HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/1991, 1 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO CULVERT THE REMAINDER OF THE OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL ACROSS THE REAR OF THE PROJECT SITE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROAD STREET NEAR ORCUTT ROAD (3249 BROAD STREET). ��i�►►t���I�II�II�I� ►I ,� MY of San LUis OBIspo MEE11-19-91
TING DATE:
jCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT nEM NUMBEA:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; ,iQ
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PK 7
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny a request to culvert the
remainder of the open drainage channel across the rear of the project
site located on the west side of Broad Street near Orcutt Road (3249
Broad Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution "A" upholding the Planning Commission's action denying
the request to culvert the remainder of the open drainage channel across
the site at 3249 Broad Street.
DISCUSSION
situation/Previous Review
On October 23, 1991, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny
a request to amend project plans to show the drainage channel at the rear
of the site completely culverted across the site. Plans adopted with
conditional approval of Use Permit No. U1475 showed a partially culverted
and partially open drainage channel. As part of their action, the
Commission directed staff to schedule the use permit for a revocation
hearing if all use permit conditions were not fully completed within 30
days. The applicant, Champ Massey, appealed the Commission's action on
October 31, 1991.
The Planning Commission report prepared for the October 23, 1991 hearing
to consider the culverting request is attached. The report provides a
comprehensive history of the use permit and summarizes the positions of
the applicant and city staff on the culverting issue.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt Resolution "B" upholding the appeal and approving the request
to culvert the drainage channel.
2 . Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
Attached: Draft Resolutions
Draft 10-23-91 Planning Commission Minutes (not available at
Letter from Champ Massey dated 10-21-91 Agenda close)
Appeal to City Council
Planning Commission Staff Report
/- 1
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO DENY A REQUEST TO CULVERT THE REMAINDER OF THE OPEN
DRAINAGE CHANNEL ACROSS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3249 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request, the
Planning Commission's action, the appeal to the City Council, and
staff recommendations and reports thereon, denies the appeal of the
Planning Commission's action to deny the request to culvert the
remainder of the open drainage channel, as shown on plans approved
with Use Permit # 14.75, based on the following findings:
1. The easement requirement called for in Condition # 6 of
approved Use Permit # 1475 is a typical condition of
discretionary use permits and consistent with Resolution
# 5138 that implemented the city's flood management policy
which states that "the city shall actively seek to obtain
easements and/or ownership for creek access, maintenance
and construction whenever possible and appropriate" .
2. The city's creek dedication policy stipulates that the
property owner shall "dedicate the natural creek area
within his property" as a condition of approval of projects
requiring planning entitlements other than a building
permit or a lot line adjustment. The property owner's
changes to the site'including paving, fencing, landscaping
and modifications to the drainage channel to establish the
automobile sales lot required both a Planning Commission
use permit and architectural review. These changes
constitute substantial improvements to the site which would
require easement dedication as a condition of development
approval.
���Z,
3. Approving the request to culvert the remainder of the
drainage channel would be a grant of special privilege and
set a precedent inconsistent with current city policy.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approved Use Permit # 1475
is valid subject to all the original conditions contained . in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014-90. In addition, the
easement shall be executed and a building permit obtained to
complete other required improvements, consistent with previous
approvals, within thirty (30) days or the use permit will be
scheduled for a Planning Commission revocation hearing.
On motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
�-3
r
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
it tto ne
Community Develop ent Director
1-�
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO. DENY A REQUEST ,
TO CULVERT THE R_EMAINOER OF THE OPEN DRAINAGE CHANNEL ACROSS
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3249 BROAD STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, .the applicant's request, the
Planning Commission's action, the appeal to the City Council, and
staff recommendations and reports thereon, upholds the appeal of
the Planning Commission's action to deny the request to culvert the
remainder of the open drainage channel, as shown on plans approved
with Use Permit # 1475, based on the following findings:
1. Approving the request to culvert the remainder of the
drainage channel will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons residing on the site or in
the vicinity.
2. Approving the request to culvert the remainder of the
drainage channel will not be a grant of special privilege
and will not set a precedent inconsistent with current city
policy.
SECTION 2. Conditions, The .approved Use Permit 1475
is valid subject to all the original conditions contained in
Planning Commission - Resolution No. 5014-90. In addition, a
building permit shall be obtained to complete culverting and other
required improvements, consistent with previous approvals, within
thirty (30) days or the use permit will be revoked. An initial
study of potential environmental impacts created by proposed
culverting will also need to be conducted.
1 -5
On motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
Of , 1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Qci4tyAinistrative Officer
91 tto ne
Community Develbufaent Director /
74511
CHAMP MASSEY
WHOLESALE CAR COMPANY
3249 Broad Street . San Lola Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-4556
FAX(805) 543-4312
10/21/91. . .Delivered by Courier.
Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Dept.
990 Palm St.
SLO,Ca. ,93401
Dear Ms. Ricci,
Please issue copies of this letter to Misters Kenny,Peterson and Romero,
as well as the members of the Planning Commission, prior to the 10/23/91
meeting. Thank you.
In regards to two problems that Mr. Kenny expressed to you in his memo,
dated 10/17/91, that I received copy of today,10/21/91...please note the
following:
1) If Public Works needs a 15' easement, rather than the 10' earlier
agreed upon.. .I will accept the 15' .
2) Rather than use any more experts, consultants or out-side engineers,
after $20,000 plus exhausted without any equity whatsover, don't worry
anymore about the 40' of steel culvert. I will remove it and along with
the new full. length concrete culvert that 40' piece will also be concrete.
It is time to move on, the agreement worked out with- The Public Works Dept.
is good for the City and in the long run, good for me. If further delays
are sought by the Planning Staff, we will run into the rainy season and I
will run out of money.
Sincerely,
p Massey
1-7
all 1111111111
city Of SAn hues OBISPO.
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tile 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthe decision of 10/22/91 Planning Commission
rendered on 10/22/91 which decision consisted of the following 4. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
I assume the Planning Commission decided not to allow me to extend the
culvert under the conditions negotiated by the Director of Public Works.
I would be glad to remove the 40' of steel culvert and have no easement
at this time, . . .wait for future development. Or, the reduced easement of
15' agreed to by Public Works, and I extend and replace all culvert with
concrete culvert. However, I will not accept the excessive and completely
unnecessary 36' easement accross the width of my property and the virtual
100% devaluation of that area. After 18 months and over $22,000 in plans,
consultants and other experts, it seems clear to me that I am being punished.
I would not wish the treatment given to me by this "system" on my worst
enemy. Several times it has been suggested in writing that I not only loose
the use and value of over 5,000 SF of my land, but be given 30 days to loose
my business , also. That is what you are asked to uphold, a decision to render
The undersigned discussed the.deeislon being appealed with: a large portion of my commercial land
as ublic open space and to t4ke away
on my business. This simply isn't fair.
