HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/1992, 1 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO REVOKE USE PERMIT U 1475 TO ALLOW AN AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROAD STREET NEAR ORCUTT ROAD (3249 BROAD STREET). ���H�I�����NIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII
city f EM N.UM
DATE:
c� "J o san _ .is oB�spo
I
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director;
ff,.,By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Planning Commission's action to revoke Use Permit U 1475 to
allow an automobile sales lot on the west side of Broad Street near
Orcutt Road (3249 Broad Street) .
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Draft Resolution labeled Exhibit A upholding the Planning
Commission's action revoking Use Permit U 1475 to allow an automobile
sales lot at 3249 Broad Street.
DISCUSSION i
Situation
Champ Massey, the applicant, has failed to comply with some of the
conditions of use permit approval originally granted on April 25, 1989 .
Consistent with Planning Commission and City Council denial of requests
to modify conditions, the use permit was set for hearing before the
Planning Commission to consider its revocation. On January 15, 1992 , the
Planning Commission revoked Use Permit U 1475 due to non-compliance with
•ise permit conditions based on findings. The applicant, Champ Massey,
ippealed the Commission's action on January 24, 1992.
Previous Review
The main concern of the applicant in terms of complying with use permit
conditions has been granting an easement over the water course at the
rear of the site. He submitted letters formally requesting that
Condition # 6 of use permit approval requiring the dedication of a storm
drain maintenance and access easement over the water course be deleted,
and later made a proposal to amend plans to show the water course
completely culverted across the site. Both these requests were denied
by the Planning Commission, and then the City Council on appeal by the
applicant.
The Planning Commission report prepared for the October 23 , 1991 hearing
to consider the culverting of the remainder of the open water course 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.
���������►►►�►Illlilll�n ���llll city of san L oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Use Permit U 1475
Page 2
Background
On November 19, 1991, the City Council considered a request by the
applicant to culvert the water course at the rear of the site completely.
In denying the request, the Council stipulated that the use permit would
be revoked if all conditions of use permit approval were not complied
with within 30 days. Since all of the conditions were not fully complied
with within the specified 30-day compliance period, the use permit was
scheduled for a revocation hearing before the Planning Commission, and
now on appeal, before the City Council.
On September 30, 1991, the applicant obtained a building permit for
improvements to the front portion of the site (Phase I, including the
proposed cross-lot fence and everything to the east of it) . The idea
behind phasing the project was to allow some project improvements to
proceed, and legitimize other site changes that already occurred, while
the culverting proposal was being reviewed. Some minor changes to the
site have occurred including removal of the posts holding up the hemp
rope fence behind the sidewalk that used to encroach into the City's
right-of-way (P.C. Res. 5014-90, Condition # 7) and installation of a
redwood retaining wall along the southerly property line (Condition 9 of
ARC approval letter) . However, Building Division records indicate that
no requests for inspections of work included on the Phase I permit have
been made as of the date of this report. A building permit is valid for
a year beyond the date of issuance if an inspection is requested within
the first 180 days. To keep the permit valid, an inspection needs to be
requested prior to March 28, 1992.
Issuance of the building permit needed to authorize the work for the rear
portion of the site (Phase II) has been held up pending resolution of the
drainage easement terms and conditions. The applicant has indicated that
he will not dedicate an easement over the culvert and water course that
were shown on approved plans. A modified easement with a narrower
easement width over the culverted portion of the water course (15 feet,
rather than the 36-foot width required over the open portions of the
water course) was also considered unacceptable to the applicant.
Looking at specific use permit conditions, the applicant has not fully
complied with Condition 4 (striping parking to City standards) , Condition
6 (easement over the water course) , Condition 9 (fire hydrant
installation) and Condition 10 (ARC approval compliance) . Project
components that need to be completed to comply with ARC approval include:
submittal of a financial instrument to guarantee future installation of
landscaping; cross-lot fence shown as part of Phase I improvements;
grading, curbing and addition of base material to improve the rear area
(Phase II improvements) ; painting of the building and striping of parking
spaces.
���j��inuilililllllll ijj �IIIIDI city of san ; s OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Use Permit U 1475
Page 3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5081-92 revoking the use permit cited
non-compliance with Conditions 4 , 6,9 and 10 of Use Permit U 1475. Staff
has modified the first finding in the attached Resolution "A" to delete
reference to condition 4 and 9 since they are technically part of the
work included on the building permit already issued and that permit has
not expired. The building permit did not specify a more accelerated
compliance period even though expeditious compliance was inferred from
past actions of the Planning Commission and ARC. Because of the number
of requests for condition changes and subsequent appeals, dates for
compliance were extended until hearings on the requests were conducted,
and in some cases, are no longer meaningful. For example, ARC approval
indicated that all improvements were to be installed by June 1, 1991. j
ALTERNATIVES
1. If the Council wishes to consider a lesser easement requirement, it
is recommended that you adopt the draft resolution labeled Exhibit B,
upholding the appeal and setting an appropriate time frame for
compliance with use permit conditions, including a 15-foot drainage
easement, and a condition that all culverts on the property shall be
removed and the site shall be restored to a condition acceptable to
the Public Works Department.
i
2 . Continue with direction to the staff and appellant.
i
Attached: Draft Resolutions
Chronology of Events
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5081-92
City Council Resolution No. 7053
Appeal to City Council received 1-24-92
11-19-91 City Council minutes
10-23-91 Planning Commission minutes
10-23-91 Planning Commission report and attachments
1-15-92 Planing Comassion minutes (to be distributed under separate
cover)
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
TO REVOKE USE PERMIT U 1475 FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT
ON 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 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 revoke Use Permit U 1475, based on the following
findings:
1. The applicant has failed to comply with use permit
conditions in a timely manner, specifically Condition .6
(easement over the water course) and Condition 10 (ARC
approval compliance) .
2 . Continuation of the use at the site without compliance with
conditions is in violation of Section 17 .56. 010 B.
(compatibility concerns of the "S" overlay zone) and
17.58. 070 (compliance with use permit conditions) .
3 . 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" .
4. 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
proposed changes to the site including paving, fencing,
landscaping and modifications to the drainage channel to
establish an automobile sales lot, required both a Planning
Commission use permit and architectural review. These
changes constitute substantial improvements to the site
1 -Jq
Resolution No.
Page 2
which would require easement dedication as a condition of
development approval.
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 , 1992 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
1-�
Resolution No.
Page 3
WWIIAt-Vrn4l
Community Develo ent Director
1-�
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. (1992)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO REVOKE USE PERMIT U 1475
FOR AN AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT ON 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 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 revoke Use Permit #1475, based on the
following findings:
1. A narrower easement over the water course than originally
required will not adversely affect the health, safety and
welfare of persons residing on the site or in the
vicinity given the level of development currently
approved for the property, and will be adequate for
routine clearing of the channel to maintain drainage
flows.
