HomeMy WebLinkAbout0545
.
.
-
RESOLUTIOH NO. 545
U~pwn~~~' ~
':.f If . "" , .". I.
. ".,:,.:J - .'. ,
.; U U Jy . J: ~: ~
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIN
COl'lNISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIJ\!, ;<-:; '1 F;=J
CALIFOm~IA, TEruqINATING VARIANCE :' ' :J
PHOCEEDINGS PURSUAH'r TO REQUEST F [J t.: ::--,ib,
APPLICANT. --
(/J J0 '-) ~'.' 7:'
\0~J ~ I
THE CI1Y PLANNrNG COrIT1ISSION OF TltE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFOrofIA,
DO~S DETEm~INE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That on May 26th, 1904, the RepUblic Capital
Corporation filed a verified application for a zone variance concernint;
a portion of' the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas
Drive in the City of Arcadia as more specifically descrioed in said
application. That after notice duly given, a public hearing was held
on said application on June 17, 1964, which hearing was duly continued
. to September 22, 1964, again to November 10, 1964, to December u, 1961+,
to January 26, 196), to Feoruary 9, 1965 and to March 2j, 1965, at eacn
of \'lhich times all interested persons were given an opportunity to De
heard and to present evidence.
SECTION 2. That on September 22, 1964, this Commission anopted
its certain Resolution No. jj4 wherein ami whereoy this Commission on
its own motion instituted proceedings for the purpose of considering
and ma:dng recommendations concerning the classification or reclassifi-
cation of tne properties therein more specifically described, including
the property descri.oed in the af'ol"esaid variance application of ?lepuiJlic
Capi tal Cor'poration, pursuant to which a public hearing was held after
clue no'i;ice on Novemoer 10, ly64, ~Ihich hearing was duly continued to
.
December J, 1964, again to January 26, 1965, to February 9, 196:) and to
r:larch 2..), 196:). That since said inBtitution of proceedings by Resolu-
tion No. 534 as aforesaid, tne Planning Department has made zoning
studies and from time to time has submitted reports with respect <.0
portions of properties under consideration. That the proceedings thus
instituted by tne Planning Commission are still pending and the zoning
studies and reports are still in progress but nearing completion.
-1-
545
.
.
.
SECTIOl''l,). That oy letter dated March s" 196:J, and receiv-ed
by the Planning Department on 1\1arch 10, 196:;" applicant Repuolic Capital
Corporation withdrew, cancelled and rendered void its aforesaid applica-
tion for the zone variance heretofore filed by it with the City on
l'iay 26, 196Ll.
.'SECTION 4. That in view of the foregoing and pursuant to and
in accordance with said applicant's written request, the application
for zone variance filed by Repuolic capital Corpor'ation on May 26, 19oL:
is hereby declared withdrawn, cancelled and rendered void and the pro-
ceE~dings heretofore conducted and pending pursuant thereto are hereoy
terminated.
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of
. this resolution.
I HEREBY CEHTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Planning Commission held on the 23rd
day of March
, 1965, by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Ferguson, Golisch, Hanson, Turner, and Kuyper
NOES:
None
ABSENT: Commissioners Parker and
Norton, _ ("
I / :/
( f(' ,,:,~/If_'.~/
Chj!,.irman
,
ATTEST:
. Secretar-y
-2-
545
.'
.
.
.
.
.
,
March 23, 1965
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF VARIANCE APPLICATION - NO. V-64-S
Th", letter requesting withdrawal of the variance application, V-64-S, has been dis-
tributed to the Commission. The applicant proposed to develop the 9.5 acres of vacant
land at the northwest corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas Drive as a commercial
cen ter .
In the letter there are some statements which the Commission may want to reply to in
order to keep the record straight. In the event the Commission so elects, the following
is <:1 chronological history of events from the date the applicatian was filed to the present
time.
~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
Event
Date
Action
Application filed
, Public Hearing
II II
Received
Continued - Heavy Agenda
Continued - Study Requested
Con ti nued - Study Presen ted
Continued - Committee Appointed
Continued - Request of Appl icant
Continued - Committf!eirequlred, til"
more time
n II
II n
May 26, 1965
June 9, 1964
June 15, 1964
September 22, 1964
November 10, 1964
December S, 1964
January 26, 1965
II 11
II It
II II
II II
February 9, \965
March 23, 1965
Continued -
"
II n
. ].,
- I -
~
j". :",6
..."
