Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout436 32ND ST - JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER EXT_SANTA ANA HEIGHTSIIII�II IIII III IIIII IIIIIII IIIII IIIIII III III IIII JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER EXT rOMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEAi,ary 19. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Extension of the One Year Amortization Period for an ExistinE Item No.. Massage Establishment (Discussion) Ext. of Request to consider a one year extension of the amortization Massage period required for independent massage establishment as set. Est. forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Approved LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 431, Lancaster's Addition, located at 436 32nd Street, on the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Villa Way, in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Japan Shiatsu Center, Newport Beach OWNER: Mary Z. Minor, Newport Beach Mr. Robert J. Davis, Attorney for the applicant, Michael Tak, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". In response to a question posed by Chairman Edwards, Mr. Davis business to March Motion * replied that the applicant intends to cease prior 25, 1994. Motion was made and voted on to approve the Extension of the Ayes * * * * * * One Year Amortization for an Existing Massage Establishment, Absent * located at 436 32nd Street. MOTION CARRIED. Findines: 1. That the subject independent massage establishment involves a substantial financial investment in real property and improvements. 2. That the granting of a one year extension of the amortization period for the subject massage establishment is reasonably necessary in order to permit the owner of the -25- t yOMMSSIONERS ! 0 MINUTES �"Nomkome).0,00ott- drs�Y 'Po 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAfeiiruary 18, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX facility to amortize or otherwise recover the long term investment in the facility. Conditions: 1. That the subject massage establishment shall be terminated on the site prior to March 25, 1994. 2. That if there are any violations of Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code or acts of prostitution on the premises, the Commission will have the right to recall the item immediately so as to review the approval of the extension. 'Modification No. 4065 Continued Public Hearin Item No.6 Re qu t to permit the as -built construction of a deck railing (4 Mod 4065 feet 10 ches ± above the natural grade) which encroaches 15 Cont ' d to feet into th 15 foot front yard setback, whereas the Zoning Code 3/18/93 limits such co truction to 3 feet above natural grade. LOCATION: Lot 10, Block 532, Corona del Mar, located a 508 Dahlia Avenue, on the southeasterly side of Dahlia Avenue, between Second Avenu and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-2 APPLICANTS: David and Carol Ru t, Anaheim OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, recommended th the subject application be continued to the Commission meeting o arch 18, 1993, to allow the Commission additional time to eview Amendment No. 777, regarding proposed changes in the allo ble fence heights for specific areas of the City. -26- • 0 Planning Commission Meeting February 18. 1993 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Extension of the One Year Amortization for an Existing Massage Establishment (Discussion) Request to consider a one year extension of the amortization period amortization period required for an independent massage establishment as set forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 431, Lancaster's Addition, located at 436 32nd Street, on the southwesterly corner of 32nd Street and Villa Way, in Cannery Village. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Japan Shiatsu Center, Newport Beach OWNER: Mary Z. Minor, Newport Beach LOCATION: Application This item involves a request to consider a one year extension of the amortization period required for an independent massage establishment as set forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed with the Japan Shiatsu Center massage establishment. To the north, across 32nd Street is City Hall and Fire Station; to the east, across Villa Way is a parking lot and drive-thru bank teller (not currently operating); to the south, across a 14 foot wide alley, are mixed commercial uses; and to the west, is a retail commercial building. Background On March 25, 1992, the City's Massage Establishment Ordinance went into effect. Said TO: Planning Commission - 2. Ordinance instituted provisions within Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) for the establishment of massage facilities within the City of Newport Beach. Said provisions are set forth in Chapter 20.68 of the Municipal Code and summarized below: Massage establishments which are operated as an ancillary use in conjunction with an approved health club, athletic club, gym, or hotel which is or will be operated pursuant to an approved use permit; or in conjunction with a medical office or chiropractic office which is regulated by State law, shall be permitted in any District where the primary use is permitted. All other massage facilities are considered as independent massage establishments and are subject to the following: 1. Independent massage establishments shall be permitted in the C-O, C-11 C-2 and M-1-A Districts, the RSC and RMC Districts, commercial areas of P-C Districts and commercial areas of the SP-4 (Newport Shores Specific Plan) and SP-5 (Mariner's Mile Specific Plan) Districts, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case.' 2. Independent massage establishments shall not be permitted within 500 feet of any public or private school, park or playground, civic cultural site or church site; or within 500 feet of any other massage establishment unless otherwise waived by the Planning Commission. 