2 . A narrower easement over the water course than originally
required will not be a grant of special privilege and
will not set a precedent inconsistent with current city
policy, given the level of development currently approved
for the property. An additional easement and/or
improvements may be required as a condition of any future
development or change of use.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approved Use Permit #1475 is
valid subject to all the original conditions contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 5014-90. Provided however,
1. a modified easement of fifteen (15) feet as set forth in
the attached Exhibit 1 shall be executed and returned to
the City;
2. the existing culverts on the property shall be removed
and the site shall be restored to a condition acceptable
to the Public Works Department;
3 . a building permit shall be obtained to complete all
required improvements, consistent with previous
approvals.
�- I
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
The above conditions shall be complied with within sixty (60)
days or the use permit will be revoked.
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 Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
Cts.
City Administ ator
t orn
Community Dev '1 went Director
/� 13
Recording Requested by:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
When Recorded Return to:
CITY CLERK
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
- - - - Space Above This Line for Recorder 's Use - - - - - -
APN 004-601-023
3249 Broad Street
GRANT OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT
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. GRANTEE shall be
responsible for routine clearing of the channel to maintain
drainage flows, with the right to make improvements.
Provided, however, that the maintenance of the property,
including but not limited to, creek banks, slope protection,
landscaping, and weed abatement, shall remain the responsibility
of the GRANTOR, his heirs, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto caused its name to be
subscribed this day of , 1992 .
Charles Massey ' Vivian P. Massey
(Attach Notary Certificate Here)
eb2Aamoesmt
by
EXHIBIT 1
1 - 9
EXHIBIT "A"
A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, 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, State of 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 57031 ' East,
said corner being the most northwesterly 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 32029 ' East along the Southwesterly line of
said parcel of land 14 feet to a point on said line, said point
being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE, leaving said Southwesterly line South 64055 ' East
161. 13 feet, more or less, to the Southeasterly line of lot 22 of
said Yoakum Poultry Unit Tract, thence along the Southeasterly
line of said lot 22, 17.77 feet; thence North 64055 ' West 84
feet; thence South 570 31 ' West 23 . 60 feet, more or less, to a
point on the Westerly line of said parcel of land conveyed to
Charles and Vivian P. Massey; thence North 32029 ' West 15 feet
along said line; thence North 57031 ' East 14 . 06 feet; thence
North 64055' West 26. 22 feet, more or less, to said westerly line
of the land conveyed to Charles and Vivian P. Massey; thence
along said line 27 .97 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
nb3/massey-cesc
by
• e
k N
S�tee
co
M cot
• � � � GS L7
r
C CO) \
cm
W4 0
..
wcv Qy/ 1
.••1O 4 � O r. '� O •[ F' GOO
ca
O L12 r7 � •` C �C � GG.0 Q � C A Q sp
0..+ •C O L. L' �t` � � y 'r OHO D � � O
OW O
CQ
M
ypOOw. I. 04
CHAMP MASSEY CAR SALES
3249 BROAD STREET
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
■ 6-21-84 Letter sent by City to Champ Massey regarding
required permits to establish car sales.
■ 11-25-87 Letter sent from Assistant Attorney regarding
illegal grading.
■ 1-3-90 Letter from Zoning Investigator regarding
processing requirements for site changes to
accommodate car sales.
■ 1-23-90 Champ Massey filed application for use permit.
■ 4-25-90 Planning Commission approval of Use Permit
U 1475.
■ 12-17-90 ARC granted final approval of plans.
■ 2-2-91 Building permit ready for issuance, except for
execution of drainage easement.
■ 6-1-91 Deadline imposed by ARC for installation of
improvements.
■ 7-10-91 Planning Commission denied request by Champ
Massey to eliminate drainage easement
requirement (Condition # 6).
■ 8-20-91 City Council denied request to delete Condition
# 6.
■ 10-23-91 Planning Commission denied request by Champ
Massey to culvert remainder of open drainage
channel.
■ 10-31-91 Champ Massey filed appeal of Planning
Commission's 10-23-91 action.
■ 11-19-91 City Council denied appeal.
■ 1-15-92 Planning Commission revoked Use Permit U 1475.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5081-92
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 January 15, 1992, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under application No. U1475 by Charles Massey, applicant.
USE PERMIT REVOKED:
To allow a car sales lot.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
3249 Broad Street.
EXISTING 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 applicant has failed to comply with use permit conditions in a timely manner,
specifically Condition 4 (striping parldng to City standards), Condition 6
(easement over the water course), Condition 9 (fire hydrant installation) and
Condition 10 (ARC approval compliance).
2. Continuation of the use at the site without compliance with conditions is in
violation of Section 17.56.010 B. (compatibility concerns of the "S" overlay zone)
and 1758.070 B. (compliance with use permit conditions).
Resolution No. 5081-92
Use Permit U1475
Page 2
3. 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".
4. 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 proposed changes to the site including paving,
fencing, landscaping and modifications to the drainage channel to establish an
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.
NOW,.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 1475 be
revoked.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by Commr. Williams,
and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Cotnmrs. Kourakis, Williams, Schmidt, and Karleskint
NOES: Commr. Kourakis
ABSENT: Commrs. Gurnee and Hoffman
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: January 15, 1992
/—1 Aq
RESOLUTION NO. 7053 (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. Findincs. 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 a 1475, based on the following findings:
1. The easement requirement called for in Condition 4 6 of
approved Use Permit n 1475 is a typical condition of
discretionary use permits and consistent with Resolution
a 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 .
R-7053
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 IT 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 Councilman Roalman
seconded by . Councilwoman RaDDa , and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pinard, Rappa, Roalman
NOES: Councilmember Reiss and *Mayor Dunin
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 19th day
of November , 1991.
l
Mayor RON DUNIN
ATTES
U S
City Clerk pAm v0
/_/®
APPROVED:
ty A inistrative Officer
it tt me
1
Community Develo went Director
1-17
� a
of sAn luis 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 Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappsalsfromthe decision of The Planning Commission
rendered on 1/15/92 which decision consisted of the following (I.e. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
Please see 3 pages attached. Thanks.
The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with:
on
DATE &TiME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant:
Charles Champion -Massey
- I VED Name/Me
self
epresen e
CITY (;LCRK
041SP(]. CA 1 10 R1 Cnm;no Real SL0,93405
rBSS s
544-4556
Phone
Original to City Gerk
t City Attomey
Calerxiared for . = Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
/46
CHA- IP �IASSEY
WHOLESALE CAR CWIPA1\Y
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 5444556
FAX (805) 543-4312
In making every effort to resolve this situation without litigation,
I must vehemently appeal the Planning Commission's decision of 1/15/92
to revoke my "use permit" at 3249 Broad St.
