DA1 COMFORT INN HACIENDA INN MAINGATE & SUITES RM-4 HARBOR CLIFF SP 92-2 SP 92-2 C-G APARTMENTS DA1 DA1 FOUR 130 UNITS RESTAURANT RETAIL PLEX SP 92-2 SP 92-2 DA1 DA1 92-2 QUALITY INN RENT FOR LESS DA1 R MAINGATE KING RM-3 CONDO SP 92-2 DA1 SP 92-2 OTCONDOMINIUMS RM-3 64 MEDICAL OFFICE DA1 SP 92-2 DA1 CONDOMINIUMS 106 DU106 DU AUTO REPAIR/ JACK IN THE BOX SERVICE RESTAURANT RM-3 RM-3 CONDOMINIUMS RM-3 CONDOS 106 DU CONDOMINIUM 106 DU 64 DU SP 92-2 DA1 THEATER RM RM-3 CONDOM CONDOMINIUMS 64 D 106 DU SP 92-2 DA1 BANKRM-2 RM-2 SMOKETREE TOWNHOMES CONDOMINIUMS 123 DU 95 DU SP 92-2 DA1 RM-2 RETAIL CONDOMINIUMS 95 DU 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 DEV No. 2009-00083D 2232 South Harbor Boulevard 050100 ° Aerial Photo: May 2014 Feet Subject Property APN: 233-051-08 DEV No. 2009-00083D 2232 South Harbor Boulevard [DRAFT]ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2010-05486, AMENDINGCONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. PC 2012-033AND DETERMINING THAT APREVIOUSLY- APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THE APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS REQUEST (DEV2009-00083) (2232SOUTHHARBORBOULEVARD) WHEREAS, onJuly 19, 2010,and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim(hereinafter referred to as ("Planning Commission"), by its Resolution No. PC2010-057,did approve Conditional Use Permit 2010-05486(the "Original CUP")to permit the conversion of two adjoined vacant commercial buildings located on a legal non-conforming 4.8-acre site into the “Battle of the Dance” dinner theater, whichincluded enhanced landscaping and wall murals,located at 2232 South Harbor Boulevard,City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California(the “Property”),as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. PC2012-033, approvedan amendment to the Original CUP (designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486B”) to permit additional entertainment and community assembly uses (including: private parties,meetings and banquets,religious services,and sporting and convention events)in conjunction with a previously-approved dinner theater, with or without the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, butdenied the request to allow public dances (dance venue), launch parties and music concerts(herein referred to as the "2012 Amendment"); and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2014, and subject to certain conditions of approval, the Planning Commission, by motion,approved a minor amendment to the Original CUP(designated as “Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486C”) to revise the floor plan for a previously-approved dinner theater, restaurant, and banquet facility to accommodate a full-service restaurant and dinnertheater(herein referred to as the "2014 Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Original Cup, the 2012 Amendment and the 2014 Amendment shall be referred to collectively herein as the "CUP". The conditions of approval which were the subject of the Original CUP, as amended and modified by the 2012 Amendment and the 2014 Amendment, shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Previous Conditions of Approval"); and WHEREAS, this Property is currently developed with a 43,500 square foot building, located withinthe boundaries of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan and withintheCommercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) of theAnaheim Resort Specific Plan Zone. The Property is designatedfor Commercial Recreation land uses in the Anaheim General Plan; and -1-PC2015-*** WHEREAS, one of the conditions of approval which were the subject of the First Amendment(specifically, Condition No. 1)states that the permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing six months following the commencementof operations to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the current business operator commenced operations of the dinner theater under the CUP on October 17, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did receive a verified petition to further amend the CUP(designated as "Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D") to (1) eliminatethe requirement for the sale and service of foodin conjunction with shows in the theater area, (2) extend the permitted hours of operation, and (3)modify previously approved floor plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May18, 2015 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 Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code(the "Code"), to hear and consider evidence for and against the six-month compliance review, said proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2010- 05486D,and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendmentto the CUP will not create any additional environmental impacts beyond those analyzed and addressed by the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 158, and is therefore, exempt fromthe requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation; 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 pertainingto the request for anamendment to the CUP, does find and determine the following facts: 1.The request to amend the CUPto change the use from a dinner theater to a live performance theater, to extend the permitted hours of operation, and to modify previously approved floor plans is within that class of primary uses (i.e., Entertainment Venue and Community and Religious Assembly) subject to a conditional use permit authorized under Section 18.116.070 (Uses –Commercial Recreation (C-R) District (Development Area 1) of the Code. -2-PC2015-*** 2.With the exception of the requestedextension of the hours of operation,the requestto change the use from a dinner theater to a live performance theater and to modify previously approved floor plans,willnot adversely affect the surroundingland uses and the growth and development of the area,with the implementation of the conditions of approval. The added conditions limit the hoursofoperation, address noise from both the theater and banquet areas, and provide security measures to ensure the orderly conduct of guests on-site.Additionally, concerts or live musical events, would not be permitted in the theater until such time that the applicant addresses the noise and vibration from such eventsand obtains approval from the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. 