3. Existing independent massage establishments which are not in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall, within one year after the effective date of the Ordinance, terminate all aspects of such business not in compliance with these provisions, unless said use is otherwise extended by the Planning Commission for one additional year, As indicated above, independent massage establishments are no longer a permitted use in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. Therefore, the subject massage establishment is required to terminate within one year of the effective date of the Ordinance (March 25,1992). However, the Planning Commission may grant an extension of up to one additional year if the business is otherwise in compliance with all other applicable provisions of law and upon a showing by the applicant: A. That the business involves a substantial financial investment in real property, improvements or stock and trade, or 1 It should be noted that the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan is not included in the Zoning Districts that permit independent massage establishments. TO: Planntg Commission - 3. B. The business is subject to a written long term lease entered into prior to January 14, 1991 with a termination date extending beyond one year from the effective date of the ordinance, or C. Othdr factors establishing the nature of the business are such that the business cannot be easily relocated. Analysis The subject facility is located on the southwesterly comer of Villa Way and 32nd Street. As indicated in the attached letter from the attorney for the applicant, he purchased the subject establishment on or about March 11, 1992. At that time, he made improvements to the building which were associated with the establishment of his massage business which he has operated from the site for approximately 11 months. Floor plans of the existing development are not available from the Building Department. The letter of request from the applicant is attached for the Commission's information. Title 5 Compliance In addition to the Title 20 requirements mentioned above, Title 5 of the Municipal Code (Business Licenses and Regulations) also includes provisions for the review and approval of operator permits, massage technician permits, and requirements for operation of massage establishments. On March 23, 1992, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 5.50, "Massage Establishments" of the Municipal Code which became effective on April 22, 1992. Specific Findings Staff would agree that the applicant has made a substantial financial investment in the subject property. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve a one year extension of the amortization period, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. It is staffs opinion that no findings may be reasonably made in support of the denial of this use permit application; therefore, no exhibit for denial has been provided. However, the possibility remains that information may be provided at the Planning Commission meeting which may provide adequate basis for denial of this application, should the Planning Commission wish to take such an action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By � G E , / -- Jav— e� r S. Garci Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Letter from Applicant's Attorney Requesting Extension F.\... \JAY-G\UP\MASSAGE\436-32ND.SR TO: Plating Commission - 4. 0 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT KNOWN AS JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER, LOCATED AT 436 32ND STREET Findings: 1. That the subject independent massage establishment involves a substantial financial investment in real property and improvements. 2. That the granting of a one year extension of the amortization period for the subject massage establishment is reasonably necessary in order to permit the owner of the facility to amortize or otherwise recover the long term investment in the facility. Conditions: 1. That the subject massage establishment shall be terminated on the site prior to March 25, 1994. 