Please refer to Resolution No.#5081-92. Item #1 indicates I failed to
comply with conditions other than the "Drainage Ditch Easement Predic-
ament" on a timely basis. Specifically cond.#4 (striping parking to
City standards), cond.#9 (fire hydrant installation) and cond.#10(ARC
approval compliance). The staff report that influenced the commission
neglected to state that my building permit to complete these items was
issued 9/30/91 and that it is good for 6 months without inspection and
for 1 year with an inspection within the first 6 months. I have certain-
ly not failed to perform on a timely manner. The staff report also made
it appear the property had no fire hydrant and one needed to be install-
ed. Lie have a perfectly good working hydrant, already. The permit re-
quires that one be discarded and a newer, up-graded model be installed.
Comms.Schmidt, Williams, Karleskint and Peterson seemed to be concerned
or at least swayed by the staff's maladroit report. Ironically, Commr.
Peterson was the only vote in my favor. He simply saw the, easement de-
mand as excessive and unnecessary.Commr. Kourakis's motion to revoke my
use permit died for lack of a second. However with coaching from the
city planning staff and Commr. Kourakis's explanation to Commr. Williams
that she wasn't really voting to put me out of business and that the
council or the courts should ultimately decide. . .she seconded the motion
and Commrs. Schmidt and Karleskint made it 4 to 1.
In Item#2 it would be interesting to note that the very reason I located
the business at 3249 Broad St. was to accommodate the city, who had iss-
ued me a business license to operate a used car lot at 641 Higuera St.
The city said they had done so in error and I would have to leave. How-
ever, I had sold my lease at 396 Marsh St. and could not "leave". After
talking to Greg Smith in Planning, he assured me . . . if I bought and moved
to 3249 Broad St. (Al's Brake Shop for 25 years). . .my used car business
would be welcomed. The location was not as good but I shut down the 641
Higuera location and moved out to 3249 Broad St. He never mentioned that
the city would one day require me to render worthless over 147 of the
property that I struggled to buy and have been paying $1968. per month
ever since, plus over $2000. , per year in property taxes. I did not sue
the city for making me move from the most profitable location I had ever
had, most people including the city attorney expected me to.
Please continue on page #2 of this request for appeal. Thank you.
/-/9
CHA1 IP I. E1
'WHOLESALE CAR (1W1P\:XY
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-4556
FAX(805) 543-4312
page #2 of request for appeal. . .Champ Massey's business.
In Item #3. .."the city shall actively seek to obtain easements and/
or ownership for creek access, maintenance and construction whenever
possible and appropriate".. .
I have tried. I offered to sign a recorded document giving the city
absolute right of entry to the drainage ditch area. That was refused.
I offered to leave the ditch area as is without any changes (additional)
and to remove the 40' of controversial culvert in lieu of an easement
at this time. That was refused. I met with the Director of Public
Works, an agreement was reached allowing the city a 15' easement across
the drainage channel and allowing me use of my property. This was
accomplished with a 48" concrete culvert that I would have installed
along the length of the drainage ditch and then back-fill dirt over it.
I would have been allowed to use it for parking but not build over it.
I thought this situation was a fair compromise and I enjoyed talking and
working with Dave Romero, as I found him quite courteous, professional
in manner and focused on getting his objectives accomplished. It was
apparent to me that he had no hidden agenda. My optimism diminished
when Arnold Jonas decided he wasn't happy;however, his department did
not voice any disagreement until after I had the researdzwork requested
by Mr. Romero completed. That extra $2000. , was added to the more than
$22,000. I had already spent in preparing this "Use Permit Process". All
consultant reports and findings that were not negative to me in nature
were disregarded by the planning staff and not ever used in any recommen-
dations to ei:ther, the Planning Commission or the City Council. Basically
the planning staff (Community Development) is out of control. Mr.Jonas
knows 36' with 2 10' setbacks is ridiculously excessive and in no way
relates to similar treatment of other landowners in the area, yet his
staff is directed to have you (the Council/Planning Comm. ) believe other-
wise.
In Item #4. ..the property owner shall "dedicate the natural creek
area within his property". . .The easement demanded is more than twice
the natural creek boundaries. I will be glad to show any member of the
Council this personally. My project has nothing to do with the drain-
age ditch channel area as my car lot is in the front portion of the land.
Please continue on page #3 of this request for appeal. Thanks again.
�as
CHAT �L-1SSE�
'INI-IULESALE CAR (1O)IPA:\1Y
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 5444556
FAX (805) 543-4312
page #3 of request for appeal. . . Champ Massey's business.
Mr. Jonas says he doesn't know if this is a drainage ditch, a creek
or a river. . . it is a waterway. As a waterway, all means do justify
the ends.
This has very little to do with access or maintenance, because their
is no reasonable doubt that the city can't accept a simple written
statement recorded to the deed giving it this forever. This has more
to do with arrogance and retaliatory punishment for differing political
views. For example, I know Bill Roalman is simply vindictive and in
my case is using his office for his own personal reasons and that his
judgement is prejudiced. I did not feel this way until the last meet-
ing of the Council concerning the appeal from the Planning Commission
on the culvert/easement issue. He came to me a few days before the
meeting and promised his fair and unbiased judement. . . he further said
he was not in favor of the culvert, but would agree the easement was
unnecessary.. . and that if I would leave the ditch open, he would make
a motion to forget the easement until a project was proposed for that
area and then the easement issue would be addressed. In the meeting
he did the complete opposite, his word meant nothing. I will ask him
to disqualify himself this time.
My business is a good neighbor and it houses some very special people.
Todd Lack, one of my best friends, has worked with me since he was a
teenager, he was 30 in Dec. Todd is mentally retarded. Ralph Jones
has been with me for a few years, he replaced Ken Gross, who retired
but had been with me from the start. They are recovering alcoholics.
Ralph handles all the driving, we pick-up and deliver cars through out
California. He uses only AA members, we've had no accidents or moving
violations and we have sold over 17,000 cars. We provide some recreation
for the kids in the area and we allow the neighbors to use our lot for
guest parking when they have an occasional party. My bookkeeper, Burton
Woodward has been doing my books for over 10 years, he is also AA.
My father-in-law is our salesman(retail) and my high school sweetheart
and wife for 21 years has worked with me since our son started school.
He is 15 years old, in the 10th grade at SLOHS and 6'5" tall and weighs
223 pounds. . . he helps Todd wash cars when he isn't at "football prac-
tice."
