HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-43 - Denial of PA-22-04 - 2790 Harbor Blvd. (From the Earth)RESOLUTION NO. 2023-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA,
CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION 22-04 FOR A STOREFRONT RETAIL CANNABIS BUSINESS WITH
DELIVERY (FROM THE EARTH) IN THE C1 ZONE AT 2790 HARBOR BOULEVARD,
SUITES 107, 109, AND 115
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 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 on 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, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 21-08 and
No. 21-09 to amend Titles 9 and 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) to establish
regulations for cannabis storefront and non -storefront uses;
WHEREAS, Planning Application 22-04 was filed by Dan Zaharoni representing
DBO Investments CM, LLC, the authorized agent for the property owner, Tri-Harmony
Properties, LLC, requesting approval of the following:
A Conditional Use Permit to operate a cannabis retail storefront and delivery
business within an existing 2,157-square-foot first floor commercial space within a
multiple -tenant commercial building located at 2790 Harbor Boulevard (Suites 107,
109 and 115). 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 was held by the Planning Commission on
May 22, 2023 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following the public hearing, denied the
application on a 5-2 vote;
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was filed
on May 30, 2023;
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August
1, 2023 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the appeal;
Resolution No. 2023-43 Page 1 of 5
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, evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City
Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to DENY Planning
Application 22-04.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this resolution, or the document in the record in support of this resolution, are
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
Resolution No. 2023-43 Page 2 of 5
ATTEST:
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 2023.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brenda Green, ity Clerk K mberly Idall Barlow, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA)
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023-43 and was duly passed and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 1st
day of August 2023 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CHAVEZ, GAMEROS, HARPER, MARR, AND
REYNOLDS.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HARLAN 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 2"d day of August 2023.
�aW& OVS�
Brenda Green, ity Clerk
Resolution No. 2023-43 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 Planning Commission or City Council must find that based
on the evidence presented in the record, the proposed project substantially meets
the 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.
1. The Applicant must demonstrate that 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 project is
substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not
be detrimental to other properties within the area. The evidence demonstrates that
there are already multiple approved cannabis retail businesses within 1,000 feet of
the proposed development, including a very large retail cannabis business (Stiiizzy,
a 11,274-square-foot cannabis store which is already operating at 2710 Harbor
Boulevard) sharing the same parking as the proposed development. Photographs
introduced at the public hearing of the actual parking use shows the lots near
capacity by mid -afternoon, even though there are currently multiple building and/or
suite vacancies. At 2790 Harbor Boulevard, two of the proposed storefront suites as
well as three other suites in the subject building are vacant (approximately 4,800
square feet combined). The approximately 5,600-square-foot building at 2760 Harbor
Boulevard is also currently vacant and shares the same parking lot as the proposed
storefront. When the commercial tenant spaces are fully occupied and sharing the
parking provided, the parking spaces will be inadequate to meet the commercial
center's parking demand.
In addition, a large number of cannabis uses in such close proximity to one another
is likely to discourage re -occupancy of some of the other vacant commercial
properties in the immediate vicinity, thus reducing the provision to the public of a
mixture of commercial goods, services, and employment opportunities in the
immediate area. Within 1,000 feet of the proposed development, four cannabis retail
uses have been approved at the following locations: 1) 2845 Harbor Blvd., 2) 2801
Harbor Blvd., 3) 2710 Harbor Blvd., and 4) 2706 Harbor Blvd. Refer to attached map.
2. The Applicant must demonstrate that 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.
Resolution No. 2023-43 Page 4 of 5
The Applicant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the proposed project 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. Photographs introduced at the public hearing of the actual parking
use shows the lots near capacity by mid -afternoon, even though there are currently
multiple building and/or suite vacancies. When the commercial area is fully occupied
and sharing the parking provided, it is reasonable to conclude that the parking spaces
will be inadequate to meet the need. This could result in queuing on Harbor
Boulevard which is a major arterial, or parking congestion in the adjacent residential
neighborhood. Residential development is located approximately 270 feet to the east
of the proposed development.
3. The Applicant must demonstrate that 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 granting the conditional
use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with
the General Plan designation. Additionally, nearby businesses and residents
testified credibly that the high concentration of cannabis businesses in the immediate
vicinity is harmful to the overall strength of the commercial center, existing
businesses and the neighborhood. The General Plan policies including Policy LU-
1.1 support providing a sound mixture of commercial goods, services, and
employment opportunities, and approving this use will increase the density of
cannabis uses in this vicinity, which undermines that General Plan policy goal. In
addition, General Plan policies including LU-3.1 support protecting residential
neighborhoods from incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities,
and approving this use could allow for parking intrusion and queueing impacts on
Harbor Boulevard which undermine this General Plan policy.
Resolution No. 2023-43 Page 5 of 5