Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2001, 3 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DE ;J council k'°°� 6 _a► j agen6a uEpont �N 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT A USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY HAS EXPIRED (O 186-00). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution 'W' upholding the Planning Commission's decision, based on additional factual findings. DISCUSSION Issues This appeal raises the following legal and factual issues: 1. Do the Associated Student Sand Boarders meet the definition of fraternity in the City's zoning ordinance and the legislative intent for requiring a Planning Commission use permit for a fraternity in the R-3 and R-4 zones? 2. If they do meet the definition of a fraternity and the legislative intent of the zoning scheme, did they occupy the property prior to June 10, 2000? 3. If they are a fraternity and did occupy the property prior to June 10, 2000, does the occupancy of a single room accessory building or outbuilding on the property reestablish the fraternity use authorized by Resolution 1.1-68? Situation The property on 71 Palomar Drive is owned by the Delta Tau House Corporation. Delta Tau has utilized the residence as a fraternity house since a use permit was granted for student housing in 1968. Delta Tau fraternity is presently serving a 25-year suspension that was the result of disciplinary action taken by Cal Poly. Under the suspension, Delta Tau is not able to function as a fraternity and for the past two or three years the Delta Tau House Corporation has leased the house to othergroups. During the 1998-1999 school year;the property was leased to members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity. Those tenants were served an eviction notice on June 1, 1999 and police reports indicate that the house was vacant on June 9, 1999. In the summer of 2000, a group of students who refer to themselves as the Associated Student Sand Boarders moved onto the site. On November 6, 2000, the Acting Community Development Director notified the property owners that the use permit for a fraternity at the residence had expired because a fraternal use had not been reestablished within a year's time of the house being abandoned. Although the site may have been re-occupied by one or two individuals within a 2- 1 1 �1 Council Agenda Report O 186-00 (71 Palomar) Page 2 year's time, there was no indication that a fraternity use had been reestablished. The Delta Tau House Corporation and the Delta Tau Alumni Association appealed the Director's determination and the issue was scheduled fora hearing before the Planning Commission. On January 24, 2001 the Planning Commission upheld the Acting Community Development Director's determination that the use permit had expired. Delta.Tau appealed the Planning Commission's decision, and the item was scheduled for a public hearing on the first available City Council agenda. Site Description The project site is the Sandford House, a property on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, at the comer of Palomar Street and Luneta Drive. The house is bordered on the west and north by Valencia Apartments, a student-housing complex. An assisted living facility for seniors is located to the east, and single-family residences are located on Luneta,to the south. Data Summary Address: 71 Palomar Drive Appellants: Delta Tau Alumni Association, Delta Tau House Corporation Property Owner: Delta Tau House Corporation Representative: Linden Mackaoui Zoning: High Density Residential(R-4) General Plan: High Density Residential Acting Community Development Director's Review The Acting Community Development Director's determination was based on information presented by the Neighborhood Services Manager and the City's Code Enforcement Officer. Building inspection reports, police reports, and correspondence from neighbors provided the factual basis for the decision. These reports also indicate that the City was initially provided with very little information regarding the new tenants of the house. In fact, it was not until after the validity of the use permit was raised as an issue that representatives of the Delta Tau House Corporation and the tenants of the house began to claim that they were a fraternity. When a resident of the house first described the tenants as a"club"and as an"association of sand boarders," the City's Code Enforcement Officer researched the group locally and on the Internet. It was learned at that time that no formal organization of sand boarders was recognized by Cal Poly or Cuesta College. This information was key to the Acting Community Development Director's determination and is included in the Code Enforcement Officer's report, included here as an attachment to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 3). Planning Commission Review The Zoning Regulations provide a general definition of fraternity house(or sorority house). The Delta Tau House Corporation used this broad definition to argue before the Planning Commission that the current residents of 71 Palomar Drive are a fraternity. By taking this position they hoped to show that their use permit did not expire because Associated Student Sand Boarders moved onto the site within one year of the property being vacated by the prior tenants. ,J o '\ Y Council Agenda Report O 186-00 (71 Palomar) Page 3 Staff disagrees with the appellant for two reasons. First, staff does not believe that the Sand Boarders are a fraternity, as regulated by the City's land use ordinance. The Planning Commission Staff Report contains a detailed review of the intent of the City's fraternity use permit requirement (Attachment 3). Second, staff does not believe that a fraternal use was established on the property by June 10, 2000, one year after the property was vacated. Delta Tau House Corporation and the Alumni Association have a significant interest in having Associated Student Sand Boarders recognized as a fraternity. The use permit for the property, approved in 1968, includes no conditions of approval to guide the behavior of residents of the property. Over the years, activities at the house have caused numerous noise complaints from neighbors without having any effect on the disposition of the use permit for the property. While the property owners would like this situation to continue indefinitely, the Acting Community Development Director and the Planning Commission have determined that the Sand Boarders are not a fraternity. In fact, the Sand Boarders appear to strongly identify with characteristics of their organization that set them apart from the formal organizations that are recognized by Cal Poly and Cuesta as fraternities. Ed Sanchez, a neighbor of the property, testified at the Planning Commission hearing that the Sand Boarders told him they were not a fraternity when they first moved into the house. It appears that the Sand Boarders only decided to call themselves a "fraternity" after it became clear that it served the interests of the property owners of 71 Palomar. The City has never interpreted the fraternity use permit regulation to require a permit from a group that was not officially sanctioned and recognized as a fraternity by Cal Poly University or by Cuesta College. If the City were to recognize Associated Student Sand Boarders as a fraternity, operating under the 71 Palomar use permit, it would be inconsistent with past City practice. If the Sand Boarders are recognized as a fraternity, then the City could be expected to regulate any household where the occupants have similar interests (e.g. "associations" of bicyclists, snow boarders, rock climbers, etc.). The fraternity house definition in the zoning regulations is broad,but it has never been interpreted that broadly. Grounds for Appeal . On the City Council appeal form, the Delta Tau House Corporation and Alumni Association lists grounds for the appeal. They dispute (1) the facts upon which the decision was based, (2) the City's interpretation of the Municipal Code with respect to fraternities, (3)the process used to get before the Planning Commission, (4) noticing, (5) the right to confront witnesses and to present evidence at the hearing, (6) the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions, and all other grounds noted in the record or in writing. No further elaboration was provided to City staff' in order to evaluate these grounds for the appeal. The following evaluation attempts to address each issue area. However, some of the grounds clearly do not apply to the Planning Commission hearing process. i Council Agenda Report O 186-00(71 Palomar) Page 4 Evaluation of Appeal (1) The Code Enforcement Officer's report includes most of the facts on which the decision was based. Public testimony was also evaluated as a basis for the decision. Staff is unaware which particular facts contained in the report, or provided at the Planning Commission hearing, that the appellant disputes. (2) The City's interpretation of the Municipal Code is consistent with how the City has always interpreted the law with respect to fraternities. The City has never used the definition of fraternity in the Municipal Code to require a use permit from any group other than fraternities recognized by Cal Poly or Cuesta. City Staff believes that this is the common understanding of the term fraternity and would not want to expand the use permit requirement to other groups of students that live together. (3) The appellants were notified of the Acting Community Development Director's determination and were given an opportunity to appeal to the Planning Commission. This is consistent with City policy, where a wide range of decisions made by the Community Development Director can be appealed to the Planning Commission. (4) Noticing for the project has been verified and occurred consistent with City policy. Residents and property owners in the neighborhood as well as organized neighborhood groups and interested individuals were notified 10 days in advance of the public hearing. The appellant was also notified of the hearing date and was provided with copies of the staff report well in advance of the hearing. The site was posted with a notice of the public hearing, also 10 days in advance, and the hearing was advertised in the newspaper. (S) The right to confront witnesses is not a right offered during an administrative public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission does not call witnesses, but hears public testimony. The appellants were given an opportunity to provide their own testimony at the public hearing, during which time they could have submitted any evidence or other pertinent information into the record for consideration by the Commission. (6) During the public hearing, Robert Meyers, a representative of the appellant, stated that the freedom of association is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and allows groups to collect and organize for lawful purposes, and that constitutional rights of equal protection protect the Sand Boarders. It should be noted that the Acting Community Development Director's determination has no impact on the Sand Boarders or their right to protection under the constitution. The Sand Boarders have the right to occupy 71 Palomar regardless of the disposition of the use permit. Large groups of students may live together in the R-4 zone, free from use permit regulation. The City, in choosing not to recognize the Sand Boarders as a fraternity, has theoretically made it easier for the group to live together without special regulation.. Noise Ordinance restrictions and Property Maintenance Standards apply to the group the same way these standards apply to all other residents of the City. Staff does not believe that takings are a relevant issue in this case because the use permit was not "revoked." The use permit expired, as required by the Zoning Regulations because the property was not used as a fraternity house for over a year's time. After it was determined that the use 3 _q Council Agenda Report O 186-00 (71 Palomar) Page 5 permit had expired, the Acting Director notified the property owners to insure their right.to appeal, per City policy. 'Public Testimony Before the Planning Commission Several neighbors testified before the Planning Commission and urged the Commission to deny the appeal. Although much of the testimony was related to the behavior of the residents of the property, there was also testimony that was,more on-point. Mr. Ed. Sanchez who resides at 82 Palomar testified that the residents of the house told him they were not part of a fraternity. Another neighbor testified that moving into an outbuilding on the property should not constitute fraternal use of the property and urged discontinuation of the 'outdated use permit. The Commission felt that the testimony supported their decision and the motion to deny the appeal was based on the evidence presented during the public hearing, as well as the findings included in the staff report. Draft minutes from the Planning Commission hearing are attached (Attachment 4). Statements made by Dan Carpenter, an owner of the property, conflicted with previous statements he had made that are included in a police report. At the public hearing,Mr. Carpenter stated that a majority of the occupants were gone by June 12', 1999, with one remaining until June 21', 1999. In a crime report, included with the Code Enforcement Officer's report, Mr. Carpenter is reported to have said that the caretaker had left the property on June 9, 1999. Staff believes that the public testimony given at the Planning Commission hearing, along with the information included in the Code Enforcement Officer's report, provides an opportunity for the Council to make factual findings in addition to the findings made by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION Delta Tau fraternity is presently serving a 25-year suspension that was the result of disciplinary action taken by Cal Poly. Since they have not been able to occupy the house themselves, the Delta Tau House Corporation has leased the house to other groups. The Planning Commission has determined that the current group of residents, the Sand Boarders, are not a fraternity, under the City's land use ordinance. Even if the Sand Boarders are a fraternity that must be regulated under the City's zoning ordinance, information presented at the public hearing and information included in the Code Enforcement Officer's report indicates that the house was not occupied by a fraternity use between June 9, 1999 and June 10, 2000. This one year lapse in use of the property as a fraternity house is cause for the use permit to expire. Under these circumstances, the property owner must obtain a new use permit to use the property as a fraternity house in the future. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may uphold the appeal and reverse the Planning Commission decision, based on findings (Resolution`B'). 2. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. n Council Agenda Report O 186-00 (71 Palomar) Page 6 Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Appeal form filed by appellants on February 2, 2001 3. Planning Commission Staff Report for January 24,,2001,with attachments. 4. Draft minutes from January 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 5. Letter from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods to the Planning Commission, Dated 1-24-01 6. Draft Resolutions 4 L� is "4Af �:C��4 �FT3F x� . Ito • _ IIIA w.s.;M. J :x Ykat� AS eA Lr n i II J G' / Map , Palomar �'. : 0 186=00 ATTACHMENT _ ti � VIII alh ty of S An S OB15po APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of The Planning nnmmiccinn rendered on January 24. 2nni which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) We are appeaing the decision that the use permit for 71 Palomar Street had expired. Grounds include the facts upon which the decision was based; the interpretation of the city' s Municipal Code re: whata fraternity is; the process used to get before the Planning Commission; notice; right to confront witnesses and to present evidence at the hearing; the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions; and all other grounds noted in the record or in writing. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:I Name/Department (Date) Delta Tau House Corp./ c/o992 Monterey St., Ste B Appellant Alumni Assoc./A.S.S. San Luis nt,igp, rA 93403 Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) Home Phone Work Phone 992 Monterey St. Ste B Representative: Linden Mackaoui, Attorney San r.2iG Obit, nA 91401 Namefritle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for /1!CtA4A., oZ00 Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following departnient(s): RECEIVED R�ry W h4e.1W1dV7aL FER 2 - 2001 Cod/Lt1`,,v SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office 3 _� ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Michael Codron, Associate Plannei�7� MEETING DATE: January 24, 2001 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag(r? FILE NUMBER: O 186-00 PROJECT ADDRESS: 71 Palomar SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's determination that a use permit for a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive has expired. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation SLOW 17.58 C. Expiration of use permit. 1. When a use, that was allowed by approval of a use permit, ceases operation for one year or such other time period as specified in the conditions of approval, then reinstatement of that use will be allowed only with approval of a new use permit. On March 5, 1968, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 11-68 granting a use permit for student housing and a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive(71 N. Broad at the time). Delta Tau House Corporation has owned and leased the property since 1969. Presently, the house is occupied by a group of individuals who refer to themselves as Associated Student Sand Boarders. The previous tenants included members of the Delta Tau fraternity and members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon(SAE) fraternity. According to a report prepared by the City's Code Enforcement Officer(attached), the property was vacated by SAE and Delta Tau on June 9, 1999. The property was subsequently vandalized and substantially damaged. The house was boarded up and a fence was erected around the property to prevent further damage. On or about June 3, 2000, Ben Arrona and one other individual moved into an outbuilding on the property. Although the site was re-occupied within a year's time, there was no indication that a fraternal use had been reestablished. Based on this information, the Acting Community Development Director determined that the fraternity use permit for 71 Palomar Drive had expired. On November 14, 2000, Delta Tau House Corporation and Delta Tau Alumni Association appealed the Director's determination and the issue was scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission. 