3.The size and shape of the siteis adequate to allow the full operation of the proposed usesin a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health, safety and general welfare of the publicbecause no expansion to the building is proposed, nor will there be anincrease of the maximum capacitypermitted under the CUP. 4.The traffic generated by allowing additional uses at the site would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the areabecausethe number of vehiclesentering and exiting the site is consistent with traffic impacts associated with the originally-permitted dinner theatre. 5.The granting, in part, of the amendment to the CUPunder 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 Planning Commission does further find and determine, with respect to the requested extended hours of operation for the banquet facility and restaurant, that all of the conditions and criteria for fully approving the requested amendment to this conditional use permit are not present for the following reasons: 1.It has been demonstrated that the noise and vibration associated with concerts and musical events do cause a disturbance tosurrounding residents, which affect the quiet enjoyment of their homes. 2.The Property is adjacent to residential uses to the south and east, which are immediately adjacent to the parking areas for the facility.Closing hoursbeyond those approved would impact the quiet enjoyment of the neighbors’ properties. 3.There are several banquet facilities within the City that have been limited to similar hours as those recommended by staff based on adjacency to residential uses. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract fromthe findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. -3-PC2015-*** NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED thatthe Planning Commission, for the reasons hereinabove stated,does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D to (1) change the use from a dinner theater to a live performance theater, (2)extend the operating hours an additional half hour for the banquet facility and restaurant, and (3)modify previouslyapproved floor plans; provided,however, that the Planning Commission does hereby deny that portion of the request to extend the hours of operationfor the restaurant and the banquet facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit Battached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference(the "Revised Conditions of Approval"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, effective upon the effective date of this Resolution, the Revised Conditions of Approval hereby amend the Previous Conditions of Approval and hereby replace the Previous Conditions of Approval in their entirety. All references to the conditions of approval for the CUP shall be to the Revised Conditions of Approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B, which shall control and govern the CUP, as amended by Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revised Conditions of Approval, as they relate to the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486D,are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the 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 Code. Timing for compliance with those conditions of approval that relate to the uses permitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05486Dmay be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timingis established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. 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 Code. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the 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. -4-PC2015-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 2015. 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, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on May 18, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES:COMMISSIONERS: NOES:COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS: th IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 18day of May, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5-PC2015-*** -6-PC2015-*** EXHIBIT “B” AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05486(CUP2010-05486D) (DEV2009-00083D) RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS 1Signs shall be posted on the interior of the south and east facing exit Planning doors stating “Do Not Open, Except in Emergencies.” 2All guest parking spaces that may be used for valet service shall be Planning marked with a number. The 34 parking spaces behind the building and closest to the south property line shall be marked “Employee.” 3The tower featureat the southwest corner of the building shall be Planning refinished to match the rest of the building. Alternatively, the applicant may propose a different artistic mural (without advertising) to replace the former murals. Said mural shall be reviewed by the Planning Department, Planning Services Division and must be installed within 30 days of approval. 