-~-
- .~
-.
.
.
.
Withdrawal of V-64-8
March 23, 1965
Page Two
If
LIVE OAK STUDY COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Dote
Place Report to Commission
Conference Room December 8, 1964
" " December 8, 1964
" " January 26, 1965
" " February 23, 1965
" " Morch 9, 1965
" " Morch 9, 1965
Squad Room March 23, 1965
Conference Room March 23, 1965
December 3, 1964
December 7, 1964
* January 14, 1965
*** February 17, 1965
**Februory 25, 1965
**March 4, 1965
*March 11, 1965
March 15, 1965
Peopl e Present
* Property owners, Committee members, Stoff
** Press, Committee members, Staff
~.** Press, City Attorney, Committee members, Stoff
. .....
The December 3 and 7 meetings were organizationol meetings and the March 15,
meeting was 0 windup of the entire series ormeetings. At any of these three meetings
the public could have attended if it had so elected. The statement about secret meetings
is indeed inaccurate.
The pol icy procedure of the Commission of having its study committee meet with property
owners is not a new one. It has been followed in every mojor study conducted by the
Commission. (Foothill Study, Central Area Study, Zone R-3 regulations ore but 0 few).
In the Live Oak Study with five different sub-oreos, time was needed to meet with all
the property owners because of the complexity of the problems and even more important
the large number of property owners involved. The statement about undue delays is not
correct,
The Comm ission has hod 0 stoff report on the variance, 0 study report on the areo both of
which mode specific recommendations. These recommendotions ore in the records, In
addition the Commission has received progress reports from the Committee which ore also
a part of the public record. The Commission has not arrived at any decisions yet and
rightly so because in addition to these reports, the Commission may want to give con-
siderable weight to the evidence presented at the public hearings which are still open.
.
.../
- 2 -
.
.
.
.
Withdrawal of V-64-8
March 23, 1965
Page Three
I., . .."
.
.
The Commission may want to drop the entire matter because of the adverse
press the subject has received. Perhaps by replying the subject is rekindled.
WP:ss.
'>Ij.- '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~~
WILLIAM PHELPS
Planning Director
SPEE~IMEMO
10' /). ~ /:""7:--"- .
~~ U".....,,?.....4<-;..-d':-t
FRQ.\\ .~
~ :.--...~---~....-- .1
.
DEPl 'lOCA liON
~ S\1lJ
SIGNED
DEPi.-lOCATION
DE?1AQCAIION
.
10Al'
Redi7'm
4S 470
SEND PARTS I AND 3 WflH C
AABON INTACT. PART 3 Will BE RETURNED WITH REPLY
~LI_
.
.
.
o.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia
City Hall .
Arcadia, California
.
13516 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, California
March 9, 1965
,
Re: Application of Republic Capital Corporation
for Zone Variance in Connection with Proposed
Community Shopping Center - Northwest
Corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas
Drive - Your File No. V-64-8
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Republic Capital Corporation,
a California corporation, the owner of the subject,
property and the applicant under an application
for zone variance filed on or about May 26, 1964,
does hereby forthwith withdraw, cancel and render
void its application on file with you, effective
immediately.
ef
Very truly yours,
REPUBLIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION
.~
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 1S55
CIT"t, Pf, ~~
DU't.o 118
I; ,,'
f~ .
,
,
.
.
"
,
13516 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks; California
March 9, 1965
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia, City Hall
Arcadia, California
\
ReI WITHDRAWAL AND CANCELLATION of Application of
Republic Capital Corporation for Zone Variance in
Connection with Proposed Community Shopping Center -
Northwest Corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Las Tunas
Drive - Your File No. V-64-8
Gentlemen:
Find enclosed the withdrawal and cancellation of our appli-
cation No. V-64-8 for variance for the property described in our
application filed with you on May 26. 1964.
.
