HomeMy WebLinkAbout CBOA 04-25-2023 Item 2 - Continuance of Appeal of Administrative Citation #25409 for Construction Board of Appeals
Agenda Report Meeting Date: April 25, 2023
Item Number: 2
DATE: April 11, 2023
FROM: Michael Loew, Deputy Building Official
PREPARED BY: John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Phone Number: (805) 781-7179
E-mail: jmezzapesa@slocity.org
SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION #25409 FOR
DETEMINATION ON PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES IN CREEK AND CREEK SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.
SITE DATA
The subject property is located at 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo. The surrounding properties
consists of a combination of County unimproved land and manufacturing/service commercial uses.
According to city records the parcel was annexed and incorporated into city limits in 2008 and was
acquired by the current owner in approximately January of 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding remaining violations regarding Citation #25409 dated July 15, 2021
issued to Ferris Richard W & Sharliss S Trust.
APPELLANT Warren Ferris
ZONING C/OS-SP
APPEAL
SUBMITTAL
July 23, 2021
GENERAL PLAN Services & Manufacturing
SITE AREA ~3.3 Acres
CODE
VIOLATION(S)
CBC § 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010]
CBC § 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010]
SLOMC § 12.23.030
SLOMC § 17.70.030
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
DISCUSSION
On January 4, 2022, the Construction Board of Appeals heard an appeal for administrative citation no.
25409 issued to the property owner of record for 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo: Ferris Richard
W & Sharliss S Trust. The original citation cited the following violations:
1. Unpermitted retaining wall. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
2. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
3. Prohibited activities in creek. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
4. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E)]
City staff presented all pertinent facts and evidence associated with the cited violations to the members
of the CBOA. A staff report (Attachment #1) and presentation was provided to the board members at the
time of the January hearing. The previous staff report and the previous presentation by staff are
incorporated by reference.
The Board decided to uphold, in part, the Administrative Citation issued to Appellant; specifically, the
Board upheld the violation of Municipal Code Section 15.02.010 (California Building Code Section
105.1) for an unpermitted retaining wall and the violation of Municipal Code Section 15.02.010
(California Building Code Section 105.1) for an unpermitted alteration and use of storage container
buildings for occupancy.
The Board decided to continue, in part, the hearing and Board decision on the Administrative Citation
issued to Appellant; specifically, the cited violation of Municipal Code Section 12.23.030 (prohibited
activities in a creek) and the cited violation of Municipal Code Section 17.70.030(E) (creek setback
dimensions). The primary concern for the Board was the claim made by Appellant that the waterway in
which the retaining wall system was constructed is a ditch that was arbitrarily re-designated as a creek
at some point in history. The Board’s decision was also influenced by information provided by the
property owner regarding a scheduled meeting between the property owner and the San Luis Obispo
County District Attorney’s Office. While the Board understood the purpose of the discussed meeting
was not to debate the lawful designation of the waterway, some Board members felt the results of the
meeting might provide some clarity concerning the issues to be addressed by the Board.
On April 21, 2022, the Board reconvened to continue the discussion concerning the remaining violations.
A staff report (Attachment #2) and presentation was provided to the board members at the time of the
April hearing. The previous staff report and the previous presentation by staff are incorporated by
reference. The Board was provided with a summary of the meeting that took place with the District
Attorney’s Office. The Board was advised that the meeting was not to consider the lawful designation
of the waterway, only to clarify the State’s intent regarding enforcement of the violations cited by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife and to discuss the option of entering in a tolling agreement in order to
allow the property owner opportunity to remediate the violations regarding local and state regulations
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
related to the unlawful channelization of the creek. Ultimately, the Board decided to postpone a decision
on this matter.
Since the April board hearing, the property owner has applied for and supplied plans for a building permit
in which the installation of an underground culvert in place of the retaining wall system is proposed.
Through plan review, multiple city divisions including the fire department, planning division and
engineering development division have independently, through application of the City’s municipal code,
identified that the waterway in question meets all criteria as a creek. These City divisions have provided
comments requiring the creek and riparian areas to be restored to the satisfaction of all agencies having
jurisdiction, including the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or permits from each agency obtained for the existing fill,
block walls, and other work within the channel and impacted riparian areas.
The City’s position on the designation of the creek remains unchanged as described in the previous two
staff reports. The work performed within the waterway on the Appellant’s property, of which designation
as creek has been proven as described within this staff report and those reports previously presented the
board, requires compliance with all applicable zoning regulations related to creeks and creek setback,
including those listed in the administrative citation that is the subject of this appeal before the Board.
Next Steps
1. The Board may grant the appeal
2. Continue the action and request staff and/or appellant provide additional information
3. Uphold the violation(s) and deny the appeal
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated Nov. 16, 2021, presented to the Construction Board of Appeals Nov. 29, 2021.
2. Staff Report dated Apr. 11, 2022, presented to the Construction Board of Appeals Apr. 21, 2022.
A Construction Board of Appe�a_l_s ___ _-Agenda Report Meeting Date, ll/29/2021
DATE:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Item Number: 2
November 16, 2021
Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official
John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Officer II
Phone Number: (805) 781-7179
E-mail: jmezzapesa@slocity.org
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION #25409 FOR UNPERMITTED
STORAGE CONTAINERS AND UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALLS IN VIOLATION OF
CREEK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SITE DATA
The subject property is located at 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo. The surrounding properties
consists of a combination of County unimproved land and manufacturing/service commercial uses.
According to city records the parcel was annexed and incorporated into city limits in 2008 and was
acquired by the current owner in approximately January of 2008.
APPELLANT
ZONING
APPEAL
SUBMITTAL
GENERAL PLAN
SITE AREA
CODE
VIOLATION(S)
Warren Ferris
C/OS-SP
July 23, 2021
Services & Manufacturing
-3.3 Acres
CBC§ 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010)
CBC§ 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010)
SLOMC § 12.23.030
SLOMC § 17.70.030
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding Citation #25409 dated July 15, 2021 issued to Ferris Richard W &
Sharliss S Trust.
ATTACHMENT 1
DISCUSSION
Summary
In early March of 2017, City Code Enforcement staff was contacted by Game Warden Terri Hickey from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the unauthorized channelization of
the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek at 4080 Horizon Lane and the construction of a retaining wall
system within the creek. A subsequent inspection of the property with staff from CDFW, Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), SLO City Code Enforcement and SLO City
Building & Safety was completed on March 9, 2017 (Attachment #1). This inspection confirmed that
the creek has been unlawfully channeled, with substantial alterations to the bed, bank and channel of the
creek, and that an unpermitted retaining wall system was constructed within the required creek setback.
Other violations identified on the property were the use of metal shipping containers as buildings.
A Notice of Violation was issued by CDFW on March 30, 2017, addressing the creek bed alterations
and related Fish and Game Code violations. Although the property owner asserts that the channeled
portion of the creek is a "drainage ditch," the Notice of Violation issued by CDFW confirms that the
channelized section on appellant's property is a creek (a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek) and the
channelization constitutes "modification of an approximately 360-foot segment of a tributary to San Luis
Obispo Creek located at 4080 Horizon Lane in the City of San Luis Obispo." (Attachment #2). The
waterway's status as a creek is also confirmed in the City's Conservation and Open Space Element,
Figure 9 (Attachment #20). 1
SLO City Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on April 10, 2017, for the unpermitted
construction of the observed retaining walls within a creek setback and the unpermitted construction of
a building utilizing metal shipping containers (Attachment #3). The specific violations noted in the April
10, 2017 NOV are:
1.The construction of retaining walls to create a channel directing creek flow that were completed
without approval or permits. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; California Building Code (CBC)§ 105.1]
2.Metal storage containers have been stacked to create a two-level structure. The structure
appears to be utilized as a working space. The stacking of the storage containers requires a
building permit. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC§ 105.1].
3.Lighting and mechanical equipment was observed in multiple units. [SLOMC § 15.02.010;
CBC 105.1].
4.The construction ofretaining walls was completed within a creek area. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
5.The afore mentioned retaining walls, multiple storage containers, vehicles and other equipment
have been placed within the 20-foot creek setback area. [SLOMC § 17.16.025].
1 Creek set back requirements apply to "all creeks as defined in the open space element and shown on that element's
creek map, and only to those creeks." SLOMC 17.70.030 B., formerly, SLOMC 17.16.025 B.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The April 10, 2017, NOV provided a compliance deadline of May 10, 2017. To date, none of the noticed
violations have been corrected.
