32 (5)
Susana Barrios
From:Kathrina Hirschfeld <kat@blakeandayaz.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:59 PM
To:Public Comment
Cc:Mike Ayaz; Legal
Subject:\[EXTERNAL\] RE: RE: RE: Adventureland PCN \[INV01-1000\]
Attachments:case law cited.pdf
You don't often get email from kat@blakeandayaz.com. Learn why this is important
Warning: This email originated from outside the City of Anaheim. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and are expecting the message.
For purposes of the administrative record, we would also like the memorandum addressing appellant’s case law
cited in his letter lodged with the city council. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kat Hirschfeld
Senior Paralegal
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706
P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: Kat@blakeandayaz.com | www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents
via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or
protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its
authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system
without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records
can be corrected. Thank you.
From: Kathrina Hirschfeld
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:28 PM
To: publiccomment@anaheim.net
Cc: Mike Ayaz <mike@blakeandayaz.com>; Legal <legal@blakeandayaz.com>
Subject: RE: RE: Adventureland PCN \[INV01-1000\]
1
Please see attached licenses, statement of information, and map related to licensee/appellant Talab Ibrahim. As
suspected this appeal is directly related to a competitor protest. We would like this to be included in the exhibits
to the city council for this evening’s hearing and we will also bring physical copies to the hearing. Please advise if
you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kat Hirschfeld
Senior Paralegal
2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 | Santa Ana, California 92706
P: 714-667-7171 | F: 714-667-0477
E: Kat@blakeandayaz.com | www.blakeandayaz.com
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR DOCUMENTS: Notice is hereby given that the transmittal of legal or other documents
via email is not recognized as proper or legal service unless there is prior written approval.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is private, confidential, or
protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Any dissemination, distribution, copying, or taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this transmission, by someone other than the intended addressee or its
authorized agent is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system
without copying it and notify Blake & Ayaz by reply e-mail, or telephone at (714) 667-7171 so that our records
can be corrected. Thank you.
2
Reply to Legal and Factual arguments put forth by appellant via his counsel of record:
1. Appellant is believed to have an ulterior motive for filing the appeal as he has a direct financial conflict
of interest via ownership of parcel 233-031-02 with address 500 W Orangewood Ave ., Anaheim, CA
92802. This premise operates under business name Kings Liquor (Type 21 Off Sale General License;
#21-533123) with the licensee as Nijma,Inc. where a Mohamad Talab Ibrahim is listed as director,
president, treasurer, secretary and stockholder. This premise is .2 miles from the applicant’s premise and
is believed to be a direct competitor within the area.
2. Appellant puts forth an argument of undue overconcentration that poses a risk to the public’s welfare
and moral wellbeing and cites several cases to support his point. The cases cited to are factually very
distinct from the matter at hand as put forth below:
a) Sepatis v. Alcoholic Bev. Etc. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal. App. 3d 93: applicant in this case
applied for a bar in the Haight Street district of San Francisco. The overconcentration of
bars in this area lead the Department to require a determination of Public Convenience
and Necessity in order to grant the application. The Department issued the license and it
was protested. The appeal court reversed the appeal board’s decision and reinstated the
Department’s deci sion to issue the license finding that the premise appealed to a different
clientele than what was being offered at current bars. Ultimately the court affirmed that it
was the Department’s jurisdiction to grant a license based on Public Convenience and
Necessity.
i. Thus, we must indulge the assumption that the Legislature intended by the phrase
"public convenience or necessity" to [***8] invoke criteria different from those utilized
in determining "undue concentration," and to permit the Department on the basis of such
criteria to grant an application for issuance or transfer of such a license even where
undue concentration is found to exist. This assumption is reflected in the Department's
rules
ii. The Supreme Court has observed that the phrase "public convenience and necessity"
(arguably more restrictive because of the conjunctive) "cannot be defined so as to fit all
cases . . . . [Its] meaning must be ascertained by reference to the context, and to the
objects and purposes of the statute in which it is found." ( San Diego etc. Ferry
Co. v. Railroad Com. (1930) 210 Cal. 504, 511 -512 [***9]
iii. The Department's licensing authority stems from article XX, section 22 of the state
Constitution, which provides in relevant part that the Department "shall have the
exclusive power, except as herein provided and in accordance with laws enacted by the
Legislature, to license the . . . sale of alcoholic beverages in this State," and that it "shall
have the power, in its discretion, to deny, suspend or revoke any specific alcoholic
beverages license if it shall determine for good cause that the granting or continuance of
such license would be contrary to public welfare or morals . . . ." The Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act (§ 23000 et seq.)
iv. Section 23819 makes clear that the Department is not required to issue licenses in the
statutorily limited ratio, and section 23820 authorizes the Department to make rules
v. [the Department] it is entitled to consider not only the kind of business to be conducted
on the licensed premises but "the probable manner in which it will be conducted [and]
the type of guests who will be its patrons . . . ." ( Koss v. Dept. Alcoholic Beverage
Control (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 489, 495 [30 Cal.Rptr. 219].)
vi. Where the determination of the department is one which could have been made by
reasonable people, the appeals board or the courts may not substitute a decision contrary
thereto, even though such decision is equally or more reasonable in the premises.
[Citations.]" ( Koss v. Dept. Alcoholic Beverage Control, supra, 215 Cal.App.2d 489,
496.
b) Torres v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 192 Cal. App. 2d 541
Factually distinct in number of licenses (88 licenses in census tract, 26 of which were in a
500 ft radius); High area of crime and protest was lodged by PD. Area was described as a
“skid row” with several crimes involving minors, prostitutes, and reports of public
drunkenness.
c) Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Bd., 136 Cal. App. 3d
315
The Department considers the number of licenses in conjunction with high crime rates to
support denial of application. Here although there was a protest lodged by the police for
the general area, upon closer inspection the census tract was divided by a freeway, and
the concentration of crime was on the other side of the freeway, almost a mile from the
proposed premise, thus increased crime rate was distinguished.
i. The Department, in the exercise of its rule-making power, has defined undue
concentration purely in statistical terms. However, it is not just the number of
licenses in a given area that is important; rather, it is the low number of persons
per license combined with an unusually high crime rate which set the stage for
possible denial of a license. These two figures reflect the belief there is a
relationship between crime and increased accessibility to alcohol, an
accessibility which is fostered by increased competition (see Torres v. Dept.
Alcoholic Bev. Control (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 541, 548 [13 Cal.Rptr. 531]). Yet, if
the applicant in an area [**192] where there is an undue concentration of
licenses can show the public convenience or necessity so dictates, he can still
get a license. In this way, the Department has balanced the need for an easy
method of determining when there is an undue concentration of liquor licenses
in an area with the need under some circumstances for the license to be
granted, notwithstanding the statistics.
(Department of Alcoholic Bev. Control v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Bd. (1982) 136
Cal.App.3d 315, 319 [186 Cal.Rptr. 189].)