3- 9 \J ATTACHMENT 3 0186-00 Page 2 Data Summary Appellants: Delta Tau Alumni Association, Delta Tau House Corporation Zoning: R4; High Density Residential General Plan:High Density Residential Site Description The project site is the Sandford House, a property on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, at the corner of Palomar Street and Luneta Drive. EVALUATION The appellants disagree with the Acting Community Development Director's decision and maintain that a fraternity of sand boarders was active on the property within one year's time. After receiving the appeal letter, the Acting Community Development Director informed the appellants that he would possibly reconsider his determination if the appellants would provide declarations under penalty of perjury from the occupants of 71 Palomar providing the dates of occupancy, identifying the college or university attended, and identifying the fraternal organization to which they belong, including the date it was created,its purpose, its members, its officers, as well as its articles of incorporation and bylaws. In response to that request, the appellants have submitted declarations from three individuals Linden Mackaoui, Ben Arrona and Santos Arrona. The primary focus of the declarations is to provide the City information to use in determining whether or not the Sand Boarders are a fraternity. Only one of the declarations was provided by a member of the Sand Boarders and occupant of the house. The following is a discussion of relevant topics including an overview of the declarations submitted by the appellants and a review of the intent of the fraternity ordinance. Declarations The declarations submitted to the City on January 16, 2001 and January 17, 2001 include new information regarding the status of Associated Student Sand Boarders and their relationship with the Delta Tau House Corporation. At the time the decision was made to declare the use permit expired, no substantial information had been provided to the Community Development Department regarding Associated Student Sand Boarders. After a review of the declarations, planning staff does not believe Associated Student Sand Boarders are a fraternity, meeting the legislative intent of fraternity, as regulated by the City's zoning ordinance. What is a Fraternity? The City of San Luis Obispo requires that fraternities. and sororities obtain a Planning Commission Use Permit before establishing a fraternity or sorority house. The purpose of the ATTACHMENT 3 0186-00 Page 3 Planning Commission Use Permit is to provide for notification of property owners within a 300' foot radius of the site, provide a review process to insure that the proposed house can accommodate the intended use, and to establish conditions of approval that require the occupants of the house to think out large events by requiring plans for security, neighborhood relations and parking. The intent of the Fraternity House use permit is to insure consistency with the general plan, which says that Fraternities and Sororities should be located on campus or in high density residential zones near campus (H 8.2.4 and LU 2.7.5, General Plan Digest). The ordinance implements these policies by requiring the Planning Commission Use Permit in the R-3 and R-4 zones, and prohibiting fraternities and sororities in the lower density residential districts. The ordinance implements policies that are geared towards promoting the creation of fraternity and sorority on-campus living groups. In no place does the City's general plan discuss fraternities and sororities without expressing the City's desire that these groups be located on campus. General Plan policies with respect to fraternities and sororities are intended to apply only to groups of students affiliated with Cal Poly or Cuesta. Planning staff does not believe that the Associated Student Sand Boarders are a fraternity, subject to zoning ordinance requirements, because they have decided not to pursue obtaining a university charter, finding that "existing as an unchartered student brotherhood associated for social purposes" is preferable (Declaration 32, Ben Arrona). The Sand Boarders have expressly stated their preference not to be associated with more traditional fraternities, and appear to strongly identify with this aspect of their organization. The City of San Luis Obispo has never issued a use permit for a fraternity or sorority that was not also affiliated with Cal Poly or Cuesta. Based on past City practice, it is highly unlikely that the City would require the Sand Boarders to obtain a Planning Commission Use Permit for a fraternity under the current code and based on their current activities. Although the Sand Boarders appear to have some similar social functions as traditional fraternities, it does not appear that a Planning Commission Use Permit for this group would further general plan goals. Activities associated with more traditional fraternities that the Sand Boarders do not participate in include participation in campus-wide rush events, social events with other fraternities or sororities, nightly dinners or weekly meetings that draw a large number of members to the house that do not live there on a regular basis, and a signage display to identify the fraternity or sorority.. Staff feels that the Planning Commission should confirm the Director's determination that the use permit for 71 Palomar has expired because the ordinance never intended to regulate groups such as the Sand Boarders that are not affiliated with Cal Poly or Cuesta. The City would not be furthering general plan goals or policies by requiring fraternity use permits for all of the groups of students with similar interests that live together in the City. Furthermore, the City should not recognize Associated Student Sand Boarders as a fraternity under the current zoning ordinance because this action would set a precedent whereby other individuals living in group housing could be subject to use permit requirements. 3 -l� ATTACHMENT 3 0186-00 Page 4 CONCLUSION If the Commission agrees with staff's recommendation and the Director's determination, then the use permit will be considered expired. However, this will have absolutely no effect on Associated Student Sand Boarders. City staff does not consider the group a fraternity under the current zoning ordinance and they could continue to live at the house subject,to the same regulations that.apply to all residents of the City, including the Property Maintenance Standards and the Noise Ordinance. Delta Tau fraternity is presently serving a 25-year suspension that was the result of disciplinary action taken by Cal Poly. Delta Tau is pursuing an administrative appeal process in the hopes of reducing the term of the suspension. If and when Delta Tau is allowed back on campus, and chooses to reoccupy the residence on 71 Palomar, they would have apply for a new fraternity use permit. A new use permit would also be required if Delta Tau chooses to rent the house to another fraternity. This issue has clearly raised a problem with the "Fraternity .House" definition in the Zoning Ordinance. The definition is broad, however, staff believes the legislative intent of the ordinance . is clear when considered in light of the associated General Plan policies. Planning staff hopes to pursue a revision of the definition to avoid confusion in the future. It is not the intent of the Community Development Department to regulate groups such as the Associated Student Sand Boarders, or any other group of individuals with similar interests, through the fraternity use permit process. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal and determine that the Associated Student Sand Boarders are a fraternity and that the original fraternity use permit is still valid. 2. Continue action with specific direction to the applicant and staff. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Director's action to determine that the use permit for a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive has expired based on the following findings. Findings: 1. The use permit for a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive has expired because the fraternity use was abandoned in June of 1999 and has not been reestablished. 2. Associated Student Sand Boarders are not a fraternity regulated under the current City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance, and regulation of Associated Student Sand Boarders as a fraternity does not meet the legislative intent of that ordinance. �3-1� ATTACHMENT, 3 0186-00 Page 5 Attached. Vicinity map Report from Don Wright, City Code Enforcement Officer(with attachments) Letter from the Community Development Director to Dennis Ahearn dated November 6, 2000 Appeal letter from Linden Mackaoui dated November 14, 2000 Response letter from Ronald Whisenand dated December 7, 2000 Declaration by Linden Mackaoui dated January 16, 2001 Declaration by Ben Arrona dated January 16, 2001 Declaration by Santos Arrona dated January 16, 2001 Letter from Serrano Sircle Homeowners Association dated.January. 17,2001 Letter from concerned neighbor Dan and Tess Matthews dated December 19, 1999 Letter from concerned neighbor Robert A. and K. Noel Middlecamp dated December 17, 1999 Letter from concerned neighbor Lydia and Bob Mourenza dated December 3, 1999 Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-68 Fraternity House definition(SLOMC 17.04:190) w a ate• 0 ■ Map' Palomar IVicinity 1 .11 11 :11 186=00 I n� ATTACHMENT 3 Referral to Director of Community Development: 71 PALOMAR Subject: EXPIRATION OF USE PERMIT - DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION Referral Date: October 4, 00 Page 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This case involves the abandonment of use of the above-mentioned property as a fraternity house for a period in excess of one year. The property was abandoned and secured on or about June 9, 1999 and remained in that condition for approximately 11 months and 24 days when, on or about June 3, 2000, it was occupied by Mr. Ben Arrona, along with some other tenants. The site was visited by myself and another inspector, Tim Girvin, on June 2, 2000. We met with representatives of Delta Tau, including Mr. Arrona, and were denied access to inspect. On June 14, 2000, the site was visited by Inspector Girvin, who determined that the property was occupied. Based on his observations, staff felt that the habitability of the property was an issue. Between the dates of June 15 - June 21, 2000, staff was denied access to the site by legal representaives of Delta Tau. On June 26, 2000, Tim Girvin and I inspected a portion of the property for habitability concerns and found several code violations, including: hazardous electrical wiring, faulty weather protection, lack of required heating, lack of a smoke detector, and a cooking appliance which would consitute an illegal second dwelling. On September 12, 2000, a permit was issued to correct the above-mentioned code violations. On October 2, 2000, 1 visited the site for the purpose of doing a progress inspection of the code corrections and to determine if other portions of the building (which had yet to be inspected) were.occupied. I encountered Mr. Arrona on site, who told me that he would not allow me to inspect without the permission of Attorney, Sig Haddad. He then told me that the tenants were a 'club', an association of sandboarders. On October 3, 2000, 1 performed the following research .to verify the status of the club and found no evidence that could verify it as a fraternal organization: Spoke with representaives of both Cal Poly and Cuesta colleges; Conducted an internet search of sandboarding and sandboarder associations. Based on this research, along with conversations with Mr. Arrona and others, and evaluation of the events that have been discussed and listed below, staff.concludes that:The property was abandoned on June 9, 1999 and re-occupied on June 3, 2000 by Mr. Arrona and others, as individuals; That there is no evidence that a fraternal organization occupied the property by June 9, 2000. Therefore, staff recommends that the Director f'nd that the use permit for 71 Palomar expired on June 9, 2000, pursuant to the following Municipal Code sections: M.C. 17:58.030 C. 1. Expiration of Use Permits -When a use, that was allowed by approval of a use permit, ceases operation for one year or such other time period as specified in the conditions of approval, then reinstatement of that use will be allowed only with approval of a new use permit. ATTACHMENT � Referral to Director of Community Development: 71 PALOMAR Subject: EXPIRATION OF USE PERMIT - DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION Referral Date: October 4, 00 Page 2 M.C. 17.04.190 Fraternity House.(or Sorority House) - "Fraternity house" (or "sorority house") means residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association and where such an association holds meetings or gatherings. SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING TO REFERRAL 06/01/99 Delta Tau House Corporation issues Termination Notice (copy included) to all occupants of property to vacate the premises within 30 days. 06/09/99 Remaining tenant on property (a caretaker) vacates, leaving the property unoccupied. Confirmation of this fact documented on two separate occasions, in conversations between Dan Carpenter-Treasurer of Delta Tau-and City staff. 06/27/99 Incident of vandalism investigated by SLOPD (report included), wherein Mr. Carpenter confirms that the house was vacated on June 9, 1999 and the property fenced off as a result of some vandalism that occurred approximately 06/13/00. 06/29/99 Property classified as "Abandoned" by Rob Bryn, Neighborhood Services Manager, in charge of this open enforcement case at the time. 12/14/99 Received copies of documents (included) from residents of neighboring properties - Tennination notice; Flyer to neighbors from Dan Carpenter, containing statement that property is vacant; Letter from neighbors recalling that property was vacated 06/20/00 or 07/01/00. .12120199 Property inspected by City staff, determined to be abandoned and secure. 04/28/00 Property inspected by City staff, determined to be abandoned and secure, although a portion of the fence was noted to have fallen over. 06/02/00 City staff met on the property with representatives Dan Carpenter and Bob Meyers of Delta Tau and a prospective new tenant, Ben Arrona. The purpose of the inspection was to identify any code violations that might. prevent the property from being re-occupied and was at the request of Mr. Arrona. Mr. Carpeter once again confirmed that the property had been vacant since June 9, 1999. An inspection was not conducted however, per the request of the representatives. 06/13/00 Telephone call received from neighboring resident that property had been occupied on 06/03/00. 06/14/00 Property inspected by City staff, verifying that it was occupied. ATTACHMENT Subject: EXPIRATION OF USE PERMIT - DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION Referral Date: October 4, 00 Page 3 06/15/00-06/21/00 Access to complete inspection for habitability denied. 06/26/00 Staff inspected portion of property for habitability. 09/12/00 Code-correction permit issued for violations. 10/02/00 Denied access for progress inspection on code-correction permit by Ben Arrona who said the the group living on the property was an "association of sandboarders" and they were all students. 10/03/00 Research completed by staff to determine status of sandboarder association. Spoke with John Walters and John Mailer of Cal Poly, Karen Robert of Cuesta College - no fraternity listed as such. Internet search yielded no results for this organization. CHRONOLOGY OF ALL CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Attached) Report completed by: Dated: 12/01/00 Don Wright Code Enforcement Coordinator 12101/00 VN—01 -99 TVE ta<.: 11 PD1^AHEARN RE-f:LT­ 541 1S13 P.. Q1 ATTACHMENT 3 TERMINATION NOTICE TO ALL TENANTS, OCCUPANTS, AND TENANTS IN POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES LOCATED AT 71 PALOMAR STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA: Within 30 days after service of this notice, you must surrender possession of the premises to the undersigned landlord's authorized agents. Your failure to vacate the premises within 30 days vAIt cause the undersigned to initiate legal proceedings against you to recover Possession of the premises,and to seek a judgment for damages for each day of occupancy after the expiration date of this notice. This notice is intended as a 30-Day notice terminating your inonth-to-month tenancy. Prorated rent totaling $250 per month per person is due and payable through and including the date of termination of your tenancy under this notice: Date: lune 1, 1999 Denn earn, V4rcside Delta lal u House Corporation D Carpenter,/pea-surer Delta Tau Hoy a Corporation i nay J1 UU U.-J: 1"a ---• • • -- C c7 CIS 'Report P.O.San Luis Obispo Police Department r� 60X 1328'SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406'J805)781-7317 CASE NC1A��A�NT CA0400600 PRIMARY STATUTORY CODE SECTIONIOFTCNsE 594 PC 1 VAND CRIME MISDEMEANOR STATUTORY CODE SECTION/OFFENSE STATUTORY CODE SECTIONIOFFENSE STATUTORY CODE SECTION/OFFENSE 602.5 PC/TPAS ATTAO-IED FORMS: -- --- . CEt1ME1.INCIDENT INFORMATION: LOCATION DATERIME OF REPOR RELATED CASE NO.(S) 71 PALOMAR 061271991826 990627014 OCCURRED BETWEEN(DATERIME) LOSS TOTAL DATE 06126199 RIME 1730 and DATE 06/27199 /TIME 0730 SO'00 PEOPLE INFORMATION: Adult DQ PROMIS WITNESS UST: CODE• NAME(LAST,FIRST.Mp DOB RACE SEX HT WT EYES HAIR DWSTATE DC AHERN,JOHN DENNIS I 1 W M 5.08" 230 BLU BRO D0836249 ADDRESS.CRY STATE.ZIP PHONE OTHER PHONE 537 CERRO ROMAUL00,SLO 541-6428 WORKI5CHOOL PHONE OTHERMFOISSn AKAS SCARS.MARKS.TATOOS :fiEQP,LE4 •_ PROMISE8MATiWITNESS UST,':1 CODE* NAME(LAST.FIRST.MI) OOB RACE SEX HT WT EYES HAIR PLASTATE RP CARPENTER,DANIEL LYLE I 1 W M 6900" 160 HAZ BLK JE0568328 ADDRESS CITY STATE.