From 2018 to present, enforcement activity to correct the noticed violations was limited as the City was
in discussions with the County District Attorney’s office regarding possible prosecution or resolution of
the Fish and Wildlife Code violations cited by the CDFW. Additionally, due to the COVID-19 health
crisis and the shift to provide outreach and education to the community, many code enforcement
processes and citations within the City were delayed or temporarily placed on hold. In further discussions
with the State, they may still proceed with enforcement for violations of the Fish and Wildlife Code but,
regardless of potential State actions, the City determined to go forward with enforcement for City code
violations.
In late June of 2020, San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations. In July of 2021, Code
Enforcement Staff revisited the violations associated with the subject property and determined that no
corrections of violations or submittal of any request for permits or exceptions had occurred.
Based on the continued violations of the California Building Code and SLO Municipal Code, a further
NOV, and Administrative Citation No. 25409 (Attachment #29) for $400.00, were issued on July 15,
2021.Since issuance of the citation, a clerical error has been noted on the Administrative Citation. The
fourth violation of SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E) is listed on the citation with a description of “Unpermitted
storage container building” while it should be listed as “Creek Setback Dimensions” consistent with the
Notice of Violation that accompanied the citation and with the applicable code section). The violations
cited in Administrative Citation No. 25409 are:
1. Unpermitted retaining wall. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
2. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
3. Prohibited activities in creek. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
4. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E)
Unpermitted Retaining Walls within Creek
During the inspection on March 9, 2017, an unauthorized channelization via construction of a retaining
wall system was observed to have been completed within the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek
running through the subject property. The retaining wall system was constructed of stacked interlocking
type retaining wall blocks with no apparent concrete footing or rebar support systems. The structure was
one continuous wall with a drainage culvert pipe extending through the wall at each end of the property.
The height of the wall varied with a maximum height of approximately 10 feet.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The 2019 California Building Code, as adopted, states that “Any owner or authorized agent who intends
to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure,
or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or
plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be
done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” (Attachment
10). The same code section continues to describe a number of scenarios is which certain scopes of work
are considered exempt from obtaining a permit. One such exemption is described as “Retaining walls
that are not over 4 feet (1219mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the
wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.” (Attachment #10)
The construction of the observed retaining walls require the submission of an application and associated
plans to obtain a building permit. If the property owner were to choose to alter the observed retaining
walls to lower them to a height not to stand over 4 feet, a permit would also be required to verify the
necessary alterations were completed.
The location of the retaining wall system proves problematic as it was constructed within a regulated
creek area in violation of both the City’s Creek Regulations (Attachment #14) and zoning regulations
for creek setbacks (Attachment #15). The construction of the retaining wall system was also found in
violation of California Fish and Game Code by the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife.
As a result of the violations cited by the City and the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, it is unlikely
that the structure will be allowed to remain in its current location. If the property owner wishes to
maintain the current location of the retaining wall system, they may pursue options that will most likely
require several exceptions and permits. No pursuits have been documented thus far.
An analysis of historical documents within the city and county found no approved or issued building
permits for the installation of walls or piping to direct creek flow. The only approval on file is a that of
a land use permit issued by the county which authorizes a storage yard on site.
A county planning approval was discovered dated December 23, 2002, with a description shown as
Open Drainage Ditch To Culvert” (Attachment #16) When contacted, county officials describe the
county permit” as a land use permit application for a storage yard, not a drainage ditch (Attachment
17). The applicant, at the time, called the drainage course a "ditch" on the application (Attachment #18).
The County did not make a determination whether the drainage course was a creek or ditch. There are
no approvals on record allowing any industrial units to be constructed with any form of modified creek
setback.
The watershed located on the subject property is a blue line creek that meets the City’s definition of a
creek found in SLOMC § 17.158.010 (Attachment #31). This definition is:
A waterway or portion of waterway designated in the general plan as a creek. A drainage ditch,
concrete swale, underground culvert, or storm drain (as indicated on the general plan) is not a
creek. Creeks located outside the urban reserve line are as designated by the USGS 7.5 Minute
series quadrangle maps or county data
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The watershed traveling through the property clearly was considered a creek as early as 1994, as shown
on the creek map from the City’s 1994 Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (Attachment
19) and creeks and wetlands map from the 2006 COSE (Attachment #20). The creek is not manmade
and appears on aerial photos prior to current ownership of the subject property as shown on the attached
photo dated 1996 (Attachment #21).
The City considered the subject area a creek at the General Plan level (COSE 2006) at the time the
subject property was annexed into the City. In addition to the creek channelization, it appears that
wetlands were filled sometime between 2000 and 2004, and further grading and filling occurred between
2011 and 2014. Please refer to attached timeline (Attachment #24) and aerial photos (Attachment #21)
for reference including pertinent historical City policy and land use actions related to the waterway’s
designation as a creek.
In addition to the city’s determination relating the designation of the waterway, the CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife has determined that the waterway is a creek. An email with this determination was
provided from the CDFW in May of 2017 (Attachment #32).
The annexation of land from the County allowed for historical use of the property to continue until
changes are made in how the property is used or if new construction occurs. No permits or approvals
were issued by the County or the City for the construction of the current retaining wall within the creek
channel.
While preliminary submittals show that the Avila Ranch Development proposed a realignment of the
creek, the plans for the development have been altered and no longer include a redirection of the creek.
Creek setback regulations have been in place since 1996 (please refer to attached “Ordinance 1302”
Attachment #22)). City Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16 Property Development Standards, Section
17.16.025 Creek Setbacks was adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1997. The creek setback
identified in these regulations is 20 feet for the property in question. Please refer to Zoning Regulations
Section 17.16.025.E. Creek Setback Dimensions (Attachment #23). A recent update to the zoning
regulations changed this code section from 17.16.025.E to 17.70.030.E without any significant changes
to the regulations (Attachment #15).
Use of Shipping Containers as Buildings
During the inspection on March 9, 2017, numerous shipping containers were observed to be stored on
site. While a majority of the containers could be considered as stored items in compliance with a use of
the property as a storage yard, approximately 10 containers stored on the Southeast portion of the
property appeared to be in process of modification. These containers were stacked two high and five
across, each one approximately 40 feet long and 8 feet wide, with a square footage of approximately 320
sq feet. The connection of these containers has created a building with a roof area of approximately 1,600
square feet and a potential total area of 3,200 square feet. An exterior stairway leading to the second
story container has been constructed along the side of the structure leading to an exterior doorway that
has been cut into the side of a second story container. Aerial footage of the property collected by San
Luis Obispo Police in November of 2019 confirmed the existence of the stairway (Attachment #4).
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
Additionally, doorways were observed to be cut between the second level storage containers joining
them as one space (Attachment #5). A letter received from the property owner confirmed the intended
use and creation of a building utilizing these storage containers as a storage occupancy (Attachment #6,
Page 8).
In late June of 2020 San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations.
The 2019 California Building Code and the 2019 California Residential Code define a building as
Any structure utilized or intended for supporting or sheltering any occupancy” (Attachment #7). Storage
occupancy, according to the code, can be “… the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for
storage that is not classified as a hazardous occupancy.” (Attachment #8)
The City’s adopted codes 15.02.010 (Attachment #9) include the California Residential Code and
California Building Code. Both state that “Any owner or authorized agent who intend to construct,
enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect,
install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas such work to be done, shall
first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” (Attachment #10)
In 2019, the City adopted Ordinance 1670 which amended title 15 of the Municipal Code and the latest
edition of the of the California Building Standards Codes. (Attachment #11). The ordinance, through
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.04.020, amended Chapter 1, Division II, Section 102.1 of the CA
Building Code for applicability to the use of shipping containers. (Attachment #12)
As described in CA Building Code § 104.1 (Attachment #13), the building official has the authority to
render interpretations of the intent and purpose of the CA Building Code. As interpreted by the building
official, shipping or storage containers with a floor area over 120 square feet are considered structures
and fall under the City’s adopted codes. Further, the containers are not categorized as work exempt from
obtaining a permit. (Attachment #10)
Enforcement Activity
As noted, in early March of 2017 Code Enforcement staff was contacted by Game Warden Terri Hickey
from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the unauthorized channelization of
the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek at 4080 Horizon Lane and the construction of a retaining wall
system within the creek. A subsequent inspection with staff from CDFW, Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), SLO City Code Enforcement and SLO City Building & Safety
was completed on March 9, 2017 (Attachment #1). An additional inspection report was generated by
CCRWQCB staff (Attachment #25). The CCRWQCB initially stated they would be moving forward
with a Notice of Violation but in August of 2017 notified city staff that they would not be moving forward
with enforcement due to staff time constraints (Attachment #33).
