CC/RDA/CUA SPE MIN JAN 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Concise history of what has happened is set forth in planning commission resolution at the end of the staff booklet. Three areas of concern to staff 1. Broken promise - an agreement to issue Building permits and commence construction within one year of CUP initially issued in August 2004, the conditions were not signed for six months, it was twelve months before first plan submitted, Permittee did not own land at the time CUP issued, had not hired consultant, no pro forma submitted, no pictures found in file of proposed project, the purpose of zoning ordinance and CUP is to prevent one from reserving of land for future purposes and the person has no good faith intent to presently commence on the proposed use, it is clear that no present intention 2. Structured Delays — plans submitted and reviewed six months at a time, staff/consultants to blame, CCC was replaced Wildan applicant wanted CCC to continue with their plans, complaints by staff were restating of problems that had been done, after five years no renderings, saw footprints and plans, basically this was to be 2 acre warehouse with nice tenant improvements inside a large dance area a small kitchen, doesn't take a year to construct something like this, when looking at volume of exhibits and some stipulated to withdraw, none of the exhibits request extension of one year the reason being you would have to justify reason why you need an extension, why holding project up, no outside permits granted until June 2008, can't have building permit until outside permits granted, fees not paid until April 2008. 3. Fairness — no money went to benefit of the city, no property taxes paid other than for vacant land, no ancillary purchases, no employment for 4 to 5 years, $300,000 fee paid and still there and never applied to be withdrawn, allegation of pre -textual taking no just a delay that the city wants to go in a different direction, times change what was once permitted is not permitted, general plans amended every five years to take into account the demand for changes, nine acres still there. Attorney Montgomery finished by stating that staff would be resting on staff report, and exhibits in report, that witnesses will be available for cross examination or rebuttal. Kalama presentation Attorney Pierce, explained that his presentation was limited to attorney remarks, and would rest on declarations submitted in conjunction with packet submitted to city clerk, consisting of letter and exhibits. Attorney Pierce stated that Mr. Tsay would like to develop this property, owns a similar facility in the City of Cudahy and that Mr. Tsay believes that this project would bring significant revenue generation for the City. Attorney Pierce stated that he would like to correct mistakes in agenda report: 1. Stated in agenda report that Colton Holdings, who is predecessor owner, was under the direct control of Mr. Tsay, that is not the case, Colton Holdings is a separate legal entity from Kalama. 2009 JAN 26 SPC CC/RDA/CUA MEETING - 3 -