4Signs shall be posted at all exits stating “No alcohol beyond this Police point.” WITHIN 60 DAYS 5Managers, owners, bar tenders, and wait staff shall call the Police Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) Training. The contact number is (714) 558-4101. OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 6This permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Planning noticed public hearing in six months to ensure on-going compliance with the conditions of approval and to ensure that the venue is being operated without detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. The costs associated with this public hearing shall be borne by the applicant. 7Code Enforcement staff shall conduct a minimum of four Planning unannounced inspection of the property within the next six months. The costs associated with the inspectionsshall be borne by the applicant. 8No concerts, or live musical events, shall be permittedin the theater Planning area. 9Ticketed concert or musical events or any concert or musical event Planning open to the general public shall not be held in any restaurant/banquet area. -7-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT 10Hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Planning Police Banquets and Restaurant: Sunday –Thursday:9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Friday/Saturday: 9:00 a.m. to midnight Theater: Sunday –Thursday:9:00 a.m. to 10:00p.m.; Friday/Saturday:9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Guests must be cleared from the property within 30 minutes of the time limits stated above. Security personnel shall be responsible for maintaining orderly conduct and prompt exiting fromthe property. The disassembly and/or loading of equipment following events shall cease no later than one hour beyond the time limits stated above. 11For ticketed events in the theater, tickets shallbe requiredfor entry Planning intoany portion of the building. An employee shall be stationed at the front (west) entry to check tickets. The restaurant shall not be open to the general public within two hours that a ticketed event is held. 12There shall not be concurrent events within the facility. No more than Planning one event may be held in either the maindiningroomor the theater at one time; further, the restaurant shall not be open to the public at the same time as any event in the main diningroom or theater. 13Events taking place on the same day shall be scheduled a minimum Planning of two hours apart in order to ensure an adequate number of on-site parking spaces and adequate traffic flow. 14The number of persons admitted shall not exceed 990 guests for Planning events held within the theatre portion of the venue or 620 guests for events held within the combined banquet areas. Total occupancy of the building may not exceed 990 guests. 15If noise complaints are received, and are validated by City staff, the Planning applicant must cease operation of the noise source until such time that additional measures are implemented to eliminate the noise. 16Trash shall not be emptied into outside trash containers between the Planning hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 17A chain or other barrier/barricade shall be maintained at either end of Planning the south drive aisle from one hour before toone hour after events to prohibit cars and buses from driving through or parking in this area. 18The permitted event or activity shall not create sound levels that Planning violate any ordinance of the City of Anaheim. -8-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT 19The Parking Management Plan is subject to continuous review by the Planning Planning Department and Public Works, Traffic and Transportation Public Works Division. The plan shall include measures to ensure that the parking of vehicles and valet activities do not affect traffic on Harbor Boulevard and do not cause a disturbance tothe residential neighbors. 20The same valet operator for allevents shall be provided by the Planning business owner. 21Valet attendants shall park vehicles in the numbered stallsreserved Planning for valet. Valet attendants shall not rely upon chirping the key fobs to locate vehicles. 22The valet stand shall be located at the west entry, as shown on the Traffic and approved Parking Management Plan.Transportation 23The ongoing ability for guests to self-park at no charge shall be Planning clearly posted.Optional valet parking may also be provided. Traffic and Transportation 24The parking area immediately behind the building shall be reserved Planning for employees. Guests are not permitted to park in this area. 25No buses are allowed in the parking areaon the east side of the Planning property,or the drive aisle along the south side of the property, including, but not limited to, buses for tour companiesorperformers. 26Patrons shall be prohibited from parking on the adjacent commercial Planning property to the south (currently occupied by Bank of America) unless written authorization to do so is received from the property owner and submitted to the Planning Department. 27The same security team for all events shall be provided by the Police business owner, utilizing a company approved by the Police Department. Customers hosting events at the facility are not permitted to employ or provide their own security, except for security that is in addition to the security team provided by the business owner. 28The Security Plan is subject to continuous review by the Police Police Department, Vice Detail. The plan shall include measures 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. 29Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Police Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. -9-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT 30Parking lots, driveways,circulation areas, aisles, passageways, Police recesses and grounds contiguous to buildings, shall be provided with enough lighting to illuminate and 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 persons, property, and vehicles onsite. 