The aforementioned violations were identified, and a Notice of Violation (NOV) (Attachment #3) was
issued to the property owner on April 10, 2017. Code Enforcement Staff received a response letter from
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
the property owner on May 3, 2017(Attachment #26), which was outside of the five-day period required
for acceptance of a Request for Director’s Review. In the spirit of fairness, the letter was processed as if
the Request for Director’s Review was received in a timely manner. A determination and response was
provided to the property owner on September 12, 2018 (Attachment #27). Our department received an
additional letter from the property owner in response to the Director’s Decision on October 31, 2018.
No response was given by the City as the property owner had exhausted all appeal options at the time.
As noted, from 2018 to present, enforcement activity to correct the noticed violations was limited as the
City was notified that the CDFW case had been forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office in May of
2019 (Attachment #34). As a result, the city was in discussions with the County District Attorney’s office
regarding possible prosecution or resolution of the Fish and Wildlife Code violations cited by the CDFW.
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 health crisis and the shift to provide outreach and education to the
community, many code enforcement processes and citations within the City were delayed or temporarily
placed on hold. In further discussions with the State, they may still proceed with enforcement for
violations of the Fish and Wildlife Code but, regardless of potential State actions, the City determined
to go forward with enforcement for City code violations.
In late June of 2020 San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations.
In July of 2021 Code Enforcement Staff revisited the violations associated with the subject property and
determined that no corrections of violations or submittal of any request for permits or exceptions had
occurred.
Based on the continued violations of the California Building Code and SLO Municipal Code, a further
NOV and Administrative Citation No. 25409 (Attachment #29) for $400.00 were issued on July 15, 2021
since issuance of the citation, a clerical error has been noted on the Administrative Citation. The fourth
violation of SLOMC 17.70.030 (E) is listed on the citation with a description of “Unpermitted storage
container building” while it should be listed as “Creek Setback Dimensions” consistent with the Notice
of Violation that accompanied the citation and with the applicable code section).
An appeal for administrative citation no. 25409 was received by the City Attorney’s office on July 23,
2021 (Attachment #30). This appeal was submitted for consideration of the citation issued for violations
of CBC § 105.1 (adopted through SLOMC 15.02.010), SLOMC § 12.23.030 and SLOMC § 17.70.030.
Next Steps
1. The Board may grant the appeal
2. Continue the action and request staff and/or appellant provide additional information
3. Uphold the violation(s) and deny the appeal.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
Attachments:
1. March 9, 2017 Inspection record
2. March 30, 2017 Dept of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Violation
3. April 10, 2017 SLO City Notice of Violation
4. SLO Police Drone footage November, 2019
5. March 9, 2017 Inspection photos: doorways in storage structure
6. October 31, 2018 Response letter from property owner
7. CA Building Code Definitions
8. CA Building Code § 311
9. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.02.010
10. CA Building Code § 105.1
11. San Luis Obispo City Ordinance #1670
12. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.04.020
13. CA Building Code § 104.1
14. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 12.23
15. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.70.030
16. Permit records from SLO County
17. May 17, 2017 Email with SLO County planner
18. County Land Use Application and Permit
19. 1994 Open Space Element creek map Figure 4
20. 2006 COSE Figure 9
21. Horizon Lane Area photo timelapse 1996-2014
22. Ordinance 1302 – Creek Setback regulations
23. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.16.025
24. Historical event timeline
25. March 9, 2017 Water Board inspection record
26. May 3, 2017 Request for Director’s Review
27. September 12, 2018 Director’s Decision
28. June 29. 2020 SLO City Fire Department Incident Report
29. July 15, 2021 First Administrative Citation
30. July 23, 2021 Administrative Citation Appeal
31. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.158.010
32. May 9, 2017 Email from Dept of Fish and Wildlife
33. Emails with CCRWQCB
34. May 9, 2019 Email from Dept of Fish and Wildlife
Construction Board of Appeals
Agenda Report Meeting Date: April 21, 2022
Item Number: 2
DATE: April 11, 2022
FROM: Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official
PREPARED BY: John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Officer II
Phone Number: (805) 781-7179
E-mail: jmezzapesa@slocity.org
SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION #25409 FOR
DETEMINATION ON PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES IN CREEK AND CREEK SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.
SITE DATA
The subject property is located at 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo. The surrounding properties
consists of a combination of County unimproved land and manufacturing/service commercial uses.
According to city records the parcel was annexed and incorporated into city limits in 2008 and was
acquired by the current owner in approximately January of 2008.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding remaining violations regarding Citation #25409 dated July 15, 2021
issued to Ferris Richard W & Sharliss S Trust.
APPELLANT Warren Ferris
ZONING C/OS-SP
APPEAL
SUBMITTAL
July 23, 2021
GENERAL PLAN Services & Manufacturing
SITE AREA ~3.3 Acres
CODE
VIOLATION(S)
CBC § 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010]
CBC § 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010]
SLOMC § 12.23.030
SLOMC § 17.70.030
ATTACHMENT 2
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
DISCUSSION
Summary
On January 4, 2022, the Construction Board of Appeals heard an appeal for administrative citation no.
25409 issued to the property owner of record for 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo: Ferris Richard
W & Sharliss S Trust. The original citation cited the following violations:
1. Unpermitted retaining wall. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
2. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
3. Prohibited activities in creek. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
4. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E)]
City staff presented all pertinent facts and evidence associated with the cited violations to the members
of the CBOA. A staff report (Attachment #1) and presentation was provided to the board members at the
time of the January hearing. The previous staff report and the previous presentation by staff are
incorporated by reference.
The Board decided to uphold, in part, the Administrative Citation issued to Appellant; specifically, the
Board upheld the violation of Municipal Code Section 15.02.010 (California Building Code Section
105.1) for an unpermitted retaining wall and the violation of Municipal Code Section 15.02.010
(California Building Code Section 105.1) for an unpermitted alteration and use of storage container
buildings for occupancy.
The Board decided to continue, in part, the hearing and Board decision on the Administrative Citation
issued to Appellant; specifically, the cited violation of Municipal Code Section 12.23.030 (prohibited
activities in a creek) and the cited violation of Municipal Code Section 17.70.030(E) (creek setback
dimensions). The primary concern for the Board was the claim made by Appellant that the waterway in
which the retaining wall system was constructed is a ditch that was arbitrarily re-designated as a creek
at some point in history.
At the hearing on January 4, 2022, the Board was advised that the San Luis Obispo County District
Attorney’s Office was facilitating a meeting to be held on January 19, 2020, with Appellant, the District
Attorney’s Office, the State of California Water Board, State of California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the City to discuss with Appellant a path to
remediation of the creek area within the property as an alternative to litigation by the District Attorney.
The Board decided to continue the hearing on the remaining citations to a date after the January 19,
2022, meeting. While the Board understood the purpose of the January 19, 2022, meeting was not to
debate the lawful designation of the waterway, some Board members felt the January 19, 2022, meeting
might provide some clarity concerning the issues to be addressed by the Board.
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
The meeting took place on January 19, 2022. The District Attorney’s Office, the State agencies and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers made clear their position that the waterway on Appellant’s property is a
creek, known as Tank Farm Creek which is a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, and that the purpose
of the meeting was to clarify the State’s intent to work with the property owner toward remediation of
violations regarding local and state regulations related to the unlawful channelization of the creek.
Appellant only provided a brief response, continuing to assert that the waterway is a ditch, not a creek.
The meeting was adjourned to provide Appellant time to consider the presentation made by the District
Attorney’s Office and the involved agencies and to schedule a follow up meeting to provide Appellant
the opportunity to present their position and a more detailed response to the District Attorney’s Office
and the involved agencies. While the appellant continued to assert that the subject waterway is a ditch,
not a creek, all involved agencies affirmed their position that the watercourse is a tributary to San Luis
Obispo Creek known as Tank Farm Creek.
As noted previously by the City, Tank Farm Creek lies within a watershed that collects water from the
mountains to the east of the City of San Luis Obispo and flows through numerous channels in a
west/southwest direction eventually draining into San Luis Obispo Creek.
