Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWithdrawal of Appeal for CUP 93-38 Dave Sullivan/Starbucks r/ r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Q C 4 TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk r-ern FROM: Dave Sullivan, City Council Member corn ni J rf1 C CV DATE: December 13, 1993 SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL FOR CUP 93-38 I wish to withdraw my appeal dated November 12, 1993, of Conditional Use Permit number 93-38 (Starbuck's Coffee Company). DS:paj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Dave Sullivan City Council Member D/ 5 DATE: November 12, 1993 SUBJECT: Appeal of Conditional Use Permit No. 93-38 I wish to appeal Conditional Use Permit No. 93-38 (Starbuck's Coffee company)because the city has not officially designated a site where the in-lieu parking fees will be used to provide the required parking for this business. DS:pf � s O G N � n N m r v rtlf l E x 3 .r f" 4� T J Grace Winchell� City of Huntington $each MAYORMAY OR PRO TEMPORE 1 P. O. BOX 190 • 2000 MAIN STREET • CALIFORNIA 92648 Linda Moulton-Patterson COUNCILMEMEERS Ralph Bauer Victor Leipzig Earle Robitaille Jim Silva Dave Sullivan ,p �orri4" �J.lo cKtv,/j Cij� CL e'il,� L//eF rJr ,/7oQ67'L S ,UDI-L-� //►' /7/� �'J L�� ��o v eAo'`.. /lam o /1-s �A//loLt�S �lS���'�'�r> �ilv~J /�fL•' QLD�'N/NC Lsci7.1iSS�� o = Z4 o m m U m C Q n T^ C7 n +s r LO DRUG USE Is TELEPHONE (714) 536-5553 l -)o CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH • G TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member DATE: September 29, 1993 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON THEIR AGENDA ITEMS B-2 AND B-5 AT THE MEETING OF 9/21/93 I would like to appeal the Planning Commission's decision from their meeting of 9/21/93, Agenda Item B-2, the 9/21/93 (Downtown Newstand) for the following reasons: 1. The Cart and Kiosk Ordinance has not been approved, thus we cannot evaluate the compliance of the newstand. 2. The newstand has apparently been in violation of city codes, as they now exist. 3. The newstand apparently has not lived up to an agreement made with the city. I would like to appeal the planning commission's decision on item B-5 (9/21/93) regarding Nicole's Restaurant operation on a public right of way, for the following reasons: 1. The Cart and Kiosk Ordinance has not been approved so we cannot evaluate the legitimacy of this use. 2. Granting of a public right-of-way to a private business, without remuneration, is a gift of public funds, and such a granting of funds is illegal. Enclosed is a letter from Huntington Beach Tomorrow which outlines additional concerns. RB:paj Enclosure Additional information to be received from Ralph Bauer. v?- 93-3 1 ''CNe�as�a+c0� Cv'P- 13-ay N«.o m R1 w 1 Huntin n Beach omorrow BOX M5 Huntington Beac x CA 92"8 September 26 , 1993 Councilman Ralph Bauer Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 93648 Dear Ralph: Thank you for taking the time to talk to me on behalf of Huntington Beach's concerns relative to two items which were passed by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at its last meeting on the 21st: 1 . Item B-2 , Appeal by Commission Cook of the Zoning Administrator 's approval of UP No . 93-31 for Taxi 's Newstand , Pierside Pavilion , 300 PCH, Suite 101A: ( Contrary to the impression in the item description , the newstand is located in the both the outside and inside public access area from the east side of the building on Main Street somewhat south of PCH. ) 2 . Item B-5, CUP No . 93-24 by Architect Robert Mechielsen and Associates for a restaurant to include dining within the public right-of-way at 211 Main Street . We believe both should be appealed prior to October 1 at 5 P.M . but recognize that there may be positives and negatives for you in such an appeal and leave the decision to you . We will support you in every way possible , if you decide to appeal one or both. 1'. Item B-2: Attached is a statement on behalf of HBT concerning the newstand UP , appeal and related matters. Our position concerning the newstand is updated below . The related considerations and recommendations are still applicable and , as an aside at this point, we would still like these added to the procedure for obtaining a business license in this city to protect the city and its official from the waste of time , money and energy which is - involved in cases like those which the newstand clearly illustrates . Though all the Planning Commissioners received this letter , they apparently have never dealt with or implemented these recommendations and there appears to be no intent to do so at this time . We would very much appreciate it , if you could see that these procedures are implemented as soon as possible . At the time our July letter was written , we believed an agreement V ? Q3 .31 °3-xl between HST , Mr . Varona and Ms . Cook had been struck , which would al'low the newstand to continue . Even though Mr . Varona started this business in clear violation of the code and it is hard' to believe that he would not have been aware of the need to have permanent facilities , we were willing to compromise on a one case only basis , if he held up his side of the agreement and mitigated the problems and impact associated with the business to the best of his ability . Except for the end rack on the large display box recommended by Ms . Cook and agreed to by HBT , City staff incorporated this agreement in the recommended action to the Planning Commission . In our opinion , Mr . Varona did not hold up his part of the agreement , an agreement made to avoid our opposition his application. While this agreement may provide no legal basis for denying the permit , we feel that we have been told what was necessary so that Mr . Varona could then have a free hand to do what he wanted without our opposition . At this point , the only condition of our agreement which Mr . Varona has met is to paint the large box on the north side of the operation to match the decor of the adjacent building . He has not constructed and painted the movable display box which was to be located between the pillar and the wall of the building on the south side , he continues to display his papers on the ground beyond the column and he has not produced or discussed with us the site plan which he was to submit to the city and us prior to the CUP hearing. Further he has , in our opinion , now badgered the majority of the Planning Commission into giving him more than he has agreed without our having the opportunity to comment or ask for permit conditions which we believe are necessary to prevent him from continuing to do what he likes when he likes , once he is given a permit . We do not believe that Mr . Varona has acted responsibly in this matter .