Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/4/2025 Item 6a, Rizzo Saro Rizzo < To:E-mail Council Website; Dietrick, Christine Subject:3-4-2025 Appeal Of Waterman Village Project Attachments:2-28-2025 Letter To City of SLO.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear City Clerk: Please distribute the attached letter to members of the SLO City Council and other interested City of SLO parties. It regards a matter on the March 4, 2025, agenda. Thank you, Saro Rizzo Attorney at Law 1457 Marsh St., Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 Saro G. Rizzo Attorney At Law 1457 Marsh Street, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Tel (805) 783-1735 Fax (805) 858-9505 Sgrizzo3@gmail.com February 28, 2025 Via Email City of San Luis Obispo Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve the Waterman Village Project at 466 Dana Street, proposing the construction of 20 low- to very-low-income homes at the historic Rosa Burton Adobe. Dear Mayor and City Council: My office represents appellant San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners Association (SLOPBOA) which filed the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Waterman Village project at 466 Dana Street. The appeal will be before the San Luis Obispo City Council on 3/4/2025. I have reviewed the Council Agenda Report from the Community Development Director and strongly disagree with the conclusion that the case Save the Wellwood Murray Memorial Library Com. v. City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1003 (Wellwood) is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. To the contrary, it is exactly on point and the City of San Luis Obispo (City) cannot escape the legal impact of its holding on this proposed project which mandates that the City reverse the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Waterman Village Project. Wellwood was a legal dispute centered on efforts to protect the Wellwood Murray Memorial Library, a historic public library in Palm Springs, California, from actions by the City of Palm Springs (Palm Springs) that threatened its preservation. The library, located on city-owned property, was donated to Palm Springs in 1938 via two grant deeds. These deeds included the condition that the property was to be used perpetually as a free public library, named the "Wellwood Murray Memorial Library." The conflict arose when Palm Springs entered into a series of agreements with a private developer to redevelop the library property. Save the Wellwood Murray Memorial Library Committee filed a lawsuit against Palm Springs. The published case involved the third participation agreement Palm Springs had with the developer. It provided for the granting of an easement to the developer over the library property for any purpose related to the adjoining commercial development, including the placement of dining tables, chairs and related equipment, the remodeling of the library property in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by Palm Springs at some later date, and the razing of approximately four feet of the library building's southern side. The case was 1Waterman Village Project Appeal about preserving the library’s status as a public resource and ensuring Palm Springs adhered to the legal conditions of the original land grant. Palm Springs argued that the proposed use of the library (for dining tables, chairs, and related equipment, and providing an open area for pedestrian traffic from the nearby streets to the commercial development) was consistent with library purposes in the grant deed and, in fact, would contribute to the use of the property for such purposes. However, the Court of Appeal did not agree with this and ruled that applicable test is not whether a proposed use is “consistent” with the dedicated purpose, or whether it will “contribute” to such purpose, but whether the proposed use will “directly contribute” to the dedicated purpose. The Court of Appeal held that to meet the rule, Palm Spring’s proposed use must directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property for library purposes: e.g., the proposed use must directly facilitate the acquisition, retention, storage and use of books, manuscripts and similar materials. It held that the use proposed by Palm Springs in no way would directly contribute to those purposes, and that, in at least one way, it would be antithetical to such purposes because the proposed use would destroy parts of the building where books are stored and used. The ruling protected the library from redevelopment that would have altered its historic purpose and structure, reinforcing the importance of public oversight in municipal decisions involving dedicated public assets. Here, the City of San Luis Obispo is making the same arguments that Palm Springs made in Wellwood which were rejected by the Court. The proposed Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Waterman Village Project (ARCH-0329-2022, EID-0637-2022)” attached to the Council Agenda Report makes the finding to the proposed project is “consistent” with the dedicated purpose of the Grant Deed that property be used as a park or for recreational uses. Finding 1 states “[t]he project is consistent with the enforceable covenants found in the Grant Deed from Mary Gail Black to the City dated July 26, 1989 as well as the Resolution of Acceptance executed by Council in Resolution No. 6512 dated October 4, 1988.1 As stated above, this is not the test and making such a finding provides the City no legal support. The correct question here is whether proposed project will “directly contribute” to the use and 1 There is no question on the legality of the restrictive covenants that run with the property that was gifted to the City for public purposes. On page 2 of the City’s March 6, 2020, “Request for Information - Community Partnership - Rosa Butron de Canet Adobe” the City unequivocally states: It is clear in the Grant Deed from Ms. Black to the City and in the City Council’s Resolution of Acceptance that the donation agreement includes provisions for “the adobe and two adjoining wings that make up the old house, and the trees on that property be maintained by the city for park or recreational purposes, and that Mildred Waterman’s name be included in any name that the city give this park area,” and “the City of San Luis Obispo assumes certain maintenance responsibility for the grounds and premises as a condition of this grant.” (Emphasis added.) 2Waterman Village Project Appeal enjoyment of the property for park or for recreational purposes. Any objective analysis of what is being proposed shows that it will not. In fact, what is being proposed, just like in Wellwood, is antithetical to such purposes because it would make public use of the property for park or for recreational purposes impossible. Smart Share Housing Solutions is proposing the construction of 20 prefabricated homes for low to very low-income housing ranging in size from 220 to 264 square feet on the property. (See Attachment D in the Council Agenda Report, Project Plans). The proposed new units are to be clustered around the historic adobe and will utilize raised pier foundations to accommodate the 100-year flood plain requirements with each unit being accessible via a raised boardwalk with ramps and stairs. It’s proposed that the historic adobe will be used as a community gathering space as well as office and administrative space for the on-site manager. The project scope includes the demolition of non-historic additions at the rear of the adobe, as well as removal of 12 historic trees on the property. The picture below of the site plan clearly shows that there is no possible way that the proposed project will “directly contribute” to the public’s use and enjoyment of the property as called for in the Grant Deed. In fact, the buildout with 20 prefabricated homes would be directly contrary to these purposes because it would leave no room for them. Further, a public trust is created when property is held by a public entity for the benefit of the general public. (See Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 89 C.J.S. Trusts, § 19.) Here, title to the historic Rosa Burton Adobe property is held by City to be used by City for the benefit of the general public for park or recreational purposes. Any 3Waterman Village Project Appeal attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto would constitute an ultra vires act which can be enjoined by the courts. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at p. 99.) For all the above reasons, the City must reverse the Planning Commission’s decision approving the Waterman Village Project. Respectfully, ____________________________ Saro Rizzo Attorney for SLOPBOA Respectfully, ______________ Saro Rizzo 4Waterman Village Project Appeal