Council disclosures provided.
Rich Grunow, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report utilizing a PowerPoint.
Simon Guindi, appellant, presented an opening statement seeking direction to help inform future business decisions.
Richard Bailey, representative of the appellant, presented the appeal utilizing a PowerPoint.
Mayor Duncan opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak on this item.
Tina Christiansen provided comments regarding support of upholding the denial utilizing a PowerPoint.
Andrew Gade provided comments noting that he was unaware the restaurant provided off-site parking.
Robbins Kelly provided comments stating that the established parking agreement was a fair exchange for the restaurant's expansion.
Richard Bailey, representative of the appellant, clarified that most restaurants along the 100 block of Orange do not have parking and were grandfathered in; whether AB 2097 can be used to eliminate an existing parking agreement; and asked the Council to direct staff to inform the appellant of what constitutes a "change of use."
Having received no further requests to speak, Mayor Duncan closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the legal definition of "development project." Special Counsel Eric Phillips clarified that the statute applies to residential, commercial, or other development projects, with the term "project" being the operative requirement. Further discussion ensued regarding the applicability of AB 2097 to the existing restaurant. Councilmembers Fleming, Purvis, Steward, and Downey noted that the 2012 agreement was a fair and reasonable condition of the prior expansion and that the appellant had not demonstrated a new project or change of use to trigger state law relief. Mayor Duncan concluded that AB 2097 does not apply to an ongoing operation without a new development proposal.