title
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OFF-SALE OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN A PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE AT 2700 COUNTRY CLUB BOULEVARD (P15-0520)
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a request for a Use Permit to allow the off-sale of general alcoholic beverages in a proposed liquor store at 2700 Country Club Boulevard.
body
Summary
The Planning Commission was previously asked to consider a Use Permit application submitted by the business owner, Harry Shergill, to allow the off-sale of general alcoholic beverages in a proposed liquor store at the above-noted location (Attachment A - Location Map and Aerial Photograph). The Planning Commission’s public hearing for the Use Permit was originally held on April 14, 2016. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission did not concur with staff’s recommendation for denial of the Use Permit and instead directed staff to bring back findings for approval and conditions of approval for the proposed use.
DISCUSSION
The Use Permit was originally scheduled to be considered by the Planning commission on March 10, 2016 for the Planning Commission hearing; however, oOn March 1, 2016, the applicant’s attorney requested that the hearing be continued to April 14, 2016, due to his a schedulinge conflict. At its On April 14, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the subject Use Permit. The applicant and his attorney appeared at the hearing and presented testimony in support of the Use Permit. The applicant’s attorney stated that crime statistics that had been provided by the Police Department did not distinguish between crimes in the shopping center containing the subject site and those that originated in adjacent apartment complexes. According to the applicant, there are no crime problems in the existing shopping center. The applicant stated that he has more than ten years of experience related to alcohol sales and has not had any police problems related to such uses. He indicated that he participated in a “good neighbor program” at his liquor store on El Dorado Street and that he intended to initiate the same program at his proposed liquor store to prevent illegal activities from alcohol uses. The applicant’s attorney submitted copies of letters to support this proposed use, and a petition with the names and signatures of more than 300 of his client’s customers and area residents who supported the subject use, and samples of pictures taken by security cameras in use at the applicant’s liquor store on El Dorado Street (Attachment B - Letters of Support and Public Petition/Pictures from for Security Cameras). He also made reference to letters and a public petition in support of the project that had previously been submitted to staff ( and Attachment C - Previous Letters of Support and Public Petition). Several individuals spoke during the hearing in support of the proposed use. Two opponents of the project raised expressed their concerns regarding the proposed use and stated that the project site was not suitable for the operation of a liquor store, because there are already high numbers of crimes in the neighborhood and an adequate number of alcohol establishments are a currently operating in the vicinity area of the project site (Attachment D - Locations of Active On-Sale and Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Licenses). The opponents stated that adding another alcoholic beverage use in the area could have the potential to increase drug-related crimes and illegal activities related to alcohol use (Attachment E - Previous Letters of Opposition).
Following public testimony, a motion was made to uphold staff’s recommendation to deny the Use Permit for a proposed liquor store with the off-sale of general alcoholic beverages. The motion failed on a 3 to 3 vote (Aguillard, Jobrack, and Tutt dissenting, Hernandez absent). The Planning Commission continued to discuss the proposed use and noted that the applicant indicated a willingness to collaborate with other business owners in the shopping center to establish a “good neighbor program” to improve the area. A subsequent motion was approved (4 to 2, Davie and Ely dissenting, Hernandez absent) to direct staff to bring the Use Permit back to the Planning Commission with a resolution containing findings for approval and conditions of approval. Additionally, Tthe findings would were to indicate that public necessity would be served by approval of the proposed use, because it would help to eliminate blight in the shopping center. The conditions of approval would include a requirement for a minimum of twenty-four (24) inside cameras and thirteen (13) outside cameras, no single sales of beer or small bottles of alcohol or spirit, no sales of less than 40-ounce malt beverages, no pay phone on the premises, a strict policy of no loitering at the store and in the shopping center, perpetual annual reviews for the project, and the establishment and maintenance of a “good neighbor program.” in the shopping center.
Based upon subsequent the discussions with staff in the City Attorney’s Office, staff is recommending that the following proposed conditions that were identified provided by the Commission would be revised as follows:
• “No loitering at the store and in the shopping center.” - Staff is recommending that this condition would be modified to read: “Nno loitering in or near the subject liquor store.”, bBecause the liquor store owner does not own the all of the shopping center, it is difficultinappropriate to requestrequire him to enforce this lawcondition in the subject shopping center for property he does not own. Further, there areis already an existing law that requires the property owner of the shopping center must post signs on the premises to notify the public regarding this prohibition.
• “Perpetual annual reviews for the subject Use Permit” would be revised to “twelve month and twenty-four month reviews following the initiation of the subject use on the premises, because if the proposed use is in violation of the conditions of approval, SMC Section 16.108.030.B.1.a or b would allow the process of modification/revocation of the approved Use Permit. Further, reviewing the subject Use Permit in perpetuity would result in a burden on the City’s staff in performing the staff-level review. As a result, staff recommends the modification of the noted condition.
According to ABC staff, approving the proposed off-sale general alcohol use would not result in an overconcentration of such licenses in the census tract, as defined by State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) regulations. As a result, a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) is not required from the Planning Commission in order for ABC to issue an off-sale of general alcohol license for the subject site. Although a PCN finding is not required by ABC for the issuance of alcohol license on the subject site. It has been included in the proposed Planning Commission Resolution (Finding No. 1.h) in response to comments provided by the Commission during the April 14, 2016 public hearing for the subject Use Permit. Further, making a finding of the public necessity forth subject Use Permit, which was discussed by the Planning Commission during the April 14, 2016 public hearing, is not necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The subject Use Permit is categorically exempt, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, as the reuse of an existing commercial building.
Attachment A - Location Map and Aerial Photograph
Attachment B - Letters of Support and Public Petition/Pictures from Security Cameras
Attachment C - Previous Letters of Support and Public Petition
Attachment D - Locations of Active On-Sale and Off-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Licenses
Attachment E - Previous Letters of Opposition