DATE &TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant
RECEIVED Char es C ion sse er
ame
OCT 311991 self
Representative
CITY CLERK 1330 El Camino Real
X541 t ui8 oeislao.Seg San Luis Obispo, Ca.,93405
Address
work 544-4556, home 543-5448
Phone
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for rY.
Copy to Administrative Officer 'y
Copy to the-following department(s):
9VMo�Cr �fD,vR4�
/�—►-v,S.Q+._ l i eom elLa few I>
-8
MEETING DATE:
I�!�►� I�IIIIfII�p l 111 city of sar. .pis osi spo /O -X3-91
ORGA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEMNUMBER:
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FILE# U 1475
SUBJECT:
Review of a request to make changes to development plans adopted with conditional
approval of a use permit allowing a car sales lot on the west side of Broad Street
near Orcutt Road.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny request to culvert the remainder of the open drainage channel across the site.
Revoke use permit if all conditions of use permit approval are not fully complied with
within 30 days.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant, Champ Massey, has filed a request to amend conditionally approved Use
Permit U 1475. Plans approved with the use permit showed a partially culverted and
partially open drainage channel across the rear of the site. The applicant now wishes to
extend the culvert across the entire site eliminating the currently open portion of the
drainage channel. Revised plans indicate that proposed culverting would enable a larger
area of the site to be utilized for vehicle storage.
Because the plans approved with the use permit did not show the channel entirely culverted
and the culverting that had occurred had been an issue of concern with the Planning
Commission,staff instructed the applicant that a request to extend the culvert would require
the review and approval of the Commission.
Previous Review
On April 25, 1990, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a use permit to allow
the car lot. The car lot had been established without city approvals and has been the
subject of continuous enforcement action by the city in recent years.
Plans showing existing and proposed improvements for the car lot including landscaping and
grading were approved by the ARC on December 17, 1990, consistent with use permit
condition # 10. ARC approval stipulated that all required improvements were to be
installed by June 1, 1991. That deadline has expired without the installation of all required
improvements. A building,permit for site development consistent with use permit and ARC
conditions would have been issued on February 2, 1991, except that the applicant refused
to sign the required drainage easement associated with the drainage channel.
A letter was received from the applicant's representative on April 30, 1991 requesting that
condition # 6 of use permit approval requiring the dedication of a storm drain maintenance
and access easement over the drainage channel be deleted. On July 10, 1991, the request
to delete condition # 6 was denied by the Planning Commission. On appeal, the same
request was denied by the City Council on August 20, 1991.
/ e ■
U 1475
Page 2
Based on the City Council's action on the appeal, the applicant had until September 20,
1991 to comply with all conditions of the use permit. On September 18, 1991, the applicant
filed a request to modify the plans approved with the use permit to show the channel
entirely culverted across the rear of the site.
A building permit for improvements to the front portion of the site (Phase I) was issued on
September 30, 1991. Issuance of a building permit for work to the rear of the site (Phase
II, beyond the proposed fence that would separate the front and rear portions of the site)
has not been issued pending resolution of the drainage channel issue and related easement
requirements.
Data Summary_
Address: 3249 Broad Street
Applicant: Champ Massey
Representative: Brent Wiese, Steve Pults & Associates
Zoning: C-S-S
General Plan: Service Commercial/Light Industrial
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt
Site Description
The site is composed of about 37,500 square feet which contains a pair of attached
structures totaling about 1200 square feet. The site has a single driveway access on Broad
Street and has been recently paved with asphalt for a car lot display area. The westerly
portion of the site slopes down to a drainage swale which has been partially culverted by
the applicant. About 1000 cubic yards of fill have been added over this culvert. There is
a 24" pepper tree on the site; no other significant vegetation is present.
EVALUATION
When the Planning Commission use permit was approved for the site, a number of
conditions were imposed to attempt to improve.the appearance of the site and to insure
compatibility with surrounding properties. Conditions of approval included requirements
for a loading zone, downlighting, resolution of grading and drainage issues, landscaping
and frontage improvements.
The applicant has obtained a building permit for improvements to the front portion of the
site which allows for partial compliance with use permit conditions. However, issuance of
the building permit needed to authorize the work for the rear portion of the site which
includes the drainage culvert and channel has .been delayed pending resolution of the
drainage easement terms and conditions.
One of the principal concerns with unauthorized changes that have previously occurred at
the site has been the partial culverting and covering of a part of the drainage channel
located on the westerly part of the site. At the original use permit hearing, the Planning
Commission discussed the culverting of the drainage channel in detail. TT
U 1475
Page 3
The Planning Commission considered requiring removal of the culvert and restoring the
drainage channel to its original condition. However, the Commission in its motion for use
permit approval stipulated that the culvert could remain if culvert size and compaction of
the soil around it meet city standards. The motion made it clear that further culverting of
the channel would not be acceptable. The current proposal to culvert the remainder of the
drainage channel is clearly inconsistent with this direction.
Applicant's Position regarding the easement requirement and Droposed culverting
The applicant continues to be opposed to the easement requirement of the original use
permit (36-foot wide easement over the existing culvert and partially open channel). He
feels that the drainage easement requirement is not needed since the city has stipulated that
it will not be responsible for maintenance of the existing culvert. He feels that, with or
without the easement, city crews can access the drainage channel in an emergency. The
applicant maintains that the easement should be a condition of future permanent
development, not of the car lot which he views as a temporary use.
After unsuccessful attempts to delete the drainage easement requirement at hearings with
both the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant has requested to culvert the
remainder of the open drainage channel across the rear of the site. With a continuous
culvert, a 15-foot, rather than 36-foot wide easement would be required. The applicant
feels that this would allow for more efficient use of the rear of the site.
City Staff's Position regarding the easement requirement
Creek easements are a typical condition of discretionary use permits reviewed by the city
and are consistent with City policies. Resolution No. 5138 that implemented the city's flood
management policy includes the provision that:
The City shall actively seek to obtain easements and/or ownership for creek access,
maintenance and construction whenever possible and appropriate."
Without the easement, the city does not have absolute right to enter the property. The city
generally attempts to obtain drainage easements at the earliest opportunity, rather than
postponing them to some unknown point in the future.
With the applicant's current proposal to culvert the drainage channel across the site, the
City would be responsible for maintaining flow within the culvert(making sure that the pipe
is cleaned out and water flow is unimpeded), but would not own the pipe structure or be
responsible for repair to or replacement of that structure unless the existing pipe was
completely reconstructed (refer to 10-17-91 memo from Jerry Kenny).