�, PHONE OTHER PHONE 414 WOODBRIDGE,SLO 543-5211 WORKISCHOOL PHONE OTHER INFOISSa AIULS SCARS.MARKS,TATOOS ""' :Adult Pg0MISW ITNESS LIST' .'P'�i�P1H~E,DRIVWTtOTI: �x >. �!.. CODE* NAME(LAST.FIRST.MI) .DOB,... .RACE SEAL HT ATE SUB BEIGHTS,TODD 1 I ADDRESS.CITY STATE.ZIP PHONE T4�A PHON 483'LUNETA,SLID S40W D WORKISCHOOL PHONE OTIVI&WOMHE CITY OF SLO T81-7025 U11 AKA: u 'shed for the a lusive use: of: ' E6 4LE INFORMATION ,y��� CODE' NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB RACE SExan ,�6 rf vuf0 E1+E13�I t4 V DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION 1 1 fur ,Ash-- o any Other s agency ADDRESS.CITY STATE ZIP pHccp c5 p"J'rl 414 WOODBRIDGE,SLO express;.rr:.:::':.. i�:5 ChisPO PHONE O Le - OTHER INFOISSM •=' `• WORK/SCHOOL :78Th upon 3 411 54 -521 ;U ARKS.IS t0 '.� ;":. .. :.. . ARKS,TATOOS A43 wt Ai- OFFICER REPORTING GATE RICK CROCKER 927775 06!27199 STACEY �i( 1,"„ TE RK AS LGN DISPOSTION:QION QED ARREST UNFOUNDED [•] ACTIVE 0 INACTIVE DO NOT C COPY to Lt.Hazouri PURGe 4 .rnna n-n>r..nr-n~ .d r..,.P-Pr"-I no-AM&M-.e Oar,R0.P*6w.a v.n.S-Sawed SUB-S ewd Y-YC"wemr • 3 -0 , nay ai uu ua: i4a ATTACHMENTcN San Luis Obispo Police Department P.O. BOX 1328'SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406-(805)781-7317 CASE NO.990627047 CA0400600 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY: (NOT EVIDENCE(SAFEKEEPING) 'CODE:0=0N F ;S=suspectv-_v1d ri. ... ITEM N .QUANTITYCODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 1 1 I V DELTA TAU CORPORATION 1 1 RI PALOMAR ARTICLE BRAND MODEL L SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S TX2'GLASS PANE(S/W BIR UPSTAIRS SOD NP $100.00 PROPERTY: (NOT EVIDENCEISAFEKEEPING) •COOE:O�wnef".'S=Suspect,"1%=Victim,. ITEM N QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 2 1 IV SAME 11 ARTICLE BRAND MODEL C11Lj SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUES 18"X5 MIRROR(S1W SIR UPSTAIRS SOD NP $20.00 •:�FjtOPERTIC"tl(f�07)r1/IDENCE/�A�EKEEPaNG� �;;.-:- .g... ..••h;. �N. :- ITEM N .QUANTITY COO NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 3 1 IV SAME 11 I ARTICLE BRAND MODELCOLO] SERIAL NO BUILD,SUPPLIES DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S 0 STAIN SPILL ON HARD WOOD FLOOR SOD NP $100.00 =I31OPEI 3f (N017. ENCEISAF KI=EPIIVG�I 'GODS w Ste." rte. :' "fir ' +M ITEMN QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 4 1 IV SAME J1 I ARTICLE BRAN CULI SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUES D STAIRWELL BANNISTER,V SEGMENT L SOD NP $250.00 .�..: ...f•<,�.a•r.P_'."""`rr--«..•.. Fy1Wd FEKEE... n' •41COrD ,w y H i 'X. nb .�'411n.7y i ; a+�y4tfsx t R�QQE +\ O=Owner k ..f R7Y.j OT&MDENCE/SAct j y.0 no ITEM N QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOBI LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 5 25 V SAME 1 ARTICLE BRAND I MODEL SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR CODI UCR STATUS VALUE$ 0 DECORATIVE GABLES TO BANNISTER SOD NP $750.00 PROPEfiTa(:� OT EY(DENCEISAF E PING °CODE��l,,�,�r1`vow-Suspect � m d>�!i ITEM N .QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOBI LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 6 16 V SAME 1 / ARTICLE I BRAND MODEL GOLOJ SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S 1'X1'GLASS PANES UPSTAIRS LO SOD NP $320.00 Pone 7 1-Idp J! UU UJ] 1Jd - - - -" % ATTACHMENT 3 San Luis Obispo Police Department P.O.BOX 1328'SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406'(805)781-7317 CASE NO. 990627047 CA0400600 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY: (NOT EVIDENCE/SAFEKEEPINOI::. ;::`6,ODE:O-�Owder S=i"Ped V=Victim . ITEM N .QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB I LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 7 2 IV SAME I / 1 ARTICLE BRAND MODEL L SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S 171'GLASS PANE UPSTAIRS N/E BIR SOD NP. $40.00 PROPERTY?SNOT EVIDENCi lfd.. iCEEP[NO) 'coos:o"`-owner s--susPea iv vcrm ITEM NJ.OUANTTTY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND I 8 16 I V SAME 1 1 ARTICLEBRAND MODEL L SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE$ 1-XV GLASS PANES NORTH CENTRAL B/R SOD NP $320.00 r •r Y 1d+Y+ p.z l;iti aRTd( NOTNIOENCEEEEPINGj" �iODE' }'�w"er' xi'� �'':`, �....- ITEMQUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 9 5 IV SAME 11 ARTICLE BRAND MODEL SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR CODI UCR STATUS VALUE$ D LEVELOR WINDOWS UPSTAIRS WE BIR SOD NP E125.00 rF: - ✓' Y4 rtIl'{bfir �.. ..r. �� Y n'rltl ":o-7 "a.•"a i, , 1OPERTY:-(NOT EYIDEt�CES¢ .EEEP.NG�) ".d�}OpE o-ownerd a ITEM .QUANTITY COO NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB I LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 10 V , SAME I I ARTICLE BRAND MODEL OLOISERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR CODI UCR STATUS VALUE$ D 3'X2'GLASS PANES UPSTAIRS NIE BIR n�y� n:RTY SOD NP $80.00 w..«r-... +.� .... ....r..,,,. - .:- .. • CODE t1,W(fffkT._ "`t 3y u• rnTy1."�r a, ..4• A,a,a OPE * NOTEa/IDEICEJS'.. P d a,... .r.. `I. .... M N QUANTITY COD NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND (TE 11 1 I SAME I I ARTICLE BRAND MODEL SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPnON UCR C4DDj UCR STATUS VALUE S 0 CHANDELIER OFT ABOVE STAIRWELL SOD NP $300.00 2P}Z !?E (NOT1%IDEfICElS74PEEPING)tOwner'7c ,Z ITEM N .QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB J LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 12 3 IV SAME II 1 ARTICLE BRAND MODEL L SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR UCR STATUS VALUE$ 0 GLOBES TO CHANDELIER SOD NP $30.00 Onro 4 cQ na`, 01 UU UJ: lba --- - "" • • ' ATTACHMENT San Luis Obispo Police Department P.O. BOX 1328'SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406'(805)781-7317 CASE NO. 490627047 CA0400600 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY: (NOT EVIDENCiFAAFEKEEPIN.d).,',. •COQE:0=0iwner Suspect V=Nh ti ITEM N QUANTITYCODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 13 1 IV SAME 11 ARTICLE BRAND MODELCOLO] SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DIDESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S 1 GAL PAINT SPILL ON CONCRETE PORCH SOD NP $50.00 PROPERTY:(NOT EVIQENCEJ$AFEKEEPING) 'CODE O=Owner =Suspect y=Victirii' ITEM N .QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST.MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 14 1 I V SAME I / / ARTICLE BRAND MODEL SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE E D 2'X2'PLASTIC WINDOW DOWNSTAIRS NIE SOD NP $15.00 PROP (r1Q�<EVIDENCGE/SA KEEPI N?3j k*C�AE O, ' er 5-SrrsPed v iehm ITEM N QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 15 4 I V SAME I / I ARTICLE BRAND COLU SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COI UCR STATUS VALUE S WHITE PAINT STAINS SHOEPRINTS ON FLOOR SOD NP $40.00 ' �R :(NO� V. lm� an... ITEMQUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 16 1 I V SAME I / / i ARTICLE BRAND MODEL L SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE S D S-W GLASS PANE DOWNSTAIRS NJE SOD NP $100.00 -...,.q p. 4�.r �..os r Y Y x i ?PRO Tii(� QT4�1l��ENGSAliEK£ PJr��aj I �'cODE'b3wner (�Q�Ccj ITEM N QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) 008 LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 17 2 I V SAME J ! ARTICLE BRAND CULI SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD . DESCRIPTION UCR 0001 UCR STATUS VALUE$ D 107(8'PANES OF GLASS(DOWNSTAIRS,SOUTH SOD NP $800.00 .Ler rp ar .r •r 4 i �'. l i y .r y y J'p, - t?PEf3T�lfr{NbTtDENCF�SAFEKE�PI�G) !CODE7et �Susped V, ryl REM N QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB I LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 18 9 V SAME 11 ARTICLEBRAND MODEL SERIAL NO SUPPUES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR CODq UCR STATUS VALUE$ D 1VX8"GLASS PANES DOWNSTAIRS KITCHEN SOD INP $145.00 A 3 �a San-Luis Obispo Police DepartmentS P.O.BOX 1328'SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA 93406-(805)781-7317 CASE . 990627047 - CA0400600 ADDITIONAL PROPERTY:(NOT EVIDENCElSAFEKEEPING) 'COPE:O=Owner.:S=Suspe'ct V=N(ctim ITEM N .QUANTITY CODE NAME(LAST,FIRST,MI) DOB LOCATION PROPERTY FOUND 19 1 IV SAME I 11 ARTICLE BRAND MODEL GUL01 SERIAL NO SUPPLIES,BUILD DESCRIPTION UCR COD UCR STATUS VALUE$ 1-X1'GLASS PANE FREEZER PANTRY SOD NP $20.00 NARRATNE: REFER.TO ATTACHED NARRATNE 073 fldy .*i UU Uy: 1 rd - - - ATTACHMENT SAN LUIS OSISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CA0400600 CRIME REPORT 990627047 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION: On 06/27/99 at 1842 hrs, I arrived at the Delta Tau Fraternity House after being dispatched to a vandalism. As I drove into the property I noted that it was completely enclosed with temporary exterior fencing with "no trespassing" signs attached. I could see that the two story house had several boarded up windows on the exterior. I made contact with RP/CARPENTER who provided me with the following information. STATEMENTS FROM Daniel CARPENTER: CARPENTER explained that he is one of several owners of the property at 71 Palomar. The group of owners make up the Delta Tau House Corporation. The house has been utilized in the past by the Delta Tau fraternity members. During the past year, portions of the house were rented out to other fraternity members of the "SAE"fraternity. Conditions were made that SAE allow Delta Tau fraternity members to utilize the property for social functions. CARPENTER explained that eviction notices were sent to the occupants of the fraternity house and that the evictions were complete on 06/01/99. A caretaker was left at the house but was said to have vacated on 06/09/99. Approx two weeks ago, CARPENTER said that major vandalism occurred at the house which included broken windows on the exterior. CARPENTER pointed to several sheets of plywood that had been erected around the house that he said resulted from that particular act of vandalism. As a result, CARPENTER said that a fence was erected surrounding the property so that trespassers were warned not to go onto the property. CARPENTER told me that at approx 1730 hrs on 06/26/99, he was at the Delta Tau property and noticed that no additional acts of vandalism were Visible to him. He departed the property and was contacted the following morning by RP/Dennis AHERN. AHERN told him that he had found extensive vandalism that had occurred recently in the form of broken windows and other property inside the dwelling. CARPENTER then responded to the Delta Tau house and located vandalism that had occurred during the previous evening. CARPENTER led me through the two story house and began showing me various items that he had that he believed were acts that were committed during the morning hours of 06/26-27/99. He told me that some of the vandalism might have resulted from the acts that had occurred two weeks previously. As we toured the house I saw that several hundred beer cans and beer bottles were strewn about the floor areas. CARPENTER pointed to the below listed items and 1 3�� nay dl uu Uy: 1aa :J LTTACHMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CA0400600 CRIME REPORT 990627047 said that they had been damaged during the previous night to the best of his recollection. My observations were that most of the glass breakage appeared to have been caused when somebody threw an object from the interior of the house and broke the glass outwards. DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE: #1 - Upstairs s/w bedroom: a 5'x 2' pane glass window was broken as well as an 18"x 4' glass mirror. The hardwood floor had stain and sealer spilled upon an area that was approx 50 square feet. #2 - A 6' segment of the wood banister that leads from the downstairs towards . the upstairs had been completely dismembered from the remaining portion. #3 - Twenty-five decorative banister gables had been either completely pulled form the stairwell or broken in half but stationed in their original position. #4 - Sixteen 1' x 1' panes of glass were individually shattered in the loft area. #5 - In the upstairs n/e bedroom I saw two 1' x 1' panes of glass shattered. #6 - In the north central upstairs bedroom I saw sixteen 1' x.1' glass panes that were broken. #7 - In the upstairs north central bedroom leading to the We bedroom, I saw twelve 1' x V glass windows that were shattered. #8 - In the upstairs We bedroom, I saw five leveler windows missing and two Tx 2' glass windows that were shattered. #9 - On the second story ceiling directly above the stairwell, I saw that portions of the chandelier had been broken. Additionally, three globes to the chandelier were also broken. #10 - On the exterior concrete at the We corner of the residence, I saw that a gallon.of white paint had been spilled that extended down four concrete steps. #11 - On the downstairs We corner of the dwelling, a 2' x 2' plastic window pane had been pushed in and appeared to have been the point of entry. 2 May d1 uu wj: iva LATTACHMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CA0400600 CRIME REPORT 990627047 #12 - Four full shoe impressions from white paint had placed damage upon the hardwood floor within the downstairs We bedroom. #13 - A 5' x 4' pane of glass was broken in the downstairs We room. #14 - At the far south end of the downstairs area, there are two 10' x 8' plate glass windows that were completely shattered. 415 - In the downstairs kitchen area, nine 12" x 8" panes of glass were broken. #16 - In the freezer pantry area of the downstairs, I located one 1' x 1' broken glass pane. This completes the list of damage shown to me by CARPENTER. CSI/STALEY arrived at my location and photographed the shoeprints at the point of entry (downstairs n/e corner.of the residence). STALEY told me that at approx 0240 hrs on 06/27/99, he and other night watch Officer's had responded to a sound of"glass breaking"at the Delta Tau house. Officer's located several windows that were broken but were unable to distinguish this damage from previous damage. No persons were located within the property. A report was not taken at that time. STALEY told me that he was aware of extensive damage that had previously been reported, approx 2 weeks ago. STALEY handed me the film used to depict the crime scene which I booked into evidence under item #20. I went from house to house in the area of Luneta St which is directly across from the Delta Tau fraternity property. No information was obtained which would assist in this investigation. CARPENTER said that he would assist by passing out flyers the next day asking residents in the area to contact the Police if they witnessed the activity. I was contacted at the scene by AHERN, a co-owner of the property. AHERN said that at approx 0730 hrs on 06127/99, he arrived on the property and noted new damage in the form of window breakage. He telephoned CARPENTER and reported his observations. This concluded his statement to me. I returned to this Dept where I checked the log entry under incident 990627014. 1 saw that the RP on this call was Todd BEIGHTS who was said to reside at 483 Luneta. I knew BEIGHTS as a city employee and telephoned him at his work station in order to obtain additional info. I spoke with BEIGHTS who denied ever making the call reporting the event at 71 Palomar. I played a cassette tape of 3, �a� nay ai uu UZJ: ir,a 1 ATTACHMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT CA0400600 CRIME REPORT 990627047 the dispatch conversation between the RP who ID'd himself at BEIGHTS to the dispatcher. BEIGHTS told me that this was not his voice and that he never reported the event. BEIGHTS told me that he was extremely concerned that somebody would use his name, address, and phone number to report an event of which he had no previous knowledge. He was unable to ID the voice as somebody that he knew. This concluded my conversation with BEIGHTS. At this time, there are no investigative leads. DISPOSITION: Inactive. Copy of report to Lt HAZOURI. CROCKER, #27775,stl, 6/30/99 at.9:35 hrs. 4 �3 a7 ,II►�u�iiu���Il�lll�i'u lllilU Clay C San lu1 s 0BU Fno ATrACHMW Building 3 Safety Division • 990 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo. CA 934013249 • (805) 781.7180 From: Darren Drake To: SLOIPO.RBRYN Date: 6/28/99 1:58pm Subject: Delta Tau - 71 Palomar Good afternoon Rob: Last year Carrie and I worked with Dennis Ahern to get this property cleaned up due to piles of dried vegetation. It took awhile but the outside of the residences was looking halfway decent. Last week Carrie and I were following up on weed abatement and noticed that this property is a disaster. There is abandoned furniture, trash, debris, broken windows and the main house appears to be partially boarded up. Can you guys take a look? If it warrants a joint inspection please let me know. Thanks Darren CC: SLOIPO.TBAASCH, CBASSFOR � �a8' city c `) San IUI S 0B,cF%1V AnACHM Building & Safety Division • 990 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo. CA 934013249 • (805) 781-7180 From: Robert Bryn To: SLOFDPO(DDRAKE) Date: 6/29/99 11:10am Subject: Delta Tau - 71 Palomar -Reply -Reply -Reply I was up there today and they are boarding up the house and have a crew cleaning. I pointed out the problem, but DO NOT let up on the enforcement. This has been a long standing problem location and we are taking a strict enforcement attitude. Thanks for your assistance. CC: CITYSLO.SLOFDPO(CBASSFOR) , 3 -a9 ATTACHMENT 3 December 13, 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA Attention: Mr. Arnold B. Jonas, Director RE: Abandonment of use - 71 Palomar Drive Dear Mr. Jonas: This letter is a follow-up to our 12/3/99 correspondence. Attached please find a copy of the 6/1/99 "Termination Notice" to the occupants at 71 Palomar and a letter directed to the neighbors . from the owners of the property. These documents are being submitted as evidence to establish abandonment of the use. Our neighbors have uniformly confirmed their best recollection as the property being vacated when the spring quarter ended at Cal Poly, and certainly by-July 1 st, if not June 20th, 1999. Please advise as to whether you desire a copy of the police report referred to and we will attempt to obtain a copy for your files. Once again, please consider this notice of abandonment of the use of 71 Palomar, San Luis Obispo, CA and a request for notice and notice of contestation as to any application for a permit to occupy 71 Palomar as any other than a single family residence. Thank you for your attentio o this matter, Lydia& Bob Mourenza 617 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 543-9083 enclosures !/ •1•.111! 111•IIIN!1''1 � 111 .-11111' 11(!I�Ji11/111'It111111 :I l / 1 1':1111111:11' i I:dl l'1'1!.11 t+1 ♦ \' :11':I ll t :I Illi 1:\ 11/!111 \'it ll'll a l l%'1 .11 1111 :1 Tr..at iI:I�IN. 01317;1% IN`1�.11 111:1:'111111.