As a property owner and developer the undersigned Republic
Capital Corporation is compelled to review for you, and for the
public. acts, omissions, delays, "continuances", procedures and
methods employed by you which the applicant asserts constitutes
e'xtraordinary deprivation of the property rights of a taxpayer
without due process of law, damaging and thwarting our rightful
use of a valuable property.
It is also encumbent upon the undersigned, Mildred Shecter
Kritt, President of Republic Capital Corporation, to express the
tremendous dismay and chagrin she has in the past experienced
and is now elCPeriencing as a result of what she deems your
capricious and frivolous disregard of the rights of citizens as
individuals.
.
The property involved in the application consists of 420,930
square feet (9. '5 acres) with approximately 950 feet of frontage on
Las Tunas Drive and approxima tely 250 feet of frontage On Santa
Anita Avenue. and is presently valued (even with the combination of
zone catagories applicable thereto) in excess of $1,650,000.
You have stalled, delayed and switched your positions, without
good cause, for almost ten months since the date of the filing of
the application, and you are now cavalierly considering. re-zoning of
this property to R-1 with a resulting los,s to the applicant of
.
il ..
I
;1
I
'.'1
11
, ,
.~
----~
. ,
___ ~..L_
. ~ ------,...--.-
r '
>,
..
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page Z
March 9, 1965
approximately $1,000,000.
Dur ing the 30 day period prior to the date of the filing of
this applica.tion (May Z6, 19(4), the undersigned prepared its
,
application for re-zonlng of a small minority part of the property
(now zoned variously R-l, R-Z, R-3, PR-3) to C-3, the zoning
'classification on the majority part of the property. When the appli-
cation so prepared for re-zoning was about to befHed, one of the, "
senior members of the Planning Department suggested, in view
of the fact that the position of the applicant was sound and consistent
with the findings, research and planning of the Planning Department,
that no difficulty would be encountered for an earlier expediting
.
of the proposed development, if the original application for re-
zoning of the remaining minority part to C-3 was changed to an
application for variance instead of the application for re-zoning, and
therefore, on May Z6, 1964" this application for variance was
filed. In this connection you should be reminded that this senior
planner recommended this latter course to the applicant for the
reason that he stated that the application upon variances would be
acted upon more quickly than the application for re-zoning, in
order to permit the applicant to go forward with the complete
unified development of the property as an attractive unit for the
City of Arcadia.
Since the filing of this application, on May Z6, 1964, "public
.
hearings" were held on at least June 15, 1964, September ZZ, 1964,
November 10, 1964, December 8, 1964, January Z6, 1965,
February 9, 1965, and now again one is allegedly set for March Z3,
1965.
Reference is made to the Minutes of the Planning Co~ission
for the hearing of June 15, 1964:
For the reason that "Commissioner Kuyper desired the public
hearing postponed until the Planning Department could make
a study of the zoned areas for use as they are presently
zoned", on motion by Commissioner Kuyper, seconded
by Commissioner Golisch, the public hearing was continued
to September Z,4, 1964.
I'
e.
.
.
, Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page 3
March 9, 1965
.
Contrary to the specific limitation of the reference by the
Planning Commission to the Planning Department for study of the
zoned areas "for use as they are presently zoned, " and beyond
\
the authority granted to it, the Planning Department embarked
upon an adventure to create a study not of the zoned area "for
~se as they are presently zoned, " as directed, but for all kinds
of othe r uses for zoning not in existence and without relationship
to the uses of the property as presently zoned; furthermore, with-
.
out notice to this applicant, the "continued public hearing" was
held, unbeknounst to applicant, on the ZZnd day of September,
1964, without notice to the applicant or to anyone else, instead of
on September Z4, 1964, the date to which it was "publicly"
continuedj this public hearing held on the ZZnd day of September,
1964, was secret and contrary to the notice theretofore given to
applicant. This applicant has no way of knowing how many
"secret" or "un-noticed" meetings of the Planning Commission rela-
give to its application or to its property have been held.
This mis-use of proper procedures deprives applicant of
its property and its values without due process of law.
Testimony was given only at the hearings of June IS, 1964,
and January Z6, 1965) all other alleged "continued" public
hearitlgs were for the purpose of accomod a ting the so-called
.
