Loading...
Item 10 - Request for Rehearing for EA & CUP 92-10 Richard Darr .. "': ~.. ]lSTRISUTJ:D J!] AGENDA t{EPORT SUM Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council - James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ FROM: ,. INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ,~ DATE: May 4, 1993 SUBJECT: Request for Rehearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 92-10, Richard Darr, Applicant ABSTRACT This isa request for rehearing of Conditional Use Permit 92-10. The applicant believes new information compiled from crime stat i st i cs and test imony from other fun center operations warrant rehearing. It is recommended that City Council not concur with the rehearing request. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental action is necessary. - FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Letter of support from Ziebarth & Associates. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council find that there is not sufficient new and different evidence to warrant a reheari ng and not concur with the app 1 i cant's request for a rehearing. ACTION - 1 of 7 MAY 4 1993 ITEM 10.~ -------,--_.._-_.._--~-_.- AGENDA REPOR'r CITY OF POW A Y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager INITIATED BY: Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planning Services ~ Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner DATE: May 4, 1993 MANDATORY ACTION DATE: May 4, 1993 SUBJECT: A Reauest for Reheari na for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 92-10. Pro Track Grand Prix. Richard Da rr. ADD 1 icant APN: 317-490-57 BACKGROUND On Apri 1 20, 1993 the Council approved a motion of denial on the subject application, and adopted the resolution of denial on April 27, 1993. On Apri 1 28, 1993 the applicant submitted a letter requesting a rehearing of the matter due to the receipt of new information. FINDINGS The new information being proposed for presentation at the rehearing involves: the compilation of crime statistics for other fun centers within the region, testimony from operators of these centers as well as testimony from 1 aw enforcement representatives from those locations, the withdrawal of the request for a game arcade, and an offer to modify the hours of operation to better suit the needs of the immediate residential neighborhood. Staff does not bel ieve that this new information constitutes sufficient "new and different evidence not available at the previous hearing" to warrant a rehearing per Section 17.46.080.A of the Poway Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW No environmental action is necessary. ACTION: )) 2':"of 7 MAY 4 1993 nEM 10.;( - Agenda Report May 4, 1993 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE Letter of support from Ziebarth & Associates. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council find that there is not sufficient new and different evidence to warrant a rehearin9 and not concur with the applicant's request for a rehearing. JLB:RWQ:MVD:is Attachment: A. Applicant's Letter Requesting Rehearing B. Letter from Ziebarth & Associates -, MAY 4 1993 II EM lO.~ 3 of 7 ------- .-- RECEIVED APR 28 1993 April 28, 1993 Mayor City Council City of poway Ci-t..V OF p'ovVJi.Y ....... . . ::>1 N.1NE>JO DEPT. .. . I, R1chard Darr request a-renear1ng on Cond1t1ona1 Use Perm1t 92- 10 to construct and operate a Family Fun Center on 1.3 acres located at 12957 poway Road, on April 20, 1993. I requested a continuance because I needed more time to gather facts about security measures and general operation of the Center. It was denied. I was attacked by a malicious agitator group, who is led by Bob Good and his group, who are known well for their group vigilante tactics and negative input on any new business proposals. I took the time to go to one of their community meetings to present the project. I was yelled at by these people, they made accusations. This was the most inconsiderate, adamant bunch of people all being led by Bob Goods drum beat, and these are the types of people who are denying all of the community their rights. I have lost all faith in the City of Poway's Government. My project was accepted by James Bowersox, City Manager; Reba Wright, Director of Planning Services; Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner. This represents the city of Poway's future. I respect these people and their decision. They know what the City needs, we have no recreation in Poway. The money goes elsewhere. Let's get together and support our business investors. I met every condition on my conditional use permit and was willing to go even further to assure safety-anything that needed consideration. I certainly hope every council man and the Mayor took the time to read Agenda Report Summary which was issued on April 8, 1993. My project was accepted by the city Manager, Director of Planning services and Planning Department, these people you should listen to. Not a negative input group, who never presented one bit of fact or had any proof of any sort, just hearsay. You need facts and proof in a court of law, hearsay means nothing, this is America. I am going to provide the facts and the proof from the owners of all major fun centers from San Diego to Palm Springs whom I have spoken to. These fun centers have no problems with gangs or anyone. It simply is not allowed. They hire Off-duty police officers who know how to prevent any problems. As a taxpayer of two commercial properties in Poway, and business investor, we need encouragement, not discouragement. Facts