`.11 Illli�t 1'1'..1:1.`.Iltl �" 11� .I ,Illil �Illlla 1311.i1(►n anll I Illrloa Tan 1�!•at(�1•uit�i/�.. .�� 11\\"n(•`.t'� '(►•� hdifr I 'd . }• �- r, (�l'.1�'11 :111(1 •11\ 1!.1'illl (I1�'t+IIPI1�lIll:(` it��[� I{.!� 1::111�1�11 �'1►11.. + J,�r •�,a �� /! :11'1! 1n I+II Ir. 1►1'11{:./.`.�� 111 lila/:%1111I1� \\"I1.:1 ( 111 1111 \�'!(+II (+11/! 111./1111�1't �- -:-:III({ lLa \'1! 111`Ielll(r.11 1!l►t h/► `El.`.:111! ! l (1llt :11 t+llh� !\ (� (►nl . :I.l: t+Ilamgk- I l M. 111111: 11:1 I (I lill� 11'll :1( till! 111.1111/'1't . IIIIl1R1` 1'Ir.l1(►1') II:1. llf�1.`.11 �1IIIr.II anll [+I11!�" 1111!11 . /►111• 110111 6l1 lea 1 1:.11 1+111! i 11 (i1' 11 -(►11 11:1 \'Ii :111 11111!.�'t+11111 111• 1•.IItll:(.`,1'11\. 1111.`.:1�f` 11!.1:1 11'1`1` 11 ( all Ill . .1 l 11:111 0-all-11 hilliev ATTACHMENT 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 20, 1999 TO: Don Wright FROM: Bob Bishop (Building Inspector) SUBJECT: 71 Palomar(Abandoned Secure) 2Tie violations Cutedherein are those that were observedat the time of this inspection anddo not include violations which may have been ovetfooked, conceafed, or which become evident when workis begun. An inspection of the above address was performed on December 20, 1999. The building is abandoned and secure. 3 3a ATTACHMENT 3 City of San Luis Obispo Investigation Report By: Tim Girvin Subject: 71 PALOMAR /complaint Date: 06/01/00 "The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident when work is begun." Result: Visited site 04/28/00. Notes: Discovered the structure still abandoned and secure, however asection offence at the west side of the property has fallen over which may allow access to the site. 3"313 ATTACHMENT 3 City of San Luis Obispo Investigation Report By: Don Wright �- Subject: 71 PALOMAR/inspect for habitability Date: 06/02/00 "The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident when work is begun." Result: Visited site 06/02/00 as a result of a request from Ben Arrona to determine the extent of outstanding code violations and requirements for habitability. Tim Girvin (district inspector) and I met with Dan Carpenter and Bob Meyers, representing Delta Tau House Corp. along with Ben Arrona, a prospective tenant. Options were discussed for occupancy and use of the property. The parties were informed that without the re-establishment of a fratemal use on the property, prior to June 10, 2000, the existing use permit would expire and the property would be subject to conditions of use for any R-4 zoned property. Dan Carpenter confirmed what he had stated in a police record, 6/27/99 -that a caretaker was living on the property until June 9, 1999, on which date he moved out, and that no one has occupied the property since. Bob Meyers requested that we not inspect the property today and, instead, reschedule the inspection for Monday, June 5, 2000. We agreed to do that. Notes:The house is still, at this time, abandoned,and secure. 3-3 G ATTACHMENT 3 City of San Luis Obispo Investigation Report l} �7 By: Tim Girvin Subject: 71 PALOMAR: Investgation that premisis is occupied. Date: 06/14/00 "The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident when work is begun." Result: Visited site 06/14/00. The gate on the Luneta side of theproperty was open so I entered to verify if someone was there. From what I could observe from the outside of one of the out-buildings, it appears that there are two mattresses and other evidence of habitation, such as clothes, electronic equipment and beer bottles. The power was on and a radio was playing that was plugged into an extension cord which came through a window of the out-building. There was evidence that food had.been cooked on the bar-b-q pit nearby. Notes: !=111111191J011111 Clay Off-,, -';An IDIS OBI SP �arracHMENT 3 Building & Safety Division i-..ao Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.3249 _,JJ5) 781-7180 TO: Sig Haddad FROM: Don Wright SUBJECT: Inspection/71 Palomar DATE: 6/19/00 Mr. Haddad — The Building Division would like to complete our inspection of the above- mentioned property for the purpose of establishing that it meets minimum habitability requirements for life safety as directed by the Uniform Housing Code and Uniform Building Code, in regards to area, heat, light and ventilation, cooking facilities, sanitation and egress. Having visited the site and having knowledge of some substandard conditions present, it is our responsibility to identify and abate the code violations that would prohibit this minimum level from being attained — in light of the'fact that at least one of the buildings is now being occupied. The extent of our inspection would be to dear the areas desired and needed for habitation. If for instance, as we discussed,.there is no kitchen or shower in the outbuilding that is currently being occupied, we would have to determine that those facilities are in a usable condition and meet code requirements, elsewhere on the property. We would encourage a full inspection of all the buildings on the premises, so that any code violations could be identified and, eventually, all areas would meet minimum requirements. However, portions of the property could be occupied without all code violations being abated, as long as it is determined that there is no immediate hazard or any imminent danger to life and limb. I hope that we canmutually agree to follow through with our inspection on Wednesday of this week(June 21), as we discussed on the phone. Sincerely, Don R. Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator �b LITACHMW 3 City of San Luis Obispo Investigation Report By: Don Wright 0— Subject: 71 PALOMAR /status Date: 10/03/00 'The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident when work is begun." Result: Visited site 10/02/00 to check progress of code corrections and extent of general upgrades. Encountered one of the tenants, Ben Arrona, who said that the corrections were not completed and asked that I not perform any inspections without first clearing access with attorney, Sig Haddad. He also stated that the tenants were a 'club', an association of sandboarders, and they were all college students, which met the definition of a fraternity. Notes: I did not enter any of the structures on site, per the request of Mr..Arrona. However, looking throught the windows of the main house from the driveway, it did appear that areas other than the two outbuildings and main kitchen and bathroom were being occupied. Y 3-37 =ATTACHMENT 3 71 Palomar 10/03/00 re: sanctioned or listed clubs on campus - "Association of Sandboarders" Spoke with John Mailler of Cal Poly ASI - he told me that there was no club listed on campus as the above-mentioned. Spoke with Karen Robert of Student Development with Cuesta College - she also told me that there was no club listed on campus as the above-mentioned. Spoke with Bob Walters of Student Affairs Dept.-CP, who verified what John Mailer told me. Conducted an internet search for'sandboarding', 'sandboarders', sandboarding associations'. No results indicating an association at this address or in SLO. ATTACHMENT 3 Case Information address 71 PALOMAR Owner when DELTA TAU HOUSE !oning/Occup R-4 Case was 91 ALVISO DR initiated CAMARILLO, CA 93010 8476 .egal Desc. CY SLO T30S RI 2E PTN SEC 27 Inspector TIM GIRVIN :ase#/Names District 1 :omplaints Abandoned Building Received 06/25/99 Internal or Other Agency :omments broken bottles, beer cans, paper cups&trash in front yard..... future notices to D.Ahearn. Vext Action Information Established 11/06/00 Next Action 11/20/00 Comments Update re: letter. Permit#14817 good until Case Activity 06/29/99 to Fire Dept. Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 06/29/99 C.Bassford Open-written Notice Sent 06/29/99 abondoned, boarded, fenced, Open-site Visit,Violation Probable-report 12/20/99 abandoned, secure Open-abandoned Secure Building 0427/00 To Bldg.to verify secure. Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 05/01/00 Investigation Report-secure Open-site Visit, Building Secure-report 06/02/00 To Bldg.to insp. for habitability per Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 06/02/00 Investigation Report-met with Open-site Visit, Building Secure-report 06/05/00 To Bldg.to inspect. Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 06/05/00 Bob Meyers (#) requested Open-counter Visit 06/13/00 Recd call that people were living on Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 06/14/00 Investigation Report-premises Open-investigation Report 06/14/00 Spoke w/B. Meyers-told him staff Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 06/15/00 Left mssg.for B. Meyers. Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 06/15/00 Investigation Report-premises Open-investigation Report, 06/15/00 Recd mssg. from office of Sig Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 06/16/00 Spoke w/S. Haddad-requests Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 06/19/00 Faxed memo (#)to S. Haddad to Open-other 06/21/00 Recd mssg. from S. Haddad to Open-telephone Message SenVrecvd 06/27/00 To Bldg. to inspect. Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 06130/00 Investigation Report-habitability Open-site Visit,Violation Probable-report 07/03/00 Left mssg. for S. Haddad re:work Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 07/03/00 Notice of code violation Open-written Notice Sent 07/03/00 Add'I complaint of windows being Open-other 07/28/00 Left mssg.W D. Ahearn (f)for Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 08/03/00 Ben Ancona (#) in for perTnit forms. Open-counter Visit 08/14/00 Left mssg. for B.Arrona to obtain Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 09/01/00 D.Ahearn to obtain permit 9/7. Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 09/07/00 D.Ahearn in to obtain permit not Open-counter Visit 09/12/00 Appl.#00879 Open-building Application Submitted 09/12/00 Permit#14817 Open-building Permit Issued 10/03/00 Investigation Report-access to Open4nvestigation.Report 10/03/00 Contacted ASI-CP&Student Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 10/31/00 To R.Whisenand re: letter of use Open-referred To Appropriate Department/agency 11/06/00 Notification of use permit expiration. Open-certified Letter Sen 3'39 3 Case Information ATTACHMENT 11/27/00 Recd call from D. Ahearn Open-telephone Message Sent/recvd 12/01/00 Referral to Director for expiration of Open-other 12/04/00 Final inspection requested- Ben Open-referred To Building For Inspection ATTACHMENT 3 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT - 71 PALOMAR City of San Luis Obispo Investigation Report By: Don Wright Subject: 71 PALOMAR /inspection Date: 12/08/00. "The violations listed herein are those that were observed at the time of this inspection and do not include violations which may have been overlooked, concealed, or which become evident when work is begun." Result: Visited site 12/04/00. A final inspection was conducted for the code correction items, per permit#14817. All items were found to be acceptable and the permit was finaled. Notes: Mr. Arrona and I walked through the rest of the house and I verified there were no outstanding habitablity concerns. There remain a few windows awaiting glass replacement, but they are boarded up and do not present a problem. There is also a wood cover on the main electrical panel that should be replaced with a metal one. Mr. Arrona said that he would contact his electrician for that purpose. ATTACHMENT 3 city osAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 6, 2000 Aheam Realty Attn: Dennis Ahearn 1319 Garden St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Re: Use Permit for 71 Palomar Dear Mr. Abeam: On October 4, 2000, Community Development Department staff met with staff from the office of Neighborhood Services and the City Attorney's office to discuss the above-referenced property. At the meeting,a determination was made that the use permit for this property (#U0065) has expired, pursuant to Section 17.58.030 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. It is clear to staff that no one was living on the premises between 6/10/99 and 6/2/00. Although the property was re-occupied by a group of individuals on June 3, 2000, there is no indication that a fraternal use, meeting the intent of the law, has been reestablished. Therefore, staff has determined that the fraternal use of this property ceased operation for a period of at least one year and"reinstatement of that use will be allowed only with approval of a new use permit." Should you dispute the above facts and believe that the fraternity use did not cease for the one-year period, you have the right to appeal my decision. An appeal would be heard by the City Planning Commission and would need to be filed in writing within 10 days of the date of this letter. As you are aware, there is an open permit to correct violations, which have been identified by City staff on a portion of the property. There is still (from information on file) reasonable cause to believe that there are code violations on the remaining portion of the property, which has yet to be inspected, and we once again. request entry to inspect these other areas now that they appear to be occupied. Please contact Don Wright at 781-7179 for that purpose. If you have any further questions,you may contact Don Wright or Planning Department staff at 781-7172. Sincerely, Ronald Whisenand, Acting Community Development Director cc: Sig Haddad, Attorney at Law Delta Tau House Corporation Don Wright, Code Enforcement Coordinator Gilbert A.Trujillo, Assistant City Attorney © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(soy)7a7-7410. 2 ATTACHMENT 3 The Law Office of Linden N. Mackaoui 992 Monterey Street,Suite B San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Phone:(805)541-0590 Fax.(805) 541-1225 Dated: November 14, 2000 Ronald Whisenand Acting Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Re: Use Permit for 71 Palomar Street NOTICE OF APPEAL OF DECISION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr..Whisenand: In response to your letter to Dennis Ahearn dated November 6, 2000, notice is hereby given that Delta Tau Alumni Association and Delta Tau House Corporation hereby appeal your decision that the use permit for 71 Palomar has expired and generally deny the allegations contained in you letter. I would request that all future correspondence regarding this issue be directed to Mr. Sig Haddad (address is on file) and myself. I would further request you provide us with all written or recorded documentation relied upon in support of your decision, including, but not limited to case notes, field notes, memos, e-mails or other correspondence between the relevant City parties prior to, during and after the meeting held October 4, 2000. I would also request the names and positions held by all participants at said meeting. I look forward to working with you to resolve this issue. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 'den N. a out Attorney at Law cc: Sig Haddad City Planning Commission . Delta Tau Fraternity � iVEWa. NOV r 4 70M Ornamum C ATTACHMENT 3 all A91 city of sAn Ills oBispo M09d990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 7, 2000 Sig Haddad 1022 Mill Street, Suite A SLO 93401 Re: Appeal of Director's Determination - 71 Palomar Dear Mr.Haddad: The City is in receipt of Linden Mackaoui's letter of appeal of the Community Development Director's determination that the fraternity use permit at 71 Palomar has expired. A hearing on the appeal has been tentatively scheduled for January 10, 2001 before the Planning Commission. The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. An agenda and staff report will be mailed to you in advance of the hearing. Mr. Mackaoui has requested, `written or recorded documentation relied upon in support of my decision..."This material is currently part of an on-going enforcement case but will be included with the Planning Commission staff report. A copy will be made available to you at that time. I noted in Mr: Mackaoui's letter that there were no facts or points of argument in support of your appeal. We certainly would be willing to pass on any information to the Planning Commission as part of their staff report that will.help them preRare for the meeting. If you choose to do so, you will need to get the information to us by December 26 in order to be assured that it is provided totheCommission in their meeting packets. I am also willing to reconsider my decision should you provide me with signed declarations under penalty of perjury from the occupants which provide the dates of occupancy, identifies the college or university attended, and identifies the fraternal organization, including the date it was created, its purpose, its members,its officers,as well as its articles of incorporation and bylaws. Feel free to contact me a081-7177 if you have any further questions on the appeal process. Sincerely, R ald Whisena , Acting Com nit Development Director cc: Linden Mackaoui,Attorney at Law Dennis Ahearn Don Wright,Code Enforcement Coordinator Gilbert A.Trujillo,Assistant City Attorney The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Teleoonununicatioris Device for the Dear(80S)781-7410. ATTACHMENT I LINDEN.MACKAOUI Attorney at Law tECrEIVED 2 State Bar No. 155210 992 Monterey Street, Suite B 200 3 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �HiV ! (805) 541-0590 i.r[Y OF SAN LUIS.De,SPO 4 CDMMUMTY DEVEL'JF^K?ENT 5 6 7 8 9 10 ) DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY I I ) OF PERJURY BY LINDEN N. MACKAOUI 12 13 ) 14 ) 15 ) 16 I, Linden N. Mackaoui, hereby declare if called as a witness I could competently testify to the 17 following matters: 18 1. I have authority, to act on behalf of the Delta Tau House Corporation and Delta Tau 19 Alumni Association in regards to the City of San Luis Obispo's action to summarily revoke the use 20 permit at 71 Palomar Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. We respectfully disagree with the 21 decision that the use permit has expired and object to the process and actions taken by the Community 22 Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo. We further object to the lack of notice 23 provided, both initially and after the appeal was served. 