Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_PRR25472 Emails10 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2023 9:33 AM To:Stong, Nate Cc:Weir, Charles Subject:FW: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Attachments:220922 1st Amdmt to CC&R's - Tract 2943-Earthwood Ln.pdf; 120-11_a_adm_20111104, Off-site Parking Requirement.doc; MB_033_082_001.pdf FYI. Charles was on this before but not sure if this is being tracked and paid for through an FMAP case or what. We should ultimately archive to the subdivision file for reference. hal From: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 3:48 PM To: Linda Furnari <lfurnari@ogdenfricks.com> Cc: Weir, Charles <cweir@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Oetzell, Walter <woetzell@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Hi Linda, I just left a message for Roy to give me a call to discuss a couple of issues. Sorry for the delay in jumping into this process as I know that this proposal has been in the works for some time. Please see the couple of attached docs for the map and off-site parking Use Permit for reference. A couple of my questions and possible suggestions for Roy and team are as follows: 1) We probably need to have a better understanding of the overall parking required and provided for Lot 2 and maybe Lot 1 if needed. The offsite parking required for Lot 2 clouded Lots 3, 4, & 5. The off-site parking may be capable of being restored to Lot 2 with the proposed parking modification plan on file with the City. The project data may need to be updated to provide further clarification. 2) It appears that the required parking for Lot 5 (Trust Automation Children’s Center) was provided on their Lot 5 but was clouded as an easement and required parking count in favor of Lot 2. It is not clear whether the parking required and parking provided for Lot 2 and Lot 5 double-dipped on using the Lot 5 spaces. That could be corrected through this process. 3) Lot 5 still needs required parking. If the parking is retained on their lot, the easement in favor of Lot 2 should be extinguished or the Lot 5 parking provided through an off-site agreement elsewhere on this campus. 4) If the Lot 5 parking remains on Lot 5, they will need an easement across Lots 1 and/or Lot 2 to legally access their parking. (I believe that the City and developer may have missed this point with the development of Lot 5). The CCR’s include a maintenance provision for a portion of Lot 1 within the access easement in favor of Lot 5 but the easement on the map is truncated and access is not currently provided to the required parking spaces. 5) It seems like Lot 1 would desire access along the easterly drive aisle of Lot 2 rather than just the access along the westerly property line and from Earthwood. Creating an additional easement along the drive aisle of Lot 2 could be in favor of both Lot 1 and 5 to resolve the access issues. 6) The map shows that Lots 3 – 5 are clouded with the parking but it also includes some narrow utility easements located at the head of the parking easement/parking area in favor of Lot 1 that will continue to cloud those several servient tenements. We have not yet formalized our review of the proposed amendments as I wanted to discuss what the ultimate goals and strategies might be for your client. I understand that architect Francis Fan-Gibbs has prepared some site plans/parking lot development plans and could probably assist in all of this to provide exhibits necessary to resolved any lingering issues. Also, Mike Hodge as the original civil engineer of record through the entitlement and development plan process might be able to provide any additional insight. We will also have building plans or improvement plans available if necessary to review the utility easements across Lots 3 – 5. I believe that the utility easements may no longer be required as gravity drainage and gravity sewer is now available downstream with the 11 development of the Avila Ranch infrastructure. Let us know how we can help and whether an in-person (office or field) or virtual meeting might be helpful. Otherwise, e-mail, call or text my City cell number. Regards, Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Linda Furnari <lfurnari@ogdenfricks.com> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:23 PM To: Weir, Charles <cweir@slocity.org>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Subject: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mr. Weir and Mr. Hannula, Attached is a signed/notarized copy of the First Amendment ot Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restriction – Tract 2943 – Earthwood Lane. We will be dropping off the original to our office. Sincerely, Linda Furnari Legal Assistant Ogden & Fricks LLP 656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 2B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-544-5600 (phone) 805-544-7700 (fax) November 8, 2011 Roland S. Ball 2710 Branch Mill Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 120-11: 143 Suburban Road Dear Mr. Ball: On Friday, November 4, 2011, I conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit to allow required parking to be located on a site different from the use at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I have approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because parking is being maintained for users of the site. 2. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because proposed off-site parking is within a zone where the use is allowed, within 300 feet of the use, and is not separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 3. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines). Conditions 1. The 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 shall be owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use at 143 Suburban Road (lot 2). 