HomeMy WebLinkAboutTranscript Excerpts - Sejour Hearing1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Page 113
But the whole idea that this is a vested property
right, something of enormous value that we're trying so hard
to hold ontojust doesntjive with me with the attitude
that – the actions of the operator or the original
applicant.
They heard of some problems in June and July of
'07. They talked to the applicant. They -- they were
told -- or they talked to the operator, said it would be
okay. they talked to code enforcement, said it would be
okay. And then for six months they don't check. They live
down the street, but they don't check.
Now, this is something that they're here fighting
£or. This is our vested right. We own this. It has value
to us. But their actions don't support that they were that
interested in that at that time during that six -month period
when there was some allegations of impropriety here or some
violations.
So I would think that again, common sense, you know,
you – you would have checked, you know, what is happening9
that's something that's really important to us. Tlhat's a
vested right. That's a conditional use permit. I don't want
to give that up. And it's my requirement to inform them of
it And since I own the property -- there may -- this
discussion of landlord's obligations is -- is -- you know,
liability, I understand that, but this is -- we're falling
Page 114
about the applicant and the holder of the Use Permit. And I
think they do have an obligation to clearly -- and frankly,
your position today would be much different if you didn't
have a lease that says it's going to be a bar and if you had
a document in front of me that said that you -- here's the --
here's – here, Mr. New Operator, here's the list of
conditions. You're obligated to abide by these in writing. '.
I don t see that anywhere in here. Your attorney hasn't
presented it, nobody has presented it.
So, you know, for those reasons -- and also -- and
this is a close call. These slings aren't all absolute.
There has been an effort, and 1 think a good, a reasonable
effort to step up enforcement in our City. This whole
discussion of enforcement, it doesn't start and end out in
the street. It kind of starts and ends up here. And this is
all part of it.
And so from my standpoint, you know, when I look at
the circumstances, I don't -- I do see a one clear obligation
of this operator that they didn' t do, and that -- that should
Sustain.
And so I start to think about what's the next
operation going to look like? My guess is they know maybe
how to represent that today maybe, but -- but there s also
no -- but i also hear that the -- the -- the current
conditions don't meet and don't work with the state of the
29 (Pages 113 to 116)
Page 115
1 market. And for me to me, its most appropriate in this
2 circumstance to – to revoke the permit and – and then allow
3 the property owner to come back in and submit a new one if
4 they so desire.
5 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Thank you. Commissioner Cole?
6 COMMISSIONER COLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IM not in
7 favor of revoking this Use Permit. Based on the testimony it
a just doesn't seem to be an appropriate action given the, as I
9 interpret it, some ambiguity in the Use Permit language. It
10 appears to potentially allow for at least some partial
11 restaurant use.
12 The landlord, there's been no evidence given that
13 the landlord — landowner was actively engaged in any of the
14 operations of this, ofSejour. They seemed to take
15 appropriate action when they were aware of the condition
16 violations.
17 And revoking this permit at this —at this stage,
18 since the tenant has vacated the premises, doesn't really
19 seem to in my opinion serve any kind of compelling public
20 interest because there really isn't, as I see it, any kind of
21 nuisance.
22 1 don't know –1 know we don't have to find
23 nuisance, but in this case I believe that's really common
24 sense reaction to what we're being asked to do.
25 The violations of the conditions actually did have
...-- ------- — .._.._._ —.__.. _......._. _ _
Page 116
1 consequences, obviously, and we had the operator testify that
2 he didn't think it could work and so he vacated the premises.
3 So it served, you know, it served a purpose.
4 1 commend this effort taken in initiating the
5 action to revoke the Use Permit due to the -- due to the
6 significant violations of the conditions, but l don't believe
7 pursuing this action after the operas– operator had vacated
e the premises and abandoned the property has -- has served the
9 City well. 1 think the time and energy and cost in my
10 opinion has been just– just wasteful, and l don't think
11 there's significant evidence enough that the landowner has
12 any kind of inability to adhere to the original Use Permit
13 conditions, and I- and l would - - and l just -- Idon't
14 think this should be in front of us in my opinion.
15 So I would move that we deny the request an revoke
16 the permit and allow staff to work out with the landowner any
17 appropriate condition, the changes that have to be made in
19 order for them to create another operation under the original
19 Use Permit language.
20 COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: Second.
21 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Commissioner McDaniel?