2. That if there are any violations of Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code or acts of prostitution on the premises, the Commission will have the right to recall the item immediately so as to review the approval of the extension. VICINITY MAP 4 E' MAP u0, -3 _ s---- M II•M SCALE OF FEET 16P KY) of 060 H} b l m l S P• 6 SP - 6 ' so I° sP-6 z 6P-6 ar SP :\ \ S 6 Q IOI I Y f `l ° r .f Y+1 sP-6 V P m 6 C'r \ 1. m A I 6a A b��Ro fLC ST• uairi Ie 26 Y J \\ R \ P-C m O \\ 03 ro I \ m \\ CC \ N.E'WP OR t SCE MAP NO. 9 DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA R-A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ��R-A MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL R-I SINGLE FAMILY REFIDENTIAL _- I L 2 LIGHT GENERAL COMMERCIAL R-2 P-] DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL RESTS, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M-I MAHUFAGTURINO V mnwiu- niaalCra �� UNCLASSIFIED Japan S h i a-I-s�1 Cer,i-er 0 i LAW OFFICES of ROBERT J. DAVIS 23501 Park Sorrento Suite 212 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone (918) 591-8300 FAX (818) 591-8320 January 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA. 92663 3700 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 575 LosAttgek9, CA90010 Telephone (213) 388-2775 FAX (213) 387-3348 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DIMARTMENT CITY OF *VPW BEACH JAN 211993 A91)plllilii11�191'4igi6 Please be advised that this office and specifically the undersigned represent Michael Tak, owner of the acupressure business known as Japan Shiatsu Center at 436 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. We have been requested by our client to review Ordinance 92.2 and to undertake the appropriate action on his behalf in order to allow him to continue business operations and to not suffer the extreme financial hardship if the business was required to terminate operations on March 25, 1993. Initially, we do not agree with the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance 92.2 both on its face and as applied herein. It should be noted that the business use predated the enactment of Ordinance 92.2 and according to Jones Y. City of Los Aneeles, 211 Ca1.304, 295 P14, any such ordinance should be prospective only. Secondly,the subject business is being treated differently than practically each of the other businesses similar in nature within the City of Newport Beach in that the other businesses are not subject to the amortization provisions solely because when the ordinance was enacted, they happened by chance to be located in a differently zoned area. Thirdly, assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance is valid, 10 LAW OFFICES of ROBERT J. DAVIS 23501 Park Sorrento Suite 212 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone (818) 591-8300 FAX (818) 591-8320 January 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA. 92663 3700 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 575 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone (213) 388-2775 FAX (213) 387-3348 Please be advised that this office and specifically the undersigned represent Michael Tak, owner of the acupressure business known as Japan Shiatsu Center at 436 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. We have been requested by our client to review Ordinance 92-2 and to undertake the appropriate action on his behalf in order to allow him to continue business operations and to not suffer the extreme financial hardship if the business was required to terminate operations on March 25, 1993. Initially, we do not agree with the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance 92-2 both on its face and as applied herein. It should be noted that the business use predated the enactment of Ordinance 92-2 and according to Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 295 P14, any such ordinance should be prospective only. Secondly,the subject business is being treated differently than practically each of the other businesses similar in nature within the City of Newport Beach in that the other businesses are not subject to the amortization provisions solely because when the ordinance was enacted, they happened by chance to be located in a differently zoned area. Thirdly, assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance is valid, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1993 Page Two the period of amortization is too short and unreasonable. The ordinance provides for a one year period with an extension of up to one additional year. Said period of time is not reasonable, especially as is the case herein where our client is unable to relocate, will be out sizable sums of money and will be continually obligated upon his lease. Each of the other Cities with amortization periods provide for far different periods. For instance, Long Beach's Ordinance provided for a two year period with an extension of up to three years and likewise Los Angeles' Ordinance provides similar time periods. Nevertheless, our client still, reserving the above objections, seeks an extension pursuant to Ordinance No. 92-2, Chapter 20.68, Section 20.68.030. Our client seeks an extension of one year additional year based upon Subsection A, B & C. On or about March 11, 1992, Michael Tak purchased the subject business from its previous owner, for the sum of $107,600.00. Thereafter, Mr. Tak received the appropriate license/permit to operate the business, to expire on or about September 8, 1993. Additionally, our client assumed the lease upon the premises, which commenced February 1, 1990 