Prior to filling and lining the stream, it possessed the similar morphology and vegetative habitats of the
stream segments immediately upstream and downstream of Appellant’s property, and the habitat related
to that of the neighboring properties. Generally, the stream accommodated flow from a variety of storm
events through a more complex channel with an apparent floodplain and possessed vegetative habitats
suitable for use by numerous species. The creek was converted on Appellant’s property to a concrete-
lined and unvegetated ditch with vertical sides that may have eliminated the on-site value for fish,
wildlife, and plants. The modification to the stream may also result in indirect, off-site impacts.
Regardless of the outcome of any further meetings or, potentially, litigation, between the District
Attorney’s Office, the involved agencies and Appellant, for the Board’s purpose in considering the
citations that were issued, the waterway located on Appellant’s property is a creek under City code.
SLOMC § 12.23.020 (A) provides the following description of regulated areas pertaining to creeks in
San Luis Obispo:
Creeks including San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries and any other “Water of the United
States,” as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, including all surface watercourses and waterbodies,
natural waterways and definite channels and depressions in the earth, or such sections or
connections of such waters that have been lined with concrete, covered or channelized in the
past, that may carry water, even though such waterways may only carry water during rains and
storms and may not carry surface water at and during all times and seasons.
This code section includes a broad application for the purposes of determining if a waterway is a
regulated creek area. Regardless of the historical formation of the waterway on Appellant’s property,
the waterway meets the criteria of a regulated creek area per SLOMC § 12.23.020 (A).
Additionally, SLOMC § 17.158.010 provides the following definition in relation to the application of
the city’s zoning regulations:
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
A waterway or portion of waterway designated in the general plan as a creek. A drainage ditch,
concrete swale, underground culvert, or storm drain (as indicated on the general plan) is not a
creek. Creeks located outside the urban reserve line are as designated by the USGS 7.5 Minute
series quadrangle maps or county data
Per SLOMC § 17.158.010, a waterway or portion of a waterway designated in the City’s General Plan
as a creek is a creek. The General Plan is the principal tool the City uses when evaluating municipal
service improvements and land use proposals. Every service the City provides to its citizens, from police
and fire protection to park maintenance, can trace its roots back to goals and policies found in the General
Plan. The General Plan is comprised of eight elements, one of which is the Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) which includes a map outlining all creeks and wetlands within the City limits.
The watershed traveling through the subject property has been designated in the City’s General Plan as
a creek since at least 1994, as shown on the figure titled “Creek Map” from the City’s 1994 COSE
(Attachment #2), and as confirmed in subsequent adoption of amendments to the City’s General Plan
such as shown in the figure titled “Creeks and Wetlands Map” from the 2006 COSE (Attachment #3).
As noted,in addition to the City’s determination relating the designation of the waterway as a creek, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Water Board and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers have made independent determinations that the waterway is a creek.
The clear designation of the waterway on Appellant’s property as a creek, as described above, requires
compliance with all applicable zoning regulations related to creeks and creek setback, including those
listed in the administrative citation that is the subject of this appeal before the Board.
Next Steps
1. The Board may grant the appeal
2. Continue the action and request staff and/or appellant provide additional information
3. Uphold the violation(s) and deny the appeal
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated Nov. 16, 2021, presented to the Construction Board of Appeals Nov. 29, 2021
2. 1994 Open Space Element creek map Figure 4
3. 2006 COSE Figure 9
A Construction Board of Appe�a_l_s ___ _-Agenda Report Meeting Date, ll/29/2021
DATE:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
Item Number: 2
November 16, 2021
Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official
John Mezzapesa, Code Enforcement Officer II
Phone Number: (805) 781-7179
E-mail: jmezzapesa@slocity.org
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION #25409 FOR UNPERMITTED
STORAGE CONTAINERS AND UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALLS IN VIOLATION OF
CREEK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SITE DATA
The subject property is located at 4080 Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo. The surrounding properties
consists of a combination of County unimproved land and manufacturing/service commercial uses.
According to city records the parcel was annexed and incorporated into city limits in 2008 and was
acquired by the current owner in approximately January of 2008.
APPELLANT
ZONING
APPEAL
SUBMITTAL
GENERAL PLAN
SITE AREA
CODE
VIOLATION(S)
Warren Ferris
C/OS-SP
July 23, 2021
Services & Manufacturing
-3.3 Acres
CBC§ 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010)
CBC§ 105.1 [SLOMC
15.02.010)
SLOMC § 12.23.030
SLOMC § 17.70.030
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution upholding Citation #25409 dated July 15, 2021 issued to Ferris Richard W &
Sharliss S Trust.
ATTACHMENT 1
DISCUSSION
Summary
In early March of 2017, City Code Enforcement staff was contacted by Game Warden Terri Hickey from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the unauthorized channelization of
the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek at 4080 Horizon Lane and the construction of a retaining wall
system within the creek. A subsequent inspection of the property with staff from CDFW, Central Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), SLO City Code Enforcement and SLO City
Building & Safety was completed on March 9, 2017 (Attachment #1). This inspection confirmed that
the creek has been unlawfully channeled, with substantial alterations to the bed, bank and channel of the
creek, and that an unpermitted retaining wall system was constructed within the required creek setback.
Other violations identified on the property were the use of metal shipping containers as buildings.
A Notice of Violation was issued by CDFW on March 30, 2017, addressing the creek bed alterations
and related Fish and Game Code violations. Although the property owner asserts that the channeled
portion of the creek is a "drainage ditch," the Notice of Violation issued by CDFW confirms that the
channelized section on appellant's property is a creek (a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek) and the
channelization constitutes "modification of an approximately 360-foot segment of a tributary to San Luis
Obispo Creek located at 4080 Horizon Lane in the City of San Luis Obispo." (Attachment #2). The
waterway's status as a creek is also confirmed in the City's Conservation and Open Space Element,
Figure 9 (Attachment #20). 1
SLO City Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) on April 10, 2017, for the unpermitted
construction of the observed retaining walls within a creek setback and the unpermitted construction of
a building utilizing metal shipping containers (Attachment #3). The specific violations noted in the April
10, 2017 NOV are:
1.The construction of retaining walls to create a channel directing creek flow that were completed
without approval or permits. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; California Building Code (CBC)§ 105.1]
2.Metal storage containers have been stacked to create a two-level structure. The structure
appears to be utilized as a working space. The stacking of the storage containers requires a
building permit. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC§ 105.1].
3.Lighting and mechanical equipment was observed in multiple units. [SLOMC § 15.02.010;
CBC 105.1].
4.The construction ofretaining walls was completed within a creek area. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
5.The afore mentioned retaining walls, multiple storage containers, vehicles and other equipment
have been placed within the 20-foot creek setback area. [SLOMC § 17.16.025].
1 Creek set back requirements apply to "all creeks as defined in the open space element and shown on that element's
creek map, and only to those creeks." SLOMC 17.70.030 B., formerly, SLOMC 17.16.025 B.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The April 10, 2017, NOV provided a compliance deadline of May 10, 2017. To date, none of the noticed
violations have been corrected.
From 2018 to present, enforcement activity to correct the noticed violations was limited as the City was
in discussions with the County District Attorney’s office regarding possible prosecution or resolution of
the Fish and Wildlife Code violations cited by the CDFW. Additionally, due to the COVID-19 health
crisis and the shift to provide outreach and education to the community, many code enforcement
processes and citations within the City were delayed or temporarily placed on hold. In further discussions
with the State, they may still proceed with enforcement for violations of the Fish and Wildlife Code but,
regardless of potential State actions, the City determined to go forward with enforcement for City code
violations.
In late June of 2020, San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations. In July of 2021, Code
Enforcement Staff revisited the violations associated with the subject property and determined that no
corrections of violations or submittal of any request for permits or exceptions had occurred.
Based on the continued violations of the California Building Code and SLO Municipal Code, a further
NOV, and Administrative Citation No. 25409 (Attachment #29) for $400.00, were issued on July 15,
2021.Since issuance of the citation, a clerical error has been noted on the Administrative Citation. The
fourth violation of SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E) is listed on the citation with a description of “Unpermitted
storage container building” while it should be listed as “Creek Setback Dimensions” consistent with the
Notice of Violation that accompanied the citation and with the applicable code section). The violations
cited in Administrative Citation No. 25409 are:
1. Unpermitted retaining wall. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
2. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 15.02.010; CBC § 105.1]
3. Prohibited activities in creek. [SLOMC § 12.23.030]
4. Unpermitted storage container building. [SLOMC § 17.70.030 (E)
Unpermitted Retaining Walls within Creek
During the inspection on March 9, 2017, an unauthorized channelization via construction of a retaining
wall system was observed to have been completed within the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek
running through the subject property. The retaining wall system was constructed of stacked interlocking
type retaining wall blocks with no apparent concrete footing or rebar support systems. The structure was
one continuous wall with a drainage culvert pipe extending through the wall at each end of the property.
