Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 14c - Rescind City Council decision - 1231 San Carlos Road DATE: June 18, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director SUBJECT: RESCIND CITY COUNCIL DECISION CONCERNING A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AT 1231 SAN CARLOS ROAD PER THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOM CROSBY, ET AL. V. CITY OF ARCADIA, ET . AL. (SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER BS172105) Recommendation: Rescind Decision and Provide Additional Direction SUMMARY On April 30, 2019, Judge Mary Strobel of the Los Angeles County Superior Court iss ued a decision in the case of Tom Crosby, et. al. vs. the City of Arcadia et. al., related to the denial of a circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road. The decision, in part, found that the City must set aside its decision of October 17, 2017, denying the circular driveway request. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council rescind its decision in this case, by motion, and provide additional direction on the underlying entitlement request. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal related to the denial of a circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road (Homeowners’ Association Appeal Case No. 17-01). The Appellant, the Santa Anita Oaks Home Owners’ Association (the “HOA”), filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve plans for the circular driveway. The chairperson of the HOA’s Architectural Review Board (the “ARB”) had originally denied the plans, and the homeowner had appealed to the Planning Commission, who reversed this decision. The City Council voted 3-2 to approve the appeal and uphold the original ARB denial. Following the City Council decision, Petitioners Tom Crosby and Ellen Fu Crosby filed a petition to seek a writ of mandate against the City, the HOA, and Mr. Vince Va rgas, a representative of the HOA’s ARB. Prior to the hearing on the writ, Mr. Vargas and the HOA were dismissed from the lawsuit by Plaintiffs. At the conclusion of the process, Judge Mary Strobel issued a decision that in part, granted the Petitioners writ. Rescind Decision – 1231 San Carlos Road June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The Superior Court decision has directed that the City Council’s October 17, 2017 , decision regarding the HOA Appeal Case No. 17 -01 be set aside and rescinded. Although the Court found in favor of the City on a number of counts, the prima ry ruling is the City’s decision relied on the ARB’s application of “Neighborhood Development Standards” to disallow the circular driveway, and that these Neighborhood Development Standards were contrary to the regulations found in the Municipal Code. Esse ntially, the Court found that the ARB had improperly usurped the City Council’s role by adopting a blanket prohibition against circular driveways for newly-built homes, and the City Council had at least taken this ARB policy into consideration in reaching its own decision on appeal. The Court also found that the City Council did not rely on or issue sufficient findings in making their determination. In making its decision, the Court’s decision does state that nothing in the judgment or writ issued by the Co urt shall limit or control in any way the discretion vested with the City in any future proceedings on this matter, if any. It is important to note, however, that the Court’s decision leaves open how the City chooses to further consider this matter. The conclusion of the ruling states simply that, the Court “will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s decision”. This leaves the City Council with the following options: 1) Rescind the original decision and take no further action at this time. The effect would be that the Planning Commission’s decision on the matter will stand. The Planning Commission voted, at their meeting on August 22, 2017, to approve the circular driveway. Since this represents a “new” decision by the Planning Commission, the Municipal Code provides for a 10 -day appeal period. As a result, if the City Council rescinds the decision at the June 18, 2019, meeting, appeals could be filed on the decision up to 4:30 PM on Friday, June 28. If an appeal is filed, the matter would return to the City Council for a public hearing, additional discussion, and a decision. If no appeal is filed, the Planning Commission decision would be final. 2) Rescind the original decision and hold a new City Council public hearing on the matter. Under this option, the City Council would hold further proceedings on the matter and, as the Court stated, they would need to be consistent with the Court’s decision and sufficient findings would need to made in support of the decision based on design review criteria set forth in City Council Resolution No. 6770. 3) Rescind the original decision and remand the matter back the ARB for its determination. Under this option, the ARB could not rely in any way on its apparent adoption of its earlier circular driveway policy (nor could the City Council in any rehearing), and sufficient findings would need to be made in Rescind Decision – 1231 San Carlos Road June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 3 support of the decision. Similar to the original process, any decision by the ARB could be appealed to the Planning Commission, and then to the City Council, following the normal processing of appeals. It is recommended that the City Council rescind the October 17, 2017 , decision on this matter pursuant to the Court order. It is further recommended that the City Council provide any additional direction concerning the processing of this matter. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS To rescind this decision does not lead to any construction or change to the physical environment; as such this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(B)(3), as it can be shown with certainty that the decision will have no impact on the environment. The original project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction of Accessory Structures per the requirements of CEQA under Section 15304. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment was prepared in this case, and, if the driveway is constructed, this exemption would be in place. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact from rescinding the decision. The City Council does have the option of appealing the Court’s ruling, which would carry substantial attorney’s costs and fees. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council rescind its decision, made on October 17, 2017, concerning the circular driveway at 1231 San Carlos Road per the decision in the case of Tom Crosby, et. al. v. City of Arcadia, et. al. (Superior Court Case No. BS172105) It is further recommended that the City Council provide any additional direction concerning the processing of this matter. Attachment: April 30, 2019, Superior Court Decision