for a period of five years at a monthly rental of $1,200.00 and presently $1,298.00 per month. Since acquisition, our client has not recovered his outlay of monies invested in the business and needs at least the one year extension to lessen the financial hardship imposed as a result of Ordinance 92-2. It is obvious that our client would not have purchased the business, assumed the lease and put additional monies in the business knowing the limited life. In fact, he has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to recover the purchase price of $107.600 from the Seller of the business. Assuming that he obtains a judgment, it is remote, at best, that he will be able to recover anything from the Seller upon the judgment. Although a one year extension does not solve my client's problems, it obviously helps and is urged that it be granted. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1993 Page Three Furthermore, our client appears to qualify for the requested extension under the "C" section. The business cannot be easily relocated. The first problem in relocation is to find a qualifying site. Each possible site that may be available for my client's business is either not located within the proper zone or runs afoul of the location requirements. To date, a qualifying and available site has not been found. Even if one could, the costs of relocation would be prohibitive. Not only would the business site have to be re -constructed, but a new lease would have to be entered into, with the obligation continuing upon the old lease. Our client just does not have the sums available to relocate. For each of these reasons, it is respectfully urged that the requested extension be granted until March 25, 1994. Very truly yours, ROBERT J. DAVIS Attorney for Michael Tak RJD:mf cc: W. William Ward Senior Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST _ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION _PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _TRAFFIC ENGINEER FIRE DEPARTMENT UIIAIN 6EPARTMENT Z —PARKS —& RECREAfiION—` X POLICE DEPARTMENT X BUSINESS LICENSE GRADING Date: January 26. 1993 _PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. NOTE: No plans available APPLICATION OF: Japan Shiatsu Center FOR: Extension of the One Year Amortization DESCRIPTION: Request to consider a one year extension of the amortization period required for an independent massage establishment as set forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: 436 32nd Street REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 3, 1993 COMMISSION REVIEW: February 18, 1993 COMMENTS: Oct! tA-Am V. = LdW OFMCES Of ROBERT J. DAVIS 23501 Park Sorrento Suite 212 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone (818) 591-8300 FAX (818) 591-8320 January 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: JAPAN SHIATSU CENTER 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA. 92663 3700 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 575 Us Angek % CA 90010 Telephone (213) 388-2775 FAX (213) 387-3348 Please be advised that this office and specifically the undersigned represent Michael Tak, owner of the acupressure business known as Japan Shiatsu Center at 436 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. We have been requested by our client to review Ordinance 92-2 and to undertake the appropriate action on his behalf in order to allow him to continue business operations and to not suffer the extreme financial hardship if the business was required to terminate operations on March 25, 1993. Initially, we do not agree with the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance 92-2 both on its face and as applied herein. It should be noted that the business use predated the enactment of Ordinance 92-2 and according to Jones v. City of Los Angeles. 211 Ca1.304, 295 P14, any such ordinance should be prospective only. Secondly,the subject business is being treated differently than practically each of the other businesses similar in nature within the City of Newport Beach in that the other businesses are not subject to,the amortization provisions solely because when the ordinance was enacted, they happened by chance to be located in a differently zoned area. Thirdly, assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance is valid, 11 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1993 Page Two the period of amortization is too short and unreasonable. The ordinance provides for a one year period with an extension of up to one additional year. Said period of time is not reasonable, especially as is the case herein where our client is unable to relocate, will be out sizable sums of money and will be continually obligated upon his lease. Each of the other Cities with amortization periods provide for far different periods. For instance, Long Beach's Ordinance provided for a two year period with an extension of up to three years and likewise Los Angeles' Ordinance provides similar time periods. Nevertheless, our client still, reserving the above objections, seeks an extension pursuant to Ordinance No. 92-2, Chapter 20.68, Section 20.68.030. Our client seeks an extension of one year additional year based upon Subsection