Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24048 RESOLUTION NO. 24048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL BY THE ATEF D. JABER TRUST, REMOVING CONDITION OF APPROVAL ITEM PLN 8 FROM THE CONDITIONS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF CASE 5.0691 CUP, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE USE FOR "FIESTA MARKET" LOCATED AT 3700 EAST VISTA CHINO ROAD, SUITE G, ZONE M-1-P. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: 1. On March 31, 2016, Atef D. Jaber, representing The Atef D. Jaber Trust, (applicant / appellant) submitted an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a convenience store use at a multi-tenant commercial center located at 3700 East Vista Chino Road, Suite "G"; (Zone M-1-P) and paid the applicable fees. 2. On May 11, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California held a public hearing that was noticed in accordance with applicable law, to consider the CUP application. At said hearing the Planning Commission considered all the evidence associated with the application including the staff report and all written and oral testimony and voted to approve the CUP with conditions. Among the conditions of approval was Condition #PLN 8 in which the Planning Commission imposed a prohibition on the sale of alcohol in single service containers at the subject convenience store. 3. On May 26, 2016, pursuant to Municipal Code 2.05 ("appeal to the City Council'), the applicant paid the applicable fees and filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's actions of May 11, 2016, specifically requesting Condition #PLN 8 be removed. 4. On June 15, 2016 the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California held a public hearing that was noticed in accordance with applicable law, to consider the appeal. At said hearing the City Council considered the staff report and all written and oral testimony given in association with the hearing. 5. In the appeal letter dated May 26, 2016, the appellant states the specific action being appealed is the Planning Commission's imposition of Condition #PLN 8. Condition of approval PLN 8 states: Limits on sale of alcohol in single serving containers. If the operator of Resolution No. 24028 Page 2 the convenience store obtains a license to sell alcohol of any kind, the sale of such product (for example: beer, wine, malt liquors, wine coolers, beer coolers, spirits, etc.) in single serving containers shall not be permitted. Alcoholic beverages must only be sold in multi-unit quantities pre-packaged by the manufacturer. Wine in containers of at least 750 ML, and spirits in containers of at least 375 ML (half pint) are exempt from this prohibition. 6. In the appeal letter, the appellant states the grounds for his appeal as follows: The grounds for this appeal is that this condition imposes on my business an unfair prohibition on the sale of single size containers — which at least eight (8) other retailers within approximately 1 mile radius of my store have the right to sell. My store is not a liquor store -- it is a unique specialty market with full line of custom fresh cut meats, food, deli items, soft drinks, dairy products and fresh produce to both residents and tourists. Specialty beer brewers and micro-breweries now bottle high-end limited production beer in single serving containers — these type of premium products are important to the specialty-market ambiance and inventory that I seek to offer for sale to the public. Although the sale of alcoholic beverages represents a relatively small portion of the sale of all goods and services that I will provide, it nonetheless is an important part of my overall product offerings and allows my store to be more of a "full service" specialty neighborhood market. The appellant included a list of retailers in the general vicinity of his business which have no regulations prohibiting the sale of alcohol in single serve containers. In his appeal letter, the appellant states that on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, he visited each of the eight stores and purchased single serve containers of alcohol, to provide evidence that such prohibition of single serve containers does not exist on other retailers selling alcoholic beverages for off-sale consumption. 7. In his appeal, the appellant states: Since my store has yet to open, there is no evidence that such a problem (homeless persons, vagrants, and persons with alcoholism purchasing singles, consuming them, and causing a nuisance) is, or will be, caused by my product sales. The appellant is currently in the process of installing fixtures, casework, and upgrading the finishes in the tenant space in which the convenience store use will be located. His business is not open yet, and therefore there is no evidence that the sale of alcohol in single serve containers at this specialty market will exacerbate the homeless problem. Resolution No. 240/8 Page 2 the convenience store obtains a license to sell alcohol of any kind, the sale of such product (for example: beer, wine, malt liquors, wine coolers, beer coolers, spirits, etc.) in single serving containers shall not be permitted. Alcoholic beverages must only be sold in multi-unit quantities pre-packaged by the manufacturer. Wine in containers of at least 750 ML, and spirits in containers of at least 375 ML (half pint) are exempt from this prohibition. 