The height of the wall varied with a maximum height of approximately 10 feet.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The 2019 California Building Code, as adopted, states that “Any owner or authorized agent who intends
to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure,
or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or
plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be
done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” (Attachment
10). The same code section continues to describe a number of scenarios is which certain scopes of work
are considered exempt from obtaining a permit. One such exemption is described as “Retaining walls
that are not over 4 feet (1219mm) in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the
wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding Class I, II or IIIA liquids.” (Attachment #10)
The construction of the observed retaining walls require the submission of an application and associated
plans to obtain a building permit. If the property owner were to choose to alter the observed retaining
walls to lower them to a height not to stand over 4 feet, a permit would also be required to verify the
necessary alterations were completed.
The location of the retaining wall system proves problematic as it was constructed within a regulated
creek area in violation of both the City’s Creek Regulations (Attachment #14) and zoning regulations
for creek setbacks (Attachment #15). The construction of the retaining wall system was also found in
violation of California Fish and Game Code by the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife.
As a result of the violations cited by the City and the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife, it is unlikely
that the structure will be allowed to remain in its current location. If the property owner wishes to
maintain the current location of the retaining wall system, they may pursue options that will most likely
require several exceptions and permits. No pursuits have been documented thus far.
An analysis of historical documents within the city and county found no approved or issued building
permits for the installation of walls or piping to direct creek flow. The only approval on file is a that of
a land use permit issued by the county which authorizes a storage yard on site.
A county planning approval was discovered dated December 23, 2002, with a description shown as
Open Drainage Ditch To Culvert” (Attachment #16) When contacted, county officials describe the
county permit” as a land use permit application for a storage yard, not a drainage ditch (Attachment
17). The applicant, at the time, called the drainage course a "ditch" on the application (Attachment #18).
The County did not make a determination whether the drainage course was a creek or ditch. There are
no approvals on record allowing any industrial units to be constructed with any form of modified creek
setback.
The watershed located on the subject property is a blue line creek that meets the City’s definition of a
creek found in SLOMC § 17.158.010 (Attachment #31). This definition is:
A waterway or portion of waterway designated in the general plan as a creek. A drainage ditch,
concrete swale, underground culvert, or storm drain (as indicated on the general plan) is not a
creek. Creeks located outside the urban reserve line are as designated by the USGS 7.5 Minute
series quadrangle maps or county data
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
The watershed traveling through the property clearly was considered a creek as early as 1994, as shown
on the creek map from the City’s 1994 Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (Attachment
19) and creeks and wetlands map from the 2006 COSE (Attachment #20). The creek is not manmade
and appears on aerial photos prior to current ownership of the subject property as shown on the attached
photo dated 1996 (Attachment #21).
The City considered the subject area a creek at the General Plan level (COSE 2006) at the time the
subject property was annexed into the City. In addition to the creek channelization, it appears that
wetlands were filled sometime between 2000 and 2004, and further grading and filling occurred between
2011 and 2014. Please refer to attached timeline (Attachment #24) and aerial photos (Attachment #21)
for reference including pertinent historical City policy and land use actions related to the waterway’s
designation as a creek.
In addition to the city’s determination relating the designation of the waterway, the CA Department of
Fish and Wildlife has determined that the waterway is a creek. An email with this determination was
provided from the CDFW in May of 2017 (Attachment #32).
The annexation of land from the County allowed for historical use of the property to continue until
changes are made in how the property is used or if new construction occurs. No permits or approvals
were issued by the County or the City for the construction of the current retaining wall within the creek
channel.
While preliminary submittals show that the Avila Ranch Development proposed a realignment of the
creek, the plans for the development have been altered and no longer include a redirection of the creek.
Creek setback regulations have been in place since 1996 (please refer to attached “Ordinance 1302”
Attachment #22)). City Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16 Property Development Standards, Section
17.16.025 Creek Setbacks was adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1997. The creek setback
identified in these regulations is 20 feet for the property in question. Please refer to Zoning Regulations
Section 17.16.025.E. Creek Setback Dimensions (Attachment #23). A recent update to the zoning
regulations changed this code section from 17.16.025.E to 17.70.030.E without any significant changes
to the regulations (Attachment #15).
Use of Shipping Containers as Buildings
During the inspection on March 9, 2017, numerous shipping containers were observed to be stored on
site. While a majority of the containers could be considered as stored items in compliance with a use of
the property as a storage yard, approximately 10 containers stored on the Southeast portion of the
property appeared to be in process of modification. These containers were stacked two high and five
across, each one approximately 40 feet long and 8 feet wide, with a square footage of approximately 320
sq feet. The connection of these containers has created a building with a roof area of approximately 1,600
square feet and a potential total area of 3,200 square feet. An exterior stairway leading to the second
story container has been constructed along the side of the structure leading to an exterior doorway that
has been cut into the side of a second story container. Aerial footage of the property collected by San
Luis Obispo Police in November of 2019 confirmed the existence of the stairway (Attachment #4).
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
Additionally, doorways were observed to be cut between the second level storage containers joining
them as one space (Attachment #5). A letter received from the property owner confirmed the intended
use and creation of a building utilizing these storage containers as a storage occupancy (Attachment #6,
Page 8).
In late June of 2020 San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations.
The 2019 California Building Code and the 2019 California Residential Code define a building as
Any structure utilized or intended for supporting or sheltering any occupancy” (Attachment #7). Storage
occupancy, according to the code, can be “… the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for
storage that is not classified as a hazardous occupancy.” (Attachment #8)
The City’s adopted codes 15.02.010 (Attachment #9) include the California Residential Code and
California Building Code. Both state that “Any owner or authorized agent who intend to construct,
enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect,
install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas such work to be done, shall
first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.” (Attachment #10)
In 2019, the City adopted Ordinance 1670 which amended title 15 of the Municipal Code and the latest
edition of the of the California Building Standards Codes. (Attachment #11). The ordinance, through
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.04.020, amended Chapter 1, Division II, Section 102.1 of the CA
Building Code for applicability to the use of shipping containers. (Attachment #12)
As described in CA Building Code § 104.1 (Attachment #13), the building official has the authority to
render interpretations of the intent and purpose of the CA Building Code. As interpreted by the building
official, shipping or storage containers with a floor area over 120 square feet are considered structures
and fall under the City’s adopted codes. Further, the containers are not categorized as work exempt from
obtaining a permit. (Attachment #10)
Enforcement Activity
As noted, in early March of 2017 Code Enforcement staff was contacted by Game Warden Terri Hickey
from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the unauthorized channelization of
the south fork of San Luis Obispo Creek at 4080 Horizon Lane and the construction of a retaining wall
system within the creek. A subsequent inspection with staff from CDFW, Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), SLO City Code Enforcement and SLO City Building & Safety
was completed on March 9, 2017 (Attachment #1). An additional inspection report was generated by
CCRWQCB staff (Attachment #25). The CCRWQCB initially stated they would be moving forward
with a Notice of Violation but in August of 2017 notified city staff that they would not be moving forward
with enforcement due to staff time constraints (Attachment #33).
The aforementioned violations were identified, and a Notice of Violation (NOV) (Attachment #3) was
issued to the property owner on April 10, 2017. Code Enforcement Staff received a response letter from
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
the property owner on May 3, 2017(Attachment #26), which was outside of the five-day period required
for acceptance of a Request for Director’s Review. In the spirit of fairness, the letter was processed as if
the Request for Director’s Review was received in a timely manner. A determination and response was
provided to the property owner on September 12, 2018 (Attachment #27). Our department received an
additional letter from the property owner in response to the Director’s Decision on October 31, 2018.
No response was given by the City as the property owner had exhausted all appeal options at the time.
As noted, from 2018 to present, enforcement activity to correct the noticed violations was limited as the
City was notified that the CDFW case had been forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office in May of
2019 (Attachment #34). As a result, the city was in discussions with the County District Attorney’s office
regarding possible prosecution or resolution of the Fish and Wildlife Code violations cited by the CDFW.