The stress and pressure of this entire ordeal has been punishing,
but alot of people depend on me and I will not let them down. I will
stand and- fight in any arena to keep my business and my property.
Thanks, . - -
Champ Massey
Drat+ Minutes
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, November 19, 1991 -7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. APPEAL -3249 BROAD STREET- U 1475 (File No. 407)
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Champ Massey of a Planning Commission 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).
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the agenda report (File No. 407) with`the
recommendation that.Council adopt Resolution A In the packet upholding the Planning Commission's action
to deny a request to culvert the remainder of the open drainage channel across the site.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
Champ Massey,133011 Camino Real,spoke on behalf of his appeal. He'felt that the size of the easement was
too large.
Srer*Wiese
representing the applicant, also urged Council's support of their appeal.
Karen
r� r�epresenting Fish and Game, supported the City's policy to require setbacks and easements
and urged the Council to deny the appeal.
Lidle Johnston. Brook$ Street, also spoke in support of the City upholding its policy to require setbacks.
Champ Massey spoke again to clarify that it was his understanding that Fish and Game had stated that there
was no natural habitat in this (what he considered to be) drainage ditch.
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Reiss did not feel that the City should require the easement prematurely. It would probably
become residential at some point later when the project was rezoned or became some other use and it could
be Incorporated as part of the project. He recommended that the City not require the easement until a specific
project is identified.
Councilman Roalman felt the City should be consistent with how other property owners downstream had been
treated and require the drainage to be included within an easement.
Mayor Dunin supported the appeal.
After discussion, moved by Roalman/Ranna. Resolution No. 7053 (3-2 Cotincilmembers Reiss and Mayor
Dunin voting no) was adopted to uphold the Planning Commission action denying request to culvert the
remainder of the open drainage channel across the site as recommended.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. ORCUTT ti (File No.463)_.
Council held a conceptual review of development of property at 953 Orcutt Road (Orcutt II); Norman Becko,
owner/subdivider.
1-a�
P .'C. Minutes
October 23 , 1991
Page 4 .
He believed an added foot did provide more safety to children and
keeping animals in and out . He said he could support 1-foot of
lattice work above the 4-foot solid fence , if the homeowners
association would approve the lattice work .
Commr . Williams said she could also support a 5-foot fence with 1 -
foot of lattice , if a condition was added that the area inbetween the
sidewal-k and fence be landscaped .
Commr . Williams moved to grant the appeal of the hearing officer ' s
action to allow a 5-foot fence with 4-feet of solid wood and 1-foot of
lattice work on the condition that the 4 feet inbetween the sidewalk
and the fence be landscaped according to Community Development
Department guidelines .
Commr . Gurnee seconded the motion . Resoluton N. 5072-91 , and asked
that a condition be added stating that if the homeowners association
does not approve the 1-foot of lattice work on top of a 4-foot fence ,
the appellant would have to abide by the hearing officer ' s decision of
a 4-foot fence .
Commr . Williams agreed to the added condition mentioned by Commr .
Gurnee . She amended her motion to include a charge freW four feet to
five feet in the first sentence in Condition 1 . and a change from 4
5 feet in Condition 2 .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Williams , Gurnee , > arleskint . and Eo`fmar .
NC•ES - Commr . Kour ak i s .
3BSE\T - Commrs . Peterson ani': Sc^;rid+ .
The motion passed .
------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2 . Use Permit U1475 . Review of conditionally approved use
permit allowing a car sales lot : 3249 Broad Street ; C-C-S
zone ; Charles Massey.; applicant . (Use permit approved April
29 , 1990 ; reviewed July 10 , 1991 )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and explained-that the applicant
is requesting to underground an existing--drainage swale to reduce the
width of the easement required . He recommended that the Commission
deny the request and require the drainage swale to remain open . and
that the Commission amend Condition 6 of Resolution No . 5014-90 to
require that all conditions of the use permit be met in 30 days .
In answer to a question by Commr . Gurnee , Jerry Kenny , representing
the Public Works Department , explained that the department is
agreeable to the culvert remaining in its present (partially
culverted , partially open) condition if certain repairs to pipe joir
and the connection between this pipe and a smaller pipe were complet
as previously explained to Mr . Massey . He said the city would accept
the open swale in dedication but not the portion currently underground
P.C. Minutes
October 23 , 1991
Page 5 .
unless Mr . Massey rebuilt the underground channel with the city
inspecting the pipe during construction. He said an easejuent width of
36 feet would be required for the open swale section with a reduced
easement width of 10-15 feet required over the underground pipe .
Jeff Hook explained that Mr . Massey proposed replacing a metal
drainage pipe with a concrete culvert and agreed to a 15-foot wide
easement , but that he was still planning to put the entire culvert
underground. In answer to a question by Commr . Kourakis , Mr . Hook
said Mr . Massey ' s letter does not satisfy all staff ' s concerns .
Cindy Clemens advised that the findings in the resolution passed by
the City Council regarding the. city ' s authority to require easements
could be included by the Planning Commission in its decision.
Chairman Hoffman opened the .public hearing .
Champ Massey , 844 Escuela Court , applicant , said earlier this summer .
everyone -- including the City Council -- felt a 36-foot wide
easement was excessive . He added that he understood the planning
staff was also requiring 10-foot setbacks from the top of bank . making
the easement 56 feet wide . He said his understanding was that he was
to negotiate the easement size with Public Works . He said he
preferred that the swale be culverted across the entire site to allow
transporters to unload cars and it would benefit the neighbors because
it would cut down on mosquito infestation. He explained the ditch was
not natural but was formed by backfilling in another area . He said
after 522 . 000 in consultant fees and 18 months he had worked out a
deal with David Romero only to find out that the Public Works and
Community Development Departments do not agree . He said he was
willing to install a 48-inch culvert the entire length of the Property
and give the city a 15-foot wide easement . He felt the culvert was
not a creek because it was not a natural waterway , and said that there
was no water in the culvert . He said about 50 percent of the drainage
ditch is underground in on nearby sites . He said all his neighbors
supported his proposal . He presented a petition signed by all
neighbors who border the property and several others who live on
Rockview .
Brent Wiese . 1401 Higuera , applicant ' s representative , requeste-d the
rest of the swale be culverted to the satisfaction of-- Public Works .
He said the main question was regarding the size of the drainage
easement , and that Mr . Massey had agreed to a 15-foot wide easement .
He pointed out that staff refers to it as a drainage channel not a
waterway .