22 COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wit
23 here for the original approval of this Use Permit, and I can
24 tell you that the -- the conversation that went on that night
25 was I % that this will neverbe a bar. Period. Never. And
Precise Reporting Service
714 - 647 -9099
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Precise Reporting Service
714- 647 -9099
.5u kedges 11t UU 16U)
Page 117
Page 119
1
we were given lots of conversation about how high end this —
1
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: — conditions.
2
the Overstreets were, and we certainly believed them that —
z
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. Please.
3
that, you know -- there was conversation about how expensive
3
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: One is I agree we ought to
4
the wine would be and — and just all sorts of conversations
4
propose reduced hours similar to what staff had suggested.
5
about wine tasting Never was it going to be a bar.
5
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Can you specify those hours?
6
In fact, I remember the conversation and 1 found it 1
6
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: You know what? I'd leave it up
7
where I asked Mr. Overstreet about why he needed the liquor
7
to staff and - -and the applicant to come back with a
8
license, the hard liquor license. And his comment was, you
8
recommendation and have a shot at it when he comes back. But
9
know, this is a basically - -171 paraphrase it but, you know,
9
the 11:00 one seemed reasonable for — that Mr. Lepo had
10
this is a high -end establishment, you know, and not everyone
10
mentioned. So one, reduce hours.
11
wants to have a glass of wine. Sometimes they want to have a
11
Two, that we would establish the use like as it was
12
taste of 25- year -old search.
12
originally intended as Mr. McDaniel said that it would be a
13
So I understand tasting. 1 understand. I don't
13
retail first; that the wine testing would definitely be
14
have a problem with tasting, but that -- that 47 is die
14
ancillary to that, along with the food as well and the
15
problem in my mind that, you know, what we approved is not
15
educational portions of that — all ancillary to retail, and
16
what it became. It was never supposed to be a bar. 1 don't
16
that the Boor plan and bard improvements should be revised
17
think it was ever supposed to be functioning as a restaurant,
17
to support that, whether it's racks or whatever. I'll leave
18
although the 47 gives [hem that tight So we kind o( had to i
18
that up to the applicant But the Floor plan, as we approve
19
do that. And we -- and my view was we did that so that the
19
it, should reBect that original intent of having it be -- be
20
Overstreets could, you knew, as -- operate. You know, we had
20
a retail first.
21
full confidence that they were going to operate this and do a 1
21
So reduce hours, retail first, and I have no
22
wonderful job, bring a high class tasting, a wine tasting
22
objection if -- if pan of that proposal is to delete the 47
23
area to us. That's not what it became.
23
liquor license.
24
So 1 -- I'm not going to support the motion because j
24
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Delete the 47?
25
i f that 47 stays, I can't vote for it That's the problem in
25
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: Yeah. 1 have no objection. What
Page 118
Page 120
1
my mind. The main issue is hard liquor.
1
1 would recommend is or ask is that the staff and the
2
I think if they want to operate with — with wine
2
applicant would put their head together in regards to that
3
tasting, like they said they were going to do, like what I
3
and wine back to us with a proposal on that. Whether it's
4
understood I approved in the first place, 1'd be —1'm
4
delete or severely restrict it, it doesn't -- 1 agree with
5
wil ling to allow them to continue because we're going to have
5
Mr. McDaniels. It doesn't seem to be part of that wine
6
to have a use permit there ofsome sort. I'd be okay with
6
retail use that was approved.
7
that. If they want to go back in and operate in that manner,
7
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: But food would be allowed unde
8
that works for me, but the hard liquor and then the hours of
8
the comment.
9
operation, those are the two things have caused trouble here.
9
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: 1 think -- I have no objection to
10
And if they can't make a profit by doing that, you know,
10
food, again as long as it supports wine retail. If they want to
11
guess what? I cant support that.
11
have cheeses, salamis, and, you know, whatever else finger
12
So I won't support the motion, but if anybody else 1
12
foods that might be appropriate for wine tasting, 1 have no
13
has some conversation about leaving that in place with
13
problem with that.