A, B & C. On or about March 11, 1992, Michael Tak purchased the subject business from its previous owner, for the sum of $107,600.00. Thereafter, Mr. Tak received the appropriate license/permit to operate the business, to expire on or about September 8, 1993. Additionally, our client assumed the lease upon the premises, which commenced February 1, 1990 for a period of five years at a monthly rental of $1,200.00 and presently $1,298.00 per month. Since acquisition, our client has not recovered his outlay of monies invested in the business and needs at least the one year extension to lessen the financial hardship imposed as a result of Ordinance 92-2. It is obvious that our client would not have purchased the business, assumed the lease and put additional monies in the business knowing the limited life. In fact, he has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to recover the purchase price of $107.600 from the Seller of the business. Assuming that he obtains a judgment, it is remote, at best, that he will be able to recover anything from the Seller upon the judgment. Although a one year extension does not solve my client's problems, it obviously helps and is urged that it be granted. 11 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 19, 1993 Page Three Furthermore, our client appears to qualify for the requested extension under the "C" section. The business cannot be easily relocated. The first problem in relocation is to find a qualifying site. Each possible site that may be available for my client's business is either not located within the proper zone or runs afoul of the location requirements. To date, a qualifying and available site has not been found. Even if one could, the costs of relocation would be prohibitive. Not only would the business site have to be re -constructed, but a new lease would have to be entered into, with the obligation continuing upon the old lease. Our client just does not have the sums available to relocate. For each of these reasons, it is respectfully urged that the requested extension be granted until March 25, 1994. Very truly yours, ROBERT J. DAVIS Attorney for Michael Tak RJD:mf cc: W. William Ward Senior Planner 11 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST _ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION _PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT X BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATIONS, �1�LICE ARTMENT 7° XBUSINESS LICENSE GRADING Date: January 26. 1993 _PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. NOTE: No plans available APPLICATION OF: Japan Shiatsu Center FOR: Extension of the One Year Amortization DESCRIPTION: Request to consider a one year extension of the amortization period required for an independent massage establishment as set forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: 436 32nd Street REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 3, 1993 COMMISSION REVIEW: February 18, 1993 VW 59-?G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST _ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION _PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT X BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION X POLICE DEPARTMENT Q 6U-Sirr�S-LT� 9S-E GRADING Date: January 26. 1993 _PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. NOTE: No plans available APPLICATION OF: Japan Shiatsu Center FOR: Extension of the One Year Amortization DESCRIPTION: Request to consider a one year extension of the amortization period required for an independent massage establishment as set forth in Section 20.68.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. LOCATION: 436 32nd Street REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 3, 1993 COMMISSION REVIEW: February 18, 1993 COMMENTS: 1a t��e Colo.. Swk ��r� _S[�.i. g LS-91 Lc�/.v�t{ecQ �o Ei� iC2 evc ky,,,}Q,ry,o„t?o,v..Q IV� q-3- 9t 1 -1 q- 13 - 5 t ate-,- r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714)644-3131 December 29, 1994 Law Office of Marcus McLaughlin 1848 West 17th Street Santa Ana, California 92706 Attn: John Re: City of Newport Beach v. Miner Trust, et al. OCSC Case No. 73-89-88 Dear John: Thank you for your fax documents dated December 27, 1994. I have reviewed the business tax certificate which advises that the tax payment expires on June 30, 1995. Unfortunately, the business tax certificate is not the same as a business license and thus does not entitle your clients to operate their business until the end of the appropriate tax period. I have been advised by our City employees that in the event that any individual desires to conduct a business within the City of Newport Beach, it is necessary that they obtain a business tax certificate, even if they only work for one day for the tax year. Further, on December 20, 1994 I was contacted by James C. Lee, Esq. advising that he represents Michael Tak, d.b.a. Japan Shiatsu Center. He has obtained an extension of time to respond to the complaint up to and including January 5, 1995. Perhaps you should contact him at (213)387-4825 to determine who actually represents these defendants in this matter. I am still interested in reaching some type of amicable resolution in this