Dan Hall , 106 Fel Mar , said he was concerned about dirt placed along
the property line falling onto his property . He said he was concerned
about water exiting an underground pipe from the Massey property and
damaging his property . He said if the culvert could be designed so
that it would not damage his property , he would not be against
underground culverting. He said there is water in the drainage Swale :
and he has made the swale an attractive part of his apartment complex
P. C. Minutes
October 23 , 1991
Page 6 .
by planting and placement of rocks in the channel . He felt a
retaining wall needed to be put up to keep the dirt off of his
property. He said he was more concerned with the retaining wall than
the swale issue .
Jerry Benny said there would be a requirement that water be slowed
down in the underground culvert to prevent damage to the adjoining
property .
Champ Massey said the retaining wall is included in his plans and he
has just received approval to start the wall , but he -felt the
easements the city was requiring conflict with his plans to build a
retaining wall .
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing .
Jeff Rook explained the 10-foot setback was from the top of bank to
the nearest parking area .
Jerry Kenny explained if the extension of the culvert is approved , it
will cause some delay because it will have to go to the U . S . Corps of
Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game .
In response to a question of Comr�r . � :
1liams , Jeff flock said that Mr
Hall has building foundations near the Swale . but he did not know
exactly where those foundations were . He showed an exhibit showing
which sections of the swale are open and which are culverted . Ee sa
the drainage swale was required to remain open in a recent cend0min:u_
project for aesthetic value .
:er- Kenny said he belie-,-ed the City Council questioned the easement
but did accept it .
Commr . Gurnee felt that : because he was the person who moved for
approval of Mr . Massey ' s use permit subject to the condition of
dedicating an easement over an open swale , because this was initiated
by the city as a code enforcement , the property may not always be a
car iot , and because the request appeared to be a disregard of use
permit conditions previously approved , he could find no reason to
disagree with staff ' s recommendation to deny the applicant ' s request .
3e added-he hoped all city departments would uphold conditions on use
permits granted by the Planning Commission.
Commrs . Kourakis and Karleskint agreed with Commr . Gurnee . Commr .
bourakis said the Commission has required other property owners to
keep the swale open and provide planting .
Commr . bourakis moved to deny- the request to : culvert the remainder of
the open drainage channel across the site ; and to revoke use permit if
all conditions of use permit approval are not fully complied with
within 30 days as stated on page 5 of the staff report , including the
retaining wall be built .
I-aS
P. C. Minutes
October 23 , 1991
Page 7 .
Commr . Gurnee seconded the motion, Resolution EQ. 5073-91 , and asked
that the motion be changed to state if use permit conditions were not
complied with in 30 days , revocation procedures would commence .
Commr . Kourakis agreed to the change .
Commr . Karleskint said that he would support the motion . He noted
that Mr . Massey said the use was a temporary use according to the
minutes of July 10 , 1991 .
In answer to a question by Commr . Gurnee about . whether the applicant
could complete the work in 30 days if permits had not yet been issued ,
Jerry Kenny said the grading permit is close to: being approved .
Commr . Gurnee suggested changing the motion to requiring use permit
conditions to be complied with in 45 days .
Arnold Jonas advised that the City Council had specified the 30 days
in its resolution.
Commr . Kourakis said she would leave the time limit at 30 days .
Cindy- Clemens advised the City Council condition stated the easement
shall be executed and a building permit obtained to complete other
required improvements within 30 da.,s .
Commr . Karleskint suggested including the City Council ' s Findings 1
and 2 .
Commr . Kourakis amended her motion to add City Council ' s Findings 1
and 2 and the Condition in Section 2 to the Planning Commission' s
conditions .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Gurnee . Karleskint . Williams ,
and Hoffman.
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commr . Peterson and Schmidt .
The motion passed .
_ -------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 3 . Use Permit U1529 . Request to allow a new restaurant and
office project ; 179 North Santa Rosa Street ; C-R-S zone ;
Steiner Properties (Roger Steiner ) , applicant .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4 . Street Abandonment . Request to abandon a portion of Boysen
Avenue near North Santa Rosa Street ; C-R-S zone ; Steve
Frank , applicant .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hook presented the staff report and said staff ' s main concern is
traffic and circulation. He recommended the applicant fund a post
MEETING DATE:
��� � i►lulll!i!IIII►° ��"'III � ,o -Z3-91
Cl o san �S OBISpO ITEM NUMBER:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT -2-
BY:
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.
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.
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 proposed 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 Staffs 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).
i-a9
U 1475
Page 4
City Staff's Position regarding the culverting
Public Works and Community Development are not unified in their position regarding
proposed culverting. As indicated in the attached letter from Dave Romero to Champ
Massey dated September 12, 1991, Public Works supports extension of the culvert subject
to plans for the culvert being prepared and reviewed through appropriate city processes.
Jerry Kenny's memo of October 17, 1991 also points out that the grading work involved
with culvert installation needs to be done to the standards included in the City's Grading
Ordinance. The Building Division (memo from Bob Bishop dated October 14, 1991) also
points out that existing and proposed fill material associated with culverting needs to be
properly compacted.
Community Development Department (CDD) staff continues to advocate leaving the
channel open to the extent that it currently is. It is the position of CDD staff that an open
channel can serve the dual purpose of flood control and open space. From the CDD staff s
perspective, the channel should be viewed as a resource potential. While the drainage
channel does not currently provide a high habitat value, it has the potential to be a viable
riparian corridor with sensitive landscaping treatment. In addition, CDD staff feels that the
enhanced drainage channel will provide a visual amenity that is both useful and attractive.
CDD staff supports the open channel as the environmentally superior alternative.
An open channel is also consistent with City policy. Resolution No. 5138 that implemented
the city's flood management policy includes the provision that:
"It shall be the policy of the City that waterways and adjacent lands be generally
managed to:
1. Maintain the creeks in natural state to the maximum extent feasible
(emphasis added);
2. Prevent the loss of life from flooding; and
3. Minimize damage from flooding."
Other pertinent policies included in the City's "1983 Waterway Management Guidelines"
include:
5a. 1 ) Natural. The natural earth channel is the most desired solution where right-
of-way and storm velocity permit. Banks shall be planted with a low-growing
ground cover for both aesthetic and drainage control purposes.
6. Construction of culverts, bridges or structures, in or over waterways, shall be
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 rise
of water surface and damage to adjacent or downstream properties.
