HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120522_ZA2012-06_1441WMacArthurRole - a~~22~~ 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2012-07 FOR A
TYPE 20 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
LICENSE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1441
WEST MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
BE 1T RESOLVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana hereby
finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. The applicant is requesting approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2012-07 for a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage Control license, Which
allows the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption, for the
property located at 1441 West MacArthur Boulevard.
B. Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-07 came before the Zoning
Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a duly noticed public
hearing on May 22, 2x12.
C. Santa Ana Municipal Cade Section 41-196 requires a conditional use
permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
D. The Zoning Administrator determines that the following findings,
which must be established in order to grant a Conditional Use Permit
pursuant to Santa Ana Municipa! Code Section 41-638, have not
been established:
1. Will the proposed use provide a service ar facility which will
contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
community?
The proposed project will not provide a service to the
community since the new license would result in an
overconcentration of ABC licenses in the area. The off-
premise alcoholic beverage license has the potential to
negatively impact the surrounding commercial and
industrial uses, as we11 as residents in the adjacent
areas. The established criterion was intended to
Resolution No. 2x12-06
Page 1 of 4
protect the health and safety of the surrounding
community.
2, Will the proposed use under the circumstances of the
particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity?
The proposed alcoholic beverage control license would
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare
of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The
Police Department has determined that the praposed
market is located in an area that is average in police-
reiated incidents and is located within Reporting District
No. 130, which ranks 30th out of 102 citywide districts
in total number of police-related incidents. Studies
have shown that alcohol is a contributing factor in
crimes, such as drunk driving, fatal traffic collisions,
homicide, assaults, rape, domestic violence, drunk in
public and other nuisance type of offenses. The
addition of an alcohol sales establishment would
contribute to the crime rate in the area.
3. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic
stability or future economic development of properties
surrounding the area?
The praposed use would adversely affect the present
economic stability or future economic development of
properties surrounding the area. The denial of this
application would support Policy ~4.5 of the Economic
Element of the General Plan which discourages making
land use decisions based purely on fiscal
considerations but also the qualitative implications that
are associated. This new alcohol license's potential to
increase nuisance crimes will adversely affect the
economic stability of the surrounding properties.
4. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and
conditions specified in Chapter 41 of the S.A.M.C. for such
use?
The proposed alcohol license will not be in compliance
with all applicable conditions of Chapter 41 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code regarding off-premise general
liquor license since this location meets one of the three
criteria established for defining over-concentration. The
Santa Ana Municipal Code defines the over-
Resolution Na. 2012-06
Page 2 of 4
concentration of alcohol licenses as a site that meets
any one of the following criteria:
The premise is located within 1,000 feet of
another existing off-premise license location;
2. The premise is located within 1,000 feet of any
property used as a school primarily attended by
minors, a church or a park;
3. The premise is determined to be over-
concentrated by the State Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Although the subject property is not within 1,000 feet of
a property used as a school primarily attended by
minors, a church, or a park, it is located within 1,000
feet of another off-premise alcohol license and is in a
location determined to be over-concentrated by the
State.
5. Will the proposed use adversely affect the General Plan or any
specific plan of the City?
The proposed alcohol license will adversely affect the
General Plan in several ways. The new alcohol license
will be inconsistent with Policy 2.9 of the Land Use
Element which supports developments that create a
business environment that is safe and attractive. The
alcohol license increases the potential for nuisance
crimes such as loitering, disturbing the peace, graffiti
and other crimes that impact surrounding businesses
and residential neighborhoods. The granting of this
application is also inconsistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.b
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which
discourages projects that are not compatible with
surrounding land uses and have the potentia! to
negatively impact their quality of life. The project's
proximity to multi-family residential properties to the
north and west further supports the denial of this
application.
E. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act the
recommended action is exempt from further review per Section
15061(b)(3), which is a general rule exemption applying to projects
that have no possibility of having a significant impact on the
Resolution No. 2012-06
Page 3 of 4
- ~~
,. {E3 ~~ _
'~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~€ : ~ ~ earl,
-.~_ ~ ~~.
erg the ` ~ ~~~ ~, '~ ~-. tom. _ , _ ~ ~~o~~:~
--~-~:-
,,.
r ._
~ - -
y` ~~:
PROOF OF SERVICE
=C.C.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE
I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza,
Ross Annex 2"d Floor, Santa Ana, California 92702,
I served the foregoingg document described as: Resolution No. 2012-06
Conditional Use Permit No. 2012-07 in this action y p acing a rue copy
t ereo enc use ~n sea a enve opes a ressed as follows:
Matt Sliwinski Barry Hammond
7-Eleven Inc. 22982 La Cadena, #211
19939 Conventry Lane Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Jeff Pence
MCG MacArthur Corner LLC
1601 Dove, #145
Newport Beach, CA 92660
[ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the
addressee(s).
[X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be
deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully
prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware
that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of
deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[ ]The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and was reported as
complete and without error.
declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on June 13, 2012 at Santa Ana, California.
JOCELYN~ PiG~1LQPd;~