The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-05 - Green Mart (1912 Harbor Blvd)RESOLUTION N0. 2025-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A STOREFRONT RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS WITH DELIVERY IN THE CI ZONE AT 1!312 HARBOR BOULEV ARD ("GREEN MART") THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, in November 2020, the Costa Mesa voters approved Measure Q; which allows for storefront and non-storefront retail cannabis uses in commercially zoned properties meeting specific location requirements, and non-storefront retail cannabis uses in Industrial Park (MP) and Planned Development Industrial (PDI) zoned properties; WHEREAS, on June 15, 2021, and May 7, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 21-08, 21-09, 24-03 and 24-04 to amend Titles 9 and 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) for cannabis storefront and non-storefront uses; WHEREAS, Planning Application PCUP-24-0011 was filed by Keith Sheinberg representing RDK Holdings, LLC, and the property owner, Dave Ruffel, requesting approval of the following: A Conditional Use Permit to operate a cannabis retail storefront retail and delivery business within a 2,400-square-foot, one-story commercial building located at 1912 Harbor Boulevard. The business would sell pre-packaged cannabis and pre-packaged cannabis products directly to customers onsite and through delivery, subject to conditions of approval and other City and State requirements; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing regarding PCUP24-0011 was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; Whereas, affer hearing public testimony the Planning Commission conditionally approved the application by a 3 to 2 vote. WHEREAS, the project was appealed by VMA Harbor Place Holding Company on March 3, 2025; Resolution No. 2025-05 Page I of 5 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2025 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the appeal; WHEREAS, affer receiving presentations from both the cannabis applicant and the appellant and hearing public testimony, the City Council granted the appeal by a 5 to 2 vote, thereby denying the Conditional Use Permit application. WHEREAS pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA in that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; NOW, THEREFORE, based on the evidence in the record and after considering public testimony, and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby approves the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit Application 24-0011, and denies the application. Resolution No. 2025-05 Page 2 of 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2025. ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: .1,:J')X'A-le Ki berly HaV Barlow, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF COSTA MESA 1, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2025-05 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the I 5'h day of April 2025, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BULEY, MARR, PETTIS, REYNOLDS, AND CHAVEZ. NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GAMEROS AND STEPHENS. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 1 6'h day of April, 2025. !i"n"da :n!""yClerk Resolution No. 2025-05 Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A.Pursuant to CMMC Section 13-29(g), when granting approval of an application for a conditional use permit, the City Council must find that based on the evidence presented in the record, the proposed project substantially meets all three Costa Mesa Municipal Code Conditional Use Permit required findings and would operate in a manner that would comply with all of the requirements of Section 13- 29(g)(2). The City Council was unable to make the required findings to approve the proposed use, as indicated below: Finding 1 "The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area". The Applicant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be detrimental to other properties within the area. During the City Council hearing, evidence was presented by numerous public speakers that there are already multiple approved cannabis retail businesses located within close proximity to the proposed cannabis storefront, including, but not limited to, a large retail cannabis business operating directly across Harbor Boulevard ("High Seas" - 1921 Harbor Boulevard), and four other cannabis storefronts operating less than a quarter mile away. Evidence was also presented during the public hearing that General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-1 demonstrates the City's goal to maintain "a balanced community with a mix of land uses to meet resident and business needs." Given the numerous cannabis retail storefront operations located within close proximity to the proposed new use, and specifically including the large cannabis retail storefront located across the street, the City Council determined that the proposed additional cannabis retail store would not preserve a balance of land uses in the community and would conflict with the General Plan Land Use Element "goal" to provide a "mix of land uses to meet the resident and business needs." In addition, based on the testimony about the type of businesses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, primarily family- oriented businesses with regular patronage by children, the use is incompatible with adjoining uses and potentially hazardous to minors who frequent the area. There was credible evidence submitted to the City Council that a prior cannabis dispensary located in the center had "led to increased loitering and disruptive behavior from individuals in the area. It became a common sight to see groups lingering outside, which made our customers uncomfortable and discouraged them from visiting. The behavior associated with the clinic's patrons disrupted the family-friendly environment we have Resolution No. 2025-05 Page 4 of 5 worked hard to maintain for the past 15 years." Therefore, the proposed use would be substantially incompatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Finding 2 "Granting the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood." The Applicant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the proposed project would not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood in that the business is proposed in one of the City's pedestrian priority areas as indicated by the General Plan Circulation Element, and the proposed "convenience store" focused high- volume operations would result in an increased customer vehicle demand that would be incompatible with the safety and general welfare of local pedestrian circulation. Finding 3 "The granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property." The Applicant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the proposed project would not result in a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. The property has a General Plan land use designation of "Commercial-Residential". The intent of this land use designation is to allow a mix of commercial and residential uses. In keeping with the intent of the Commercial-Residential Land Use District, General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU-'I specifically guides the City's land use decisions to focus on preserving "a balanced community with a mix of land uses to meet resident and business needs". Given the numerous cannabis retail storefront operations located within close proximity to the proposed new use, and specifically including the large cannabis retail storefront located across the street, the City Council determined that the proposed use would result in an oversaturation of cannabis operations and therefore would result in a density of cannabis operations that would not be in accordance with Land Use Element Goal LU-1. Resolution No. 2025-05 Page 5 of 5