6. In the appeal letter, the appellant states the grounds for his appeal as follows: The grounds for this appeal is that this condition imposes on my business an unfair prohibition on the sale of single size containers — which at least eight (8) other retailers within approximately 1 mile radius of my store have the right to sell. My store is not a liquor store -- it is a unique specialty market with full line of custom fresh cut meats, food, deli items, soft drinks, dairy products and fresh produce to both residents and tourists. Specialty beer brewers and micro-breweries now bottle high-end limited production beer in single serving containers — these type of premium products are important to the specialty-market ambiance and inventory that i seek to offer for sale to the public. Although the sale of alcoholic beverages represents a relatively small portion of the sale of all goods and services that I will provide, it nonetheless is an important part of my overall product offerings and allows my store to be more of a "full service" specialty neighborhood market. The appellant included a list of retailers in the general vicinity of his business which have no regulations prohibiting the sale of alcohol in single serve containers. In his appeal letter, the appellant states that on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, he visited each of the eight stores and purchased single serve containers of alcohol, to provide evidence that such prohibition of single serve containers does not exist on other retailers selling alcoholic beverages for off-sale consumption. 7. In his appeal, the appellant states: Since my store has yet to open, there is no evidence that such a problem (homeless persons, vagrants, and persons with alcoholism purchasing singles, consuming them, and causing a nuisance) is, or will be, caused by my product sales. The appellant is currently in the process of installing fixtures, casework, and upgrading the finishes in the tenant space in which the convenience store use will be located. His business is not open yet, and therefore there is no evidence that the sale of alcohol in single serve containers at this specialty market will exacerbate the homeless problem. Resolution No. 24028 Page 3 8. The relief that the appellant is seeking is that the City Council uphold his appeal and remove Condition of Approval PLN 8 on the Planning Commissions' approval of the CUP for his convenience store use at 3700 East Vista Chino Road, Suite "G" (Case 5.0691 CUP) thereby allowing the sale of alcohol in single serve containers, consistent with the business practices of other retailers in the vicinity that also have licenses to sell alcohol for off-site consumption. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the condition imposed, which prohibits the sale of alcohol in single serve containers represents an unfair restriction in appellant's business activities compared to other retailers in the vicinity who have no such restriction imposed upon them. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby upholds the appeal and overturns the action of the Planning Commission's imposition of Condition #PLN 8, a prohibition on the sale of alcohol in single serve containers from the approval of Case 5.0691 CUP, a Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store use located at 3700 East Vista Chino Road, Suite "G" and retains all other conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on its approval of the CUP. ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2016. David H. Ready, City Man ATTEST: ja�mes Thompson, City Clerk Resolution No. 2448 Page 3 8. The relief that the appellant is seeking is that the City Council uphold his appeal and remove Condition of Approval PLN 8 on the Planning Commissions' approval of the CUP for his convenience store use at 3700 East Vista Chino Road, Suite "G" (Case 5.0691 CUP) thereby allowing the sale of alcohol in single serve containers, consistent with the business practices of other retailers in the vicinity that also have licenses to sell alcohol for off-site consumption. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the condition imposed, which prohibits the sale of alcohol in single serve containers represents an unfair restriction in appellant's business activities compared to other retailers in the vicinity who have no such restriction imposed upon them. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby upholds the appeal and overturns the action of the Planning Commission's imposition of Condition #PLN 8, a prohibition on the sale of alcohol in single serve containers from the approval of Case 5.0691 CUP, a Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store use located at 3700 East Vista Chino Road, Suite "G" and retains all other conditions imposed by the Planning Commission on its approval of the CUP. ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JUNE, 2016. David H. Ready, City MA ATTEST: ames Thompson, City Clerk Resolution No. 24028 Page 4 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 24048 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on the 15th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Kors, Councilmember Roberts, Mayor Pro Tern Mills, and Mayor Moon. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. mes Thompson, City Clerk obl Z91 Zol G City of Palm Springs, California Resolution No. 240/8 Page 4 !!! CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 24048 is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on the 15th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Kors, Councilmember Roberts, Mayor Pro Tern Mills, and Mayor Moon. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. mes Thompson, City Clerk Ob,Z91 City of Palm Springs, California