130
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 staff's 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 Commission 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
/-31
VICINITY MAP
3249 BROAD ST.
ARC 90-25
U 1475
0 SSS cy •_ sc��
OO� X60•57
3yO y<°L I 014-
U1421
Y O ORF. ARG
E'
C
• •.Tj C} y 'CR 1074 7!9 B•4•_C4
O nc iso
9 d,
O , l002� 76
k3�q a L.tA e
e(CO e•77
V950 ` RI25
O2 (pP- O UOSx ER t:
O � � gRGA•313
O
i
p'd
G a
C \
� � 7
•:•:r q{f;pry,
iL
kr• k'l�.My� • y
..y„ ''•w•IF:i. Y':Yi.Jy; �+r{.rF, • J
•.:::v. gip..::!/"�.>Y:•'. .'•i{�:r:Y•-5� • 3�a
"751 r•,:;. 'rY'FJlrk.:i,'l,:i:::{i{ 'i+Sxi:#}""•:Z :•: • 6
2 f{:{vY:: �:... . S.v:?'F.{y..J':,.Y:YFr ::::+.;.. ..;:!.Y:irr .vl.. J •
O O Y: .:•:+n::y:Yii:Rilr.ti.• :.:::::Y y:;{ +{.....7-%{::{.;{?.. :•�:`.; :{r. �!� • b
.,:.•:Jjy{�F�+c v.::�r+;4`•��`' `�' •�'� ��e�. r `gar i
. J.irv'+[n.{�.vri:+t'�.rA..Y � • J c ' e'er
O 'Yr �,�pjF,.�:':K�;�M-`}r<'^.7Y+d r✓:V'� ��.p tJ •
hiN„v,y _i••\ •
O ' •
2 C
O 's
3 7� 2O9 T•b � 3r
sp
O
'�-
root III � i'i
9
D
1
F � v
T i
i
i Ell It
t ' �� i!41 I
C
S
4
r
�9
=v �
�F
i
s i
° e QC O
nn
nm
�� Y Ir "jam �i S1e11°7J11P1(ICCtuA&ASA7CWeS
�i
� ..wa"°garlll
OM
e
ailoom
��F-ii
� r
Si
y •' I '
S
\ q rr
S I S
I
tq
I
u
T..
r � o
la�� gi i 7w 11 �(k
Esq
® 1 N•• M •V / .Y. ...�
1 00, I I ? Ir
!iidsd� f� -':i y�a� 4 j; 19� ia a it tit# �:
j5� `s� € �' I it int -' q"4 ;
_ � t
ov
om
StenenDfti es
.
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
Dear Pam:
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
Architecture,Planning&Grapbics
1401 Higuera Steel
Saar Luis Obispo.California 93401
805/541-5609 1-3S
October 17 , 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
FROMJerry Fenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
I
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, sObject 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.
/-3�
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
1-3'7
WHOLES.UE CAR COMP.k11'
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
(805) 544-4536
FAX (805) 543-4312
9/9/91
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
995 Morro St.
SLO,Ca. ,93=01
Atten: *ir. David Romero, Director, Public Works Department
Dear Ms: Romero,
Thanks for meeting with me this morning concerning the Drainage/Easement
problem on my Broad St. co:..nercial .property. The situation we were able
to work out is livable for both the city and me. I am greatly relieved
to be able to continue my business, while finally resolving this Easement �r ,
without a costly and stressful court battle.
In the meeting we agreed that I would extend the culvert the gth of the
drainage ditch. Also, I would use concrete culvert after 40' of steel
culvert, which is flow �soem is after-it meets P=Ile: Wdrks—=-
9pections. We agreed that I would give the City a 10' Bement for drain–
age and maintence 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.
Asper. your, instructions;-_ coita_�i;;.Ll�.e_Eagineerst today_ and. have.them_;
get."Plans""arid;Profiles= to your office• as. quickly,tias.:. possible
ThankS.:f0. treatin ;P'-e SO COt7rteDL2s� T '^s'�'^
$.�_ _ ,.��sf3rt+ffl•SieE a� p� a�c9IDD.
lis a uzckly dwsimply,.vhea_both� parties'"are• serio`u yet Band
reasofi
..I!se.
Sincere
P Mass
cc fi is & Associates (Brent)
* SUb)e,f
to r+o r1 a c I'c`y r tv i s &I
a K d ap/br"'a i pro wPS 5.
1-38
city osAn tuis oBispo
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
�C:iis�
David F. Romero, Director
Public Works Department
is `
C: Wayne Peterson f
m•••eylO�ri'..2
I-39
����D�I�Ii�ill��Illllll����l���ii►iil�I SII city of sAn kft oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
May 2, 1990
Mr. Charles C. Massey
844 Escula Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit U1475; 3249 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Massey:
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.
/-N
S'ince�ely, t1
Arnold B. Jona.0 Director
Community Deve pment
Attachment: Resolution No. 5014-90
cc: Pults S Associates
H10 O
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 working in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
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.
I-�3
Resolution No. 5014-90
Use Permit U1475
Page 3
10. The applicant shall submit plans for review by the Architectural Review
Commission which carefully examine landscape buffering aroutyhe 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 Cotnmr. Gurnee, seconded by Commr.
Hoffman, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Gurnee, Hoffman, Billington, Karlesldnt, and Peterson
NOES: Comm . Schmidt
ABSENT: Commr. Kouralds
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: April 25, 1990
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-S-S 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 swale 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 shoulH
be reduced to a height of 3 '-4 ' above grade. He felt the existing culve
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. had
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.
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
1- ' 7
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 trimm_img 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
Lin
� � 70
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 wouldI/be
less tWm if the creek were restored. not
I-Af9
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 the maintenance 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.
Commr. Williams felt a 36-foot easement was excessive.
Commr. 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.
I X600
PC Minutes
July 10, 1991
Page 5
AYES: Kourakis, Schmidt, Karleskint, Williams, Hoffman
NOES: Peterson
ABSENT: Gurnee
The motion passes.
city of san Wis OBISPO
p
-ad 990 Palm Stt981/POSI Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with tite appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Muiilclpal Code. the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of e, (SiDn'1M;yS;pvX rendered
on 7 I , which decision consisted of t)te following ( 1 . e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
E-)CCeSS; ✓2 ed.S01-7'? + y�7e.I'rA;; oti rPzr �"�
ro yer a i_', �a, lres a,.s v� r_lett 7 lis i P#-L'
` rr ...I rzj _�o C.", '�k✓e. /K y v s m e Sr C.,
( 3
ol. 1J3 e P2J'M� 4 .
r7�>
The undersign d discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Oil
DATE 6 TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant!
• iz" eer
i,�i s
RECEIVED Name/T1 to d
JUL 1 9 1991 N —
Repre entative
CITY us CLERK ,CA �/ �s Comm/a
Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
02o i99/ Copy to City Attorney
Cal da d for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy tLOS oe following department(s) :
_��s . (2 ,&" a ,02�
City erk /—��
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 11475
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.