31All south and east facing doors shall remain closed at all times, Police except in case of an emergency. Security guards shall monitor the south and east doors during events to ensure that they remain closed. 32Security personnel shall be responsible for maintaining orderly Police conduct and promptexiting from the property. 33Management shall e-mail a monthly calendar of entertainment/events Police to the Vice Detail,attention mmirwin@anaheim.net,prior to the start of each month. 34Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent Planning area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. 35Any television or film activity shall be limited to filming, recording Planning or broadcasting events that are authorized by this conditional use permit. 36As recommended by the updated parking analysis prepared by Public Works Kunzman Associates, Inc. (dated March 7, 2012), events shall commence no earlier than 9:00 a.m. 37As required by the facility’s Type 47 (On-Sale-General –Eating Police Place) Alcohol Beverage Control license, 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 food normally offered in arestaurant. 38That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a Police 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. 39The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premise shall Police be prohibited. 40There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, Police including advertising directed to the exterior fromwithin, 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. -10-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT 41The business shall not employ orpermit any persons to solicit or Police 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) 42Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or Police 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. 43All employees and patrons shall be clothed in such a way as to not Police expose "specified anatomical areas" as explained in the Anaheim Municipal Code. 44Petitioner(s) shall not require an admission charge or a cover charge, Police nor shall there be a requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. 45Entertainment is allowed only within the building. No entertainment, Police including band warm-up and rehearsal, is allowed in the parking lot. 46No Public Dance shall be allowed.Police 47No minor under the age of sixteen (16) years shall be allowed to Police attend the dance or event, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian. 48The business shall notbe operated in such a way as to be detrimental Police to the public health, safety or welfare. (Section 4.18.050.0302 Anaheim Municipal Code) Any violation of the application, or any attached conditions, shall be Police 49 sufficient grounds to revoke the permit. (Section 4.18.110(A) Anaheim Municipal Code) GENERAL 50The subject Property shall be developed substantially in Planning Department accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. 51The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City Planning Department and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedingsbrought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to -11-PC2015-*** RESPONSIBLE NO.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEPARTMENT the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto.The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurredby Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. 52The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the Planning Department processing of this discretionary case application within 30 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 may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. -12-PC2015-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE: MAY 11, 2015 TO:ELAINE THIENPRASIDDHI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM:KEN MARSH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER #1016 SUBJECT:MAY 9, 2015 INSPECTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. BUSINESS OWNER OF RECORD: MUSA MADAIN I began my inspection of the property at approximately 1915 hrs. I entered the bar/dining room area and observed thatthere were approximately 75 persons in each line, waiting to enter the showroom. The line on the south side is for VIP's and the line on the north side is for regular guests. I observed several persons drinking cocktails being self-served from the bar and served by cocktail servers also. I observed two persons eating on the west side of the bar area, two males eating at the bar, and a party of fiveeating in the east side dining room area.There was no buffet setup during this inspection. I observed the party of five get up and enter the showroom later but I did not observeanyone else eating and entering the showroom. I asked to see a menu and the waiter brought over an appetizer menu and a dinner menu. He stated they were serving threeseparate entrees only. There was a price on the menu of $15.00 to $18.00 for the entrees. I did not ask if dinner was included in the show. There was a poster on the front door advertising the next show on May 23, 2015. The poster did not mention anything about food being included in the admission price. There also was a quinceanera in the west side dining room area. I also observed there were three boxes of plastic to-go lunch/dinner boxes stored in the north side kitchen. I did not observeanyone eating these lunch/dinner to-go boxes. I conducted an inspection of the showroom area several times during the night and did not observeanyone eating in the