2. A minimum of 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 shall be dedicated as parking for 143 Suburban Road (lot 2). Future development on lots 3, 4, and 5 shall provide additional parking as required for those uses, separate from the 30 parking spaces allotted to 143 Suburban Road. A 120-11 (143 Suburban Road) Page 2 3. An off-site parking agreement providing for a minimum of 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 to be used as parking for 143 Suburban (lot 2) shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, final recording of the tentative tract map for tract 2943. 4. If parking availability becomes impacted, the City retains the right to require additional parking mitigation measures including, but not limited to, revocation of this use permit, limiting occupancy loads, or additional off-site parking agreements with adjacent property owners. 5. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if any reasonable written complaint is received from any citizen or from the Police Department or upon receipt of evidence that the use is not in compliance with conditions of approval and the Municipal Code. At the time of the use permit review, to insure on-going compatibility between uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified or the use permit may be revoked. The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her discretion. Informational Note: Upon future change of ownership, a new off-site parking agreement shall be recorded between the owner of 143 Suburban (lot 2) and lots 3, 4, and 5 respectively. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $261 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you have any questions, please call Marcus Carloni at (805) 781-7176. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor’s Office Michael Hodge 867 Pacific Street, Suite 120 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Stephen N. Dorsi, TRE ETAL 2710 Branch Mill Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 1 From:Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 27, 2022 4:11 PM To:Hannula, Hal; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:Re: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Attachments:220412 First Amendment to Decl of CCRs.pdf; 220706 PC 2 parking.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Hal & Vanessa I don’t think I ever got feedback on how to process a CC&R amendment. See email below. At this time, the attached parking lot permit have been permitted so owner is ready to proceed with processing the amendment (draft attached). I need to know what application to fill out and send in. Please advise. Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED On May 19, 2022, at 3:32 PM, Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> wrote: Hello Hal Per your suggestion of concurrent processing, we have submitted a building permit to add additional parking spaces (GRAD-1388-2022) on the property and now we are ready to send in the CC&R amendment for your review. Unless I hear otherwise, I will send in 2 paper sets of the amendment and follow up with electronic copy to you. I’ll also email you the electronic parking lot plan for reference. Please confirm I need to submit a PLANNING application for this scope. Any other forms necessary? City should already have authorization of owner form from the parking lot submittal. If you could confirm the above, I’ll get package ready to send in. 2 Thanks Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED DRAFTFIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS – TRACT 2943 – EARTHWOOD LANE The DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS – TRACT 2943 – EARTHWOOD LANE (“Declaration”) is hereby amended this ____ day of April, 2022 by this first amendment duly acknowledged, by the Owners of record of Lot 1, Lot 2 and Earthwood Lane Lots 3 and 4 of Tract 2943. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Declaration was recorded on July 23, 2013, as instrument number 2013042695 in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Clerk/Recorder, affecting the Earthwood Lane property described in the Declaration; and WHEREAS, Section 9.4 of Part 9 of the Declaration provides for amendment by an instrument in writing signed by the holders of 2/3 of the votes of the Owners of the Earthwood Lane Lots and Lot 1 and Lot 2. WHERAS, Owners representing more than the holders of 2/3 of the votes of the Owners of the Earthwood Lane Lots and Lot 1 and Lot 2 have signed and acknowledged this amendment, said signatures and acknowledgements being attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, the Declaration is hereby amended as follows: Part 5 is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: “Part 5 – Lot 2 Parking – Earthwood Lane Lot 5 and Lot 2 (The Owners of Earthwood Lane Lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Lot 1 are not parties to Part 5 of this Declaration.) 5.1 Earthwood Lane Lot 5 shall be subject to a parking easement for the benefit of Lot 2. The Owner of Lot 2 shall be RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Roy E. Ogden, Esquire Ogden & Fricks LLP 656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 2B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 DRAFTresponsible for the maintenance of the parking easement. (The term “parking easement” includes an area approximately 20 feet wide along the common boundary between Lot 2 within the northerly 90 feet of Earthwood Lane Lot 5.) Maintenance of the parking easement shall be, at a minimum, to the standards used in the original construction. Costs of maintenance of the parking easement shall be allocated to Lot 2. 5.2 The parking easement may be used by the Owner of Lot 2 for parking. No structures shall be erected within the parking easement other than fences. No activity shall be permitted within the parking easement which would disqualify the parking easement as a part of a “setback” which may be required for structures erected on Earthwood Lane Lot 5. 