CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Anaheim
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Suite #162
Anaheim, CA 92805
Tel: (714) 765-5139
Fax: (714) 765-5280
www.anaheim.net
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2024
FROM: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 2023-
00011 FOR A DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY TO PERMIT OFF-SITE
SALES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2725; AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT FOR A 5% REDUCTION
IN REQUIRED PARKING FOR ADVENTURE LAND AT 2125-
2129 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD
ATTACHMENT (Y/N): YES ITEM # 32
GOVERNMENT CODE § 84308 APPLIES: YES
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council, by Resolution, deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit off-site sales of alcoholic beverages; modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725; and administrative adjustment for a 5% reduction in required parking for Adventure Land, a retail sales-general use located at 2125-2129 South Harbor Boulevard and approve Development Application No. 2023-00011, thereby approving the project.
DISCUSSION:
On January 17, 2024, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7- 0 to approve Development Application No. 2023-00011 for a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit the off-site sales of alcoholic beverages in an existing retail sales-general use that is incidental to and integrated with The Carriage Inn motel; a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 to remove a condition of approval requiring a restrictive covenant on the property; and an administrative adjustment to permit fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. A copy of the January 17, 2024 Planning Commission resolution, staff report, draft meeting minutes, and written public comments received by the Planning Commission are included as Attachment 2, 3, 4, and 5 to this report.
Within the time prescribed by law, the Planning Commission’s decision was Development Application No. 2023-00011
February 27, 2024
appealed to the City Council by Talab Ibrahim (the “Appellant”). The appeal request is included as Attachment 6 to this report.
Project Description: The applicant requests a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity for the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, and distilled spirits) for off-premises (off-sale) consumption in conjunction with the existing retail sales-general establishment, Adventure Land.
As shown on the Project Plans (Attachment 7), the total alcohol display areas will not exceed 10% of the floor area of the existing retail establishment.
The State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) requires a Type 21 Off-Sale General license for this request. State law limits the issuance of a new alcohol sales license when a license is requested in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. A Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity is required for this application because there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within the census tract (2 off-sale licenses permitted, 3 off-sale licenses exist within the census tract). A copy of the ABC License Map is included as Attachment 9. As stated in the Anaheim Police Department Memorandum (Attachment 10), the property is within Police Reporting District 2224, which is below the City average in crime.
In addition to the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity, the applicant requests a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 2725 to remove a condition of approval requiring a restrictive covenant on the property indicating that the parking variance for the property shall terminate and become null and void upon any change of use from the original approved use as a retail wig shop unless additional required parking is provided. Attachment 12 includes a Draft Memorandum of Termination of Restrictive Covenant drafted by the City Attorney’s Office, which will be recorded if the Planning Commission’s approval is upheld by the City Council.
Lastly, the applicant is requesting an administrative adjustment for a 5% reduction in parking for the project site. The motel and freestanding commercial building are on the same parcel and share a total of 44 parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires 46 parking spaces for the two uses on the site. The applicant submitted a Parking Justification Letter with a parking demand analysis, which surveyed the parking on several days between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and indicated that the maximum number of spaces used at any one time was 38 spaces. The Applicant Parking Justification Letter is included as Attachment 11 to this report.
A full detailed analysis of the project is included in the January 17, 2024 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3).
Basis of Appeal: The Appellant’s basis for appeal (Attachment 6) is that the applicant provided misleading and inaccurate information to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed business. The Appellant also stated doubt that the Planning Commission had sufficient time to thoroughly read all the submitted letters. Through Attorney Joshua Kaplan and by way of letter dated February 8, 2024, the appellant provided supplemental documentation with respect to the appellant’s identity and character, the applicant’s identity and character, and the factual and legal context of the appeal (Attachment 6A). An attachment to the supplemental documentation Development Application No. 2023-00011
February 27, 2024
provided by Attorney Joshua Kaplan includes a duplicate of the comments provided by his client to the Planning Commission prior to the January 17, 2024 meeting.
The information below summarizes the appellant’s stated reasons for appealing the project and staff’s analysis of each point.