- 1 - � I
U 1475
Page 4
� a s P iti n ardin th culvertin
Public Works and Community Development are not unified in their position regarding
proposed cuiverting. As indicated in the attached letter from Dave Romero to Cham
Massey dated September 12 19919 Public.Works Supports
to plans for the culvert beingprepared and reviewed throe appropriate a
P P extension of the culvert subject
Jerry Kenny's memo of October 17, 1991 � city Processes.
with culvert installation needs to be done to the standards included in the City's Gradin
Ordinance. The Building grading work involved
g Division (memo from Bob Bishop dated October 14, 1991) also
Points out that existing and proposed fill material associated with rulverting needs to be
Properly compacted
Community Development De
channel open to the extent that itcurr cuent rrently DDIt is the po) staff sitiion of CDD staff that an leavingnues to advocate the
channel can serve the dual purpose of flood control and open space. From the CDD staffs
perspective, the channel should be viewed as a resource potential. While the drainage
Pen
channel does not currently provide a high habitat value, it has the potential to be a viable
Pariah corridor with sensitive landscaping mnage
enhanced drainage channel will Provide agtreatment. In addition, CDD staff feels that the
CDD staff supports the open channel as thvisual viro�enthat is both ally superior sef ul and
iVe tractive.
An open channel is also consistent with Ci
the city's flood management oli a the hePolip Resolution No. 5138 that implemented
P cy includes tprovision that:
"It shall be the policy of the City that waterways and adjacent lands be e
managed to: generally
1. Maintain the creeks in natural state to the maximum extent feasible
(emphasis addedJ;
2. Prevent the loss of life from flooding; and
3. Minimize damage from flooding"
innc ude event policies included in the City's "1983 Waterway Management Guidelines"
Sa. 1 ) N—atUM1. Tlie natural earth channel is the most desired solution where right-
of-way and storm velocity aesthetic
permit. gam shall be planted with a low-growing
ground cover for both aesthetic and drainage control purposes. g
6. Construction of culverts, in or over waterways, shall be
bridges or structures,
prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and the City Council that there is no feasible alternative to such construction, and
the impact does not violate the flood ordinance with respect to the maximum
of water surface and damage to adjacent or downstream properties. rise
f
U 1475
Page 5
Conclusion
The city has worked cooperatively with the applicant to"resolve the on-going enforcement
problems at this site. The applicant has made an attempt to comply with city requirements
by going through the required use permit, architectural review and building permit processes
for establishment of the car lot use at the site. However, the city and the applicant are
currently at an impasse regarding the drainage channel/easement issue.
Planning staff does not support further culverting of the drainage channeL Therefore, it is
planning staffs opinion that the use permit should be revoked and the use not allowed to
continue at the site if the applicant fails to provide the easement for the culvert and
drainage channel as they presently exist and satisfy other conditions of use permit approval.
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may deny or approve the request for further culverting or may
continue action.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to culvert the remainder of the open drainage channel across the site.
Revoke use permit if all conditions of use permit approval-are not fully complied with
within 30 days.
Attached: Vicinity Map
Revised site plan showing culverting of entire channel
Site Plan reviewed by the Planning Commis ion 7-10-91
Letter from Brent Wiese dated 9-18-91 requesting further culverting
Memo from Jerry Kenny dated 10-17-91
Letter from Champ Massey to Dave Romero dated 9-9-91
Letter from Dave Romero to Champ Massey dated 9-12-91
Memo from Bob Bishop dated 10-14-91
Planning Commission Use Permit Conditions
Planning Commission minutes of 4-25-90 and 7-10-91
Massey appeal filed 7-19-91
City Council Resolution No. 7023 denying appeal
ARC approval letter dated 12-19-90
Letter from Champ Massey dated 5-27-91
Memo from Jerry Kenny dated 5-3-91
Letter form Brent Wiese dated 4-30-91
Memo from Dave Romero dated 4-12-91
Memo from Jerry Kenny dated 2-8-91
Enclosed: Revised Project Plans (Phase II)
1-13
VICINITY MAP
3249 BROAD ST.
ARC 90-25
U ►475
asi
c
s
5
CEI
IVA ` htC.87-11snI
Abe-B7
• °� 7 P u{1074&
4&r.
L81423��nc e�
4&Q , � CR 1074 nye.-e�
• g9 7aa Iso
3
•r �p�. .
.� o L.LA Of
� X002)
3175/1
3
Ga
P
�e Aep,
elr�1F
$'lr�'r Y • O(
f 7 . :i`: •• 4 � V1
o O Cr ��� ��• • r4&
$r� 4: •
i.Y;,.l,rh�l/fi`r•rri .{ A ii :r :`"'�yr/z°h•'• � rrr •
Or' r .. �.�... •' Jt�e�� 4r� �ss� i
O ...rs'••' s e� i
s
a Z 9
3p A TAP
r
.ww•r r�r /
ol
It'll
T
19
1
0
l �
.�.w• •.r•rw .....�.
ig10 t.IQT ll
eA ? e C a C8 p9
i
/ e Cf5C v
'•
Ul
e
N �
» a°
fln
i
1. � � ,J •
.•�
t9
o
P .
}!rte
f. I
ifs r :rap Mrd tt:
' > ( " Y
WwmgTmw
'Ti I
f t
6 E z a 111
t�;{ti SletertDA414 ,�Aswcicrles
K s° 1°{
I
September 18, 1991
Pam Ricci
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Massey Auto Lot
3249 Broad Street
DearPam:
It is the intent of today's application to revise Use Permit 1475, to culvert the
entire drainage channel on site. Per Champ's conversation with the Public
Works department, the existing metal pipe will be brought up to city standards to
be accepted by the city, while culverting the additional area with a concrete pipe.
It is my hope to have the revised site, grading and landscape plans submitted to
your department at the beginning of next week for review.
I appreciate your help with this matter. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brent Wiese
cc: Champ Massey
Ar6dedure,Planning&Graphics
1301 $ a Steel s I I
San Luis Obisspo..California 93401 r/
80>,,541.5609
October 17, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
FROMJerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJEC Champ Massey Revised Storm Drain Plans - 3249 Broad St.
The schematic plans submitted by Steve Pults (dated October 10,
1991) shows the extension of the existing 48" corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) , to near the southerly property line.. The extension
was agreed to by Dave Romero, subject to meeting all other
requirements of the City. (Refer to Champ Massey' s letter of
9/9/91 and Dave Romero's letter dated 9/12/91)
It appears some clarification is in order, though, with regard to
the easement width and who would be responsible for maintenance
of the pipes.
First of all, the width of the easement must be at least 15 feet,
not 10 feet as noted in Champ Massey' s letter. This is due to
the depth of cover over the existing pipe. Repair or replacement
of this pipe would require a sloped trench, thus requiring the
additional width.
Secondly, Mr. Massey's letter stating . . . "the 40 ft. of steel
culvert, which is allowed to remain after it meets proper Public
Works inspections" needs clarification as to the "ownership" of
the pipe. It has always been a requirement that the existing
pipe would have to be completely reconstructed in order for the
City to maintain the pipe structure. If Mr. Massey means that
the pipe will be modified to only include the concrete collars,
etc. , per the existing plan prepared by the consulting civil
engineer, EDA, then the existing and new reinforced concrete
.pipes would logically be owned by the property owner.
