Resolution-PC 96-99~ ~
RESOLUTiON NO. PC96-99
A RESOLUTION OF THE AtJAHEINI CITY PLANNING COMMlSSION
REVOKING RESOLUTION NO. PC77-250 AND TERMINATING ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1765
WHEREAS, on November 1 i,1977, the Plan~ing Commission adopted Resolution No. PC77-
250, approving Conditiona~ Use Fermft No. 1765 to permit a1,298 sq.ft. beer bar at 1652 West Linco~n
Aven~e;
WH~REAS, subject property is developed with a commercial retail center containing two thrfft
stores and the subject business in the CL `Commercial, Umited' Zone;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.03.091 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, on July 8, 1996,
the Planning Commisslon direc~ed that subject conditional use permic, be scheduled for public hearing to
conskier the revocation or modification thereoi, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and
18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Cade; and
WHEREAS, the Gity Planning Commission did h~ld a public hearing at the Civ~c Cei~ter in
~n~ ~':in',o# +~~ahefm on August 19, 1996, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hea~ing having been duly give~
- ?s ren.,a~r@r:: b~ law and in accordanae with the provisior.s of the Anaheim Muricipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
:; hea: ar~1 c~nsider evldence for and against said proposed revocatfon a modiflcatton ar~d tfl investigate
~` a,~rJ rn~ke~ f~.;acl(ngs arxl recommendations in cormection therewith; and that said hearing was continued
t~ t; ~~ P(ai ~Ing Comm(ssion meetirg of September 30, 1996, in order for the businoss owner to inftiate
staft recommendations to resolve issues pertaining to the operation of the subJect business;
WHEREAS, saki Commission, afte~r due inspection, Invest~gatDon and study made by ftself
and in fts behalf, and after due conskJeration of all eviderx:e and reports offered at said hearing, does flrxi
and determine the fdlowing facts:
1. That the use permft ~s being, or recer~ly has been, exercisad contrary to the terms or
conditlons of such approval, or in violation of a statute, ordinance, law or regulation (Section 18.03.092
[d]) ~
2. That Condft~ona~ Use Permft No. 1765 should be terminated beca~se the business ~wner
has continuad to vidate the terms of the granting of the subject conditional use permft;
3. That the use for which approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended
for one year or more (Section 18.03.092[c]);
4. That Condft(onal Use Permit No. 1765 permRs a beer bar, but that the current ABC Iicense
for the subJect location is a Type "47,' On-Sale Genera! - Eating Place (fuA alcohd) Iicense; and that any
change in the type of Ucanse for this location requires a Determination of Public Convenfence or Necessiry,
which the Police Department has indicated they would recommend b~ donied as documented by the
evidence presented at this publtc hearing;
5. That the use for whkh the approval was granted has been so exercised as to be detrimenta~
to the pubiic health or safery, or so as to conscituce a nuisance (18.03.092[e]);
6. That C,onditionaJ Use Permft No. 104, previously approved a: sub~eci location, permits the
sale of beer in conJunction wfth a restaurant, but that the current Alcoholtc Beverage Contrd (ABC) Iicense
is a Type '47,' On-Sale General - Eating Place (full alcohd) Ifcense;
CR2750DM.W? -i- PC:96-99
~ ~
7. That the cuRent ABC Ikense requires that sales of aicohdlc beverages sha~~ be made only
in conjunction wfth the sale and service of food; and that ABC requfres the premisas to be maintafned
as a bona flde restauraRt and that a menu be provkled contalning an assortmerd of foods normally offered
at restaurar-ts;
8. That the Pdice DepartmeM has observed person(s) solicftfng or encouraging others to biry
them drinks, in this licensed premises, for purposes of obtaining a commissfon, percentage, salary or profit
sharing by conspiracy;
9. That the evkJence presented a~r-dudes that the serving of ineais is not, or has not been,
ihe primary use or source of revenue for the busic~ess, a~xl/or that the serving of ineals is, or has been,
inc;dental to the sale of alcohdic beverages; and
10. That no on~ ind~ated their presence at safd publk hearing in oppositiors; and that no
correspondence was receNed in opposh~on to the subJect proposal.
G~~cnen~~e GnnnanntnnENTAL QUALITY AC7 FINDING: The ~'lanning Director's authM'ized
representative has determined that the proposed project falls wfthin the deflnition ~,:~ Caiegor~al
Exemptions, Gass 21, as defined In thg 5tate EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorical{y exempt firom
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commisslon ciaes hereby
revoke Condftional Use Pemnft No. 1765•
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Plan ing Commission meetin~ of
September 30, 1996. ~~~~~` 1
i
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM CI PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
IU~( _
SECRETARY, AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -
STATE OF CALJFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) ,
I, Margarita Sdo~io, Secretary of the Maheim Ctty Planning Commission, do hereby certHy
that the foregoing resdution was passed and adopted at a mcaeting of the Anaheim Cfry Planning
Commission held on September 30, 1996, by the fdlow(ng vo:e of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
P.BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her~unto ..et my hand this 2S~ day of ~~ ~
1996. /~~~~~~~
~' 0>O~GtI-1A.~
SECRETARY, AHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC96-99