Reason #1: The applicant provided misleading and inaccurate information to the Planning Commission, including in response to questions from the Commission.
Details explaining the specific misleading and inaccurate information provided to the Planning Commission were not provided by the appellant. However, Condition of approval No. 1 requires that the business be operated in accordance with the Letter of Justification, which was reviewed by the Planning Department and the Anaheim Police Department staff and is included as Attachment 8.
Reason #2: The Commissioners did not have time to thoroughly read all the submitted letters.
The Planning Commission staff report, distributed to the Commissioners on January 12, 2024, included five letters in opposition to the project received prior to the publication of the staff report. An additional eight letters, most with common themes, were provided to the Commissioners in two batches as received, the latest of which was distributed before 2:00 pm on the day of the public hearing. Printed copies were also provided on the dais for reference which staff acknowledged in the presentation.
Reason #3: The granting of an alcohol sale license to applicant would violate State law because of the proximity of the Project to schools and public playgrounds or non-profit youth facilities.
The State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) is authorized, but not required, to deny alcohol sale licenses that are within 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds, or non-profit youth facilities. Parkview Elementary School, located at 12272 Wilken Way in the City of Garden Grove, is approximately 0.7 miles away from the subject building via local public streets. While there is no direct access between the sites without traveling along Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, the furthest edge of the Adventure Land building to the nearest property line of Parkview Elementary School is approximately 550 feet.
Reason #4: The applicant has not met its burden of establishing public convenience or necessity.
A determination of public convenience or necessity is required when a license is requested in a police reporting district with a crime rate above the City average, or when there is an overconcentration in the number of ABC licenses within a census tract. The subject building is located within Census Tract 884.02, which allows for 2 off-sale licenses based on the population within the tract, and there are currently 3 off-sale licenses (2 in the City of Garden Grove). The property is located within Police Reporting District 2224, which is below the City average in crime.
Development Application No. 2023-00011
February 27, 2024
The existing retail use is incidental to and integrated with the Carriage Inn motel. The operational characteristics of the proposed business are consistent with similar businesses in the surrounding vicinity and would provide an additional convenience to patrons of the Carriage Inn motel and surrounding Anaheim Resort area by providing a variety of goods geared towards hotel patrons and tourists visiting the Resort. Conditions of approval from the Police Department have been included in the resolution that require the installation of CCTV, proper lighting, restricting the hours of operation to the hours presented in the Letter of Justification, and policing of loitering around the retail store by the business operator to ensure that the business would not negatively affect the neighborhood.
Environmental Impact Analysis: The Planning Commission found that the proposed Project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). The Class 1 exemption consists of the repair, maintenance, and/or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of the use beyond that existing at the time of this determination. The proposed project does not include the expansion of the existing freestanding commercial building or the motel use, and all business activities would occur within the existing structure. Pursuant to Section 15300.2 (c) and 15301 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, there are no unusual circumstances in respect to the proposed project for which staff would anticipate a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project would be categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt as outlined herein from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is required.
CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission carefully considered the Project, considered the staff report, and public comments received, and determined that the Project, as conditioned, would: serve as an additional public convenience or necessity; would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the surrounding area; would not be detrimental to the overall public health and safety of the community; would not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways; would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code and could not be achieved by using provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require an adjustment; and would not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood. Adequate parking will be provided on-site for both the motel and retail sales- general use, and all business activities would occur within the existing building. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission approving the project.
IMPACT ON BUDGET:
There is no budgetary impact. The Appellant paid the fee necessary to schedule this appeal request, and the costs associated with this hearing will be incurred by the project applicant.
Development Application No. 2023-00011
February 27, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
Ted White
Deputy City Manager / Director of Planning and Building Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2024-002
3. January 17, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
4. January 17, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes
5. Planning Commission Public Correspondence
6. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision (Talab Ibrahim) A. Submission of Legal and Factual Arguments
7. Project Plans
8. Applicant PCN Justification
9. ABC License Map
10. Anaheim Police Department Memorandum
11. Applicant Parking Justification Letter
12. Draft Memorandum of Termination of Restrictive Covenant