matter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience in order that we can arrange a meeting and discuss a resolution without further delay. L" fzEC--.1MD E'f PLtI{4(�IPM P' `&-':TWENT c DEC u 1994 AM PEI 713190111112111213141516 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. Ve trul�rs Danl. K. Ohl Contract Attorney DKO:cdh CC: Jim Sinesak wb\MinerTr2.ltr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714) 644-3131 December 22, 1994 Law Offices of Marcus McLaughlin 1848 West 17th Street Santa Ana, California 92706 Attn: John RE: City of Newport Beach vs. Miner Trust, et al. OCSC Case No. 73 89 88 Dear John: Thank you for your telephone call on December 16, 1994 relative to this matter. As I understand it, you will be willing to stipulate, on behalf of your client, to a judgment if they are allowed to operate until their license expires on June 30, 1995. I have reviewed the file and it is my understanding that your client's license expired on March 25, 1994. Your client was advised by letter on May 2, 1994 that •your client was to discontinue its massage business no later than May 15, 1994. In essence, your client was granted an additional 45 days. My file does not reflect that they are licensed to operate their business until June 30, 1995. If you have any documentation which so indicates, please provide it to me at your earliest convenience. Additionally, I am advised that your client occupies the premises pursuant to a lease which expires in February of 1995. Absent a renewal of the lease, it appears your clients will be required to vacate the premises as of that time. The City of Newport Beach is interested in reaching some type of amicable resolution in this matter. Please provide the requested documentation, assuming it exists. In the interim, I will not take a default against your client without providing you with ample notice in order that you might respond to the complaint. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach Should you have any questions or comments, kindly contact the undersigned. I truly u , Daniel K. Oh 4 Contract Attorney DKO:cdh cc: Jim Sinasek Mary Miner MinerTra.ltr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714) 644-3131 December 14, 1994 Michael Tak Japan Shiatsu Center 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: City of Newport Beach vs Miner Trust, et al. Dear Mr. Tak: This office has been advised by our process server that you have closed the business down, initially, until December 7, 1994, for remodeling. It has now come to our attention through our process server that the date has been modified to December 17, 1994, again for remodeling. Please be advised that in the event of any modifications in the building structure, it is necessary that you comply with all rules and regulations of the City of Newport Beach for such work. cc: Jim Sinasek� Mary Miner wb\tak.1tr Very tr1uly y urs, Dance K. Ohl Attorney for the City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 (714) 644-3131 November 17, 1994 Japan Shiatsu Center 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Michael Tak Re: One Year Amortization Establishment Dear Mr. Tak: Period for Existing Massage This matter has been referred to this office for further handling. You have occasioned this referral by your failure to close your business as required. As you will recall, on February 18, 1994, the Newport Beach Planning Commission voted to approve the extension for one year for your existing massage business. That extension expired on March 25, 1994. On May 2, 1994, a letter was sent by our Code Enforcement Supervisor advising you to discontinue your massage business no later than May 15, 1994. In essence, you were granted an additional forty-five,days as a courtesy. Enclosed is a copy of that letter. In as much as you have failed to close your massage business as required, within the time limits provided, we have no choice but to force your compliance by seeking Court intervention. We had hoped that you would voluntarily comply with our request, but that has not come to pass. Thus, you can expect to be served with a Summons and Complaint in the near future. In the event you are willing to close your business, as you must, without further delay, please contact our office. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation. truly Attorney for the City of�Newport Beach cc: Jim Sinasek wb\tak.1tr 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3215 May 2, 1994 Japan Shiatsu Center 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Attention: Michael Tak Subject: One Year Amortization Period For Existing Massage Establishment Dear Mr. Tak: On February 18, 1993 the Newport Beach Planning Commission voted to approve the extension for one year for your existing massage establishment. That extension expired March 25, 1994 and as such you are hereby ordered to eliminate any further massage establishment from this location no later than May 15th of this year. Please be advised that the May 15th deadline is at least forty-five days beyond the time that your business was to be terminated. We would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your anticipated cooperation in closing down your business within the allotted time. We must advise you however, if you choose to ignore our request, without any additional delay, this matter will be referred to the office of the City Attorney for appropriate action. To discuss this letter you should contact Jim Sinasek between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. or 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. at the above number. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES HEWICKER, Director By m Sinai , e Enforcement Supervisor 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT LAW OFFICES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Of ROBERT J. DAVIS MAR 211994 Park Sorrento Suite 212 ��� t0 c� Wilshire Blvd. MO23501 y f tglgt10IUlu,11,1213141516Suite 575 Calabasas, CA 91302 Us Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone (818) 591-8300 Telephone (213) 388-2775 FAX (818) 591-8320 FAX (213) 387-3348 March 18, 1994 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: JAPAN SB IATSU CENTER 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA. 92663 As indicated in our enclosed letter of this date, directed to the Planning Commission, this office continues to represent Japan Shiatsu Center, 436 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. It is requested that this matter be placed upon the agenda of the Planning Commission and that prior thereto that you contact this office in order that we may ascertain a date which would be compatible with each of our calendars. Thank you for your continued courtesies and cooperation. Attorney at Law RJD:mf cc: Robin Flory LAWOFFICES Of ROBERT J. DAVIS 23501 Park Sorrento Suite 212 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone (818) 591-8300 FAX (818) 591-8320 March 18, 1994 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658 Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: JAPAN SMATSU CENTER 436 32nd Street Newport Beach, CA. 92663 3700 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 575 Im Angple CA 90010 Telephone ,(213) 388-2775 FAX (213) 387-3348 Please be advised that this office and specifically the undersigned, continues to represent Michael Tak, owner, of the acupressure business known as Japan Shiatsu Center at 436 32nd Street, Newport Beach, California. We have been requested by our client to further review Ordinance 92-2 and to undertake the appropriate action on his behalf in order to allow him to continue business operations and to not suffer the extreme financial hardship if the business was required to terminate operations on March 25, 1994. Initially, we do not agree with the validity or constitutionality of Ordinance 92.2 both on its face and as applied herein. It should be noted that the business use predated the enactment of Ordinance 92-2 and according to Jones v. City of Los Angeles • 211 Ca1.304, 295 P14, any such ordinance should be prospective only. Secondly,the subject business is being treated differently than practically each of the other businesses similar in nature within the City of Newport Beach in that the other businesses are not subject to the amortization provisions solely because when the ordinance was enacted, they happened by chance to be located in a differently zoned area. Thirdly, assuming, arguendo, that the ordinance is valid, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION March 18, 1994 Page Two the period of amortization is too short and unreasonable. The ordinance provides for a one year period with an extension of up to one additional year. Said period of time is not reasonable, especially as is the case herein where our client is unable to relocate, will be out sizable sums of money and will be continually obligated upon the lease. Each of the other Cities with amortization periods provide for far different periods. For instance, Long Beach's Ordinance provided for a two year period with an extension of up to three years and likewise Los Angeles' Ordinance provides similar time periods. Nevertheless, our client still, reserving the above objections, seeks a further extension pursuant to Ordinance No. 92-2, Chapter 20.68, Section 20.68.030. Our client seeks an extension of one year additional year based upon Subsection A & C and indirectly B. As previously advised, on or about March 11, 1992, Michael Tak purchased the subject business from its previous owner, for the sum of $107,600.00. Thereafter, Mr. Tak received the appropriate business license/permit to operate the business, to expire on or about September 8, 1993, which was thereafter renewed. Additionally, our client assumed the lease upon the premises, which commenced February 1, 1990, for a period of five years at a monthly rental of $1,200.00, and presently $1,298.00 per month. Since acquisition, our client has not recovered his outlay of monies invested in the business and needs at least one year additional extension to lessen financial hardship imposed as a result of Ordinance 92-2. It is obvious that our client would not have purchased the business, assumed the lease and put additional monies into the business knowing the limited life. Although a further one year extension does not solve my client's problems, it obviously helps and is urged that it be