Live Oaks Study prepared by the Planning Department contra~y
to and beyond the original authority granted in the public hearing
\
"
, of the Commission on June IS, 1964, on motion by Commissioner
Kuype,rj the Planning Department has usurped completely the
application of applicant in complete disregard of the extraordinary costs
and expenses and burdens the applicant is being put to, in that
all of the work of the Planning Department in its studies departs
completely from being a "study of the zoned areas for use as they
are presently zoned", and, in fact, the Pl..nnlng Department is
presently completely occupied with a study of the zoned area for
"
,
.
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page 4
March 9, 1965
Uses as such areas are not zoned.
In the meanwhile, during the period of almost ten months,
applicant has been thwarted in its legitimate pursuit of the use and
enjoyment of its property even in the zoning already applicable
,
to the property and existing on the property when purchased by
applicant. The ten month frustration of the legitimate rights of
applicant by the irregular proceedings of the Planning Commission
'and Planning Department has resulted in extraordinarily heavy
costs to applicant, inability on the part of applicant to execute
offered leases, architect's commissions, engineering work,
financing agreements and all the other necessary arrangements
.
ao vital to a successful and intelligent development of a large
community shopping center, for the reason that applicant is unable
to enter into such binding arrangements for the developtnent as
each of such elements requires definition and decision as to the
leoning applicable to the property involved.
Section 9291. Z. 6 of Article IX, Chapter Z of the Municipal
Code of the City of Arcadia states as follows: '
.
"9291.2.6 FINDINGS AND DECISION. Within thirty-five
(35) days after the conclusion of a public hearing upon any
matter, the Planning Commission shall render its decision
thereon by formal resolution reciting the findings upon
which such decision is based. The failure of the Planning
Commission to thus render such decision within the time
specified shall cause the entire matter automatically to
be referred to the Council, without recommendation, for
such action as it deems warranted under the circumstances.
In such event the Secretary of the Planning Commission
shall immediately deliver to the Council all of the records
in the matter."
The application filed by this applicant has been "amended"
by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission into
a counter application promoted and P70posed by the Planning
Department relative to uses of the property with zoning not now
!existing On the property and with such uses as to cost this appli-
cant a million dollars; the Commission is in truth required to
properly and deligently adhere to the spirit and intention of
the above cited code section, and to the limitations imposed by
.'
.
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Ar.cadia - Page 5
March 9, 1965
its own resolution. This leads us to an obvious conclusion:
The public hearings on the application of applicant were
in truth and in fact concluded on or about June 15, 1964, and
the "continued" hearings thereafter have not in truth been
hearings of the applicant's application for variance but have
been used as a sounding board for and as hearings in con- '
nection with an alleged Live Oak Study and of various
strange and unrealistic plans of the Planning Department
unrelated to the present zoning. According to the Code
above cited this entire matter should have long ago been
before the City Council I
None of the activities of the Planning Department in its
so-called studies have been within the granting of authority made
by the motion of Commissioner Kuyper on June 15, 1964, when the
matter was referred to the Planning Department for study'bf the
.
zoned areas for use as they are presently zoned". The Planning
Department is now asking that the entire property of applicant,
be re-zoned to single family residential I
This property is simply incapable of being utilized or
so~d for single family residences. All of the studies of the Planning
~
Department show that the property is surrounded on three sides
by commercial property and is at the intersection of heavily
traveled arterials.
Furthermore, on June 9, 1964, the Planning Department
itself recommended the application of applicant to the Commission,
and on the 15th day of June, 1964, the Commission approved the
recommendations of the Planning Department in favor of applicant,
subject to certain conditions being met, but with a small, slight
.
reference of the matter to the Planning Department, for study of
the zoned areas for use as they are presently zoned. The Planning
Commission was advised on June 9, 1964, by the Planning Department,
regarding the application of applicant, as follows:
"from the planning viewpoint, it would be far more
desirable to have the total site developed contemporaneously
as a unit with one attractive harmoneous theme than to have
65 per cent to 70 per cent of the developed for commercial
purposes and the balance developed as zoning permits to
R-l, R-Z and R-3 purposes"; further, "that approximately
-,'
.....
_.
"
e.
.