24 2. The property at 71 Palomar is owned by the Delta Tau House Corporation, a California 25 non-profit mutual benefit corporation. The express purpose of the corporation is to own the land and 26 operate a "fraternity" on the premises. The Alumni of Delta Tau Fraternity are the shareholders of 27 said corporation, which has been in continuous existence since 1969, when the property was 28 purchased. The Fraternity was founded in 1955 in the City of San Luis Obispo and has been in 1 3 ��� ATTACHMENT 1 continuous existence ever since, with some of the original founding fathers still active in the alumni 2 association. There are in excess of 500 members in the alumni association. We are predominantly 3 Cal Poly and Cuesta College graduates that remain connected through our shared experience of 4 belonging to a fraternal organization, as that would be defined in any dictionary or code. We interact 5 twice a year formally in San Luis Obispo, monthly by meetings or newsletters, weekly by phone, and 6 daily by e-mail or at our website. 7 3. In a letter dated November 6, 2000, to Dennis Ahearn, an alumnus and local San Luis 8 Obispo businessman, Acting Community Development Director Ronald Wisenand indicated a meeting 9 was held on October 4, 2000, in which it was decided that the "fraternal use of this property ceased 10 operation for a period of at least one year"_ (please see exhibit "A", attached). The alleged basis for 11 this taking was "no one was living on the premises between 6/10/99 and 6/2/00. Although the 12 property was re-occupied by a group of individuals on June 3, 2000, there is no indication that a 13 fraternal use, meeting the intent of the law, has been reestablished." 14 4. On November 14, 2000, I personally served written notice to appeal the.decision and 15 requested I be provided with relevant documents and information regarding the apparent action taken 16 by the City's agents (exhibit "B", attached). I received notice of the hearing date in a letter from Mr. 17 Wisenand dated December 7, 2000. He also indicated, however, that the information I requested 18 would not be provided until after the Planning Commission staff report is prepared. I called to speak 19 to Mr. Wisenand about the difficulty of responding to the allegations when the facts relied upon are 20 withheld but was unable to speak directly with him. On December I finally went to the counter of the 21 Community Development Department personally and asked to review the file. I was told (as in the 22 letter) that the information would not be provided because this is an "ongoing enforcement" matter. 23 5. The property at 71 Palomar had been in continuous use as a "fraternity" since we took 24 occupancy in 1969. In 1998, the number of active student members of Delta Tau Fraternity living 25 at 71 Palomar was down to approximately six. A relationship was made with Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 26 another fraternal organization in San Luis Obispo, wherein several members of that organization 27 resided on the premises. Both groups operated as a fraternity while on the premises. On June 1; 28 1999, I personally served a 30 day notice to vacate the premises on the residents at 71 Palomar, 2 ATTACHMENT S 1 because the corporation had decided not to pursue any further relationship with the members of Sigma 2 Alpha Epsilon. Based upon information and belief, the residents at that time were finishing their 3 spring quarter at Cal Poly. The intention was to terminate all tenancy rights so that a new lease could 4 be created; by law the corporation could not enforce its property rights, including evicting any tenants, 5 without following applicable laws. Dan Carpenter, an alum and Board member at that time, 6 specifically waited to the end of June before securing the premises to comply with the requirements 7 of the law and retaking possession. Further, the property is traditionally either vacant or minimally 8 occupied during the Summer months because of the student nature of the inhabitants. 9 6. As is detailed in the police report referenced in the Department's summary, extensive 10 damage was done to the property at some.point in the latter part of June, 1999, after the service of I1 the eviction notice. When this first came to the attention of the DTHC board, there were still 12 residents in the premises and personal effects of the occupants remained at the residence. Because of 13 the extensive damage done to the premises, the property could not be leased for its intended purpose 14 during the fall quarter of 1999. The premises had been secured and a fence was placed around open 15 areas of the structure to prevent any further vandalism or the arrival of squatters. The police report 16 contained several factual errors, including "the eviction was complete as of June 1, 1999"; this was 17 the date the notices were served, not when the tenants left the property. 18 7. On or about December 1999 inquiries were made by a fraternal student association, the 19 Sandboarders, about residing at the residence at 71 Palomar. On April 29 and April 30, 2000, this 20 group met with the Board and the Alumni Association at The Gardens restaurant in Avila Beach 21 regarding their request to occupythe house as a student fraternal association. The Sandboarders 22 addressed the alumni as a group, presenting their proposal to repair and occupy the house and to 23 become associated with the Delta Tau fraternity. These negotiations were led primarily by Ben 24 Arrona, president of the Sandboarders, and included representatives from DTHC and the Alumni 25 Association, along with parents of these students.. 26 8. As a.result of the discussions between the parties, the Sandboarders entered the premises 27 at 71 Palomar to live, work, attend school, and conduct their meetings. The house was occupied no 28 later than June 3, 2000. Repairs were begun, the fencing was removed, applicable permits were 3 34? ATTACHMENT S 1 pulled from the City Building Department. All work under the permit has been completed and signed 2 off by the City's inspectors. This group is a "fraternity" within the meaning of the city's municipal 3 code. They are students, primarily at Cal Poly, although a few are currently attending Cuesta 4 College. Based upon information and belief, they have regularly scheduled meetings (once a week.). 5 As a group they have undertaken repairs to the property, and have hired a licensed contractor for 6 repair beyond their expertise or when necessitated by the city's request. The alumni of Delta Tau had 7 a weekend workday(s) at 71 Palomar in August, 2000, where alumni worked hand in hand with the 8 Sandboarders in cleaning up the grounds and doing minor repair and maintenance of the residence and 9 decking. I, along with over 30 other alumni, observed the members of the association expending 10 effort in improving the residence and the premises. This is not a "group of individuals" as opined by 11 Mr. Wisenand. They held a meeting that weekend and impressed us with their community and 12 brotherhood. Their intention all along has been to occupy the premises as a student association. DTHC 13 has intended for them to so occupy it. 1.4 9. Although the house was indeed unoccupied for a period of time in 1999 and 2000, the use 15 of the property as a "fraternity" has not ceased for the requisite one year period. It is owned by a 16 corporation whose purpose is to have a fraternity on the premises. The Board and the Alumni 17 Association have met at the site during the period it was unoccupied to better determine what course 18 to take. After the acts of vandalism to the residence occurred, all necessary steps were taken to secure 19 the premises for safety reasons. A student association that meets all definitions of a fraternity resumed 20 occupancy of the premises for its permitted use prior to the lapse of the permit. It is respectfully 21 submitted that the decision of the Acting Community Development Director be overturned and the use 22 permit for 71 Palomar be reinstated. 23 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 24 foregoing is true and correct, except as to those matters submitted upon information and belief, and 25 as to those matters I believe them to be true. Executed on January 16, 2001, at San Luis Obispo, 26 California. 27 28 LINDEN Tt. NIACKAOUI 4 ATTACHMENT 1 LINDEN N. MACKAOUI Attorney at Law 2 State Bar No.: 155210 992 Monterey Street, Suite B 3 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 541-0590 RECENT-D 4 5 JAN V. 200j CITY OF SAN LUIS p�1wPp 6 COMMUNTY DE`E1,0 MENT 7 8 9 10 11 12 ) DECLARATION UNDER OF PENALTY OF PERJURY BY 13 ) BEN ARRONA 14 ) 15 ) 16 17 I, BEN ARRONA, declare that if I were called as witness in this matter I could and would 18 competently testify as follows:. 19 1. I am resident of San Luis Obispo, California. I was born and raised in San Luis 20 Obispo.. 21 2. I am a full time student attending Cuesta College. I ammajoring in Political 22 Science. 23 3. I am the current president of the"Associated Student Sand Boarders" (hereinafter 24 referred to as"ASSB"). 25 4. The ASSB was founded in January 2000. 26 5. The ASSB is a social association of college and/or university men which is a 27 unique brotherhood recognizing a system of shared values which includes a dedication to forging 2 8 among individuals a lasting bond which transcends self interest and the limitations of time or ATTACHMENT 3 1 place, the pursuit and realization of academic achievement, the development integrity,'dignity, 2 and maturity; and a commitment to such growth of the individual in a social environment. 3 6. The ASSB is a social association of"brothers", or,"fraternity." However, when 4 the ASSB was founded, a name was selected not using the Greek letters used by more recognized 5 "Greek Fraternities" for a number of reasons, including, a desire to avoid an automatic negative 6 perception of our brotherhood as a result of the historical behavior of some"Greek Fraternities." 7 7. At all times since it was founded, the ASSB has had an established set criteria 8 governing eligibility for membership. Among the minimum criteria required for membership is: 9 (1) the member must be a male student at either California Polytechnic State University at San 10 Luis Obispo (hereinafter"Cal Poly") or Cuesta College; (2) a member must have 12 or more 11 academic units for the academic term; (3) a member must maintain a"C"or better average in 12 their academic studies. 13 8. As an organized social association of students, the ASSB has, and at all times 14 relevant has had, an organizational structure, a defined set of rules and values, elected officers, 15 conducted regular membership meetings, recruited new members,planned and organized social 16 events, and has otherwise managed and conducted the association's affairs. 17 9. A goal the ASSB membership identified early on was obtaining a physical home 18 for our associated brotherhood which would also serve as a residence for its members. 19 10. It is and was the collective belief of the ASSB brothers that obtaining a fraternity 20 house for our brotherhood would enable reducing the college housing costs and other living 2.1 expenses of members while also enhancing the association members' cohesiveness, shared 22 experience, growth and leadership opportunities, as well provide further opportunity for growth 23 and organizational development for the relatively young organization. ASSB officers and 24 members anticipated the collective experience and brotherhood's recruitment goals and efforts 25 would also be enhanced by acquisition of a physical location where the association would be 26 based and at which meetings and other association activities and social gatherings could be held. 27 11. Early last year, 2000,the ASSB identified a potential fraternity house for the 28 association and it's members. The ASSB identified the property at 71 Palomar Street in the City 2 3 -sem ATTACHMENT 1 of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter"fraternity house") as a good candidate to meet the association's 2 needs as it was already approved for use as a fraternity house, was vacant, and was in need of 3 rehabilitation which ASSB and its members perceived as a worthy organization project and 4 which the members were willing to undertake if favorable lease terms could be achieved. 5 12. At the direction of and on behalf of the ASSB members I attempted to contact the 6 property owners. I was eventually contacted by DAN CARPENTER, a member of owner Delta 7 Tau House Corporations' board of directors and its treasurer. 8 13. A dialogue was entered into between the ASSB and representatives of the Delta 9 Tau House Corporation(hereinafter"DTHC") and Delta Tau Alumni Association (hereinafter 10 "DTAA'). 11 14. The ASSB was advised that a meeting of the DTHC board would occur on April 12 29, 2000 at the Gardens of Avila and a meeting of the DTAA would be held on April 30, 2000 at 13 the Embassy Suites Hotel. The ASSB was invited to make a presentation at these assemblages 14 regarding the ASSB, its purpose, organization, vision for the future, and ASSB's desire and 15 intent to be the new fraternal association residing at the Palomar Street fraternity house. 16 15. I was among the ASSB officers and members made presentations to the brothers 17 of Delta Tau Fraternity at house corporation board meeting and alumni association meeting. At 18 these meetings ASSB officers and members present were introduced, a roster of the ASSB's 19 membership and a statement of ASSB values was provided, ASSB's fraternal and philosophical 20 orientation was described,and ASSB's organizational structure and offices was identified The 21 ASSB representatives further explained the association's goals and vision, specifically, ASSB's 22 vision that the association be based at the Palomar fraternity house and that the ASSB brothers 23 reside at and rehabilitate the structure and grounds. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by 24 reference please find true copies of the above mentioned documents which were presented to the 25 Delta Tau Fraternity organizations on April 29th and 30th, 200.. 26 16. As a result of those presentations the ASSB and representatives of the DTAA and 27 DTHC entered into preliminary negotiations regarding terms and conditions which would be 28 involved in ASSB's lease of the fraternity house. 3 ` L —�/ ATTACHMENT -J 1 17. During the time that such negotiations were taking place in May 2000, I visited 2 the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department(hereinafter"CDD") to investigate 3 the regulations and fee costs that ASSB would face making repairs on the fraternity house. 4 18. During that visit to the CDD I was told by staff personnel there that the fraternity 5 house use permit at 71 Palomar had been revoked! I was both surprised and troubled by that '6 information as the ASSB had selected that property in part because it did possess the use permit 7 which would allow the association and its brothers to live and operate at the fraternity house. 8 19. As a result of this information, which I later leamed was not true or accurate, I 9 inquired as to what would need to be done to acquire a new use permit. I was told that the city 10 would almost certainly not approve a new use permit at that location. I still inquired as to what 11 steps would be necessary, and, was told that first the CDD would have to inspect the premises. 12 20. As a result of this conversation an appointment was made for the city to inspect 13 the property on or about June 2, 2000. 14 21. 1 was present on June 2, 2000, at approximately 10:30 a.m. when Mr. Don Wright 15 from CDD and another city official met with myself, Mr. Dan Carpenter, and Mr. Bob Meyers, 16 representatives of DTHC and DTAA. At the commencement of that meeting Mr. Meyers asked 17 Mr. Wright whether the fratemity house use permit had in fact been revoked as had been reported 18 to me. 'Mr. Wright informed all present that the use pemiit had not in fact been revoked, or 19 lapsed,but, that.it was his belief that it was going to expire very shortly due to the fact that it had 2o not been occupied. 21 22. It is my recollection that after some further discussion regarding the use permit 22 that Mr. Meyers then asked Mr. Wright whether it was required that the DTHC allow the city 23 access to the fraternity house at this time. It is further my recollection that Mr. Wright stated 24 that it was not required and that the CDD was only there at the request of the parties involved. It 25 is further my recollection that Mr. Meyers stated that due to the CDD had already provided 26 incorrect information regarding the use permit that he would need to update DTHC and DTAA 27 officers of the new information prior to inspection and tentatively rescheduled for another day. 28 23. On June 2,2000 the ASSB social brotherhood commenced occupancy and 4 ATTACHMENT 1 operation at the fraternity house located at 71 Palomar Street. A couple of ASSB members, 2 myself being one of them, commenced residing at the fraternity house the evening of June 2, 3 2000. More ASSB members commenced residing there shortly thereafter. 4 24. The first social gathering of the ASSB at the Palomar Street fraternity house 5 occurred on the evening of June 2, 2000. I was present at that social event. There have been a 6 number of other social events of the ASSB at the fraternity house since that time. 7 25. The first meeting of the ASSB membership at the fraternity house took place on 8 Sunday, June 4, 2000. I was present and presided over that meeting. The ASSB held several 9 subsequent meetings during the summer of 2000 and holds weekly meetings since the 10 commencement of the academic quarter this past fall. 11 26. The ASSB social brotherhood has continued to operate at and occupy the 12 fraternity house since Friday, June 2, 2000. Members of ASSB,all college students at either Cal 13 Poly or Cuesta College have resided at 71 Palomar continuously since June 2, 2000. 14 27. Since commencing to operate and occupy the fraternity house at 71 Palomar, the 15 ASSB and its members have undertaken the rehabilitation and restoration of the property and 16 grounds which had experienced some damage and neglect for a period of time. 17 28. The ASSB and it's members have devoted numerous hours of their time and 18 expenditure of their resources to make all necessary repairs to the property. 19 29. I have become aware that the Acting Community Development Director has 2o determined that the ASSB is not a qualifying organization for purposes of the"fraternity house" 21 use permit which was granted to the owners of the property. I respectfully insist that the 22 determination is not correct. 23 30. The ASSB was founded and has operated as social association of college and 24 university men and members are deemed members of a brotherhood,or, "fraternity." 