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 Councilwomen Rapoa
seconded by Councilman Roalman and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Roalman, Pinard and Reiss
NOES: Mayor Dunin
ABS : None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20th day
of August , 1991.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
P"',
City Clerk Pam Vo es
Resolution No. 702 1991 Series)
Page Three
APPROVED:
A nistrative Officer
Att me
CommunitD velopment Director
�►I�IIaII��18�8����� �Iflf�il�
I�IIIII� cityof s
tuis oaspo
Sim990 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.
8. 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.
/44
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-J57
Ken Bruce
Senior Planner
cc: Steve Pults
P-57
'•� RECEIVtu
Chi �:i1� LASSEY MAY 30199
[W-7HOLESALE CAR �COMPkNY
Gtr of San Luis 001sw
3249 Broad Street . San 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 everyone 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
to 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
.x
EHAINIP INUSSEY
WHtJLESaLE ESR LO1P�tiY
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 544-4556
FAX(805) 543-4312
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 ,
M
May 3 , 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: 49,L,�'Pam Ricci
FROM rry Kenny
SUBJE Massey Auto Sales Lot - Drainage Easement
3249 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
-A-4 � /0��
P: \jerry\3249Brod.wp
OO
MM
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 U1475
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.'
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, he is 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 belierie thY khis is UP 77.0
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.
Art brtecture,Planning c Graphics
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis 06ispo.California 93401 / ��
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 ca(I.
Sincerely,
Brent .Wiese
ca Champ Massey
Public Works
11011�Ilil11 ""IIcity. o sAn tuts oBispoA
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
M E M O
April 12 , 1991
TO: Dave Romero, Public Works Director
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Dire L 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.
1 -G 3
9 2 Q2t CIL 2< 22'F 224 224
caw
sxx d \
11
t
ac ' \ II
f � a v or
d rrzr r�-e \
I uo
coo-rcL&w or�cTl m aw,4
i
,N
Apo A�F
_�:y 216 tri 2 3
N 5T
212 II 2n _r. �M 1 e 2T 2140 2u '%1 - - - ----- 3r•.
I��e�
city of sAn tuts oaspo
955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
February 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
FROJerry 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 18-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
1-G(�
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 57031' 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 57 ° 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.
Cl)
a�
CO
o -r,
o U
o y
� o
GS.
a
ia,o
a
5-r"
Off•
c4� •� o 0
C= N o c�
1 r,
0 o
M
Q
6'lc o G �Val
Ci
cs `o
� 9�
.�m
X ° DO.-�-�
qco
i-
O •� °+� SAO �.p'N O.�
� x �'' j�'..0 O ~ moyi °0a ,\
C Z T W
Z �+ m L. °d 4.G) M S O O
" C Qr„ m a:�0 0 m
4 Om Qs E-4
Ver
ro 46C00 0- 'UNIn aoEl 14
to
\ WID?
\\ n �a OO e+�
C OW �''C � N I
`V W �a p`x' W R� m N N
� 3 0Cr
A
C.0OQ�
UQ
c
o
cn
e
�% a
y O a
CD
b q / r' F
o
CZ)
O
�• 1rcp N G
CD
d
C
CD
,0 � og
O 4
�•
09 as S
ce o 'k
p � O
n s
n...r. o
�f
ca s 1
o �
P-49
MM ..r MNG AGENDA
DATE d-70-V._ITEM#
�►►IIIII�IIIII� IIII city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Paim Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
February 12, 1992 "'- _ .
C=wa ZrIDD DIR
a CAO ❑ FIN.DIR
a AGO ❑ Fpm ai[EF
TO: City Council aA77nRNFY ❑ FWI)Itt
D'c�c/oluc. ❑ POLICECU
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen ❑ M TTFJ►M ❑ MC DR;
C RFAD FILE ❑ UiiL DIR
SUBJECT: Appeal of Use Permit 1475 j � �
Attached please find a copy of a hand-delivered letter I received
from Champ Massey. This issue is scheduled to be heard as Item
No. 1 on the Council's Tuesday, February 18, 1992 agenda.
JGJ/sw
attach.
cc: John Dunn
Ken Hampian
Arnold Jonas
Dave Romero
Pam Voges
RECEIVED
FEB 1 2 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
r
CHAIMPP 31ASSPEY R E C g ) V g D
'WHOLESALE CAR COMPPNY FEB 1 i We
3249 Broad Street . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401CKT OF
rYA r
(805) 544-4556
FAX(805) 5434312
2/11/92
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. ,93401
Dear Mr. Jorgensen,
In regards to a communication from you to Brent Wiese of Steven D. Pults,
AIA & Associates on my behalf. . . please see me directly. We are conserving
all costs in contingency for litigation, which seems likely.
However, I do. appreciate your effort at. a resolve of the "easement" situat-
ion. n
I would accept your proposed "City Council Resolutio ", with a few de-
tails changed, without responding to the tactics that brought me these con-
clusio-ns. I wish to retain any and all rights that may be mine.
The wording is accepiable with the following four changes:
#1) In section #1,item#1, please strike the language. .".given the level of
development currently approved for the property"...
#2) In section #1,item12, please strike ---the language. .".given the level of
development currently approved for the property. An additional easement
and/or improvements may be required as a condition of any future development
or change of use."
03) In section #2,item#l.. .please clarify and draw 2 size of easements. Re-
luctantly, we will accept a 15' easement across the drainage ditch;however,
a 5' easement over the smaller pipe bringing the city's run-off from Rockview
and depositing it cia7 one spot...is adequate. Please refer to most commun-
iques from Public Works.. .5' was understood. I would. question and have had
an expert water-rights consultant question the legality of this smaller pipes
function as it impacts my, property. Regardless, 2 sizes should be denoted.
#4) In section #2, item#2. . .Only that 40' of culvert in question need be re-
moved...this should be so worded.
This letter has been delivered by courier to your office today, 2/11/92. A
prompt response would be greatly appreciated.
Thank y ,
p Massey
X)REsTo:
•Da,am"on ❑ FYI
[�.Cwnal 1irCDDDM MEETING AGENDA
C'f
CAO ❑ pmt.imp-
Draft P.C. Minutes ff. ACAo ❑ FmEa-ime DATE4-0�f A ITEM 0
January 15, 1992 ^TSE ❑ F'DUL
Pae 1 amu/oRIC. ❑ rol.ICEaa.
Page ❑ MGMT.TEAM 0M DIR
❑ C READ MX 0=L DIR.
r
da Z. .
Item 4. Use Permit U 1475. Review and possible revocation of conditionally
approved use permit allowing a car sales lot; 3249 Broad Street, C-C-S _
zone; Charles Massey, applicant. (Use permit approved April 29, 1990;
reviewed July 10, 1991, and October 23, 1991).
Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended the Commission revoke the use
permit based on four findings because the applicant had not complied with conditions of
the use permit.