14
that -- leaving a use permit in place, but removing 40 -- the
14
And then the other thing is we need to clean up
15
47, hard liquor, and — and changing the hours of operation,
15
the -- the condition of approval, make sure that there's no
16
1'd be interested in that.
16
ambiguity in that. So those would be my four suggestions or
17
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Thank you. Commissioner Peottey
17
amendments to the main motion.
18
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: Mr. Chair, I'd like to propose
18
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: All right Any other discussion?
19
maybe amending the motion to give some direction to staff
19
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: Mr. Chairman, 1'd support that
20
along those specific lines.
20
if that's a second.
21
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: I'm sorr,y9
21
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Well, it was proposed as an
22
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: rd like to propose an amendment
22
amendment, so --
23
to the motion to give staff direction on some of the items (
23
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
24
that wed like to have incorporated in revised—
24
CHAIRPERSONHAWKINS : Does the maker of the motion
25
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Perfect. 1
25
accept the amendment or not?
Precise Reporting Service
714- 647 -9099
t ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Page 121.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would like to let staff -- I
mean there's a lot of things 1 think we have the ability to
get into at this stage as it relates to some of those areas.
1 would like to see if the -- the — the maker of the
motion or the suggested amender of the motion allow staff to
kind of come back. I think the concept you mentioned of
having staff come back to us is probably better because I
think there's a lot of things we have to look at the
entirety. I don't want to get into removing certain licenses
at this stage without really having the staff really look at
it and see what the impact is on the overall Use Permit.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: So it's a general -- so your
proposal would be you would accept an amendment which would
allow for a general delegation of the revisions to the
permit --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Along the --
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: — but without specific
directions.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. Along the lines of what
Commissioner Peotter mentioned, but 1 don't think we want to
get into tying them to exactly the what -- they may conic back
to us what --
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: No, that's the intent, Mr. Chair
is that these would be — these would he four guidelines that
staff could take and work out with the applicant, come back
Page 122
with recommendations to us on the specifics.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. I would agree.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Commissioner McDaniel, does that
do it for you?
COMMISSIONER MCDANEEL: No, it doesn t. If the 47
stays, it's -- I can't vote for it. Period.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: I mean that's -- that's —that
is the problem. That's not what we approved. It was
incredibly clear that evening when we approved it by every
Commissioner that evening that would not be a bar, and that's
what we leave open if we leave that open. I
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL And 1 can't allow that to stay
open because it leaves all those other problems that we're
having on the table.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. So we-- we have a motion
and an amendment to that motion. And, Commissioner Peotter,
did you second the motion? I believe you did.
COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: I did, yes.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. And you obviously accept
the --
COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: Amendment.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: -- amendment as proposed.
COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: Okay.
31 (Pages 121 to 124)
Page 123
1 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: So the proposal is or the motion
2 as amended is as follows: To deny the request for revocation
3 but modify the permit as follows: Reduced hours as
4 determined by staff. Mr. Lepo, do you have a question? Are
5 you swearing at us, sir? Oh, okay. Tbank you. All right.
6 The primary use would be retail with secondary use
7 of wine tasting and food that would accompany wine tasting
B and attempt W condition the 47 license. And there was a
9 third one to clean up the conditions so that we would not
10 have ambiguity. There would be general consistency. Was
11 that it?
12 COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: The fourth one would be that the
13 plan would reflect those priorities as far as uses go, the
14 hard improvements.
15 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Oh.
16 COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: Yes.
17 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Thank you.
18 COMMISSIONER COLE: Andjusttoclarifymy —my -1
19 think my --
2o CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Acceptance.
21 COMMISSIONER COLE: — suggestion was that the — that
22 license 47 be considered in the scope of work, not
23 necessarily a request by the Planning Commission to re — to
24 take it out. 1 know Commissioner McDaniel has a different
25 opinion, but that was my — my —
Page 124
1 COMMISSIONER MLDANIEL: No, agreed.
2 COMMISSIONER COLE: --amendment. Okay.
3 COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: It's- -
4 COMMISSIONER COLE: My motion.
5 COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: — come back with suggestions and
6 allow us to make a decision.
7 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: This is again very squishy,
B gentlemen. Okay.
9 COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: It's direction. hallows
10 flexibility for staff and the applicant to work out the
11 specifics.