25 31. The brothers of the ASSB consciously did not adopt Greek letters on name for a 26 variety of good and sound reasons. 27 32. The brothers of the ASSB consciously have not applied for a charter membership 28 at either Cal Poly or Cuesta College. The ASSB considered obtaining a university charter. The 5 3 _� ATTACHMENT 1 necessary documents were obtained in March or April 2000, scrutinized, and discussed at 2 meetings of the association members. However, after considering the philosophy and values of 3 the ASSB as well as assessing the burdens and benefits afforded by chartered status of student 4 associations, the ASSB members determined to not obtain a university charter, at least for the 5 time being. Instead, the ASSB members determined that existing as an unchartered student 6 brotherhood associated for social purposes would be a preferable organizational structure. 7 33. As a part of such consideration, the ASSB specifically considered the"fraternity 8 house" use permit which ASSB was potentially and ultimately operating under at 71 Palomar and 9 consulted municipal code section 17.04.190 defining"fraternity house." It appeared then and 10 continues to be clear to ASSB and myself that neither that statute nor any associated regulations 11 require, expressly or impliedly, that our student association obtain a charter or other`official' 12 sanction from Cal Poly, Cuesta College, or other governmental entity to allow our association to 13 operate within the approved use which has enabled our organized student association to operate 14 and its members to live collectively, in affordable housing, during their college years, and obtain 15 the benefit of the associated life lessons experiences that only such a collegiate collective 16 responsibility and existence can provide and for which the approved use exists. 17 34. The ASSB and.its members relied on the express language of section 17.04.190 in 18 making that decision. Had it been so clear,obtaining a charter would have been a simple 19 matter, though it may have required compromising some of the associations principles. In 20 reliance on the express statutory language, the ASSB and its members have expended a great deal 21 of time, effort, and resources pursuing and realizing dream of collegiate fraternal existence . 22 35. I will be present at the hearing in this matter and will seek to further address the 23 planning commission regarding this matter. I would be glad to answer any questions the 24 planning commission may have at that time. 25 36. Based on the actual facts in this matter I respectfully request, as president and a 26 also as a member of the ASSB, that the planning commission reverse the determination of the 27 Acting Community Development Director and determine the ASSB is an association within the 28 meaning of section 17.04.190 and that the fraternity house use permit has not in fact lapsed. 6 3-5 LA_TTACHMEIYT j 1 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 2 3 Dated: January 16, 2001 4 5 BY: E 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 3-ss - ATTACHMENT LASSOCIATED STUDENT SAND BOARDERS Membership Roster Name Home Town Graduate Mgkjior Josh Adargo San Diego 2003 Agriogture Busisaess Ben Arrona San Luis Obispo 2003 Political Science _ Nick Belkin . SanLuis Obispo 2002 NIA Jared Casada VV San Luis Obisoo 2003. . Criminal Science Few Fedowa Bakersfield 2002 ffitory Tyler Fitch San Luis•Obispo 2003 Social Science Matt Frantz San Luis ObiNo 2003 Ar*#Ntural . eerie RandyFreitas Gilroy 2004 Electrioal Enpegigg ' Jake Kwher San Luis Obi _ 2002 Busisness Administration Rfley King San Luis Obispo_ 2003 Materials EnW Brad lmgcr_ San Luis Obisvo Obi2003 A " _ ince Busisness Dawn Lamoree San Luis Obispo 2003 CA Information Systems Josh McBride Sin Luis 0!' o_ 2.003 El�cal Justin McColumn San Luis Obispo 2003 Aerospace Enginvaing Travis Koh I Santa Maria 2003 caltiue Busisness Dan Zamora Sacramento 2004 . i Electrical Engincefwg ATTACHMENT Associated Student Sand Boarders Values The Association of Student Sand Boarders is defined by the values which are collectively accepted by its members. The extent to which values are practiced is the measure of our club, • The Association of Student Saud Boarders is a unique brotherhood which forges among individuals a lasting bond which transcends self interest and the limitations of time or place. The Association of Student Sand Boarders is committed to the growth ofthe individual in a social environment which nurtures integrity, dignity, and maturity while enjoying experiences and collegial sociability. Association of Student Sand Boarders,recognizing that academic achievement is fundamental to the development of the individual,stands for the.intellectual growth and the attainment of human pstentials- • The Association of Student Sand Boarders acknowledges its responsibility to the larger community of which it is a part by encouraging personal and collective involvement in serving the needs of the university,the community, and society. The Association of Student Saud Boarders is committed to the elimination of any activity which demeans or threatens the individual,or compromises its traditional standards of gentlemanly behavior. The Association of Student Sand Boarders stands as proof that commitment of numial assistance and these shatzd values, given in youth,does not falter nor diminish with age. 3 -67 ATTACHMENT ASSOCIATED STUDENT SAND BOARDERS House Committees Land sca in Construction Nance Kxjwrlence Name E=trience Josh Adan TUA Ban Anda Remadaled House Nick BeU= Landscmag Peter Fedowa Father is Jared Casada 3-fees WE Wer Fkcb NIA Brad Umm NIA MatLFrMAz Cmfticdon Justin McColu= pan rime Lm&capa Randy Fresis. NIA Travis Rich Farm Spaly Wodusr Jake iffisther Certified Welder NIA Dan Lamores Father is Pbiinber Jasb McBride Residential Wiring -Dan Zamora I Construction ATTACHMENT 1 LINDEN N. MACKAOUI Attorney at Law RECEIVED 2 State Bar No.: 155210 992 Monterey Street, Suite B 3 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 CITYJAN I r 2001 4 (805) 541-0590 COMMUVaTOF YDLUISONT 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ) 12 ) DECLARATION UNDER OF PENALTY OF PERJURY BY 13 ) SANTOSARRONA 14 ) 15 ) 16 17 I, SANTOS ARRONA, declare that if I were called as witness in this matter I could and would 18 competently testify as follows: 19 1. I am resident of San Luis Obispo, California- 20 alifornia.20 2. I am the father of BEN ARRONA (hereinafter"BEN"), a student at Cuesta 21 College in San Luis Obispo. 22 3. I am personally aware that my son BEN and some of his school friends and 23 associates organized themselves as a student association in early 2000. 24 4. I am aware that the name the members of that student association selected was 25 "Association of Student Sand Boarders." 26 5. I am aware that the members of this association are young men that are college 27 students at either California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo or Cuesta College. 28 6. I am personally aware that the members of this association expressly intended � -,s9 ATTACHMENT 1 their organization to be a social association in the nature of a brotherhood, or, "fraternity." 2 5. I am personally aware that in April, 2000, BEN and other members of the Student 3 Sand Boarder association were meeting at my residence in San Luis Obispo for purposes of 4 discussing and crafting a presentation that they intended to deliver to the owners of the fraternity 5 house located at 71 Palomar in the city of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as "fraternity 6 house"). 7 6. I am personally aware that BEN and his associates intended that their relatively 8 newly formed social fraternity would negotiate an agreement with the owners of the fraternity 9 house which would allow the student association that BEN and associates had created to occupy 10 the property as a residence for the association members and would serve as their meeting house 11 and the center for their social events. 12 7. I personally listened to, reviewed, and commented upon, at the request of BEN 13 and his associates, the presentation and related documents they had created and which they 14. intended to present to the owners of the fraternity house at a meeting which I was informed was 15 to take place in late April 2000. 16 8. I am personally aware that BEN and his associates had considered obtaining a 17 university charter for their organization and had decided against doing so prior to the time that 18 they were to make the presentation to the owners of the fraternity house, but, had determined that 19 they would seek a university charter if that was considered absolutely necessary by the owners of 20 the fraternity house. 21 9. I am personally aware that as a result of the presentation BEN and his associates 22 made to the owners of the fraternity house, a dialog commenced regarding possible terms for the 23 Association of Student Sand Boarders to lease the fraternity house and become the new resident 24 student association. In fact, I was brought into those negotiations, in part, due to the fraternity 25 house owners' desire that there be a financial guarantor regarding the commitments that BEN and 26 the rest of the Student Sand Boarders Association would be making regarding the fraternity 27 house and the rehabilitation thereof. 28 2 6 ) ATTACHMENT 0 1 10. BEN had resided at my residence prior to June 2000. I am personally aware that 2 in early June 2000 BEN commenced residing at the fraternity house. 3 11.. I am personally aware that BEN and other members of his social association 4 commenced the rehabilitation of the fraternity house in June 2000 and in the course of such 5 rehabilitation expended a substantial amount of time and funds. 6 12. I am personally aware that BEN and the other members of his association consider 7 and conduct their organization as a"fraternity" in so far as that term connotes a student 8 association for men committed to and organized for the purpose of promoting brotherly support 9 and relationships, fostering of cooperation of individuals from diverse backgrounds and .10 circumstances, advancing leadership skills and organizational responsibility as an adjunct to 11 academic pursuits, and which seeks to create a better understanding among members while 12 fostering social development and a sense of community responsibility and philanthropy. The 13 definition I have provided, and which I believe is intended to describe a"fraternity", describes 14 the association that my son BEN and his contemporaries have established. 15 13. I have personally interacted with BEN and the other students/members of his 16 association at their"fraternity house." 17 14. I have been made aware that the Acting Community Development Director has 18 decided that the use permit for the fraternity house lapsed due to the failure to continue the 19 approved use for more than one year. I have been made aware that this determination is based 20 upon the contention that the student fraternal association that my son BEN and his friends 21 organized is not a"fraternity"within the meaning of the municipal code definition applicable to 22 that use permit. I strongly disagree with this determination. 23 15. I do not understand what a"fraternity" is if it is not the type of organization that 24 my son BEN and his associates created. These young men, in my personal experience, have 25 worked together to create an organized and defined organization of college men dedicated to 26 brotherhood, academic pursuits, a shared college social experience, as well as community 27 enrichment. After creating their association these young men a number of goals for their 28 3 ' ATTACHMENT 1 brotherhood. Pursuant to such goals they identified a property which would serve the needs of 2 their new brotherhood and which was approved for the purposes they identified as those of their 3 organization, a residence fora social brotherhood of college men. These young men pursued 4 that property, and, against great adversity, managed to gain the confidence of and ultimately the 5 approval of the owners of the fraternity house. They expended a great deal of effort in making 6 that fraternity house the home for their association that they had dreamed about in April of 2000. 7 These young men have lived together, as members of a social brotherhood, a"fraternity", since 8 they commenced occupancy of the fraternity house in June 2000. 9 16. I know almost all the members of this student association and have interacted with 10 them on a number of occasions. They are a fine group of young college men. I respectfully 11 request the Planning Commission reverse the determination of Acting Community Development 12 Director Whisenand regarding the use permit at the fraternity house and thereby recognize that 13 this association of young men is in fact an association of students that satisfies the definition as 14 provided for a "fraternity house"as that definition can be reasonably interpreted pursuant to the 15 Municipal Code for the City of San Luis Obispo. 16 17. I would gladly respond to any further requests for information from members of 17 the Planning Commission and can be reached at my home, 544-6634, or at my work, 781-5962. 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except as to those 2 o matters which I have declared on belief and as to those matters I believe them to be true and 21 correct. 22. 23 Dated: January 16, 2001 24 25 By: SANTOSARRONA 26 27 28 4 S .NO SIRCLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTACHMM e> 672 Serrano Drive 917_ — -- San L&ObWw;CA 93405 January 17, 2001 Mr. Michael Codron Associate Planner Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 RE: Application Number O 186-00 71 Palomar Appeal of the Community Development Director's determination on the expiration of the fraternity use permit. Dear Mr.Codmn, Some of our members have had discussions with you and others in the Planning Department regarding issuing a fraternity use permit to this property: We oppose the revival of this use permit,either by rescinding the expiration determination or by granting a new use permit to allow a fraternity or any form of'eating house'or*association fesidence'to exist at 71 Palomar. Our reasons for the opposition are the civil disturbances and other nuisances that have occurred at this residence throughout its use as a fratemity.and association residence. 71 Palomar has been the source of: • numerous late-night-into-morning loud parties • drunken yelling • verbal altercations • fighting in the street illegal fireworks being Ignited an Palomar and adjacent streets(often continuing for a half hour or more) • trash and party debris left in the street and our property • drunken party attendees running through our property—vaulting fences,yelling when injuring themselves in so doing,and bumping into and damaging our fences,trees and shrubbery. It was mentioned to one resident that perhaps issuing the use permit with a bad boy restriction might be a way to please both the residents and the owners. We strongly object to such a solution because it puts the residents surrounding 71 Palomar back into the position in which they have been placed during these civil disturbances of having to police their neighbors by calling the police_. Currently,the San Luis Obispo Solution of SNAP teams issuing warnings, and citations being issued only by police who are present of the scene to witness the vbk&on is wholly and completely inadequate. Through no fault of their own, the San Luis Obispo police frequently do not respond to the calls in a timely manner—usually they are understaffed and have several late night and early morning events occurring simultaneously- It is not unusual to call the San Luis Obispo police and have them respond 20 to 30 minutes after the call,during which time the offenders have continued the disturbances,then dispersed at the last second. We certainly do not ward to regard out neighbors at 71 Palomar as'bad boys'. We prefer to live harmoniously with them as they presumably attend college and advance their lives in a 3 -6-3 SS a_ NO SIRCLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCLATION �i ATTACHMENT 672.senum Drift 017 San Lui¢Obi M.CA 93405 constructive and healthy way. We request that this residence be returned to the neighborhood use of a single family residence or a multiple resident rooming house,with the view that an unorganized group of people living in the building will be less likely to have several large parties each year. We believe that this conditiori will more likely encourage the residents of 71 Palomar to interact with all their neighbors rather than just a campus affiliation. Regarass, / !VD Bosc�i President, SSHOA 2 3-6 � ATTACiMM v December 19, 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 Attention: Mr.Arnold B. Jonas, Director Regarding: 71 Palomar Drive(fraternity house)_ Dear Mr. Jonas, The above referenced address is a part of our neighborhood and has been abandoned for the past 6 months. We live at 89 Palomar Drive and wish to be kept abreast of any applications for future usage of the old fraternity house. Hearings would be important so that all affected parties could express their concerns related to maintaining our neighborhood as a desireable place to live. Please notify us of any scheduled hearings and we thank you for your attention to this situation affecting our neighborhood. Dan &Tess Matthews 89 Palomar Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 547-0313 ATR HMeW December 17, 1999. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Attention: Mr. A. B. Jonas, Director In the Matter of 71 Palomar Dr.: Dear Mr. Jonas: Our residence at 90 Palomar Dr. has been impacted by the DT/SAE house many times during our occupancy at this address. We have severe parking problems during school terms. Drunken parties, littering, urination on private property, noise, speeding, and other forms of public disturbance are a regular feature of student behavior on our street. This abandoned house is now an eyesore that is very attractive to vandals and the attempted security fencing has not precluded entry and trespass on the property.. We understand that the permitting process for future use is underway on this property and we have also heard rumors several highly controversial uses are being considered. Our neighborhood is a highly desirable part of the city with enough owner occupants and elderly residents who still value the area as prime residential. We would like to take an activepart in the permit process on the referenced property to work with the city in maintaining the diverse nature of the neighborhood and the quality of our part of the city. Sincerely, Robert A. and K. Noel Middlecamp 90 Palomar Dr. �fi���, / �lC �ll�Ce-Z:;r- San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone: 545-9655 2 —di ATTACHMENT December 3, 1999 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street RECEIVED San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attention: Mr. Arnold B. Jonas, Director DEC 03 1999 cll Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RE: Abandonment of use - 71 Palomar Drive COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Jonas: We reside at 617 Luneta Drive essentially across the street from 71 Palomar Drive, former home of the Delta Tau Fraternity. During the 1998 — 1999 school year the building was occupied by members of the ZAE fraternity (much to the dismay of the neighborhood due to their lack of courtesy and civility). In any event, starting around mid-June, 1999, the then residents of the house began "tearing the place up" breaking out windows and doors, throwing televisions, furniture, etc., through and out windows; spray painting the walls, etc. , By the end of June the property was unoccupied, although quickly identified by teenagers and others as a place to hang out. Windows and doors were boarded up by the 4a' of July and shortly thereafter a chain link fence installed around the property, along with a for sale sign. We are bringing this information to your attention relative to the issue of use permit requirements. We believe the building abandoned the use permit as a fraternity house July 1, 1999. There have been numerous complaints to the police and the planning department to further establish the abandonment. The neighbors are interested and concerned as to the future of the property and impact upon our daily lives. Various stories have circulated as to the future of the property, including being used as a group home by the County Department of Social Services. We specifically request notice of any permit applications or hearings to ensure neighborhood input and an opportunity to voice our concerns relative to maintaining an amicable neighborhood of a varied nature with families, students housing, and elderly facilities all living in a cooperative manner with each other. Thank ou for your attention to this matter, Lydia& Bo Mourenza 617 Luneta Drivr San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 543-9083 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-68 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a Public Hearing in the Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 5th, 1968, pursuant to a Proceeding instituted under Application No. U 0065 by Alex Quaglino, USE PERMIT REQUESTED: For student housing. i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1 The easterly 220 feet of the westerly 480 feet of the :;outFerly 260, feet of that portion of tNe northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27 in Township 30 South, Range I" East, Mount Diablo Meridian, I in the City of San Luis Obispo, County ui fan Luis Obispo, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, desc ibed as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 30 South,, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, said point being a distant South 0 1/4° East 3 175/1000 chains from the intersection of the said west line with the . south line of the county road from the City of San Luis Obispo to the Los Osos Valley, said road running along the line between Sections 22 and 27 of said Township and Range and being the southwest corner of the tract of land conveyed by William M. Hersman, et ux., to William Clark, by dead recorded. in 3ook 11, Page 417 of Deeds, San Luis Obispo County Records, at which point is seta stale marked ".i.XI" and running thence along the southerly line of said Clark Tract South 600 east 2 205/1000 chains to stake "H3"; .thence South 72 1/20 East 1 52/100 chairs to post "H4" in fence line: thence South 76 3/4° East 3 6.35/1000 chains to post "H5" in fence line; thence South 63 1/2° East 1 49/100 chains to stake "H6" at the southeast corner of said Clark Tract; thence South 61 1/2" East 61/100 chalns to stake "H8" at the end of a cypress hedge; thence along the center line of said hedge North 89 1/4° East 10 54/100 chains to the west line of a road SO feet wide leading from San .Luis Obispo northerly to said Los Osos Valley Road above mentioned stake "H911; thence along the west line of said road South 0 1/2° East 7 261100 chains to :stake "HIO"; thence leaving said road South 88 1/40 i West 19 30/100 chains to stake "ill" on the west line of said northwest ! quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27; thence along the last mentioned line, North 0 1/4° West 11 09/100 chains to stake "H2" the point of beginning. i j GENERAL LOCATION: Westerly of Broad Street between Ramona Drive and Serrano Drive 71 N. Broad Street PRESENT TONE: A-({-.�' lDntiA�w�iwt US.L n___��.. w • . �`✓ acnunzr arecoras, az wnxcn poanL as set a stale marxRa a ana running thence .slung t' s-motherly line of said Clark r C "--uth 60° east CHAdEw 2 205/1000 chi , stake 1113"; thence South 7., J. deet 1 52/100 chains to post Mol in fence line; thence South 76 3/0 East 3 6,35 .1000 chains to post "HS" in fence line; thence -'South 63 1/20.'East 1 49%.100 chains to stake "H6" at the southeast corner of said Clark Tract; thence South 61 1/2° East 61/100 chains to stake *'HSI' at the end.of a cypress hedge; thence along the center line of said hedge North 89 1/4°East 10 54/100 chains to the west line of a road SO feet wide leading:from San Luis Obispo northerly to said Los Osos Valley Road above mentioned stake 11H911; thence along the west line of said road South '0 1/20 East 7 26/100 chains to stake "H1011; thence leaving said road South 88 1•%4° West 19 30/100 chains to stake '•H11" on the west line of said northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 27; thence along the last mentioned line, North 0 1/40 West 11 09/100 chains to stake "H2•' the point of beginning. GFmRAL LOCATION: Westerly of Broad Street between Ramona Dive and-Serrano Drive 71 N. Broad Street PRESENT ZONE: R-H-S (Residential High Density - Combining) WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, areJ studies: made by itself, and in its behalf and of testimonies offered at said heating, has established existence of the following circumstances: (1) The subject property is approximately 1.3 acres in area and 'is developed with a large single family residence and related accessory buildings. (2) The property does not have frontage onto a public street and access to the property is by way of an easement that connects to Ramona Drive. (3) Maximum development of the property would allow 47 multiple family units. (4) The Commission was of the opinion that the use of the existing residence fcr a fraternity house would not adversly affect adjacent properties since the subject property is bounded on three sides by an R-1: PD/R-3 District which is partially developed with a student housing complex. t • INN v Pogo 2 Resolution No. 11-68 f NOW MREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Application No. U 0065 by approved subject to the following conditions: (1) Par:Ung to be provided on the basis of one space for each two persons. (2) Access to the property be of standard 16 ft. width, paved with a.minimum of one (1) inch plartim3.z over four (4) inches imported base material. (3) Development be in accordance with the approved plot plan. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Plaining Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon motion of Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Twyeffort, VOTING: Aye - C.ommrs. John Brown, John Evans, Berk Franklin, Bob Johnson, LaVerne Schneider, Francis McNamara, Jim Twyeffort. Nue - None. Absent - None. RONALD D. YOUNG$ Secretary Planning Commission of the City of San .Luis Obispo DATED: starch S. 1968 I 1� i a MACHMENT 17.04.180 Festival (or carnival or fair). 17.04.220 Gross floor area. "Festival" (or ,carnival or fair") means a temporary "Gross floor area" means the total area enclosed within public or commercial gathering where entertainment, a building, including closets, stairways, and utility and food, crafts, and the like are offered for viewing or sale. mechanical rooms, measured from the exterior face of Gatherings on public property under the sponsorship or the walls. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - control of the city are excluded. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 9204.11 (part)) 1982: prior code-9204:11 (part)) 17.04.221 Guest house. 17.04.185 Floor area ratio. A separate accessory structure, that is designed, The gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot occupied, or intended for occupancy as sleeping and divided by the lot area. (Ord. 1365(2000 Series)(part)) bathing quarters only, that does not contain a refrigerator,cooking appliances,or a kitchen sink, and is intended to be used in conjunction with a primary 17.04.190 Fraternity house (or sorority residence that contains a kitchen. house). "Fraternity house"(or"sorority house")means residence 17.04.222 High Occupancy Residential for college or university students who are members of a Use. social or educational association and where such an association holds meetings or gatherings. (Ord. 941 - 1 A "High Occupancy Residential Use" is any dwelling (part),1982: prior code-9204.11 (part)) other than a residential care facility as defined in section 17.04.340 of this code,in the R-1 or R-2 zones when the occupancy of the dwelling consists of six or more adults. 17.04.195 Front Yard. (Ord. 1154- 1 Ex.A(part),1989) The area of a residential lot that lies between the street property line and the walls of any residences that face 17.04.224 Homeless shelter. the street. (See Fig. 1; defined for purposes of determining maximum paving limits.) (Ord. 1277, 1995) "Homeless shelter' means a facility which regularly houses homeless people on an overnight basis, excluding_shelters for people needing protection from 17.04.200 General merchandise sales. domestic violence.(Ord. 1122-1 Ex.A(part), 1988) "General merchandise sales" means the retail sales of two or more of the following types of merchandise,and 17.04 230 Hospital. includes the types of establishments popularly known as "department stores,""hardware stores. "variety stores," "Hospital" means a facility housing and providing a full "drug stores" and "discount stores apparel and range of medical care, including acute care, for patients accessories, cosmetics, household items, appliances, who require such care on the premises. (Ord. 941 - 1 furniture and furnishings, auto parts and accessories, (part),1982: prior code-9204.11 (part)) tools, garden supplies, toys, games, sporting goods, photographic supplies, jewelry, fabrics, notions, dishes and tableware,and similar consumer goods. (Ord.941 17.04.235 Hostel. 1 (part),1982: priorcode-9204.11 (part)) Inexpensive lodging that caters primarily, but not exclusively, to travelers who arrive by bicycle, train, or other non-automotive vehicles. 17.04.210 Grazing. "Grazing" means the keeping of hoofed animals where food grown on the premises is the principal food of the 17.04340 Hotel (or motel). I livestock. (Ord. 941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code. - "Hotel" (or "motel") means a building or group of 9204.11 (part)) buildings providing accommodations, with or without kitchens,primarily for the traveling public. (Ord. 941 - 1 (Part),1982: priorcode-9204.11 (part)) uty oG san Luis osIspo 13 zontnG Re. utut►ons 5- 7/ Draft Planning Commission k. .es ATTACHMENT January 24, 2001 Page 3 Commr. Whiftl6sey moved to extend the use permit for another year and mo difV Condition 3 to require student vehicles be identified by parkingasses. ComrapOrAiken seconded the motion. Chairman Ready referred to the November 13, 1999, minutes noted many merchants voiced their concerns, yet none have come forward at is review hearing. He felt this could mean that the university is working in conjunc with the businesses and that the merchants are benefiting from the students u '` Ing the various services and goods available at the center. He did not support mo ` ing the conditions. Commrs. Loh and Whittlesey asked if area mer nts and property owners were noticed of this hearing. Manager Whisenand reported that all mer c nts and adjacent property owners were notified. Commr. WhittleseV restated the mo ' to be: Move to extend the use permit for another Vear with review in one yeaFfor a second review, and to eliminate Condition 3 with regard to the parkinQ Dasses and direct the school to provide a contact for the merchants. Commr. Aiken reslated his second to the motion. Commr. Whittlesey not she wanted a second review in one year because the school isn't at full capacity r° Commr. Loh di not feel comfortable eliminating or modifying any of the original conditions. AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Aiken, Peterson, and Ready NOES• Commrs. Cooper, Loh, and Osborne REF IN: None T e motion carried 4-3. 2. 71 Palomar Avenue: 0 186-00; Appeal of the Community Development Director's determination that the use permit for the fraternity has expired; R-4 zone; Delta Tau House Corporation, applicant/appellant. Chairman Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest in that he is related.to one of the property owners. Associate Planner Mcllvaine presented the staff report and recommended denying the appeal based upon findings. Commr. Cooper had staff review the zoning of the property and neighborhood and the General Plan definition of fraternities. - 3-�a Draft Planning Commission M1,._.,tes �� ATTACHMENT 4 January 24, 2001 Page 4 Commr. Loh asked staff how they determined that the Sand Boarders are not a fraternity under the intent of the General Plan. Commr. Aiken asked if a high-occupancy use permit is necessary for the occupants. Manager Whisenand explained that high-occupancy use permits are necessary for the R-1 and R-2 zones; this property is zoned R-4. There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Linden Mackaoui, Delta Tau Alumni Association and Delta Tau House Corporation representative, 992 Monterey Street, Suite B, described the history of the fraternity and stated the issues boil down to whether or not the Sand Boarders are a fraternity. He cited the definition of a fraternity and felt under this definition, the Sand Boarders do meet the definition. The use permit runs with the land and has been maintained since 1968. He felt that nothing in the City's ordinance suggests that a fraternity has to officially associate with Cal Poly or Cuesta College. All the members of the Sand Boarders are either Cuesta or Cal Poly students, but they did not apply for official recognition by either college by choice. He explained the eviction process of the previous SAE occupants in June 1999. He felt the issue should not focus on whether the use permit expired because the property has been occupied under the regulations. He requested a continuance because he was not provided with the appropriate documentation and needed more time to notify the house corporation. He reiterated that the Sand Boarders meet the statutory definition of a fraternity and the use did not expire. Commr. Loh asked if the Sand Boarders are a fraternity, do they need to be registered with the stated or educational board? Robert Myers, Delta Tau Alumni Association and Delta Tau House Corporation representative, replied there is no requirement that any association make any formal application to an entity of the government if they do not wish to be officially recognized. Commr. Osborne asked why Delta Tau desires to continue this use permit. Mr. Mackaoui responded with the question of why should the permit be pulled. The City would have more control/regulation with the use permit in place. He commented that the Sand Boarders came to the house corporation seeking use of the site for meetings and social events, just like a fraternity does. He felt the. Sand Boarders behave as a fraternity and meet the criteria. Commr. Osborne asked if there are any plans for the property if the use permit is not continued. 