Dave Romero stated that if the existing pipe were excavated at
various locations to satisfy our concerns regarding compaction,
etc. , (in addition to the currently required repairs identified
in EDA's plans) that this Department would consider acceptance of
both pipes.
1�18
Pam Ricci
October 17, 1991
Page Two
The above work is also subject to the Grading Ordinance under the
jurisdiction of the Building Division, with regard to compaction
of existing and proposed fill.
Attachments:
1- Massey's letter (9/9/91)
2- D F Romero's letter (9/12/91)
c: T Baasch
P: \Jerry\Massey.wp
1 �19
JLL
CRkN-,P �IASSEY w:; . . .
WHOLESALE CAR COMPANY
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, G 93401
(805) $444556
FAX (803) 54.1.4?12
9/9/91
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
005 Morro St.
SLO,Ca. ,93401
Atten: Mr. David Romero, Director, Public Works Department
Dear Mr. Romero,
Thanks for meeting with me this morning concerning the Drainage/Easement
problem on my Broad St. commercial property. The situation we were able
to work out is livable for both the city and me. I an greatly relieved
to be able to continue my business, while finally resolving this Easement
without a costly and stressful court battle.
z
In the meeting we agreed that I would extend the culvert thegth of the
drainage ditch. Also, I would use concrete culvert after 40' of steel < �11
culvert, which is --&tllowed.11o.semain- after-.it meets Public:Works Tm-
spections. We agreed that I would give the City a 10' Bement for drain-
age and -main ten ce along the length of the culvert an a 5' Easement along
the smaller culvert coming off Rockview onto my property, for the same Feat
sons. I understand that I will not be able to build over these Easements;
however, no other use is diminished.. . such as parking, etc.
-.Y--�-�. a-Q--s� �..�-�--��-'mss-.��.-: -�
As per: yottr isstTuctioa - co�tac t Eagiaeefst to -y and:.have,them_;
i r.,..-
ge P"PlAns and Profiles to=your office• as quickly�as; possible.-=
Thanks_10 rseatin`g me so courted—,�� ; i- . - - -
le yd sµimi' qk ' plyCvhn_both}partiEd"*FFserfoue. .: yet=fair-and
rea""soBa'b
4SSinceres is & Associates (Brent)
SU 1Af
ec to 0140 r rr'.1%a c 1'hti r Iry r C'"/C'"/
aKd PP/�rova , prow
a.AwV
city osAn lues oBiSP09.
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 12, 1991
Champ Massey
3249 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Massey:
The conditions described in your letter of September 9, 1991 are
satisfactory as far as the Public Works Department is concerned.
However, the installation will be subject to the normal City
review process which includes review by other departments who may
have differing conditions or requirements.
Very truly yours
David F. Romero, Director
Public Works Department
c: Wayne Peterson `
1OW24
ANINERS9111PAR 11 C Ity of sAn WT§ o
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
May 2, 1990
Hr. Charles C. Hassey
844 Escula Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit U1475; 3249 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Hassey:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 25, 1990, approved your
request to allow a car sales lot at the above address. Approval is based on
findings and subject to conditions contained in the attached resolution and
the following code requirements:
1. Sidewalk shall be installed along the project's entire Broad Street
frontage to city standards.
2. Architectural review is required.
3. Street trees are required along the project's Broad Street frontage.
4. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits for work done
without city approval, including, but not limited to, grading, drainage
and -parking lot installation.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk
within ten day of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved
by a decision of the commission.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not established
within one year of the date of approval or such longer time as may be
stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit shall expire. See
Municipal Code Section 17.58.070.D. for possible renewal.
If you have any questions, please contact David Moran at 549-7175.
e'ince�ely, (1.
� 1
Jld B. Sco- �, Director
Community De ve pment
Attachment: Resolution No. 5014-90
cc: Pults a Associates
SITE/GRADING COMMENTS
DATE: October 14, 1991
SUBJECT: 3249 Broad (Champ Massey Car Company)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
1 The existing fill material that has been placed in conjunction
with the upstream culvert was never documented with respect
to proper fill placement as outlined in the city grading
ordinance. Now that the applicant would like to pad the rest
of the site, it is probable that in the future this site may
be developed with a structure being founded in portions of the
fill. It is recommended by this department that as a
condition of approval for the additional grading the
previously placed fill be regraded to specifications as
outlined in the cities grading ordinance.
Bob Bishop
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5014-90
WHEREAS,.the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo
City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 1990, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under application No. U1475 by Charles Massey, applicant.
USE PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow a car sales lot.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
3249 Broad Street.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Service-Commercial/Light Industrial.
PRESENT ZONING:
C-S-S
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations,
and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing,
has established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of
persons residing or worldng in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding laud uses.
3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
��z�
Resolution No. 5014-90
Use Permit U1475
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U1475
be revised subject to the following conditions:
1. Any lights installed on the site shall be down cut-off fixtures designed and
constructed to not shine off-site.
2. The applicant shall provide an on-site loading zone for deliveries, to the
approval of the Community Development Director. Unloading of delivery
vehicles on Broad Street is prohibited.
3. The drainage channel culvert shall be inspected for compliance to city
standards. If the drainage channel culvert does not meet city standards, it shall
be removed and the site shall be restored to the approval of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Department within 90 days (July 25,
1990).
4.. Parking to city standards shall be provided for four vehicles on the site at all
times.
5. The. site may be used for the wholesale and retail sale of cars and trucks only.
Any new use or expansion of the existing use shall not take place without prior
approval by the city.
6. The applicant shall dedicate a storm drain maintenance and access easement
over the drainage channel to the approval of the Community Development
Director and Public Works Director.
7. The hemp rope fence along the Broad.Street frontage shall be relocated
entirely outside the public right-of-way.
8. The garages on the site may be used for the storage of cars and trucks
associated with the approved sales business only.
9. The applicant shall replace the existing fire hydrant along the project's Broad
Street frontage with a new commercial option Mueller H-480-K or Clow 2065,
to the approval of the city Fire Department.
Resolution No. 5014-90
Use Permit U1475
Page 3
10. The applicant shall submit plans for review by"the Architectur4l Review
Commission which carefully examine landscape buffering arourhe entire site,
and grading on the southerly edge of the property.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Gurnee, seconded by Commr.
Hoffman, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Gurnee, Hoffman, Billington, Karlesldnt, and Peterson
NOES: Commr. Schmidt
ABSENT. Comm . Kouralds
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: April 25, 1990
J!�
P .C. Minutes
April 25, 1990
Page 3 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 . Public Hearing: Use Permit U 1475. Request to allow a car sales
lot; 3249 Broad Street; C-5-5 zone; Charles Massey, applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Moran presented the staff report and asked that the Commission provide
direction regarding the preferred treatment of the drainage channel, and
continue review to allow the applicant to revise the plans accordingly .
Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing.
Steve Pults, applicant ' s representative, discussed the sales lot use and
the drainage swale. He discussed the culverting and grading that occurred
in the area and requested allowance to culvert the remaining portion of the
drainage swale to maximize the use of the site . He agreed with the staff
report and conditions and stated that loading/unloading could be handled on
site.
Jeff Emerich, 549 Bluerock , stated that the swale was not defined as a
"creek" and that the 48" culvert was appropriate .
Brent Weesey , 1662 Fairview, discussed the city waterways map and stated
that this drainage swale was not represented on that map .
Champ Massey , 844 Escuela, applicant, discussed the site use and permits
obtained. he discussed the culverting request and the repair of the
driveway, and stated that no additional excavation had been done.
Dan Hall, 106 Felmar , was concerned with the dirt grading and fill piled
against the southerly property line . He was concerned about the impact of
heavy rains on these mounds .
Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Commr. Gurnee felt the swele was an enhancement and should not be culverted
further. He felt the use was appropriate to the site and that major
buffering should be done near residential property lines.
Commr. Hoffman did not feel the swale should be covered and was concerned
with the existing compaction of the dirt over the illegal culvert. He felt
there needed to be an additional retaining wall by the parking area. He
felt the use was appropriate to the site .
Commr. Peterson agreed with Commrs. Gurnee and Hoffman.
Commr. Karleskint agreed with the previous comments and suggested
strengthening the wording of condition 2 to prohibit on-street unloading .
Chairman Schmidt felt the use was appropriate at the site and should be
buffered from the residents . He felt the high piles of graded dirt should
be reduced to a height of 3 '-4' above grade. He felt the existing culve-
1-�7
P.C. Minutes
April 25, 1990
Page 4.
was illegal and should be removed and felt that would mitigate flooding
concerns.
Commr . Gurnee moved to approve the use, subject to findings and conditions ,
with amendment to condition 3 to prohibit on-street unloading. He further
moved to direct staff to investigate the existing culvert and compaction to
ensure they met ordinance standards , and to allow no further culverting. H
moved to add a condition of approval to have the ARC consider the issues of
grading, landscaping , and buffering at the south end of the property and to
determine that if the culvert is not up to standards, it should be removed .
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion, Resolution No . 5014-90 .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Gurnee, Hoffman, Billington, Karleskint , and
Peterson.
NOES - Commr. Schmidt .
ABSENT - Commr. Kourakis.
The motion passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. Public Hearing: Tract 1877. Consideration of a tentative map
creating- a 10-unit residential planned development condominium;
2936-2976 Rockview Place; R-2-S zone; William Dermody,
subdivider .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Moran presented the staff report and recommended approval of the
tentative map to Council.
Chairman Schmidt opened the public hearing.
Jeff Emerich, 1320 Nipomo, applicant ' s representative , stated that he
concurred with the staff report . He was concerned with condition 3 and
discussed the cross-lot drainage design and grading conformance with
approved plans.
Chairman Schmidt closed the public hearing.
Chairman Schmidt was concerned with the condominium status and noted he hoc
previously voted to approve this project as apartments .
Commr. Gurnee moved to recommended that council approve the tentative map,
subject to findings and conditions, amending condition 3 to have grading
meet the previously approved grading plans .
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion.
�-zs .
P.C. Minutes
July 10, 1991
2. Use Permit U 1475. Review of conditionally approved use permit allowing a car
sales lot; 3249 Broad Street; C-C-S zone; Charles Massey, applicant.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission deny the request to delete condition #6 and revoke the use permit if all
conditions of use permit approval are not fully complied with within thirty days.
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer, explained the need for the easement and the
maintenance responsibilities of the applicant and city regarding the easement. He did
not feel there was a difference between a recorded agreement which runs with the land
or an easement. He indicated the city would not accept an agreement that is not tied or
recorded to the land.
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney, concurred with Wayne Peterson's explanation.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing open.
.Brent Wiese, Pults & Associates, representative for the applicant, indicated they have
worked with staff and the Architectural Review Commission to comply with use permit
conditions. He felt that a written statement could guarantee everything that an
easement would. He noted the present car lot use was temporary. He felt that the
appropriate time to request an easement would be when the site is further developed.
He indicated that at that time, the city could be very specific about the shape and size
of the easement, access to the easement, and the maintenance of the easement. He
noted that while the city would not assume any responsibility for the maintenance of the
portion of the easement where the channel has been culverted because it was installed
without city approval, the city agreed that it could remain in place with some minor
modifications. He noted his client would be happy to maintain the culvert and drainage
channel. He felt the only reason the city was still requiring the easement was because
of policy. He noted that if the commission felt the easement was required at this time,
he asked that staff be flexible in determining the size and shape of the easement. He
felt that language that described the shape and size of the easement could be more
defined.
Champ Massey, 844 Escuela, applicant, indicated the pipe was installed by a neighbor
during development of adjacent property. He noted there was a discrepancy on the
jargon on the recorded promise and the deed restrictive easement. He felt a recorded
agreement would be redundant in that the city already has full access to the property,
however, he would consent to a written agreement. .He felt the culvert could be
removed and the area could be returned to its natural state. He felt the easement
wastes about 1/3 of his property. He indicated that when plans are developed for the
property, the area will be culverted underground and the area in question can be used
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 2
for parking. It was not his intention to build in that area, but he did not want to waste
that much land.
Keith Crowe, Engineering Development Associates, looked at the hydraulics of situation
and analyzed the pipe. He noted that concrete collars and trimmimg the pipe coming in
off the side will solve problems. He noted that hydraulically, the pipe met city standards
and would be acceptable as a private storm drain. While he was not familiar with the
date city standards changed, he felt that when the pipe was installed, corrugated metal
pipe was an acceptable material for a culvert not located within a road right-of-way. He
felt the main reason the pipe was being questioned because inspection was not done on
the pipe when it was installed. He felt the pipe has not shown any signs of failure since
it was installed. He felt the proposed easement take over the property was excessive.
He noted that if an easement is shown over the property, that area does become
available for development in virtually all cases. He pointed out that the pipe was not
intended to take traffic loads, but was adequate for the purposes it is serving. He was
confident that the culvert would hold up under parked vehicles. He felt a 12-foot
easement centered over the pipe area would be appropriate.
Dan Hall, 106 Fel Mar, adjacent property owner, supported applicant's use permit for a
car lot. He noted that a band has been playing in the applicant's building frequently on
Sundays and questioned whether this was allowed under his use permit. He agreed that
a time limit should be set for the applicant to complete work on the drainage. He was
concerned with the common property line he shares with the applicant and felt the use
permit should be monitored on a yearly basis to assure that conditions are being met.