12 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yes. All right. Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER PLOTTER: Since I'm not in the wine
14 business, I trust the applicant to give than input, not me.
15 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Thank you. But you're in the
16 talking business. So Commissioner Eaton.
17 COMMISSIONER EATON: Mr. Chairman, I have a procedural
1B question. If we deny the revocation, is the matter still in
19 front of us? Haven't we -- haven't we determined the matter
20 at that point?
21 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Mr. Bums?
22 MR. BURNS: I'm assuming the motion is going to be to --
23 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Modify.
24 MR. BURNS: -- potentially modify. We haven't done the
25 resolution yet so you're directing it to go back to staff to
Precise Reporting Service
714 - 647 -9099
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Page 1251
work out. So you're, in effect, continuing this, but you're
giving everyone a flavor of what your decision is going to be
provided it comes back in the proper form to you.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yeah. So 1 think it's more of a
modification rather than a denial.
COMMISSIONER EATON: Okay. The original motion I think
specified denial.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yes.
MR. BURNS: Yeah.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: And so — so
- -
COMMISSIONER EATON: And then I have another—
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Just one moment. I'm going to
treat that as a — an amendment, a motion to ascend. Does the
maker of the motion accept that?
COMMISSIONER COLE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: And does the maker of the second?
Okay. Good. Commissioner Eaton.
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: Modification with a continuance.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS! Yes. Commissioner Eaton.
COMMISSIONER EATON: My only other comment was a
cautionaryone. You may recall that when the City council
attempted to modify the conditions of the alcoholic beverage
license, that had to be re-heard and come all the way back to
them because they found out they were preempted from doing
that. So that may enter into this discussion relative to the
Page 126
47 license as well.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER EATON: I'll just treat that u a caution
when it -- when the staff and the attorneys deal with i4
keep that in mind.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Mr. Bums, do you want to commen
on the preemption issue for A.B.C. and our ability to
condition the license?
MR. BURNS: I don't have all of those answers, but 1
think the issue that's been raised is a good one and we'll
have to try and dance around that a little bit about, you
know, certainly I suppose you use permit could not allow
something and they could still have the license. So they
have to deal with selling it or doing something with it, but
we have to work out some details there.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Right.
MR. BURNS: There's an issue.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Hillgren.
COMMISSIONER HILL -GREN: Mr. Chair, thanks.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: I couldn't see your light because
your big book that you read today --
COMMISSIONERMLLGREN: Sorry if it was blocking it
Good news is we've gotten a problem operation
removed through a process that's been less than smooth and
3t. 'traye5 iZO t_U lZoJ
Page 127
1 easy for all of us, and that m me is pan of the challenge
2 with all of this. And what I've heard in this motion is
3 basically going back to the original conditions that were set
4 up in the original conditional use permit, and they all seem
5 right, but we had them in place and we had a problem that
6 cropped up. We relied upon an operator who then gave their
7 rights away. That operator happens to be the property owner
8 in this instance, and 1 continue to have the challenge of the
9 comment that all they have is a responsibility to provide
10 notice, and beyond that there's nothing else that they have
11 to deal with.
12 And I worry that we're going to have an operator to
13 be determined that comes in and leads us to the same issue.
14 And so without some really direct responsibility placed upon
15 the property owner for enforcement and true notice and
16 followup on this, I'm troubled by the permit as modified or
17 as it exists.
19 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: So let me see if understand your
19 concern. It is that the landowner is somehow not on the hook
20 for the enforcement issues and has no enforcement obligation.
21 MR, BURNS: Correct. Theyve got the right with no
22 responsibilityassocialed with it. Thafsaproblem.
23 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay, Anyother? Commissioner
24 Toerge?
25 COMMISSIONER TOERGE: Yeah. I presume were getting
Page 128
1 ready to vote. III just express my point of vim. I mean
2 the operator was notified of this issue that by their own
3 admission in January. It's April 17th. And 90 days, 120
4 days were asking staff and the operator to go back and do
5 what they haven't been able to do the last 120 days.
6 You talk about decisive. You talk about clarity.
7 You revoke the license. Let them reorganize. Let them
e identify what their business plan is, and re- present to the
9 City. Maybe we can waive the fee. Maybe the City can do
10 that on their own if they want to do that kind of thing.