and proof, not hearsay. You can't put a barrier around Poway, and say we don't want teenagers, Asians, Blacks, Hispanics. These situations are real, we need to deal with it. Now give me the consideration I deserve for a rehearing and provide the true information. Let the city of Poway have some fun. Sincerely, f1k~ a~l Richard Darr Property Owner (619) 282-8682 4 of 7 ATTACHMENT A MAY 4 1993 nEM 1 Q.d-, - . - Z ZIEBARTH & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING ,.. RECEIVED, May 2, 1993 MAY 3 1993 -' \. CITY OF POWAY City Council Members CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Poway 13325 Civic Center Dr. Poway, Ca. 92064 Re: PROTRACK GRAND PRIX FAMIL V FUN CENTER CUP 92.10 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I am writing on behalf of Richard Darr, the applicant. Mr. Darr has requested a rehearing for his project because it is believed that errors were made in the way the hearing was handled. Mr. Darr requested a continuance. The council -- decided that since so many individuals had taken the time to come and express their feelings, that it was only fair to hear their testimony, even if the actual de. cision was continued. This was fair. What was unfair, was having a motion made to deny, without hearing all of the testimony in favor or even a single individual speaking in opposition. This indicates a predetermined position prior to full reciept of public testimony or an opportunity for the applicant to rebut. The city attorney raised the question whether all information used in basing the decision was in writing and in the public record. He was assured that it-was. What was not pointed out, though was that the applicant had not had a chance to review this additional "testimony" in order to rebut it. Due to the premature motion, due process was circumvented. The impression to the applicant was that the decision was predecided against him. Therefore, when the mayor asked Mr. Darr if he cared to respond, he accepted his fate and capitulated. The final vote was justifiable since the Applicant gave in. Upon reflection, it is had to find justification for the motion or the decision. The motion was a rejection of the Planning Department and city 'staff's recommenda. tions and findings based on the facts. These are your hired impartial experts in this field. The motion was based on the coun.cil member's difficulty in making two findings. Every fact in the case supports those findings. -, ROO W IVY ST., SUITE E . SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 233-6450 FAX (619) 233-6449 5 of 7 ATTAGt'ENT B MAY 4 1993 ITEM 1 G.d., --- , '} Section 1: Findinas: Finding 1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not be compatible with and may adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources.The location of the fun center adjacent to an existing bowling alley may contribute to a crime problem in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: a. Location: The location is next to the Fun Bowl which has established the relationship of recreational use next to residential in the rear. Concerns for land use compatibilty and economic impact on adjoining residences has previously been established. b. Size: The property is large enough to handle the use and still provide a 15' landscape setback on the sides and rear. In addition there is a 25' easement along the rear which creates an effective 40' buffer to residential. c. Design: The project was designed such that noise did not exceed the noise ordinance. Lighting does not exceed the ordinace or is even visible from the residences. The project. due to grade differential and series of screen walls is not even visible from the residences. A wrought iron fence around the track prevents individuals, who are not in the go-carts, from being within 100' of the residences. d. Operations: Hours of operation conform to curfew and noise ordinance. Not one materially detrimental impact was identified on adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources. A review of CEQA standards, I believe would support this conclusion. The councilman moving for denial also clarified that unsubtantiated potential for contributing to the crime problem is not a legal basis for denial. The focus of the opposition was this potential crime problem. Recreational land uses are not the cause of crime and drug problems, anymore than are city parks, schools, and shopping centers. 6 of 7 MAY 4 1993 ITEM 10,~ . Finding 2: The scale, bulk, coverage, and density is not consistent with adjacent uses in that the property is bounded on the rear by a single family resi- dential property which is found to be incompatible with the race car activity. RESPONSE: "Race car activity" is misleading and I contend that most of the information used by the opposition in gathering signatures on petitions was probably misleading. "Race car activity" could mean stock car or formula one racing and not go-carts with 5 horsepower engines and a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour. It is essential to look strictly at the facts. How can the scale, bulk, coverage, and density of a project adversely impact a single family residence that can't even see the project. We contend that if the council reviews the facts of the project, you will find that -..- the only negative impact is a percieved psychological one. That is not a justifiable ground for denial. A rehearing is therefore requested. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ ~iebarth' AlA , , 'J - 7 of 7 MAY 4 1993 ITEM 10,a.