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 health crisis and the shift to provide outreach and education to the
community, many code enforcement processes and citations within the City were delayed or temporarily
placed on hold. In further discussions with the State, they may still proceed with enforcement for
violations of the Fish and Wildlife Code but, regardless of potential State actions, the City determined
to go forward with enforcement for City code violations.
In late June of 2020 San Luis Obispo City Fire Department responded to a call regarding a fire within a
metal shipping container at the subject property. Fire reports indicate that at least one of the shipping
containers showed evidence that it was in use as a sleeping/living space and/or workspace (Attachment
28). The use of the shipping container was unable to be determined, however, the fire investigation
prompted follow up inspection and enforcement of existing violations.
In July of 2021 Code Enforcement Staff revisited the violations associated with the subject property and
determined that no corrections of violations or submittal of any request for permits or exceptions had
occurred.
Based on the continued violations of the California Building Code and SLO Municipal Code, a further
NOV and Administrative Citation No. 25409 (Attachment #29) for $400.00 were issued on July 15, 2021
since issuance of the citation, a clerical error has been noted on the Administrative Citation. The fourth
violation of SLOMC 17.70.030 (E) is listed on the citation with a description of “Unpermitted storage
container building” while it should be listed as “Creek Setback Dimensions” consistent with the Notice
of Violation that accompanied the citation and with the applicable code section).
An appeal for administrative citation no. 25409 was received by the City Attorney’s office on July 23,
2021 (Attachment #30). This appeal was submitted for consideration of the citation issued for violations
of CBC § 105.1 (adopted through SLOMC 15.02.010), SLOMC § 12.23.030 and SLOMC § 17.70.030.
Next Steps
1. The Board may grant the appeal
2. Continue the action and request staff and/or appellant provide additional information
3. Uphold the violation(s) and deny the appeal.
CityofSanLuisObispo,Title,Subtitle
Attachments:
1. March 9, 2017 Inspection record
2. March 30, 2017 Dept of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Violation
3. April 10, 2017 SLO City Notice of Violation
4. SLO Police Drone footage November, 2019
5. March 9, 2017 Inspection photos: doorways in storage structure
6. October 31, 2018 Response letter from property owner
7. CA Building Code Definitions
8. CA Building Code § 311
9. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.02.010
10. CA Building Code § 105.1
11. San Luis Obispo City Ordinance #1670
12. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 15.04.020
13. CA Building Code § 104.1
14. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 12.23
15. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.70.030
16. Permit records from SLO County
17. May 17, 2017 Email with SLO County planner
18. County Land Use Application and Permit
19. 1994 Open Space Element creek map Figure 4
20. 2006 COSE Figure 9
21. Horizon Lane Area photo timelapse 1996-2014
22. Ordinance 1302 – Creek Setback regulations
23. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.16.025
24. Historical event timeline
25. March 9, 2017 Water Board inspection record
26. May 3, 2017 Request for Director’s Review
27. September 12, 2018 Director’s Decision
28. June 29. 2020 SLO City Fire Department Incident Report
29. July 15, 2021 First Administrative Citation
30. July 23, 2021 Administrative Citation Appeal
31. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.158.010
32. May 9, 2017 Email from Dept of Fish and Wildlife
33. Emails with CCRWQCB
34. May 9, 2019 Email from Dept of Fish and Wildlife
ATTACHMENT 2
1994 Open
Space Element
“Creek Map”
Figure 4
ATTACHMENT 2
FOOTHILL SANTA
ROSA
TANK FARM
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
MADONNAB
R
O
A
D
SOUTH
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
HIGUERAJ
O
H
N
S
O
NPALMFOOTHILL
L
A
G
UNA LAKE
Figure 9:Creeks and Wetlands
0.5 0 0.5 10.25 Miles
City Limit
Riparian Habitats
Wetland Habitats
Creeks
Perennial creek with good riparian corridor
Intermittent creek with good riparian corridor
Perennial creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repaired
Intermittent creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repaired
Perennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoring
Waterways
Drainage ditch
Open concrete swale or channel
Underground culvert or major bridge
ATTACHMENT 3
1
Appeal of Citation 25409
City of San Luis Obispo
Construction Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 at 1:00 p.m.
Position Paper Submitted by Appellant
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant hereby requests that the
Construction Board of Appeals prepare a Statement of Findings and Facts and a
transcript of the above-entitled hearing suitable for Court review of this matter
upon completion and decision on this Appeal.
Authority of Construction Board of Appeals: Formation of the Construction
Board of Appeals is mandated under California Building Code Title 24 section
1.8.8. and established by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 1.24. Taken
together, the Construction Board of Appeals has the authority to make findings,
state the evidence upon which such findings are based, point out conflicts or errors
in the Municipal Ordinances, and, as an Advisory Body to the City Council,
recommend changes in the ordinances. Without such authority and the exercise of
such authority, the Construction Board of Appeals would merely be a rubber stamp
for citations issued by the City.
Ferris Ditch: The ditch running through the Ferris Property located at 4080
Horizon Lane in San Luis Obispo is one of the last remnants of the Tank Farm
constructed by Unocal that began in the early 1900’s and continued after the 1926
Tank Farm fire. This construction, including the Ferris Ditch, was the largest
construction project in the world in its day. The Ferris Ditch begins with a headgate
on the northerly end of the ditch. The headgate includes a concrete construction
with 36 inch piping, and control valves that allow water to flow into the ditch from
the tank farm or stop water from flowing into the ditch. Immediately north of the
ditch are remnants of a settling pond. The ditch runs southerly about 360 feet
across the Appellant’s property and empties onto neighbor property which was at
the time of construction was owned by Unocal. The ditch is clearly and without
dispute manmade in its origin.
2
Showing of Evidence Presented by Appellants: The Appellants have submitted
over 550 pages of evidence and provided testimony, including that of a civil
engineer, in prior hearings of the Construction Board of Appeals on this matter.
The evidence overwhelmingly proves the following facts.
1. Human Construction: The ditch is a product of human construction
which cannot be duplicated by nature.
2. Ephemeral Nature: The flow of water in the ditch is ephemeral. This
means that water flows or stands in the ditch only when it rains.
3. Location and Existence of Ditch: The location and existence of the
Ferris Ditch has been in its current location for over 100 years. At the time the
Ferris Family bought the property San Luis Obispo County and the City both
treated the ditch as a ditch. The county had issued permits to the predecessor in
interest of the property allowing the ditch to be placed underground with
appropriate construction. At no time prior to City Planning Statements in the last
few years had it ever been implied that the ditch was part of a creek.
4. Location of Creeks: Maps and other documents, including those
from the United States Geological Survey, dating back over 250 years show that
there was no creek in the proximity of the Ferris Ditch. These documents show that
natural drainage for the area ran primarily to the creeks from the east and west of
the South Hills bypassing the Ferris Ditch by great distances.
5. No Riparian Habitat: There has never existed along the course of
the Ferris Ditch any form of riparian habitat. There has never been a plant, animal,
or other form of riparian habitat along the ditch. Nor does the ditch express or
begin to express any of the historical, geological, soil morphology, or other
characteristics of a creek.
Legal Definitions: The law has defined the difference between a creek and a
ditch in a tradition of decisions dating back hundreds of years beginning in
England, then brought to America, and continuing to the present day. The United
States Supreme Court clearly addresses these defined differences in Rapanos v.
United States which was decided in 2006. A copy of this case was previously
submitted to the Construction Board of Appeals as part of this Appeal. The
Supreme Court tells us that the common usage and definition of things constitutes
3
their clear nature and that government is bound by such definitions. The Supreme
Court tells us that a ditch is manmade and that a creek is made by the elements of
nature.
Definitions in City Ordinance: The prior city ordinance dealt with the ditch v.
creek issue as follows at 17.158.010:
Creek. A waterway or portion of waterway designated in the general plan as a
creek. A drainage ditch, concrete swale, underground culvert, or storm drain (as
indicated on the general plan) is not a creek. Creeks located outside the urban
reserve line are as designated by the USGS 7.5 Minute series quadrangle maps or
county data. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018).
This old ordinance seems to recognize the difference between ditches and creeks.
The new ordinance fails to do so.