Champ Massey indicated that none of Mr. Hall's tenants have complained about the
band rehearsals. He felt Mr. Hall's concern with noise should be addressed to the
Police Department and not the Planning Commission.
In response to a question from Commr. Kourakis, Mr. Massey felt that since the pipe
was only 4-feet wide, an easement under the guise of access of more than 4-feet wide,
was excessive. He indicated that a recorded agreement would make approximately 36
feet of his property useless. He would prefer to remove the pipe and restore the creek
bed.
Wayne Peterson felt that removing the pipe would not solve the problem of the
easement as it would still be required to the top of creek bank He sketched out how
the easement could be modified.
Mr. Massey indicated that if the city wanted the pipe to remain, he would install the
concrete sleeves. He proposed a statement authorizing the city to enter his property and
indicating he would maintain the pipe and the drainage area. He stated this agreement
l -3a
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 3
would be signed and notarized, but he would not record it so his deed would not be
restricted.
Pamela Ricci reviewed the Architectural Review Commission's action on the project.
Mr. Massey indicated that when the property is developed, the easement issue will have
to be addressed again.
Wayne Peterson indicated that in order for the city to clear debris from the creek, an
easement is required. He felt that a 15-foot easement would be tight, but maintenance
could be done with a temporary easement.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, asked if the culvert is removed and the site is brought
back to its natural state, will the easement still be required? He also asked if it would _
be possible to word the easement to allow flexibility in the future to realign the
easement?
Wayne Peterson indicated that he would still recommend that an easement be required.
Cindy Clemens indicated that the easement could be amended in the future when the
new dimensions are known.
Champ Massey noted that the Planning Commission requirement calls for the city to
maintain the pipe, but the deed restriction calls for him to maintain it. If maintenance
needs to be done in the area, he suggested that he be billed for it.
Chairman Hoffman declared the public hearing closed.
Wayne Peterson clarified that the city would take responsibility for annual maintenance
to assure the creekway is open for drainage purposes, but would not be responsible for
maintenance of the culverted portion.
Commr. Schmidt supported the applicant's suggestion to remove the pipe. He felt the
city's intent should be as spelled out in Jerry Kenny's February 8th memo. He noted
that if future conditions change, reconsideration of the boundaries of the easement
would be in order. He felt the 30-day deadline should refer to doing all the paperwork
and applying for the permit, but not for complying with all conditions of the use permit.
Commr. Kourakis agreed with Commr. Schmidt. She was concerned that the applicant
may not fully understand what is involved in removing the pipe and may, in fact, require
a wider cut through his property. She supported reducing the size of the easement, with
the additional language provided by the City Engineer. She felt this easement would/ e
less thm if the creek were restored. nofi
1-.31
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 4
Terry Sanville suggested that the commission require that the easement be established
from the drainage way to the rear property; that the easement cover from top of bank to
top of bank on unculverted portion of the drainage way; that for the culverted portion of
the drainageway where a 4-foot culvert has been established, that a 15-foot easement be
created; and that for the intersecting pipe that currently exists, that a 10-foot easement
be created; and that themaintenance of the easement area be as established in Jerry
Kenny's memo of February 8, 1991, items 1 and 2, a and b.
Commr. Schmidt did not think the commission had to set sizes for the easement. He
felt the condition which provided for the easement to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director was appropriate in order to afford
flexibility in setting the size of the easement.
Comm'. Williams felt a 36-foot easement was excessive.
Comm'. Peterson moved to continue consideration of Use Permit U1475 and direct staff
to work out an easement with the property owner.
The motion dies for lack of a second.
Commr. Schmidt indicated that if the applicant removed the pipe, he would be free of
condition 3 which called for an inspection of the drainage channel culvert.
Commr. Karleskint indicated that if the property is sold to someone for development,
they should be noticed at the sale, that an easement will be required. He felt this will
have no bearing on the value of the property.
Commr. Kourakis moved to deny the request to delete Condition 6 with direction to
resolve the conflict between the language in the easement and Jerry Kenny's memo of
February 8, 1991; leave the size of the easement open, but note a concern regarding the
need for a 36-foot wide easement over the culvert; and give the applicant 30 days to
complete the signing of the easement.
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion.
Champ Massey noted that Jerry Kenny's May 3, 1991, memo stated that the city desires
that either the drain be removed and the channel restored or provide the easement. He
requested that a motion be made to remove the culvert. He noted that if the city still
has a problem with the easement, he felt it would be better to deny the use permit. He
indicated he would not support the easement as it demeaned his property.
The commission discussed the city's policy of requiring an easement for a drainage area.
/-.32w,
PC Minutes
July i0; 1991
Page 5
AYES'. Kouralds, Schmidt, Karleskint.. Williams, Hoffman.
NOES! Peterson_
ABSENT: Gurnee
The motion passes.
I��
"A city of san tuts OBISPO
®� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Oblspo Municipal Code. the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of T /corlfliAC, �MM;.7.s;pvt rendered
on _ 7Lq �9 lOf
which decision consisted of the following ( i.e.
set forth factual situatlon and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
E-)CLPSsi 1✓2 C4s -rei. e-t + Y a-I'f� IDA- r2�r J
p ro ye.— 1-ti '7�q-
1 7
-1.3 r ...Yco.� .bv: ess yr
(3Z4 S �ro� S+. SLo C,4.
The undersign d discussed the decision being appealed from with:
on
DATE Ii TIME APPEAL RECEIVED• Appellant:
RECEIVED4d�Name T Z66� of 27.
i t
JUL 1 9 1991
Repreirentative
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 081SP0,CA
Address
50 ^
Phone
Original for City Clerk
ao i99/ Copy to City Attorney
Cal da d for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy type following de artment(s) :
ow" D / D
City Clerk,'
RESOLUTION NO. 7023 (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO DENY A REQUEST TO DELETE
CONDITION # 6 OF APPROVED USE PERMIT #1475
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3249 BROAD STREET
BE IT, RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request to
delete Condition # 6, Planning Commission's action, the appeal to
the City Council, and staff recommendations and reports thereon,
denies the appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the
request to delete Condition # 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 based
on .the following findings:
1. The easement requirement called for in Condition
# 6 of approved Use Permit # 1475 is a typical
condition of discretionary use permits and
consistent with Resolution # 5138 that implemented
the city's flood management policy which states
that "the city shall actively seek to obtain
easements and/or ownership for creek access,
maintenance and construction whenever possible and
appropriate.
2. The city's creek dedication policy stipulates that
the property owner shall "dedicate the natural
creek area within his property" as a condition of
approval of projects requiring planning
entitlements other than a building permit or a lot
line adjustment. The property owner's changes to
the site including paving, fencing, landscaping and
modifications to the drainage channel to establish
the automobile sales lot required both a Planning
Commission use permit and architectural review.