• As a consequence , we now oppose a Use permit or CUP for Mr . Varona for the reasons indicated in our July 6 letter and because of his recent actions . If the CUP is reconsidered and the Council decides to approve it and since the carts and kiosks (outside sales ) ordinance is not in place , we ask that the following conditions be attached to the permit: 1 . the permit must be reviewed in six months and again in one year to determine whether or not Mr . Varona has remained in conformance with the conditions of the permit; 2 . at any time Mr . Varona is found to be in violation of the __ permit , it must be submitted to public review and may be revoked within 10 working days of a decision to revoke the permit . 2 . Item B-5: The firm Mechielsen and Associates was granted a permit for , 2 among other things , a restaurant operation , Niccole 's Cafe , in and on public right of way and adjacent to the Harlow building . This business will not be subject to the outdoor sales ordinance now being finalized by city staff for submission to the Planning Commission and the City Council . This ordinance , for unexplained reasons , has been under consideration for over a year . It is meant to �Provide for citizen input , appropriate administrative evaluation and city control of outdoor sales , things which either has not been available , not in a collected , interpretable form or not enforced in the past . We believe continuing to approve permits which should be subject to such input , evaluation and control is not in the best interests of the citizens now or for the future . Once such businesses are grandfathered in , the city will , have to live with them in the future as long as a business , which conforms to the use allowed by the permit is in place . As a matter of principle , we do not believe that the public right should be used for a permanent private business . We believe that the purpose of public right of way is to provide continuing public access and open space not commercial opportunities for business , especially in this case , since apparently the city is simply giving it to the business operator without compensation. To us , this case , in addition to the other considerations , involves a giving of public property without any compensation , a situation which we believe is completely inappropriate , certainly not in the best interests of the citizens of this city , especially in our current economic and budgetary situation and may indeed be illegal . If the permit is reconsidered , we ask that the permit be denied at least until the outdoor sales ordinance has been considered and adopted . If it is reconsidered and the Council should decide to approve it , we request that the applicant be asked to agree , to bring his operation into conformance with the outdoor sales ordinance once it is adopted and that the Council be assured that such an agreement is legally enforceable. We fail to see why the applicant would not agree to do so , since such an ordinance will be meant to do nothing but enhance the downtown for everyone concerned . Should the applicant not agree to conformance and the Council decides to approve the permit , we request that the permit be conditioned as follows: 1 . The permit must be reviewed at 6 months and 1 year to see that 24-hour operation on weekends is to the best interests of _ the city and the permit should be extended or made permanent . _ 2 . In any case, the restaurant the restaurant must lease the land from the city and pay the city a fee to be determined by the City Council . The initial lease should be contingent on a satisfactory 6-month and 1-year review. Successive leases should be for a definite period advantageous to the city and its 3 revenue requirements , consistent with other leases for similar Property in the public sector and revocable if the conditions of the use permit are not met and/or the permit .is revoked . Thank you for consideration of these comments , requests and recommendations . We look forward to your relative to your decision . Sinc ly, Robert Winchell President , Huntington Beach Tomorrow nwstnd2 4 I I3untin n Beach omorrow Box U5 Huntington BeacIx CA 92648 July 6, 1993 Chairman and Planning Commissioners Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Appeal of Use Permit No . 93-31 Dear Chairman Richardson and Commissioners: At the Board of Zoning Administration hearing on June 18, 1993 for Use Permit (UP ) No. 93-31 , speaking on behalf of Huntington Beach Tomorrow , I asked that this UP be denied . The UP was requested by the applicant in response to a code violation citation relative to Huntington Beach Ordinance Code ( HBOC) Section 9730.44 , the substance of which is that each business must occupy a permanent space except as provided for in other sections of the code. None of these other sections applied in this case . Our reasons for opposing the UP at that time was based on a combination of the following considerations: 1 . codes and ordinances are designed and adopted, among other things , to provide for- orderly planning , compatibility of use and use to the public benefit before that use is permitted; 2. the structure to which this is at least partly an outdoor addition was not designed with this use in mind and , consequently , what