5.3 For purposes of Part 5, the Owner of Earthwood Lane Lot 5 shall have one vote and the Owner of Lot 2 shall have 3 votes.” Part 8 is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following: “Part 8 – Omitted.” The remaining provisions of the Declaration remain unchanged, unless and until such time as the Declaration is further amended. If there is any conflict between the terms and conditions of the Declaration and the terms and conditions of this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall control. Suburban Road, LLC __________________________________ Sterling Ball, Manager Earthwood Lane, LLC __________________________________ Sterling Ball, Manager 2 1 From:Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> Sent:Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:47 PM To:Weir, Charles Cc:Hannula, Hal Subject:Re: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Attachments:220922 1st Amdmt to CC&R's - Tract 2943-Earthwood Ln.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Charles Attached is the signed & notarized CC&R amendment for your use. Do you need the original dropped off or will this suffice? I look forward to your response. Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED On Sep 16, 2022, at 9:32 AM, Weir, Charles <cweir@slocity.org> wrote: Frances, I gave this request a review with a few other groups and I do not believe a city signature block is required for the CC&R amendment. I will verify this with Hal when he returns but for now please go ahead and process and we will support once you have a signed copy. Charles Weir pronouns he/him/his Senior Civil Engineer <image001.png> Community Development E cweir@slocity.org T 805.783.7704 slocity.org 2 <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Weir, Charles Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 3:13 PM To: Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Frances, Thank you for following up. Your request is on the top of my list and I will get you a response shortly. Charles Weir pronouns he/him/his Senior Civil Engineer <image001.png> Community Development E cweir@slocity.org T 805.783.7704 slocity.org <image002.png><image003.png><image004.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 1:15 PM To: Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org>; Weir, Charles <cweir@slocity.org> Subject: Re: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hello Again I have not received any response from either of you since my initial submittal at end of July. Is there anything happening? Per my initial conversation with Hal, we both thought this was a straight forward amendment. I look forward to a response from either one of you on status. Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 3 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED On Aug 8, 2022, at 4:56 PM, Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> wrote: Getting hounded by two sets of attorneys for this. Any progress? Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED On Aug 1, 2022, at 11:15 AM, Frances Gibbs <fgibbs@pults.com> wrote: Hello Hal Per our conversation, I looked at the original CC&R and there are only owner and Notary owner signatures on the document. I do not have any document related to this CC&R with City signatures. Perhaps you have a supplemental document that I do not have? If you do have another document, please forward for my reference and I’ll have Roy amend this draft to include what you think is necessary for City signature page. 4 <210205 First Amerian Title Exception_12_1342695_CCR.pdf> <220412 First Amendment to Decl of CCRs.pdf> Frances Fan Gibbs Principal Pults & Associates, LLP 3592 Sacramento Drive, Suite 140 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 fgibbs@pults.com Direct: 805.541.4751 PLEASE NOTE MY PHONE NUMBER HAS CHANGED 18 From:Hannula, Hal Sent:Friday, September 30, 2022 3:48 PM To:Linda Furnari Cc:Weir, Charles; Cohen, Rachel; Oetzell, Walter Subject:RE: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment Attachments:220922 1st Amdmt to CC&R's - Tract 2943-Earthwood Ln.pdf; 120-11_a_adm_20111104, Off-site Parking Requirement.doc; MB_033_082_001.pdf Hi Linda, I just left a message for Roy to give me a call to discuss a couple of issues. Sorry for the delay in jumping into this process as I know that this proposal has been in the works for some time. Please see the couple of attached docs for the map and off-site parking Use Permit for reference. A couple of my questions and possible suggestions for Roy and team are as follows: 1) We probably need to have a better understanding of the overall parking required and provided for Lot 2 and maybe Lot 1 if needed. The offsite parking required for Lot 2 clouded Lots 3, 4, & 5. The off-site parking may be capable of being restored to Lot 2 with the proposed parking modification plan on file with the City. The project data may need to be updated to provide further clarification. 2) It appears that the required parking for Lot 5 (Trust Automation Children’s Center) was provided on their Lot 5 but was clouded as an easement and required parking count in favor of Lot 2. It is not clear whether the parking required and parking provided for Lot 2 and Lot 5 double-dipped on using the Lot 5 spaces. That could be corrected through this process. 3) Lot 5 still needs required parking. If the parking is retained on their lot, the easement in favor of Lot 2 should be extinguished or the Lot 5 parking provided through an off-site agreement elsewhere on this campus. 