showroom. I conducted an inspection of the exterior of the property and observed there were approximately five vehicles parked on the south side driveway area. This area was supposed to be off limits to vehicles.The chain was blocking the west entrance to the alley but the chain on the east side of the alley was down and vehicles were observed entering this alley parking. The south side doors were not supposed to be opened at all but when the bands changed around 2100 hrs., they exited and entered through these doors. These doors were also used for the bands to enter their vehicles and drive off. The valetstand was set up at the entry area on the west side of the business and the self-parking vehicles were entering and exiting using the center driveway. The valets were parking the MEMORANDUM 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL PAGE 2OF 2 vehicles in un-numbered spaces in the center of the lot.The numbered spaces at the east side of the lot went unused.I mentioned this to the valets and they stated they were numbering the ticket and placing a ticket on the dash of the vehicle with the same number.I explained that the number on the key fob should match a number on the ground so they do not have to beep the vehicles to locate them. The sound emanating from the building was considerablylowerthan the last inspection.I was able to feel the base vibrating but it was much lower.Close to the building, you could still hear the band but on the outer edges, it was reasonable this time.Musa showed me that the upper door andone door on the south side was covered with egg crate foam to mask some of the noise and insulate the doors. The band stoppedplaying at approximately 1030 hrs. and several of the guests stayed around for a photo opportunitywith the performer. Musa gave Elaine, Jonathan, Michelle, andmyself a tour of the facilities at 2230 hrs. See their notes on the inspection and their meeting with the complainants. I spoke to the PD and they did not receive any complaints during this night. M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF ANAHEIM Code Enforcement Division DATE:APRIL 28, 2015 TO:ELAINE THIENPRASIDDHI, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FROM:KEN MARSH, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER #1016 SUBJECT:INSPECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATEDAT 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. BUSINESS OWNER OF RECORD: MUSA MADAIN On August 26, 2014, the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement Division received a request for service from Frank La Soya, City of Anaheim Building Inspector and Elaine Thienprasiddhi, City of Anaheim, Associate Planner,regarding the non-compliance with the Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit # CUP2010-05486.I conducted an inspection of the property and spoke to the Business Owner, Musa Madain. I informed him that he was required to obtain all inspections, a Conditional Use Permit for “Starline Bus Tours,” and that he was not allowed to open the business until all Conditions of Approval were complied with andthe Building Permits finalized. On August 27, 2014, the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement Division received a request from Frank La Soya, City of Anaheim Building Inspector and Elaine Thienprasiddhi, City of Anaheim Associate Planner stated that the business was planning to open on the next weekend without the Conditions of Approval and several of their Building Permits beingin compliance. They requested I issue a Civil Notice to the business owner, Musa Madain, of “M3Live Bar & Grill” in order to have the business owner bring the property into compliance with Conditional Use Permit # CUP2010-05486 prior to their scheduled opening date. On August 27, 2014, I issued a Civil Notice to Mr. Madain, which is included as an attachment. Generally, the citation pertained to the requirement for Starline Tours to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, obtaining the appropriate inspections for the work inside the building, calling out the outstanding items to final the building permits and requesting that the business’ website accurately identify the approved hours of operation. Copies of the Civil Notice, dated August 27, 2014, were mailed to the business owner, Musa Madain, and the property owner, Angeli Poonsaengsathit. I personally delivered a copy of the Civil Notice to Mr. Madain. On August 28, 2014, I spoke on the telephone to the Building Inspector, Frank LaSoya. He stated there were no inspections scheduled by Mr. Madain. Mr. LaSoya stated he would visit the property and issue a correction notice for the trash enclosure. I also conducted an inspection of the property in order to observe whether or not “Starline Bus Tours” was still operating from the business. I observed “Starline Bus Tours” was still operating from the business. Based on my observations of the business still st operating, I issued the first(1.) Civil Citation to the business owner, Musa Madain, and the property codeenfmemo MEMORANDUM 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL PAGE 2OF 5 owner, Angeli Poonsaengsathit. On August 29, 2014, I spoke to the business owner, Musa Madain, and he stated they were postponing the soft opening until maybe one more week.During this inspection, I also observed there were no “Starline Bus Tours” operating from the property at this time. On September2, 2014, I spoke to Building Inspector Frank LaSoya to see if any of the required actions were completed. Mr. LaSoya stated that an inspection had been scheduled for Friday, August 29, 2014, but thatno one showed up to let Mr. LaSoya conduct an inspection. I also conducted an inspection of the property and observed there were no “Starline Bus