Development of 4080 Horizon Lane: During the past year the Appellant
submitted its application to the City of San Luis Obispo to start the process of
getting permits and approvals to develop the property. After several months of
processing by Community Development, the appellant was recently contacted. The
process is meeting with resistance from the City. The Appellants have not received
a cogent explanation so far, but we suspect that this issue of a ditch v. creek is at
the heart of delays in the property development effort. Part of the proposal for
development is to put the Ferris Ditch underground in an appropriate construction
not unlike what was approved years ago by the County of San Luis Obispo.
Proposed Findings: Among other action on the citations, Appellants hereby
request that the Construction Board of Appeals do the following regarding the
citations based on violation of creek-based ordinances:
1. Find that the Ferris ditch is a ditch and not a creek.
2. Revoke the citations issued that were based on creek ordinances.
3. Find that present or future citations for violations or applications to develop the
property at 4080 Horizon Lane be processed applying ditch relevant ordinances for
set-backs and other requirements and that creek relevant ordinances shall not apply.
4. Find that ordinances regarding ditches and not creeks apply to the property as a
matter of fairness under the concept of grandfathering.
Response to Administrative Citation 25409
Or: The Case of the Creek that Never Was
History of the Drainage Ditch
Brief Overview
The drainage ditch was constructed as part of a water detention and drainage system by Union Oil of California,
intended to stop the spread of oil in the event of a leak during heavy rains. The remains of concrete channels, valves (1)
and other apparatus (2) remain on the property today.
At the time of our acquisition of the property, the drainage ditch was filled with fragments of steel and concrete
from the partially demolished water detention and drainage facility, with additional debris covered with a shallow layer
of soil scattered through the remainder of the property.
We obtained a permit with the County of San Luis Obispo (3) for the grading and leveling of the lot, as well as
the encapsulation of the entire 330’ length of the drainage ditch in a temporary pipe, until plans for a proper culvert
could be submitted.
The temporary pipe portion of the permit (along with temporary power and a couple of other provisions) were
not acted upon, in favor of plans submitted to the County for the installation of a permanent culvert (DRC2005-00243)
(4).
DRC2005-00243 was later invalidated by the annexation of the Horizon Lane industrial area by the City, over the
objections of local industrial property owners, by redrafting the annexation to include a large, non-contiguous
residential area.
Previous Permits
James Whitley – Industrial Condominiums
James Whitley’s attempt to develop the began with
an approved Development Plan (D850529:1) on January 9,
1986 (5 p. 3) for the construction of Industrial
Condominiums, which was extended three times before
expiring without significant headway being made.
We were unable to locate copies of these plans or
permits related to them, given the nature of the development
and the intended location of the structures, it could not have
proceeded without provision for a culvert.
Whitley restarted his project with Construction Permit
56848 (6 p. 2), issued in 1989. This permit covered the
installation of a 72” x 44” drainage culvert to replace the
existing drainage ditch, as well as grading, installation of water
mains and removal of fill, likely in preparation for his
subsequently submitted plans industrial condominiums.
On September 14th, 1992 Whitley received a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for his proposed industrial
condominiums (7 p. 13). The staff report described vegetation
on the site as “Grasses; forbs; mostly barren” (7 p. 13).
On January 14th, 1993, the project gets its final go ahead from the County Planning Commission where the
environmental impact negative declaration, tract map and development plan were formally approved. (5)
Ferris Trust Permits
In late 2000, early 2001 the Ferris Trust was granted a lot
line adjustment linearizing the eastern portion of the lot, and on
July 20th, 2001 the Lot Line Adjustment was granted (COAL 00-
150) (8). The CEQA environment description form described the
vegetation on the site as “GRASSES & WEEDS” (8 p. 7).
Later that year, the Ferris Trust sought a permit for the
installation of 330’ of temporary drainage pipe from existing
concrete gate valve to exiting road crossing culvert, grading of
the lot, installation of temporary power and fencing, and on
October 16th, 2002 the permit was granted (3).
Over the next few years work proceeded on grading the
property, removing multiple dump truck loads of broken up
concrete and various industrial debris from the property and
drainage ditch. Work proceeded slowly as it was performed primarily by Richard Ferris and Raymond Hanson on
weekends so as to keep costs low.
In lieu of installation of the temporary drainage pipe, plans were submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo for
the construction of a permanent culvert (DRC2005-00243) in late 2005 (4 p. 3).
Invention of the Creek
In 2005, the City began to speak of annexing the properties in the Tank Farm area, and it is in one of the drafts
of the “PH-1 Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan” that the first reference to a “Tank Farm Creek” was mentioned,
I’ve copied below
Tank Farm Creek is the name applied to the cluster of drainages that traverse the western portion of
the Unocal property. … (9 p. 4)
It notably contains no evidence or justification supporting the attempted reclassification of the drainage system.
After Richard Ferris’s 2005 objection to the language this section was removed and does not appear in the final draft of
PH-1. (10)
The term “Tank Farm Creek” would continue to be used elsewhere however, and no finding or justification has
been provided.
Annexation
In 2006, the City spoke with owners of property in the Horizon Lane industrial district, who largely responded
negatively to the prospect of annexation.
In response to this, the annexation was amended to include a large swath of noncontiguous land intended for
residential development (10), reducing the voting share of the Horizon Lane/Suburban Road industrial district
sufficiently to render their concerns and consent irrelevant.
Despite both our objections and verbal reassurances to the contrary (11 p. 2), annexation of our property went
forward, and both our outstanding permit for a temporary drainage pipe and the in-progress plans with the County were
invalidated (4 p. 3).
Maintenance of the Drainage Ditch
The invalidation of both the County approved plans for the temporary drainage pipe and the in-progress permit
for the installation of a culvert left the ditch in state that was vulnerable to landslides that risked blocking drainage from
the Tank Farm property in the event of a heavy rain.
Acting in accordance with the US Army Corp of Engineers published guidance on the permitting required for the
maintenance of drainage ditches (12), work was performed to stabilize the sides of the ditch, including additional
compaction and the installation of interlocking masonry blocks to line and reinforce the sides.
The 2017 Citation
In 2017, the City of San Luis Obispo issued a citation identical in substance to this 2020 citation. After a product
meeting with the representatives of the Fish and Wildlife commission, and a compromise with the City of San Luis
Obispo to lower the height of the masonry blocking, this issue was resolved… until the same issue was cited a second
time, a little more than four years later.
San Luis Municipal Code Chapter 12.23
12.23.020 A. Creeks including San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries and any other “Water of the
United States”, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2…
“Tank Farm Creek”
The attempt to characterize the Union Oil constructed drainage ditch as a creek is without merit. It ignores the
prevailing definition of creeks as natural, regularly flowing formations. It ignores findings from previously submitted and
accepted environmental reports. It ignores previously approved permits acknowledging it as a drainage ditch and
approving the installation of culverts of various types. It ignores the history of the water detention and drainage facility
on the property. It ignores all of this, all in an attempt to “prettify” a partially decommissioned petroleum storage
facility.
The City of San Luis Obispo’s own commissioned report “Chevron Tank Farm FEIR” characterizes it thusly “Tank
Farm Creek, itself is largely an artificial ditch…” (13 p. 21). In the “Overview” section they make a point to mention that
the unnamed tributary is “locally known as “Tank Farm Creek”” rather than arriving at any determination themselves (13
p. 5).
It is worth noting that the much of the work done in the report needs to be reconsidered in light of later rulings
by the Supreme Court and the formally adopted 2023 Revised Definition of the “Waters of the United States” (14)
Water(s) of the United States - 2019
Notably excluded from the definition ‘Water of the United States’ are “Ephemeral features”, which are defined
as in 120.2.3.iii “surface water flowing or pooling only in direct response to precipitation” (15), which is an accurate
description of this (and any) drainage ditch.
According the Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos V. United States (2007) and the EPA’s own 2019 guidelines
for determining ‘Waters of the United States’ (14)
…the ordinary meaning of the term ‘‘waters’’ does not include areas that are dry most
of the year, and which may occasionally contain ‘‘transitory puddles or ephemeral flows of water.’’
See Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 733
The 2019 revised guidelines are even more explicit in the exclusion of drainage ditches of the sort at Horizon
Lane. The drainage ditch which is dry through the overwhelming majority of the year - flowing only in direct response to
rainfall, and only for short periods of time.