In answer to a question by Comm r Peterson, Arnold Jonas explained after the
applicant's last appeal, the City Council required all the Conditions to be complied with
in 30 days. Pam Ricci said a representative from the Department of Fish and Game
was at the last City Council meeting and said Fish and Game supports requiring the
channel to remain open. In answer to a question by Commr. Schmidt, Pam Ricci
indicated that some of the improvements could have been done because the applicant
had pulled a building permit for the front portion of the site.
In answer to a question by Commr. Kourakis about an adjacent land owner's concerns
about damage to his property from Mr. Massey's property, Pam Ricci said a clogged
drain was repaired and a small redwood retaining wall had been installed. However, the
-design of the retaining wall was not the same as shown on submitted project plans.
Vice Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing.
Champ Massey, 1330 El Camino Real, said there was a fire hydrant on his property, but
the Commission had asked him to upgrade it, which he had not yet done. He said a
retaining wall had been installed by a contractor who worked with the Planning
Department and a clogged drain had been repaired. He said he bad not painted the
building because of the cost, but would do so. He said he did not care if the culvert had
to be left open. He said the only item he disagrees with is the excessive easement of 36
feet and a setback of 10 feet. He said that requirement would put him out of business.
In answer to a question by Commr. Schmidt, Champ Massey said the other conditions he
has not complied with are menial in nature. He said the striping could be done
tomorrow, the painting would not take long, and he could get a fire hydrant after he
learned what type of upgrade was required.
In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Champ Massey said the city would not
allow the Crossroads to put one of their required hydrants on his property because he
was required to put one in and that would have reduced the total number of fire
hydrants the city was requiring by one for both properties. Champ Massey thought his
vo,odsleo sin-1 nlvs
AW310 A11D
2661 z l 9B
Draft P.C. Minutes
January 15, 1992
Page 2
permit had already been revoked because he was not willing to comply with the
easement. He said an apartment on the property adjacent to his is built six feet from
the Creek He said the representative from the Department of Fish & Game that spoke
at the City Council meeting had not been on his property. He said a different
representative from Fish and Game had been on his property and determined that the
drainage ditch had no natural habitat value.
Brent Wiese, Steve Pults & Associates, said the conditions from the City Council created
a misunderstanding. He said Resolution 7053, Section 2, required the easement to be
executed and a building permit obtained to complete the other improvements, but it did
not indicate that all the other improvements had to be completed in 30 days.
He explained a permit for the painting and striping has been obtained and the timing of
when that work should be completed should be the length of time the permit is valid.
Pam Ricci explained the problem with the applicant obtaining a building permit for the
rear of the site was that he would not agree to the easement. She said the permit is
valid for longer than 30 days, but original ARC approval put a deadline on the
completion of the improvements.
Brent Wiese said the ARC's intent is still valid, but that the timing requirement no
longer exists.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, said he sympathized with Mr. Massey and he believed
this issue would have to be resolved in Court.
Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence Drive, said an injustice was being done. He said because of
the recession, any requirement that adds to the cost of a car would make it hard for Mr.
Massey to stay in business. He said it was unfair to ask the applicant for a 36-foot
easement when the adjacent property owner to the south was allowed to build 6 feet
from the creek, and the next property to the south was only required to have a 5-foot
easement from the creek. He asked the Commission to be just and fair.
Pam Ricci said the projects referred to by Mr. Hanff were developed several years ago.
She said a 10-foot setback from the top of bank was required for the Cornerstone
condominium project at the comer of Broad and Rockview.
Arnold Jonas said he could understand the Commission sympathizing with the applicant,
but the equity of the easement was determined prior to this meeting, and the issue now
was whether or not the applicant complied with the conditions imposed upon him after a
number of previous meetings. He said he did not devise the size of the easement.
Commr. Schmidt said that standards do change and there are some downtown buildings
which are built at the top of the creek bank that would not be allowed today.
Draft P.C. Minutes
January 15, 1992
Page 3
Champ Massey said standards do change, but Dan Hall's buildings were constructed
about three years ago and the architect who installed the 40-foot culvert was on the
Planning Commission at the time. He said when he had negotiations with the Public
Works Department, it was negated by the Planning Department and he believed the
Community Development Department was responsible for the excessive easement.
Arnold Jonas said he believed Dave Romero told Mr. Massey that the Department of
Public Works would not oppose culverting the remainder of the creek, which would
reduce the required easement. He said the decision not to allow Mr. Massey to culvert
the entire creek was made by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Champ Massey said Dave Romero agreed in writing to 10 feet, but the engineer wanted
15 feet.
Vice Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Kourakis said she understood the size of the easement was not the issue and
the issue. The issue was whether or not use permit conditions had been complied with.
Commr. Kourakis moved to revoke the use permit for non-compliance with use permit
conditions with the four findings recommended by staff.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Commr. Kouralds said she wanted this item to be moved on to the City Council for a
determination.
Commr. Williams said she could not second the motion because it was putting a person
out of business.
Commr. Kourakis said the applicant would not be put out of business if he complied
with the conditions.
Commr. Williams felt if a policy was a good one it should be complied with and if it was
a bad one it should be revoked. She said she did not know how exceptions to the Creek
policy could be allowed. She said she could second Commr. Kourakis' motion.
COmmr. Kourakis moved to revoke use permit 1475 for non-compliance of use permit
conditions based on the four findings on page 3 of the staff report.
Commr. Williams seconded the motion, Resolution No. 5081-91.
Draft P.C. Minutes
January 15, 1992
Page 4
Commr. Schmidt said he would find it harder to support the motion if the only issue
involved was the creek easement, but there were also other conditions that had not been
met.
Commr. Peterson said based on the issue of compliance with use permit conditions he
could understand Commissioners agreeing with the motion, but he felt it was unfair that
there are exceptions to the creek easement on adjacent properties and he felt Mr.
Massey was being singled out.
Commr. Kourakis said this was a maintenance easement for the czeek and it was the
same size maintenance easement required for a recent development on Laurel Lane.
She said the purpose of a maintenance easement is to keep the creek clear so that if the
creek floods, the city can clean debris from the creek
Commr. Karleskint said that Mr. Massey's property had an illegal drainage culvert that
has not been inspected and that was one of the reasons for the size of the required
easement.
Commr. Peterson said property adjacent to the applicant had units built over the creek
Commr. Karleskint said Mr. Massey might be allowed to build over the creek, but what
was being dealt with here was a maintenance easement, not a construction Easement.
VOTING: ACES - Commrs. Kourakis, Williams, Schmidt, and Karleskint.
NOES - Comm . Peterson.
ABSENT - Commrs. Gurnee and Hoffman.
The motion passed.