These changes constitute substantial improvements
to the site which would require easement dedication
as a condition of development approval.
_ L
R-7023
Resolution No. 7( (1991 Series)
Page Two
3. Approving the request to deny Condition # 6 of
approved Use Permit # 1475 would be a grant of
special privilege and set a precedent inconsistent
with current city policy.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approved Use Permit # 1475
is valid subject to all the original conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5014-90. In addition, the
easement shall be executed and a building permit obtained to
complete other required improvements, consistent with previous
approvals, within thirty (30) days or the use permit will be
revoked.
On motion of Councilwoman Rappa
seconded by Councilman Roalman and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Roalman, Pinard and Reiss
NOES: Mayor Dunin
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20th day
of August , 1991.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Vo es ' —��
Resolution No. 707 ;1991 Series)
Page Three
APPROVED:
I;zA nistrative Officer
WAtttrn$e
Communit D velopment Director
1 .37
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
December 19, 1990
Mr. Charles Massey
844 Escuela
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Subject: ARC 90-25: 3249 Broad Street
Automobile sales lot
Dear Mr. Massey:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December
17, 1990, granted final approval to the above project with the
following items to return to staff in plans submitted for a
building permit:
1. Addition of a temporary irrigation system to accommodate
establishment of proposed vegetation in the open drainage
channel area.
2. Substitution of proposed willows with California Sycamore
trees and additional mid-level height planting in the
drainage channel area.
3 . Indicate how the rear portion of the site will be used,
setbacks from the channel and culvert, and define the car
storage area with curbing and gravel redrock or crushed
granite for its surface.
4. . Retain the fence across the center of the site, but paint or
stain it.
5. A minimum of a 10-foot setback of all trees from the culvert
location.
6. Additional planting along the north property line for
screening.
7. More variety in the plant materials and height installed in
the street yard planters.
S. Security lighting.
9. Retaining wall along the southerly property line may be
redwood.
10. Relocation of the existing wire fence with wooden posts
currently encroaching on the property to the south to the
subject site.
1 -38
Mr. Charles Massey
December 19, 1990
Page 2
11. Trash enclosure location and detail.
12. Buildings on-site to be painted a darker color.
Please note that improvements to the site as shown on plans and
including the above items are to be installed and completed by
June 1, 1991.
The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the
City Clerk within ten day of the date of this letter. An appeal
may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the
commission.
Please note that Architectural Review Commission approval expires
after one year if construction has not started, unless the
commission designated a different time period. On request, the
Community Development Director may grant an extension of up to
one year, but not greater than two years beyond the original date
of ARC approval.
Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are
available.
If you have any questions, please contact Pamela. Ricci at 549-
7168.
Sincerely,
6'tJ57
Ren Bruce
Senior Planner
cc: Steve Pults
/s�a
•':' RECEIvti
CHAMP MASSEY MAY 301991
WHOLESALE CAR COMP41NY
CdY_OfSan LLa 00ma,
3249 Broad Street . Sao Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-4556
FAX(805) 543-4312
May 27, 1991
To: Pam Ricci
From: Champ Massey
Re: Jerry Kenny's letter of May 3rd about my property/business at 3249
Broad St.
Dear Ms. Ricci:
Please :forward this letter to evervone that received a copy of Mr. Kenny's
memo to you.
The general tone of his letter was negative and characteristically con-
descending in nature. "You may wish to consider rescinding his use
permit," and "Massey has been dragging his feet ", etc. , etc. , are not
conducive to progressive conclusions.
Please understand, since being approved by the Planning Commission. . .I
have spent over $15,000, at the direction of the City Planning Staff.
Not one tangible improvement has been accomplished. My asphalt still
needs to be sealed, the buildings still need paint, my business needs a
sign, a retaining wall is yet to be installed, the landscaping remains
unfinished. . . because the City Planning Staff will not allow me to start.
work. The $15,000. , has been virtually wasted and all the studies and
consultants it went for were mostly of a punitive rather than a construc-
tive nature.
I certainly have not been dragging my feet, but my spirit is dragging and
I will not continue on this course. The City Planning Staff and it co-work=
ers seem to operate with dissent and possible contempt for decisions by
the Planning Commission that don't agree with them. This most recent hur-
dle can be blown up by city staff to give an apprearance of defiance to the
whole process, by me. However, it is quite simple. I am more than ready
tar sign a statement giving the City " absolute right to enter my property",
and my agreement to maintain the ditch. To insist on a deed restrictive
easement across 30' by 90' feet will result in only one thing.. . another
financial beating for my family. The irony is the City simply wants to put
enough road blocks in my way so that I don't use the property as a car-lot
and I only bought the property for that very use because the City made me
leave 641 Higuera St. , because it wasn't zoned properly, even though they
issued me a business lic. I sold my lease at 396 Marsh to move to 641
Higuera. The funny thing is the land out here has gone up in value and it's
best use is not a car-lot, but a car-lot pays the bills. I have no idea
CHAMP MASSEY
WHOLESALE CAR COMPA�N
3249 Broad Street . San Lacs Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544.4556
FAX(805) 5434312
page 2, Pam Ricci
what this property will be developed into; however, to restrict it's
future by ruining 2700SF plus about 3000SF behind the area is at best
premature.
I will sell or develop this property on my schedule and I will not be
intimidated by the City anyfurther. To spend over $15,000. to get "per-
mission" to clean the property up (which will cost less than $5000.) for
a use that is not permanent is about all I am willing to waste.
Submitt ,
May 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: ZiPam Ricci
FROM rry Kenny
SUBJE Massey Auto Sales Lot - Drainage Easement
3.249 Broad Street (U1475)
This department feels the drain should either be removed and the
channel restored, or, provide the easement and other remedial
measures to allow the storm drain pipe to stay. Too much staff
time has been spent on this project, considering the work was
done without permits. This battle has been going on for years.
The fact is that the City has no current absolute right to enter
the property as indicated in the letter from Pults (Brent Wiese,
dated 4-30-91)_. Massey has been dragging his feet on this issue
since Jack Kellerman was Chief Building Official. You may wish
to consider rescinding his use permit. I 'm not sure of the
status of the other use permit conditions. You should also
contact Bob Bishop for any other outstanding items related to the
grading permit.
The easement requirement is per Council policy (Pink Book) per
Resolution No. 5138 (1983 Series) . Since they refer to
postponing the easemnt to some future project, it would be no
different then, from now, except we'd have to fight about it
again later and spend MORE TIME.
c: Tom Baasch
P: \Jerry\3249Brod.wp
Ism
April 30, 1991
Pam Ricci
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Massey Auto Lot
3249 Broad Street
Dear Pam,
Our client wishes to return to the Planning Commission to review a specific
condition of the current Use Permit concerning his property. This condition is as
follows:
Use Permit 01475
S. 'The applicant shall dedicate a storm drain maintenance and access
easement over the drainage channel to the approval of the Community
Development Director and Public Works Director.'