Water(s) of the United States – 2023
There are five standards for WOTUS in 2023:
(a)(1): Traditional Navigable Waters, Territorial Seas and Interstate Waters – Not Applicable
(a)(2): Impoundments of (a)(1) waters – Not Applicable
(a)(3): Tributaries of Paragraph (a)(1) where they meet the relatively permanent standard or significant nexus
standard – Not Applicable
(a)(4): Wetlands adjacent to (a)(1), with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent (a)(2) or (a)(3),
wetlands adjacent to (a)(2) when they meet the significant nexus standard – Not Applicable
(a)(5): Waters meeting the relatively permanent or significant nexus standard – The ditch is neither “relatively
permanent” nor a “significant nexus” of any jurisdictional waters of the united states
The Ditch Was Never A Creek
Here is a list of documents and photographs generated by various governmental agencies which contradict the
City’s claim that a creek exists on our property:
Every USGS topographical map from 1897 - 2018: No USGS before the City’s most recent inaccurate
maps were sent to the USGS indicates a creek or other waterway crossing our property (see the section
below or the included maps).
Surveyor General’s Office of California: Surveys conducted on behalf the Surveyor General in the late
1800s do not show a creek or other waterway crossing our property (see below).
The County of San Luis Obispo – Public Works Department: The County of San Luis Obispo map of
waterways does not indicate a waterway on our property (see below).
The County of San Luis Obispo – Department of Planning and Building: The County of San Luis Obispo
Department of Planning and Building has repeatedly issued permits, both Construction and Land Use,
authorizing modifications of the waterway in which they describe it as a drainage ditch. (See below and
attached). The County summary of the Land Use permit even offers the following description of the
purpose of the permit: “OPEN DRAINAGE DITCH TO CULVERT”
California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast Region: None of the following show
any waterway crossing our property: 1996 hydrologic survey, the “CA Map of All Names Streams and
Lakes” map, or the “Fully Appropriated Stream Systems” map (nor any other map or documentation I
can find).
Various Aerial Surveys: Aerial surveys conducted by various agencies documenting the extent of the
water detention system surrounding the Tank Farm property, including on our own Horizon Lane
property, none of which show a riparian corridor or natural creek crossing our property.
Given the property’s documented history, there can be little doubt to its prior legal or actual status as a
drainage ditch. This would mean that the City’s assertion that it is a creek constitutes a change in its legal status, and not
a trivial one.
As a drainage ditch, most of the property can be put to productive use.
As a creek, a forty- to fifty-foot-wide diagonal section of our property becomes unusable, a third of our property
becomes inaccessible. The over portion we can access will be too small to finance the sewer and water extensions that
the City would require for permanent development, making productive use of the remainder difficult to impossible.
In short, this change in status would constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment . The City’s failure to follow
any documentable or justifiable due process and failure to offer compensation would constitute a violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
United States Geological Survey / Surveyor General’s Office
No map prior to the 2021 map, updated with sources provided by the City, contains any reference to a stream or
naturally occurring waterway on our property. I’ve included four examples from more than a hundred years of mapping
below, additional maps included with this evidence submission.
A blue polygon was added to indicate the boundaries of our property
.
December 12th, 1875 Map from Surveyor General’s Office
1952 Topographical Map - USGS
1897 Topographical Map - USGS
2018 Topographical Map - USGS
County of San Luis Obispo
County of Public Works – Waterways
No waterway indicated crossing our property in the County’s map of waterways, the original map is available at the link
below.
https://gis.slocounty.ca.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/PW_Public/viewers
/PW_Viewer/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default&layerTheme=1
County Construction Permit 56848
Construction permit issued September 18, 1989 for grading and installation of a 72”x44” Culvert
From Pages from 58647----850-0001D.pdf included with this submission
Land Use Permit
We were issued a permit in 2002 for grading the property and converting the open drainage ditch to a drainage pipe.
From D020086S.pdf (Open Drainage Ditch to Culvert) From Parcel History - 053-258-017.pdf
California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast Regional
From San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Hydrologic Survey, Page 43. (Property indicated in blue)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
From the California Regional Water Quality Control Board map “All CA Named Streams and Lakes” available at
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=9ca35044184e48f28ae4a8586d65b8d4
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
From the California Regional Water Quality Control Board map “Fully Appropriated Stream Systems” available at
https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/home/webscene/viewer.html?layers=e6789cd25b694c2a9ace0d80b8098b
43
Aerial Surveys
Property outline indicated with a blue polygon. I’ve only included one, but additional aerial surveys are available in the
supplemental documentation.
You can see the obvious signs that this is a man made drainage, from the seperation pond and headwall in the blue
polygon, to the well defined and maintaned drainage channels made from the sort of angles people make, and nature
does not.
Summary
Multiple government agencies have affirmed, via Environmental Impact Declarations, Planning Commission
Resolutions and Construction Permits that the ditch running through Horizon Lane is, in point of fact, a ditch.
Our reinforcement of the drainage ditch was not only allowable by the rules published by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, but was required to safe guard drainage of the Tank Farm area against flooding during heavy rains.
And by the City’s own FEIR report, the Section 120.2.3.iii of the CWA and the EPA’s own 2021 rule making, the
ditch running through Horizon Lane is not subject to any special regulatory treatment.
References
1. Union Oil Detention System - Valve Assembly. San Luis Obispo : 2021.
2. Union Oil Detention System - Winches and Concrete Wall. San Luis Obispo : 2021.
3. County of San Luis Obispo. D020086S - Drainage Pipe, Grading. San Luis Obispo : s.n., 2002.
4. —. Parcel History. Parcel History. San Luis Obispo : s.n., 2021.
5. —. D910080D - Development Plan and Vesting Tentatitive Tract Map. San Luis Obispo, California, United States :
s.n., January 14, 1993.
6. —. Pages from 56847 - 850-0001D. San Luis Obispo : s.n., 1986-1989.
7. —. S900008T - Miscelleanous Paperwork Related to Tract Map 2035 (Whitley). San Luis Obispo, California, United
States : s.n., January 14, 1993.
8. —. COAL 00-0150. 2001.
9. Ferris, Richard. Letter Dated 2005 - Excerpt from final draft of Adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan. San Luis
Obispo : s.n., 2005.
10. City of San Luis Obispo. PH1 Annexation of 620 Acres... San Luis Obispo : s.n., 2007.
11. Ferris, Richard. Letter Dated April 26th 2007. San Luis Obispo : s.n., 2007.
12. US Army Corps of Engineers. Maintenance Exemption Summary. Sacramento : US Army Corp of Engineers, 2005.
13. Padre & Associates. Chevron Tank Farm FEIR Appendix. San Luis Obispo : s.n., 2008.
14. Federal Register. Revised Definition of "Waters of the United States". 2019.
15. Clean Water Act - 120.2 Definitions.
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
1
Construction Board of Appeals
April 25, 2023
Continued Appeal of
Administrative Citation # 25409
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution
upholding remaining violations regarding
Citation #25409 dated July 15, 2021, issued
to Ferris Richard W & Sharliss S Trust.
Parcel Identification
4080 Horizon Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN 053-258-017
Zoning:
Manufacturing (M-SP) &
Conservation Open Space
(C/OS-SP)
Owner:
Square Deal Recordings &
Supplies Inc
1
2
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
2
Violations
1. CA Building Code § 105.1: Unpermitted Construction of
a retaining wall system.
2. CA Building Code § 105.1: Unpermitted Construction of
a building comprised of storage containers.
3. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 12.23.030(A, L, N):
Prohibited activites in regulated creek areas.
4. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code § 17.70.030 (E)
(Formerly 17.16.025): Creek Setback Regulations
Aerial Photos
2011 2014
3
4
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
3
Aerial Photos
2021
FEB. 2012
MAY 2019
5
6
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
4
7
8
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
5
9
10
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
6
Upstream Photos
11
12
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
7
Downstream Photos
Recent Condition
13
14
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
8
Recent Condition
Steps Toward Compliance
Initial application received April 2022.
Initial intake of application and plans found the application to be
incomplete, lacking a number of required elements for plan
submittal and review.
Plans do not indicate the existence and/or removal of the current
retaining wall system.
Plans propose the installation of an underground culvert in place
of the retaining wall system.
Application was accepted for formal review on January 13, 2023.
Plan Review
First review completed March 30, 2023
Fire Department, Planning division and Engineering Development
division have all determined waterway meets the City’s definition
of a creek per SLOMC §17.70.030 and SLOMC § 12.23.020.
15
16
04‐25‐2023 Item 2, Staff Presentation
9
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution upholding remaining
violations regarding Citation #25409
dated July 15, 2021 issued to Ferris
Richard W & Sharliss S Trust.
17