Tours”operating fromthe business at this time. I nd issued the second (2.) Civil Citation to the business owner, Musa Madain, and the property owner, Angeli Poonsaengsathit. On September 8, 2014, I spoke to both Frank La Soya and Elaine Thienprasiddhi regarding the Conditions of Approval. Both of them stated that enough of the Conditions of Approval were completed to allow them to open the bar and restaurantonly. On December 15, 2014, I mailed aCivil Notice to the business owner, Musa Madain,requiring him to immediately bring the property into compliance, whichis included asan attachment.Generally, the citation pertained to the need for Starline Tours to obtain a business license,pay outstanding feesand provide the required bus parking spaces, as shown on their approved plans. Conditions of approval for both the tour company and dinner theater were included in the notice. Specific items which needed to be addressed by M3Live were to ensure that the exterior lighting is on during all hours of darkness and posting the correct occupancy limit within the theater portion of the building. On December 19, 2014, I conducted a re-inspection of the property and observed that nothing on my Final Civil Notice was completed. The occupancy sign inside the theatre still listed 1447 as the occupancy limit. There were trees blocking the bus parking areas, there were no bus signs attached to the building, no self-parking signs installed, no curbs corrected, no yellow stripes installed on the parking lanes. I spoke to Musa Madain and he stated he had ordered the signs, and was working on correcting the remaining issues. On December 20, 2014, per Condition of Approval # 31,I conducted an inspection of the propertyduring a dinner theater event.Iobserved there were 2 buses parked within the 24 ft.drive aisle, there were no signs designating bus parking only on the “StarlineBus Tours”area, no yellow outlines on the spaces, there were signs on the building for bus parking only, but they were blocked with trees. The chain that was supposed to be along the south side driveway was down but there were vehicles blocking the S/W entrance. I spoke to the security person and he stated someone drove through the chain. There were no vehicles observed to be using this lane as an exit. I spoke to Musa Madain and he stated he received a complaint regarding a loud bass noise and drunk persons in the parking lot. I was on the property at that time and was on the south side and did not hear any excess noise from the building or see any drunk persons. There were several security persons keeping an eye on the property. The rear area was for the valet service. There was very little noise from the vehicles except a select few vehicles which could not have their alarms silenced and they rang. I spoke to Musa and he assured me all the curbing, signs, and markings would be finished by 01/05/15. The interior occupancy sign was changed to 990. Other than the curbing, yellow lines, and the long buses encroaching into the drive aisles, I did not observe any violations. West Coast Metropolitan Patrol is the security company being used. codeenfmemo MEMORANDUM 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL PAGE 3OF 5 On December 22, 2014, I spoke with Sandra, Jonathan, and Elaine regarding my inspection and it was agreed to table the Citation until 01/05/15 to make confirm completion of the Starline bus parking. I inspected on January 5, 2015, January 12, 2015, and January 27, 2015, continuing to inspect the changes required for the Starline bus parking. On the January 27, 2015inspection of the property with Elaine, Musa, Doug Brown, and Musa's Attorney,I covered all the violations and Musa stated everything would be completed by Friday, January 30, 2015. We conducted an inspection of the theaterand observed that all the tables were removed and the area was being remodeled. The Conditional Use Permit requires that there be dinner and a show, not just a show. On February 5, 2015, Iconducted an insp. of the property and observed there were no violations on the exterior of the property. They had planted landscaping and the buses were parked in the required slots. Elaine stated there is a meeting next week for the tenant to change the conditions of the building. They requested to be able to serve dinner in the restaurant and then the guests can go into the theatre. Currently there can be no shows without having dinner in the theatre, only dinner shows. On February 20, 2015, per Condition of Approval # 31,I conducted an inspection of the propertyduring a dinner theater event.I arrived at the property at 2100 hrs. There was a valet service, on the north side of the property, at the entrance to the dining room area. I spoke to the head valet person and asked about where the valet vehicles were being parked. He stated the valet area was in the rear and the self-parking area was in the center of the lot. He said they were just parking the valets in the rear and not in any specificnumber spaces. He stated the business owner did not mention anything about parking in certain numbered spaces. He stated he was not told about them not beeping the keys to locate the vehicles. There were two (2) buses parked on the south side of the property. There were two (2) bands performing at the event. According to one bus driver, the large bus (50 passengers) arrived at approximately. 2110 hrs. and will be leaving at approximately 2300 hrs. The smaller bus (20 passengers) arrived earlier and was the transportation for the first group. When I arrived the buses were turned off. There was a group with the band (8 persons) gathering by the buses talking. They all went inside at approx. 