is meant to be a public access area is adversely impacted even now and could be adversely impacted to an even greater extent with any significant increase in business; 3 . the use was not aesthetically compatible with the structure with which it was associated, was unattractive , somewhat tacky , appeared as the add on it was , and , in fact , detracted from the appearance; this building which was approved and built, partly by taxpayer redevelopment dollars , supposedly as an attractive area and a gateway to the city; 4 . granting this UP. now would set at least two very undesirable precedents which could allow anyone to do the following: a. get a business license; set up a business wherever he or she likes; then, when necessary , apply for a conditional use on the basis that it is a hardship , impossible to meet the code and/or financially impossible for them and they will be forced out of business; b. get a business license; apply for use of any space they 1 like , irrespective of the ordinance code , and when • denied , ask why someone else could do it and they couldn 't; ( parenthetically , isn 't this exactly some of the kinds of things that ordinance codes are meant to avoid? ); 5. uses like this should not even be considered, much less adopted and grandfathered-in , at the very time a carts and kiosks ordinance..�.`( which , hopefully, will include , as necessary, "add- ons" of 'the type involved in this UP ) is supposed to be eminent and considered for adoption. We believe that the decision made in this case by Mr . Strange , the Zoning Administrator , after Mr . Varona , the applicant , refused the opportunity to try to work something out with those who opposed the permit , was a response appropriate to the objections raised and the mandates of Section 9730 .44 . Mr . Strange attempted, in so far as possible , to take into account the positive aspects associated with the business and its retention . Although he recognized the possible financial constraints of the applicant and those associated with implementation of the conditions imposed , he did not feel he could let the decision be driven by economic considerations alone. We commend Mr . Strange for making what we believe to be the best of a very bad situation , for enforcing the existing the code , for listening to and considering citizens ' complaints , for sympathizing with and understanding the applicant 's problems and for trying to at least leave him an opening instead of simply denying the permit altogether , something he could have reasonably done . Commissioner Cook , who was present at the BZA hearing at the request of citizens who objected to the permit , has since appealed the decision. Much more importantly , Commissioner Cook has since set up and held a meeting with the applicant and some of those objecting to see if a compromise acceptable to both sides could be worked out so that the business could remain for the reasons indicated in her appeal . We commend Commissioner Cook for her problem-solving approach in this matter and her attempt to represent the interests of all segments of the community in arriving at what is best for the community as a whole. As a result of that meeting , Mr . Varona has agreed to make the changes in his operation necessary to meet objections 2 and 3 above. If those changes are made and because of reasons indicated below , Huntington Beach Tomorrow has agreed not to further oppose this particular permit application . We believe both Commissioner Cook 's bases for appeal and the comments of those who spoke in favor of the permit at the zoning __- administration hearing are valid . Had the proper planning and permitting procedures been been in place and followed in the first place , we would support granting of the appeal . Further , we do not wish to put this .man out of business for something which we believe is not entirely his fault . Quite the 2 .contrary , we wish all businesses , including those downtown, which are responsible and contribute to the quality of life in this community to succeed . Such businesses are a very important . -part of our tax base . Considerations 1 , 4 and 5 continue to be of- significant concern to us . We request, therefore , that you consider recommending support the adoption of the following procedures , codes and ordinances, as appropriate and necessary , to prevent cases like the current one and other similar uses from occurring in the future: 1 . add to the business license approval process the requirement that both community development/planning and the applicant have met code requirements before a business license is issued; this might be implemented by requiring a signoff by both the appropriate department member and the applicant as well as a statement that the business license may be rescinded if these requirements are not met; had such a cross check procedure been in place and Mr . Varona been apprised of the need to meet the requirements of Section 9730 .44 , all of this might not have arisen; 2 . except for Mr . Varona 's application which is now in process , place , if it is not already in place , and enforce a moratorium on outdoor uses such as those involved in this application and under consideration as parts of the pending carts and kiosks ordinance , until that ordinance has been adopted; to do otherwise is not proper planning and may grandfather in uses which are not consistent with established codes and appropriate uses; 3 . incorporate considerations of outdoor appendages and operations , such as those involved in this case , in the carts and kiosks ordinance , if they are not adequately dealt with in existing codes and ordinances; 4 . adopt the carts and kiosk ordinance with any appropriate inclusions as indicated as soon as possible . Thank you for your attention to this communication and consideration of the information included . Thank you also for your continued work and contributions on behalf of this community. Sincerely , Robert Winchell President , Huntington Beach Tomorrow nwstndl 3