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page 6
March 9, 1965
65 per cent to 70 per cent of the subject site is presently in
a C-3 or PR-3 zone catagory which would automatically
permit the kind of development being proposed. "
Now, for reasons unknown to applicant, the Planning
Department states that its evaluation of the use of the property on,
June 9, 1964, is completely opposed to its present evaluation of
, the use of the property as being R-l residential,
How would the owner of a beautiful R-l estate and home in
Arcadia, valued at $200,000, feel about his rights if this Commis-
sion and its Department' of Planning decided to re-zone this property
to agricultural, for the growing of garlic?
This City in its City Council is at this time attempting
.
with its right arm to enact into law an ordinance whereby the
City would be empowered to set up an agency for the purpose
of acquiring land, by eminent domain, for use as commercial
and Industrial projects;. at the same time, its left hand, the Planning
Department and Planning Commission seek at this applicant's
expense, to convert the most logical (and mainly already zoned)
commercial site in all of the City of Arcadia to an impos sible R-l
classification.
This perverted use of the laws of this City and State in
derrogatioil of the rights of citizens and taxpayers must cease.
The Proposed Community Redevelopment Agency which is
before the City Council, as presented by the City Manager, "set
.
forth, that scarce commercial and industrial lands must be properly
used; that by building a strong economic tax base by the proper
use of the lands is one way to meet continuing high costs of
government and at the sarne time relieve the property owner of as
much of the tax burden as possible. It stressed the provision for
owner participation and explain-:d that a project area cannot be
less ,than a total block bounded by four streets of subdivided land;
that i! unsubdivided it cannot contain less than 90,000 sq. ft."
.,
. 01 ~.
. ':
..
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page 7
March 9, 1965
.
Paradoxically, the saxne Planning Department and Planning
Commission view with favor a variance for the use of residential
property as additional parking in connection with a corrunercial
development known as the Pie King Restaurant located on the
;
Northeast corner of the saxne intersection at which the property
of applicant is located; similarly, recently, Pacific Savings obtained
a re-zoning to commercial, in the vicinity of the ,Pie King Restaurant.
And Mr. Phelps, the head of the Planning Department, has
adznitted that never since his tenure as Director of the Planning
Department has a commercial zone been previously down-grad~d
to an R-l zone I
.
This applicant is absolutely convinced that no formal
action will ever be taken by the Planning Corrunission on this
application; on January 26, 1965, contrary to the alleged Minutes
published by the Planning Commission, the applicant did not ask
that the application be decided upon "as SOOn as possible;" twice
the applicant and its attorney requested and exhorted a denial
or an approval so that the matter could be properly referred to
the City Council in accordance with law. The Planning Commission
arbitrarily and capriciously saw fit\not to deny or to approve the
application but to hold alleged "continued" hearings of the application,
not for the purpose of evaluating the application, but for the purpose
of using this application as a method to hear studies and uses
.
proposed to this property requiring zoning which does not exist,
all contrary to the authority granted to the Planning Department
by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1964.
Reference to the Minutes of the meetings of the PlaJ!ning
Commission will reveal that all of the present zoning now in
existence on the property of applicant have been Cl08 ed and approved
as part of the so-called Live Oak Study.
,
.,
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission and
Planning Department of the
City of Arcadia - Page 8
March 9, 1965
Changing the zoning from the present C-3 zoning to R-l
classification is really CONFISCATION of a property and of a
property value; it is not even a condemnation proceeding where the
reasonable value of the prope rty condemed is to 'be paid to the
,
property Owner. This is CONFISCATION without due process
of law; by the striking of a pen a property owner can lose in
excess of two-thirds of the value of its property without the
rigid safe guards eminent domain procedures provide.
Your studied inaction for almost ten months constituted the
most disastrous and damaging action against our valuable propertyl
The capricious, frivolous and cavalier manner in which the
.
Planning Commission has treated the application of this applicant
should serve as a warning to all citizens and property owners,
and prospective property owners, within the City of Arcadia. and
to all other citizens who might have the misfortune to have
invested life savings in real property in this community relying
upon an orderly process of law and upon the constitutionally
given right not to have one's property or its values confiscated
by the public authorities without due process of law.
Very truly yours,
REPUBLIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION
.
"