2120 hrs. There was very little noise outside from the firstband. The south side doors were closed. There were seven (7) small buses in the north side parking area and one (1) large bus on the north side of the building. There were two (2) marked security vehicles parked on the north side of the building but, as of 2145 hrs. I observed no security persons on the exterior but there were several inside. There were about 200 persons for the show and dinner. They were serving dinner in the theatre since Musa Madain stated it would be easier. They are permitted todo both dinner theatre and separate dinner. There were no vehicles that I could identify as being from the dinner theatre parked in the Bankof America parking lot. At approximately 2217 hrs., the bus drivermoved the large group bus from the south sideof the building to the east side of the building. This move took about 3 minutesand included idlingand the beeping from the backuphorn.After parking the bus, the exterior of the building was quiet. I believe they moved the bus to keep anyone from complaining about the bus noise later in the night, but it would have been better to just leave it on the south side, load the bus without turning it on,andthen take off. The small bus, parkedonthe south side of the property, left the property at approximately. 2235 hrs., without any noise what so ever. At 2310 hrs.,several of the valet persons beeped a few of the vehicles. Also several of the patrons beeped their own self-parked vehicles. The large bus idled for approx. 5 min. on the east side then moved to the north side and shut off itsengine. They were loading the bus on the north side from approximately2345 hrs. until 0000 hrs. The south side chains weremissing but no codeenfmemo MEMORANDUM 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL PAGE 4OF 5 vehicles exited the property using the south side driveway.The big busleft the propertyat0005 hrs. The restaurant and bar was still active at 0010 hrs.,but you could not hear anything onthe outsideof the building. The theatre was cleared out at 2345 hrs.I left the area at 0015 hrs. In addition to the above listedConditions of Approval violations, Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner,received several complaints regarding the rear parking lot lights not being turned on during the evening hours per Condition of Approval # 19. Code Enforcement conducted numerous nighttime inspections of the property on the following dates: Inspection dates for lights being turned on: 10/10/14 -10/21/14 –10/22/14 –10/28/14 -11/17/14 11/19/14 –12/23/14 -01/13/15 Inspection dates for lights being turned off: 09/24/14 –10/27/14 –10/30/14 –10/31/14 -11/03/14 - 11/12/14 –11/21/14 –11/25/14 –11/26/14 -12/09/14 –12/11/14 On March 10, 2015, I mailed a Notice of Violation to the property owner, Angeli Poonsaengsathit and the business owner, Musa Madain, which is included as anattachment. The notice requiredthem to immediately remove all illegal banners, which were placed over the existing murals and the “Now Open” banner, attached to the free standing sign, or immediately obtain a Special Event Permit. As of this date, the “open now” banner was removed and the banners, over the mural areas, have been removed, but have not been replaced with either a new mural approved by the City or a finished building surface (the wooden supports which were behind the mural are now exposed). On Saturday, April 25, 2015,per Condition of Approval # 31,I conducted an inspection of the property during a dinner theater event. I was on the propertyfrom approximately 1930 hrs. until 0030 hrs. I conducted this inspection both of the interior and the exterior of the property. During this inspection of the interior of the restaurant and showroom, I observed there were approximately 100 persons waiting on the south side entrance to the showroom andanother approximately 100 persons waiting on the north side showroom entrance. Iobserved several patrons receiving drinks served by cocktail servers but,no food being served in either of the lines. I observed approximately 5 groups of 2 persons eating in the east side dining roomarea and one couple was eating in the bar area.I obs. there was a buffet setup in the east dining room. There were 2 groups of about 10 persons eating in the south east corner of the east dining roomwho I observed eating from this buffet table. I did not ever observeany persons leave the dining room areas and enteringthe showroom area. I spoke to Musa Madain and he stated the ad on the internet stated the price of the show included the show and dinner. The persons were allowedto not eat if they desired but, hestated the price included the show anddinnerin any case. He did have approximately100 box lunches stored in the north side kitchen area; ready to hand out to guests who wanted a box dinner/lunch meal.I asked Musa Madain if he had any show tickets that I could look at to see where it was written that the ticket price included dinner. He stated he did not have any tickets. The noise level from the band was very quiet on the southeast corner of the property, during the early part of the evening. I was able to feel the basevibrations thumping but it wasn't very loud. I went to the properties on Willowbrook, southeast of the building,and parked adjacent tothe south end of the “M3Live” building,on the other side of the 10 ft. block wall. I wasunable to hear or feel any base vibrations or hear any loud music.I drove over to the Summerfieldcondominiums,and parked on the west side of the condominiums, these are the condominiums located to the east of the property.I was codeenfmemo MEMORANDUM 2232 S. HARBOR BLVD. M3LIVE BAR & GRILL PAGE 5OF 5 unablehear any music or feel any base vibrations.Atapproximately 2100 hrs.,I left the condominium complex andreturned to “M3Live Bar & Grill.” When I returnedto the