AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

lO.E-t3 Similar to the preceding paragraph, arguments are being offered with respect to compliance with land use policies. In particular, the arguments are being addressed to a Downtown Area Plan which the correspondence itself recognizes has not been adopted by the City. Again, this section does not present any arguments in support of appellant being in compliance with Article 26 of the Municipal Code. 3. Appellant is a retail use Appellant makes two arguments in support of its position that it is a "retail use" and therefore should be permitted within the CBR district. First, that despite the exclusivity of its customer base, its customers are the "end users" of its products. Second, that 75% to 80% of its customers pay retail sales tax at its stores. Whether or not either or both of the two arguments are accurate, standing alone, such factors do not create a right to locate within the CBR district. Appellant must meet each of the three elements of Article 26, as set forth above. In review of the administrative record, it is clear that the intent of the Central Business Retail district was to improve and revitalize the downtown area by only allowing selective retail uses. Debate on "antique shops," "auto parts sales" and "financial institutions and office fronts" is reflected in both the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 15, 1991, and the minutes of the City Council meeting of November 4, 1991 (attached hereto as Exhibits "D" and "E "). Moreover, Article 26 sets forth the specific uses which have been designated as permitted, accessory or conditional within the CBR district. The fact that other types of retail uses are not permitted within the CBR district does not affect the validity of the ordinance. The courts have held, Where the reasonableness of a zoning classification is fairly debatable, the legislative determination will not be disturbed by the courts. (Jon-Mar Company vs. City of Anaheim (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 832.) 4. Responses to September 23, 2002 Staff Report (a) Chronology Appellant argues that it was not provided adequate notice of the City's unpublished criteria for retail uses downtown, believes it was misled and was set on a course to commence construction and make significant financial commitments. The testimony of September 23,.2002,offered by the proponents of the appeal makes clear that the principals as well as their representatives are experienced real estate professionals; that they performed their due diligence in having read the City's Zoning Code; had satisfied themselves that the proposed business PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTI~,L Coundl.lnnovatJons 3