Through the approval process, it has been agreed with all concerned parties that
the city will not be responsible for maintenance of the culvert. Champ Massey
has expressed that he currently assumes that responsibility.
It is common knowledge that if and when the need arises, the city can at any time
access any creek in an emergency.
Finally, providing ingress and egress shall always be a concern of the Public
Works Department. Because no work can be done on the site without the
approvals of that department, this concern shall always be part of their review
process.
Therefore our client feels that providing an easement would be a labor of
redundancy that really provides nothing more than what already exists. Champ
understands that as the owner of the property, heis already ultimately
responsible for the maintenance of the culvert. To provide access through the
creek for the city is not needed since they already retain that right.
In regards to providing a condition for ingress and egress, we beliede thV kAs is UP 50•��
not the time. We contend, that if such a condition is important at the time of some
future development, it will become a condition of such. If it is not important,
then the site need not be burdened by an outdated condition.
Architecture,Planning G Grupbia
1401 Higuera Sheet
San Luis Obispo.California 93401 I ,'
8051541.5604 ��+..+/�
If it would facilitate the legal paperwork of the city, Champ is more than willing
to provide a letter concerning °responsibility of maintenance' of the culvert.
But to provide an easement, he feels would economically burden his site.
I appreciate your help in .this matter. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
Brent Wese
cc: Champ Massey
Public Works -
VIII city. o san tuts 'OBISPOA
lab
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
M E M 0
April 12, 1991
TO: Dave Romero, Public Works Director
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Dire r
SUBJECT: Drainage Easement
3249 Broad Street
The Planning Commission approved Use Permit U1475 allowing a used
car lot with condition 6, which requires the applicant to dedicate
a storm drain - maintenance and access easement over the drainage
channel to the approval of the Community Development Director and
Public Works Director.
Your staff has proposed a 36-foot wide easement over the partially
open and partially covered drainage channel. This easement width
and location meets my expectations and receives my approval and
support.
2 Q2t CIL 21. L2+ 22t 2'L!•
Ar
LLM
1 I
I
�`� \ Renese e.+r+cr G1PQd \
I \ � b�t3 wTM��•d�
T I1\ I
I
\ I
�� 2i6 2ii 23 2"t 2n 2�. v'f a 2v12�a 2u 4iQ NST SI /
l�uis oaspocity o sAn
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
FRO Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJE& Drainage Easement for Champ Massey Used Car
Lot at 3249 Broad Street
The Planning Commission approved a use permit for the Champ
Massey Car Sales, subject to granting of a drainage easement and
the pipe size, etc. , meeting City standards to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and issuance of a grading permit.
It has been determined that the pipe size is adequate, but that
there are certain modifications necesary to make the pipe
acceptable even as a "privately" maintained storm drain.
Additionally, our current standards do not allow corrugated metal
pipe (CMP) •
Therefore, since the work has already been done, the Public Works
Director and City Engineer will allow the pipe to remain (after
necessary repairs and issuance of a grading permit by the
Building Division) , but will not accept the pipe for City
maintenance. There is also an existing i8-inch CMP pipe within
the property that drains water from Rockview Place, which was
connected to the 48-inch pipe. We have no record of an easement
to the City for that pipe and assume it was installed by the
property owner and, presumably, existed when the area annexed.
The 48-inch pipe only extends part way through the site, with the
remainder being a trapezoidal open channel, as shown on the
attached grading plan.
Please review the wording of the attached easement required as a
use permit condition to cover:
1. Maintenance of the drainage way by City crews. (routine
clearing to maintain flow, etc. )
2. Maintenance by Massey of:
a) the existing 48-inch pipe structure and the existing IS-
inch pipe structure, and
b) any landscaping and slope protection within the easement.
Attachments: 1. Easement
2. Grading Plan
P: \jerry\Massey.wp
Recording Requested by:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
When Recorded Please Return to:
CITY CLERK
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
--------------Space Above This Line for Recorders Use-----------
GRANT OF EASEMENT APN 004-601-023
DRAINAGE WAY EASEMENT
3249 BROAD ST
Charles Massey and Vivian P. Massey, as GRANTORS, hereby grant to
the City of San Luis Obispo, a Chartered Municipal Corporation,
as GRANTEE,
An easement to maintain a drainage course across the property
described in attached EXHIBIT A, and shown pictorially on
attached EXHIBIT B, together with the right of ingress and egress
through the subject property to said easement.
Provided however that the maintenance of the property, including
existing 48" and 18" corrugated metal pipes, creek-banks, slope
protection, landscaping, weed abatement, etc, shall remain the
responsibility of the GRANTOR; his heirs and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto caused its name to be
subscribed this day of 1991.
Charles Massey Vivian P. Massey
(ATTACH NOTARY CERTIFICATE HERE)
HBp/easement
hb
Massey to City
Drainage Easement
EXHIBIT A
A strip of land, 36 feet wide, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the northwesterly line of lot 20 of the
Yoakum Poultry Unit Tract, City of San Luis Obispo, County of San
Luis Obispo, California as recorded March 11, 1927 in Book 3,
Page 89 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, said line having a bearing of North 57°31' East. Said
point being the most Westerly corner of that parcel of land.
conveyed to Charles Massey and Vivian P. Massey by deed dated
March 27, 1984 and recorded in Volume 2578 of Official Records at
Page 450;
Thence South 320 29 ' East, along the soutwesterly line of said
parcel of land 3.0 feet to a point on said line, said point being
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence, leaving said southwesterly line South 640 55 ' East 172
feet, more or less, to the southeasterly line of said parcel,
thence South 570 31' West along said southeasterly line 40.5
feet, more or less, to a point 36 feet, (measured at right
angles) from the above said northeasterly line of the drainage
easement herein described; thence North 640 55' West 89 feet,
more or less, to the southwesterly line of said parcel of land, .
thence along said southwesterly line 71 feet, more or less, to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said strip of land is shown on attached EXHIBIT B, a part of this
description.
r�
i
I o �
I Q>
e .ry
o U y
O O
1 U o
_ cr
P
cac
$S0 e cn
a�
VP
Lis
LO
Ira U)
CD
w
�CO ;P '
am0
> mA Jam. 0 •-� Ilk
$4.0 w.0 mm m m
o �x ,o
C ¢, a.A .0.y m g M
Cit Cit W �'' O O '00 ra U1
OZ` C>� w 00 �A G M 70 \ \
ofcb iR3 2 om \
ca mOW 'J.,
. �4 � 0.
94as
t.• .. p �"� \ \
x HI.- ds t 0 � ow o wb :xo a4 p»
OD a C b= 0.-4 0 E '
Q 30 ob�isc0va. m•d rc�i.°o� P_