property, the music was louder and the bass was very deep and I was able tofeel the vibrations.The base vibrations continued, off and on, depending on the song, until closing time at 2330 hrs. During the evening I spoke to Musa Madainand he stated the valets were parking the vehicles in the numberedspaces and not using the vehicle’s key beepers. I watched the valets at the end of the night and none of their vehicles were parked in the numbered spaces. They almost all were located by beepingthe key fobs. I asked the valets the last time I conducted an inspection of the property and they stated they did not know they were supposed to park thevehicles in the numbered spaces. Musa told me they write the number of the space on the ticket. The music and the band didstoppedplaying at exactly 2330 hrs. per the C.U.P. All the lights in the parking lot went out at 0000 hrs. andstayed off until 0030 hrs. when the lights turned back on. APD received several complaints regarding the noise. The noise was not the issue untilapproximately 2130 hrs. when the music got louder and I could feel the base vibrations were greater.At theend of the night, the employees brought out the trash and used beer bottles and threw them in the rear of a pickup, causing a loud glass breaking sound. The bar was still operating at 0030 hrs. According to Musa Madain, “Telemundo” had an area they were filming in and this area and the bar area still had a lot of persons talking and drinking. The valets were using the west side of the building as a staging areaper the C.U.P. The south side driveway was not chained off and I obs. several vehicles entering and exiting this driveway. Attachments August 27, 2014 Noticeof Violation December 15, 2014 Notice of Violation March 10, 2015 Notice of Violation codeenfmemo ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 M3 Live 2232 S. Harbor Blvd. Anaheim, California April 16, 2015 City of Anaheim Planning Dept 200 S. Anaheim Blvd Anaheim, California Amendments to Letter of Operation for M3 Live Bar and Grill Applicant proposes to augment the current, operating Bar, Restaurant, and Dinner Theater to also offer and include gathering rooms and banquet facilities for non-public events. Although these types of events are not restricted by the current CUP, this letter of clarification is supplied to advise the City of Anaheim Planning Department of some use variations, in order to provide a basis for verifying that the existing parking, traffic flow, and general occupancy is in compliance with that which is approved. The Applicant does not propose to run full operation of the uses contemporaneously; that is to say that during a headlining dinner theatre performance, banquet scheduling (requiring the business’ wait-staff service) will not be offered, as the staff will be serving, or on standby-to-serve, dinner theater customers. As theatre events do not occur daily (or sometimes even weekly), the operation seeks additional revenue streams to support the sheer physical size of the establishment. Banquet use, or gathering areas, are logical companions to the configuration of the building, because of the space available. The use of the main dining area as a banquet area will eventually necessitate the relocation of the bar, currently at the center of the main dining room, to its southern end, as evidenced by the accompanying exhibit. This relocation will occur within 12 months of the commencement of banquet operations, as larger groups become aware of the facility, and the line-of-site becomes an issue. Please see a pro- forma layout of the non-fixed seating plan supplied with this application. The Applicant requests that the requirement to provide dinner in conjunction with shows in the theater area be eliminated. A full menu will be available for guests of the theater to select from, and the restaurant portion of the restaurant will be open for ticketed guests. There may be shows in which meals could be provided in the theater, but again, would be based on guests choosing to order a meal, rather than being included in the price of the ticket. The theater seating can (and does) support non-commercial uses, such as religious gatherings (church service, meetings, presentations, etc.), so the use of the theater area will be/has been promulgated as such. Page 2 (amended/clarified letter of operation M3 Live to City of Anaheim) The front portion of the facility would also continue to operate as a full-service restaurant. In order to ensure that adequate parking is provided at all times, the restaurant will not be open to the public when there is an event in the theater or when the main dining area is committed to private event. Proposed operating hours are: Banquet facilities: 9 a.m. to midnight, daily Theater: no change Restaurant: operations until 2 A.M. with last service at 1:30 The implementation the business’ event use emphasis will result in re-naming the facility to M3 Live Anaheim Event Center, a change that will be made as appropriate on the City Business License. Thank you for your consideration. Musa Madain ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 West Elevation (Facing Harbor) North Elevation SYMBOL LEGEND: LARGE AND SMALL BUS CIRCULATION PLAN TO DROP-OFF/ BOARD CUSTOMERS GENERAL CIRCULATION AVAILABILITY BIG BUS BACKING SMALL BUS BACKING ALTERNATIVE ENTRY PLAN DURING PERFORMANCE LARGE & SMALL BUSES ENTER AT FUNCTION: SOUTH DRIVE APPROACH AND PROCEED TO DROP-OFF AREA BETWEEN 7:00 AND 11:30 AM INDEX OF SHEETS: BUSES THEN LOAD CUSTOMERS & EV1PASSENGERS DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP PLAN EXIT VIA R.H. TURN ONTO HARBOR EV2FLOOR PLAN/ SEATING ARRANGEMENT BLVD. TO ACQUIRE FREEWAY(S) EXIT EXIT FLOOR PLAN City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net