11 I don't want to be punitive here, but 1 do want to
12 be clear, and what you're recommending is not clear and
13 doesn't solve the problem.
14 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: And you by recommending youre
15 referring to the motion that's before us. Okay.
16 My - -my concern is l - - I -- I take heart with the
17 lease. I think that the landowner as well as the operator
18 misunderstood the conditions of the permit. Albeit l do
19 believe that the lic -- the 47 license with the restriction
20 of no restaurant is very problematic, but it is also a
21 restriction of no bar, and I think that we had a bar here.
22 Given that the Overstreets had some success in the
23 three years that they were operating it, 1 guess I would be
24 inclined to hear what staff had in connection with the
25 modification of the hours conditions on the 47 license, but I
Precise Reporting Service
714- 647 -9099
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Page 129
33 (Pages 129 to 132)
Page 131
1
continue to believe that the 47 license is the problem.
1
rat talking about is that Planning Commissioners would
2
1 -1 don't believe -- now let's go back because
2
express some concern -- because 1 don't have concems about
3
we asked Ms. Ail in what was the cond — what were the '',
3
all the alleged violations, but I do have significant
4
conditions or Mr. Lepo and Mr. Alford what were the
4
concerns about specific ones. So Commissioner McDaniel.
5
conditions prior to the Overstreets taking over, and it was a
5
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. There's a motion before
6
retail use. Well, it moves from a retail use to a
6
us that I plan on voting no on. So if there's a -- if — if
7
quasi- retail use with wine sales and wine tasting, which it
7
it passes, then I think that's appropriate. If it doesn't,
8
will tonne clear in some other hearings that that may also
B
then it's a --
9
create some di fferent use issues, and then we all of a sudden
9
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Well, sir, we are discussing that
10
get a restaurant with — with alcohol consumption and --
10
motion. And to discuss that motion, we need to be clear on
11
and — and I think that's where things went downhill on that
11
the basis for voting for that motion. Now, you have made it
12
license, which I will note, Commissioner McDaniel, I did not
12
clear why you were voting.
13
see your dissent in that -- in that hearing. So correct me
13
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because 47 is in there, and I
14
if I'm wrong, please.
14
cant vote for it, yes.
15
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We voted for it because we were
15
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: And you regard the 47 as cons —
16
given assurances that one, it would never become a bar; that 1
16
the 47 and the conduct under that as constituting violations
17
wine tasting, we had the credibility ofthe applicant that we
17
ofthe various conditions.
19
believed that it was going to be a high end wine lasting i
18
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
19
establishment, which we thought the area could definitely
19
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Correct? And maybe even a
20
use.
20
nuisance.
21
We were given assurances and believe that —that,
21
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
22
you know, only high end expensive alcohol would be dispensed, !
22
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. All right Commissioner
23
and it would -- and our concerns ofhaving a bar there would
23
Toerge.
24
never take place.
24
COMMISSIONER TOERGE: Thank you. Yes, but — but the
25
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay.
25
motion is to continue this, and the motion is to have staff
.... -_. -
.. _.
_.. ... .. .. .... .......... ....... _......._ ...........
Page 130
_.__
Page 132
1 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that's why I voted for it,
1
go back and work out some issues including this matrix. And
2 but clearly the 47 is the problem.
2
so were going to revisit it anyway. If our counsel thinks
3 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. Now, Mr. Bums, in
3
he has a good handle on it, that's all he really has to have
4 connection with a modification we need to still make
4
to come back and re- present it to this Commission because
5 findings; correct?
5
we're continuing it We're not deciding tonight. I mean
6 MR. BURNS: Ys. 1
6
that's what the motion is. So I don't know that we need to
7 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: And so perhaps we need to go
7
go through that eight page document. 1'd pmfer not to.
e through the matrix that you helpfully provided us and talk
8
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: I understand that. Mr. Bums,
9 about those issues, the permit conditions and so forth that
9
okay, so we continue it. We come back with your
10 we believe have been violated that would warrant the
10
recommendation. We have closed the public hearing. I take
11 modification if we go that way.
11
it the public hearing remains closed at that point.
12 MR. BURNS: That would be helpful. I did try and take
12
MR. BURNS: Ys.
13 note of what each of you were saying as you went through the
13
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: All right.