granted. ", Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 18, 1994 Page Three Furthermore, our client appears to qualify for the requested extension under the "C" section. The business cannot be easily relocated. The first problem in relocation is to find a qualifying site. Each possible site that may be available for my client's business is either not located within the proper zone or runs afoul of the location requirements. To date, a qualifying and available site has not been found. Even if one could, the costs of relocation would be prohibitive. Not only would the business site have to be re -constructed, but a new lease would have to be entered into, with the obligation continuing upon the old lease. Our client just does not have the sums available to relocate. At the hearing before the Planning Commission of February 18, 1993, counsel for the business did indicate that the Applicant intended to move his establishment or cease business prior to March 25, 1994. Unfortunately, this is really not possible. The applicant has made many extensive and exhaustive efforts in an attempt to locate a site which would be zoning acceptable. To date, he has not been able to locate one and accordingly cannot move the business. Additionally, the applicant still has not come close to recouping his investment and the lease continues until at least into February 1995. As indicated, if he had been aware of the problems upon purchase, he would not have been involved. It is noted that the property lies within the Cannery Village McFadden Square area of the City. Assuming the request herein is granted for an additional year and the City desires to work upon that area, our client would be amenable with working with the City to ensure that any projects of the City are not impeded' with. When the year extension was approved in 1993, conditions thereto were attached. One of them was that if there were any further violations of Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code or acts of prostitution on the premises, the Commission will have the right to recall the item immediately so as to review the approval of the extension. It is our understanding and knowledge that there have been no such Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: SECRETARY TO PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 1994 Page Four Violations and/or any allegations of such Yiolations and that the business has, at all time, been operated as a clean, honest and legitimate massage business. For each of these reasons, it is respectfully urged that the requested extension be granted until March 25, 1995. Very truly yours, - a7 ROBERT J. DA S Attorney for Michael Tak RJD:mf cc: W. William Ward Senior Planner Robin Flory - Assistant City Attorney 11 1a /21 +C 1 rs rs t 1 L ze r9 !0 1 G !! S f a � t0 /9 s /7 /6 I7 /1 H 304 /J /r 33 / u 4 . /O 12 � O] 2 w q NEWPORT lD 19 IJ 2O 18 / ~ � W 21 13 y h 9 /r f0 PM® 16 216•/6 4 0 I S 26 t s � 1 O9 13 WAY .�}' C-+'•_ .• - 47-04 2 h tu to ti II w to +e• s s 10 7 n 1 L 1 3 2 0 t ? 0 1� I` 13 r ems• + "= SO' —'NOTE - ASSESSOR'S SLOLK6 ASSESSOR'S MAP 1 IMF VAL - u nnKi SERVICES - 1-800-527-9663 - Menc wink .. �....-.. __.. ..___ ORANGE COUNTY PARCEL LIST M 0 6 1991-92 EDITION OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-VST ZIP P A R C E L N O . TYPE SQ.FT.-F UNITS SITUS ADDRESS CITY YEAR ROOM CT. DATE LAND VAL TFR VAL DOCUMENT-% IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR HC/STS PHONE PARKING A P LOTSIZE BANK CITY NA720NA1 TR *120 S SPALDING DR N404 TR 90212 0 4 7 - 0 4 1 - 3 2 1970 3978 11/03/783110 NEWPORT915 BLVD W 145,�64 377,179-76 f6EVERLY HILLS,CA LANCASTERS ADD LOT 3 BLK 431 AND LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7 B 14,524 129101884-U NB MINER GUY E TR *C/O EICHENBAUM, SID TR 91364 0 4 7 - 0 4 1 - 3 3 1954 933 3/21/88 411 389S734T 487,093-87 *20350 VENTURA BLVD M110 *WOODLAND HIL 88-127003-Q 931 59 LANCASTERS ADD LOT 10 BLK 431 AND LOTS 11 & 12 ALL (714) 675-6909 GARAGE NB HILL SANDRA BARKER TR *BARKER JEFFREY L CA TR 90277 0 4 7 - 3688- 0 4 1 - 3 4 1948 3688-2 6/14/90 417 204S663T 304,220-88 *545 S HELBERTA AVE *REDOND6 BEACH N BLK 431 5,580 90-316052-Q 99,B7 LANCASTERS ADD LOT 13 BLK 431 AND LOT Na DESAI RAJENDRA G TR *1202 HYDE PARK TR 92705 0 4 7 - 0 4 1 - 3 5 CON 1105 1/OS/B7 428 59N773T 72,021-75 *SANTA ANA,CA LANCASTERS ADD LOT 26 BLK 431 AND FOR OF LOT 25 3,989 87-002953-G 12'Y48 SILVERADO MANAGEMENT INC A303 VIA LIDO NORD CR 92663 0 4 7 - NO 0 4 2-0 1 1935 645 11/19/86 430 153 ST 150 000-F 5,S06 159,fB1-87 ANEWPORT BEACH,CA 2,790 86-569451-G LANCASTERS ADD BLK 331 LOT 16 DIXON JOAN LUCILLE *426 31ST ST WS 92663 0 4 7 - 0 4 2 - 0 2 1978 3054 428 31S6T NO 9/10/86 0606 224,781-79 *NEWPORT BEACH,CA 2,790 86-44309-Q 1569 LANCASTERS ADD BLK 331 LOT 17 MARSHALL JOHN *MARSHAL( MICHELE CP 92661 04 7 - 0 4 2 - 0 4 1946 FF 1100 12/22/88 422 203S191T NB 260 000-F 270,504-89 *424 0ELVUE LN *BALSOA,C4 YES 2,790 88-667675-G 67,113 LANCASTERS ADD BLK 331 LOT 20 POLIQUIN LAVERN E TR *1331 W BAY AVE TR 92663 04 7 - 0 4 2 - 0 7 1947 1200 11/10/89 416 31STNB 59,034-75 ANEWPORT BEACH,CA LANCASTERS ADD BLK 331 LOT 23 144 2 790 89-607711-0 17,�`48 (714) 673-8nI � n .. � - n n . nv 0.G7 /ptR {lct ST NA