4) If the Lot 5 parking remains on Lot 5, they will need an easement across Lots 1 and/or Lot 2 to legally access their parking. (I believe that the City and developer may have missed this point with the development of Lot 5). The CCR’s include a maintenance provision for a portion of Lot 1 within the access easement in favor of Lot 5 but the easement on the map is truncated and access is not currently provided to the required parking spaces. 5) It seems like Lot 1 would desire access along the easterly drive aisle of Lot 2 rather than just the access along the westerly property line and from Earthwood. Creating an additional easement along the drive aisle of Lot 2 could be in favor of both Lot 1 and 5 to resolve the access issues. 6) The map shows that Lots 3 – 5 are clouded with the parking but it also includes some narrow utility easements located at the head of the parking easement/parking area in favor of Lot 1 that will continue to cloud those several servient tenements. We have not yet formalized our review of the proposed amendments as I wanted to discuss what the ultimate goals and strategies might be for your client. I understand that architect Francis Fan-Gibbs has prepared some site plans/parking lot development plans and could probably assist in all of this to provide exhibits necessary to resolved any lingering issues. Also, Mike Hodge as the original civil engineer of record through the entitlement and development plan process might be able to provide any additional insight. We will also have building plans or improvement plans available if necessary to review the utility easements across Lots 3 – 5. I believe that the utility easements may no longer be required as gravity drainage and gravity sewer is now available downstream with the development of the Avila Ranch infrastructure. Let us know how we can help and whether an in-person (office or field) or virtual meeting might be helpful. Otherwise, e-mail, call or text my City cell number. Regards, Hal Hal Hannula Supervising Civil Engineer 19 Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E hhannula@slocity.org T 805.781.7201 C 805.431.0083 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Linda Furnari <lfurnari@ogdenfricks.com> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:23 PM To: Weir, Charles <cweir@slocity.org>; Hannula, Hal <hhannula@slocity.org> Subject: 143 Suburban - CC&R Amendment This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mr. Weir and Mr. Hannula, Attached is a signed/notarized copy of the First Amendment ot Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restriction – Tract 2943 – Earthwood Lane. We will be dropping off the original to our office. Sincerely, Linda Furnari Legal Assistant Ogden & Fricks LLP 656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 2B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-544-5600 (phone) 805-544-7700 (fax) November 8, 2011 Roland S. Ball 2710 Branch Mill Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 120-11: 143 Suburban Road Dear Mr. Ball: On Friday, November 4, 2011, I conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit to allow required parking to be located on a site different from the use at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I have approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. As conditioned, the proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because parking is being maintained for users of the site. 2. Off-site parking is acceptable at this location because proposed off-site parking is within a zone where the use is allowed, within 300 feet of the use, and is not separated from the use by any feature that would make pedestrian access inconvenient or hazardous. 3. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines). Conditions 1. The 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 shall be owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the party controlling the use at 143 Suburban Road (lot 2). 2. A minimum of 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 shall be dedicated as parking for 143 Suburban Road (lot 2). Future development on lots 3, 4, and 5 shall provide additional parking as required for those uses, separate from the 30 parking spaces allotted to 143 Suburban Road. A 120-11 (143 Suburban Road) Page 2 3. An off-site parking agreement providing for a minimum of 30 parking spaces across lots 3, 4, and 5 to be used as parking for 143 Suburban (lot 2) shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, final recording of the tentative tract map for tract 2943. 4. If parking availability becomes impacted, the City retains the right to require additional parking mitigation measures including, but not limited to, revocation of this use permit, limiting occupancy loads, or additional off-site parking agreements with adjacent property owners. 5. This use permit shall be reviewed by the Administrative Hearing Officer if any reasonable written complaint is received from any citizen or from the Police Department or upon receipt of evidence that the use is not in compliance with conditions of approval and the Municipal Code. At the time of the use permit review, to insure on-going compatibility between uses on the project site, conditions of approval may be added, deleted, or modified or the use permit may be revoked. The Hearing Officer may refer the complaint to the Planning Commission at his/her discretion. Informational Note: Upon future change of ownership, a new off-site parking agreement shall be recorded between the owner of 143 Suburban (lot 2) and lots 3, 4, and 5 respectively. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $261 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you have any questions, please call Marcus Carloni at (805) 781-7176. Sincerely, Doug Davidson Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor’s Office Michael Hodge 867 Pacific Street, Suite 120 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Stephen N. Dorsi, TRE ETAL 2710 Branch Mill Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420