14 evidence, but if you wanted to go back through that, that
14
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: Mr. Chair, one more thing
15 would be line.
15
regarding the continuance. I'd like to add a date specific
16 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Well, do you believe that you have
16
of June 5 to have staff come back to us on since we're
17 enough discussion from the Planning Commissioners to write
17
going to hear the --
18 the requisite findings that we need?
18
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: So that's a month and a half.
19 MR. BURNS: I believe I could take a crack at iq but
19
COMMISSIONER PEOTTER: We're going to hear the Furyon
20 if anybody thinks they did not express themselves well enough
20
the 22nd of May, probably not a good night to have this come
21 on [hat, we could —
21
back.
22 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. Chairman.
22
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: No, 1 would agree with that.
23 MR. BURNS: -- certainly go through it, but I dont know
23
MR. BURNS: Mr. Chair, with your permission I would
24 if you go through and vote on each — on each issue.
24
suggest that if you could just make whatever notes you're
25 CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: No. No. No. No. I think all
25
going to make in your file, but that we could -- when we do
Precise Reporting Service
714 - 647 -9099
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEJOUR HEARING - 4/17/2008
Page 133
continue it and staff and Ms. Ailin I suppose will work out
with Mr. Hunt and his client, and they can maybe even try and
work out on some of the findings they can agree on, it comes
to the conclusion you want to get to, and if the whole deal
falls apart and they cant agree, but you still feel as
though the evidence will support modification as you want to
impose, then we'll go through the issues line by line it you
want and --
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. But youre suggesting not.
to put a date certain to return?
MR. BURNS: You can put a date certain to return as long
as we have a backup position in case they can't get to an
agreement that you won't be disturbed if we can't go another
meeting if they don't agree.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Well, perhaps we could go to
June 19th then. That would give them two more weeks.
MR. BURNS: Well, I think you need the first meeting to i
see if they can work out a deal.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. Okay.
MR. BURNS: And then the next meeting in case there's no
deal.
MR. HUNT: Forgive me, Mr. Chairman. Youte talking
about putting out a piece of property that's vacant that
needs to be producing income for another two months at least,
and that's just along time. And we'd like to encourage you
Page 134;
to try and move this more quickly if we're going to go
through this process. The -- this property is currently
vacant, and we can't just sit there and let that property be
vacant.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Thank you. Notwithstanding the
fact that Ms. Overstreet came here and requested a fairly
lengthy continuance herself, so...
MR. HUNT: Notwithstanding the fact that they never got
a notice.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Mr. Hunt, we -- we heard your
point. June 5th would be workable for me.
Okay. So we have a motion to continue with this
item with direction to stallto modify the - -to attempt to
come up with a modification of the existing permit, which
would reduce the hours as staff had earlier proposed; the
priority of retail use; consideration of conditioning the 47
license; cleaning up the ambiguity in the Use Permit; and
then returning the infrastructure or the improvements or the
fixtures to the original condition.
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yes. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL Does Ms. Ailin need to be a par
of that, too? I mean is everybody else going to be available
for that that evening?
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Ms. Ailin, do you want to address
1
2
3
9
s
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34 kedy.ty:J 133 L.0 1.JOJ
Page 135
youravailability?
MS. AILIN: I am available.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Okay. Thankyou Allright So
I will call the question. Please vote.
MR. BURNS: Mr. Chaiman, just one clarification. t—
the -- regarding the door plan.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: Yes.
MR. BURNS: I believe the motion was to revise the floor
plan to be -- reflect the priority of uses being retail
first.
CHAIRPERSON HAWKINS: That'stight_
MR. BURNS: Okay. But not the original —
CHAIRPERSONHAWKINS: That'scorrect. Island
corrected. Thank you Please vote.
MS. VARIN: Excuse me. Motion passes with few ayes and
three noes.
(WHEREUPON THE AUDIOTAPED HEARING
Page 136
CERTIFICATE
OF
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
The undersigned Certified Shorthand Reporter of the
State of California does hereby certify.
That the foregoing is a true transcript of an audio
tape transcribed to the best of my ability.
In wimess whereof, I have subscribed my name.
DATED: JUNE 6, 2008
Carolyn Gregor
CSR #2351
Precise Reporting Service
714 - 647 -9099