HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2021 Item 2, Sub Corportaion Appeal of Citations 22649
City of San Luis Obispo
Construction Board of Appeals
By the Sub Corporation, LTD.
Hearing Date: Apri126, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.
Position Paper Submitted by Appellant the Sub Corporation
Appellant the Sub Corporation appeals citation under the San Luis Obispo
City ordinance regarding setback requirements (17.36.020) and permits for
shipping containers (15.02.010). A third matter in the citation regarding permits for
installation of racks is not being appealed as the appellant has proceeded as set
forth in the citation to remedy that issue.
The appellant requests that the Construction Board of Appeals withdraw,
dismiss, or revoke the citation as to the two matters on appeal.
BACKGROUND
The citations affect property located at 2146 Parker Street in San Luis
Obispo. This property was purchased by the appellant as its temporary
headquarters, storage, and marketing facilities during the repair and reconstruction
of its property located at the corner of Pismo and Higuera Streets in San Luis
Obispo that was subject to a devastating fire on December 26, 2015.
In searching for a temporary facility, the appellant was looking for property
that had a long history of office, retail, and storage use. The property at 2146
Parker Street seemed to fit these criteria.
i
It should be noted that the City of San Luis Obispo and the appellant agree
that the subject property is appropriate for the use of shipping containers for
personal storage. The dispute arises over whether the permitting process applies.
The appellant maintains that, among other things, the longstanding use and zoning
of the subject property for storage, including container storage, significantly
predates the permitting requirements of the current ordinance. The continued use of
shipping containers should be allowed without applying the newer permitting
ordinance.
In the event that the permitting process is applied to the property, then
alternative storage methods or issues are raised. For instance, replacement of
shipping containers with semi-trailer storage or putting the shipping containers on
wheels would obviate the need for permits and the permitting process and leave the
appellants with greater flexibility but would not have the same visual or practical
appeal as the use of the shipping containers.
The other issue is that if the storage containers are empty, this would seem to
also not be subject to the permitting process. It should be noted that appellant is in
the business of buying and selling shipping containers. Such containers are not
subject to permitting as structures but are simply inventory.
HISTORY OF PROPERTY
The property is and has historically been used for commercial and personal
storage. This use is part of the activities involving auxiliary storage and storage in
and around the existing structures on the property. This has been an ongoing and
established use for over 40 years.
Originally, this property was an AT&T equipment yard. AT&T stored
vehicles and equipment on all areas of the property, including where the ocean
containers currently sit. This established use for the property is not new but has
been and is ongoing. These storage uses were continued by the Dill family when
they became owners. The appellants acquired the property from the Dill Family. At
one time before the appellant acquired the property Martin's Towing used this
property for vehicle storage and impound over a period of years.
The appellant is functionally doing nothing new. The mix of storage
containers and other storage has changed. The Dill family used primarily 53'
trailers and AT&T stored equipment, vehicles and materials at Parker. The
appellant is temporarily storing 40' ocean container boxes. The appellant does have
2
the ability to switch the shipping containers out for the truck trailer type of storage
but would rather not as the trailers do not fit in as well or look as nice. With truck
trailer storage the 5 ft setback would not be required. Please keep in mind, that
the storage is only a temporary methodology while the appellant is repairing and
reconstructing its fire devastated buildings_
Appellant is not interested in establishing a permanent personal storage
facility at Parker Street, only in continuing the ongoing pre-established use of the
property and temporarily use the ocean containers while they are on the property.
The storage containers are temporary, have no electricity and no improvements.
SET BACK ISSUE
There has been ocean container location less than five feet from the property
line for over 30 years. It has apparently now become a problem not because of the
setback requirements for appellant's property but because of the relatively new set
back requirements for an adjacent differently zoned properry next to our CS
property.
This longstanding usage location together with some practical matters make
the application of the setback unwarranted and impractical.
The last thing the neighbors along the back of the property would want
would be a 5' dead zone between the boxes and their fence. This dead zone
quickly fills with vegetation, debris, and junk through the forces of nature. This
becomes a haven for rats, squirrels, and mice, as it was before it was cleaned it up.
The neighbors were thrilled when the appellants took possession of the property
and removed years of accumulated ivy plants and vegetation along the fence and
cleared out the pests. They would not want them back.
Increasing the hazard zone, as the city proposes to do, would create a
camping space for "homeless" persons. These days businesses throughout San
Luis Obispo have a serious issue with "homeless" persons setting up camp in just
such hard to see places.
Application of the set-back, which is not functionally necessary or desirable,
would widen the hazard zone and dramatically increase the cost of continual
abatement of that zone beyond the benefit that would be realized by compliance
with today's setback proposal by the city.
3
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am a resident of the County of San Luis Obispo. I am over the age of 18
years of age and not a party to within matter. My business address is P.O. Box
14259, San Luis Obispo, California 93406.
On April 16, 2021 I caused the foregoing document described as Position
Paper Submitted by Appellant the Sub Corporation for Appeal of Citation
22649 to be served on the interested parties in this matter by placing a true copy
thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
Construction Board of Appeals
c/o Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Michael Codron, Community Development Director
c/o Cassia Cocina
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
By Next Business Day Delivery: I enclosed the document in envelopes
provided by a delivery carrier addressed as indicated above. I placed the envelopes
for collection and delivery at an office of the delivery carrier for service the
following business day.
By E-mail: In addition to the foregoing, I caused the aforementioned
document to be transmitted by e-mail to the following e-mail addresses:
rma�io(�ae,slocitv.o� and ccocina(�ae,slocitv.org .
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 16, 2021 at San Luis
Obispo, California.
Original signed
Shane Kramer