3-73 Draft Pianning Commission A, _-Aes ;ATTACHMENT 4 January 24, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Mackaoui stated it is his understanding that the number of students living at the site now could continue without a use permit. Lack of a use permit could decrease the control the City has over the site. Mr. Meyers stated it is important for the fraternity use permit to stay in place. The Sand Boarders function is, in every respect, the same as every other fraternity on campus. The Sand Boarders hold meetings, have social events, communal dinners, and rush functions. He noted that these activities could not continue without the use permit. Commr. Whittlesey asked if Messrs. Meyers and Mackaoui were familiar with conditions placed on recently approved fraternity use permits. Mr. Meyers replied yes. Commr. Whittlesey asked if he would be willing to have similar conditions imposed on the current use permit, if it is found that the permit has not expired. Mr. Meyers stated they are open to that. He was provided with a copy of the most recent set of conditions of a fraternity use permit granted in 1998. He.explained how the Association of Sand Boarders believed a use permit governed them because they fit the definition of college students in a residence. The original permit application asks for student housing and this association meets every aspect of the definition. Commr. Cooper noted the Sand Boarders are not subject to disciplinary action that other fraternities or sororities are faced with, such as suspension. Mr. Meyers stated the Sand Boarders are governed.by the Student Code of Conduct, as all Cal Poly students are. Commr. Cooper asked why Delta Tau does not reoccupy the site. Mr. Mackaoui stated the Sand Boarders are already affiliated with Delta Tau Fraternity. Cal Poly cannot tell a fraternity that they cannot occupy a house; the only thing they can do is kick them off campus. Commr. Cooper had Mr. Mackaoui review the active and alumni membership of the house. Commr. Aiken questioned Mr. Mackaoui on the number of occupants currently in the house. Mr. Mackaoui stated there are 10 in the house currently. Not all of the Sand Boarders live in the house; many live elsewhere. Mr. Myers commented on the definition of fraternity as had been applied by the City and stated the freedom of association is a constitutionally guaranteed freedom and allows Draft Planning Commission h�,tes January 24, 2001 IAITACHMM Page 6 groups to collect and organize for lawful purposes. Any requirement to be government sanctioned or chartered would violate this principle. Constitutional rights of equal protection protect the Association of Sand Boarders. Lydia Mourenza, 617 Luneta, has lived across from the fraternity site for 13 years and noted the situation was more active-and under control.than it currently is. She stated she advised the City when it appeared someone was occupying the boarded up,facility and questioned whether someone can gain occupancy by moving into an outbuilding without cooking or bathing facilities. She felt more than a year had elapsed since the building had been previously occupied. She commented the Sand Boarders are not associated with anyone but themselves.. Keith Hall, 87 Palomar Drive, commented on the repeated damage to his property associated with the larger numbers of people coming to the 71 Palomar house. He felt this is closely related to the fraternity actives there. He believes Delta Tau is interested in keeping the current use permit active because of the loose 1968 conditions that do not address the concerns of today. He contested the timeline and noted a caretaker does not constitute an occupied fraternity use. While working on his home, he did not observe any habitation of the site from May 27-June 10. Illegal use of an outbuilding does not constitute fraternal use of the property. He urged discontinuation of the current outdated use permit, feeling that it has expired. He noted that Delta Tau.was issued a.25-year suspension from Cal Poly and that is why they are not pursuing their own occupancy of the site. Allen and Terry Lipper, 858 Luneta Drive, felt Delta Tau would like to continue with new fraternal uses with outdated use permit conditions. They emphasized that specific guidelines for the fraternity should be redefined. He did not see the Sand Boarders as a fraternity. He commented on the destruction of property, loud parties, trash, and public urination that the neighborhood has endured. He felt that all conditions applied to recently approved fraternity and sorority uses should be applied to this site. Bob Mourenza 617 Luneta Drive, felt that the use permit had lapsed because the site was unoccupied. A new use permit should be sought and new conditions should be imposed. Charles Dickey, 1887 Santa Barbara Street, Valencia Apartments manager, felt the Sand Boarders' behavior has been worse than previous occupants of the house. He urged a tightening of conditions given the occupants' behavior. He commented on the confrontational incidents with Sand Boarders trespassing on Valencia Apartments property, vandalism, loud music and parties, and a bb gun shooting. He believes Delta Tau and the Sand Boarders are misrepresenting the situation and themselves. Dan Carpenter, 2030 Johnson Avenue, Delta Tau Alumni and 71 Palomar property owner, stated the 30-day SAE'eviction notice was served on June 1 and a majority of the occupants were gone by June 12th, with one remaining until the 21St. He urged continuation of the current use permit, claiming that these guidelines have been 3-75 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT A USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY LOCATED AT 71 PALOMAR DRIVE HAS EXPIRED (O 186-00) WHEREAS, in the City of San Luis Obispo, use permits expire if a use that is allowed by use permit approval ceases operation for one year; and WHEREAS, the Acting Community Development Director determined that the use permit for a fraternity at 71 Palomar Drive expired because the property was abandoned on June 10, 1999 and a fraternity use had not been reestablished by June 10, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 2001 and upheld the Acting Community Development Director's determination, based on the evidence provided during the public testimony and based on the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of the appellants, City staff; interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the use permit for a fraternity at 71 Palomar Drive expired because the fraternity use of the property was abandoned for a period of one year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Associated Student Sand Boarders do not meet the intent of the definition of fraternity in the City's zoning ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis 3� Acting Community Development Director's determination that the use permit for a fraternity at 71 Palomar Drive has expired is hereby denied: C Draft Resolution "B" RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE DETERIVIINATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT A USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY LOCATED AT 71 PALOMAR DRIVE HAS EXPIRED (O 186-00) WHEREAS, in the City of San Luis Obispo, use permits expire if a use that is allowed by use permit approval ceases operation for one year; and WHEREAS, the Acting Community Development Director determined that the use permit for a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive expired because the property was abandoned on June 10, 1999 and a fraternity use had not been reestablished by June 10, 2000;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 2001 and upheld the Acting Community Development Director's determination, based on the evidence provided during the public testimony and based on the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 6, 2001, and has considered testimony of the appellants, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that fraternity use of the property on 71 Palomar Drive did not cease for a period of one year. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The Associated Student Sand Boarders meet the definition of fraternity in the City's zoning ordinance and the requirement for a Planning Commission use permit in the 3-E3 City Council Resolution No. (2001.Series) Page 2 R-3 and R-4 zones.. 2. A fraternity use was reestablished on the property on or about June 3, 2000. SECTION 2. Approval. The appeal of the Planning Commission decision to uphold the Acting Community Development Director's determination that the use permit for a fraternity on 71 Palomar Drive had expired is hereby upheld: 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 , 2001. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APP ;ED AS TO FORM: Jeffrey G. orgensen City Attorney 3 -e� 0 _ G 3 In LZ D 10 � r $ cn � O vs O 1i, 4�- o o fn •i! y O o < C7 u; q 0 `< Y u; G) O DD Z C _ 0 m co _ o — do � SpNTA G>,r a W c o <��_ I�IIIII O san 611 OBISpo it y APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of The Planning Cnmmis'ainn rendered on January 24, 9nnl which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds r for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) We are appeaing the decision that the use permit for 71 Palomar Street had expired. Grounds include the facts upon which the decision was based; the interpretation of the city' s Municipal Code re: what!-.a fraternity is; the process used to get before the Planning Commission; notice; right to confront witnesses and to present evidence at the hearing; the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions; and all other grounds noted in the record or in writing.. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: M�,htiJ (f?JV*., rcp0 Cj�/ on 2 -7--0/ Name/Department (Date) Delta Tau House Corp./ c/o 992 Monterey St., Ste B Appellant Alumni Assoc./A.S.S. san Tajg nhiczpo, CA 93401 Namerritle Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 805 154 3-0599 Home Phone Work Phone 992 Monterey St. Ste B Representative: Linden Mackaoui, Attorney San Lui G ohi spp, cA a'14m Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for /! Ia&c i t oZ00 Date & Time Received: c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): RECEIVED 2Xn a)k"avia vid-, FFR 2 - 2001 C'od/Lt1 � SLO CITY CLERK Original in City Clerk's Office 16 City of San Luis Obispo Department of Communit;` development 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Address 71 PALOMAR Parcel# 052-162-007 Legal Description CY SLO T30S R12E PTN SEC 27 Zoning 1 R-4 Zoning 2 Property Owner DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION In Care Of Owner Address 414 WOODBRIDGE ST SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-5515 Applicant Name DELATA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION Day Phone( ) Address 414 WOODBRIDGE STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative Day Phone( ) Address Send correspondence to applicant representative X owner other(see file) SPECIAL INFORMATION SEE ORIGINAL FILE 00065 Special Circumstances Property adjacent to creek Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee 0 186-00 Appeal of the Community Development 12/06/00 $0 Director's determination that the use permit for the fraternity has expired. Total fees $0 Received By MICHAEL CODRON Fee Paid by Assigned planner MICHAEL CODRON Hearings 0 PC Hearing 01/10/01 G� �illlllll Ilill {{� �,I �IIIIIII IIS oBnpo ii 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 23, 2001 Delta Tau House Corporation 414 Woodbridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5515 SUBJECT: Appeal of Use Permit for Fraternity House at 71 Palomar Dear Applicant: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the use permit expiration for 71 Palomar Street: The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 6, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the Community Development Department at 781-7169. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff will be sent to you on the Wednesday before the meeting. Please call the City Clerk' s Office at 781-7103 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda report. i cer ly, i r Lee Price, CMC City Clerk c: Michael Codron oThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. L� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.. - ( 1 ►III II 1111111 ���������I �IIIII II city of San tuis oBispo d 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 23,2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 71 Palomar Street Project Number O 186-00 You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision regarding 71 Palomar Street.. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,March 6,2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda report, including recommendation by staff,will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information, please contact Michael Codron of the C unity Development Dept. at 781-7169. Lee Price, C.M.C. City Clerk OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Department of CommunitT 'evelo ment City of San Luis Obispo p � p � 990 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7172 Project Addressr71-PALOM- AR_ Parcel# 052-162-007 Legal Description CY SLO T30S R12E PTN SEC 27 Zoning 1 R-4 Zoning 2 Property Owner DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION In Care Of Owner Address F414_WOODBRIDGEST SAN-EU1S'OBTSPO:CA 93401-5515 Applicant Name DELATA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION Day Phone Address 414 WOODBRIDGE-STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative Day Phone Address Send correspondence to applicant representative X owner other(see file) SPECIAL INFORMATION SEE ORIGINAL FILE 00065 Special Circumstances Property adjacent to creek Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee O 186-00 Appeal of the Community Development 12106/00 $0 Director's determination that the use permit for the fraternity has expired. Total fees $0 Received By MICHAEL CODRON Fee Paid by Assigned planner MICHAEL CODRON Hearings O PC Hearing 01/10/01 C J J-6- Dl Dl USE PERMIT FOR Bob and Lydia Mourenza Keith Hall FRATERNITY, (O 186-00) 617 Luneta Drive 87 Palomar Drive 3/6/01 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Allen &Terry Lipper Charles Dickey Dan Carpenter 858 Luneta Drive 1887 Santa Barbara Street 2030 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Edward Benson Ryan Cambell Ben Arrona 593 Luneta Drive 71 Palomar Drive 71 Palomar Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Luke Swan Ed Sanchez Linden Mackaoui 107 Stenner Apt. A 82 Palomar 992 Monterey Street, #B San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 _ - 1 C FILE#:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 Residents for Quality Neighborhoods OCCUPANT OCCUPANT P.O.Box 12604 482 LUNETA 483 LUNETA San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1604 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1603 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 499 LUNETA 515 LUNETA 71 PALOMAR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1603 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1605 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1740 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 1 555 RAMONA# 2 555 RAMONA# 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 4 555 RAMONA# 5 555 RAMONA# 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.1639 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 7 .555 RAMONA# 8 555 RAMONA# 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1639 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 10 555 RAMONA# 11 555 RAMONA# 12 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 13 555 RAMONA# 14 555 RAMONA# 15 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1640 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA,93405-1640 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 16 555 RAMONA# 17 555 RAMONA# 18 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 19 555 RAMONA# 20 555 RAMONA# 21 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1641 C FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 22 555 RAMONA#23 555 RAMONA# 24 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555RAMONA# 25 555 RAMONA# 26 555 RAMONA# 27 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 28 555 RAMONA# 29 555 RAMONA# 30 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1642 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00_ OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 31 555 RAMONA# 32 555 RAMONA# 33 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 34 555 RAMONA# 35 555 RAMONA# 36 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1643 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 37 555 RAMONA# 38 555 RAMONA# 39 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE.NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 40 555 RAMONA# 41 555 RAMONA# 42 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1644 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE.NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186=00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 43 555 RAMONA# 44 555 RAMONA# 45 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 46 555 RAMONA# 47 555 RAMONA# 48 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934054645 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 \v FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 49 555 RAMONA# 50 555 RAMONA# 51 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1645 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 52 555 RAMONA# 53 555 RAMONA# 54 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 55 555 RAMONA# 56 555 RAMONA# 57 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1646 - SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#58 555 RAMONA# 59 555 RAMONA# 60 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 61 555 RAMONA# 62 555 RAMONA# 63 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1647 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER'18600 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT. OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 64 555 RAMONA# 65 555 RAMONA# 66 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186.00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 67 555 RAMONA# 68 555 RAMONA# 69 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 70 555 RAMONA# 71 555 RAMONA# 72 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1648 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 73 555 RAMONA# 74 555 RAMONA# 75 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 76 555 RAMONA# 77 555 RAMONA# 78 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1649 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 79 555 RAMONA# 80 555 RAMONA# 81 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 82 555 RAMONA# 83 555 RAMONA# 84 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1650 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 85 555 RAMONA# 86 555 RAMONA# 87 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 88 555 RAMONA# 89 555 RAMONA# 90 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA.93405-1651 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 91 555 RAMONA#, 92 555 RAMONA# 93 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1651 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 94 555 RAMONA# 95 555 RAMONA# 96 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA# 97 555 RAMONA# 98 555 RAMONA# 99 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1652 SAN LUIS 0BISPO,CA 93405.1653 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:18.6-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#100 555 RAMONA#'101 555 RAMONA#102 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186.00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#103 555 RAMONA#104 555 RAMONA#105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1653 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#106 555 RAMONA#107 555 RAMONA#108 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#109 555 RAMONA#110 555 RAMONA#111 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#112 555 RAMONA#113 555 RAMONA#114 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1654 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#115 555 RAMONA#116 555 RAMONA#117 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#118 555 RAMONA#119 555 RAMONA#120 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1660 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#121 555 RAMONA#122 555 RAMONA#123 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#124 555 RAMONA#125 555 RAMONA#126 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1662 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#127 555 RAMONA#128 555 RAMONA#129 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1663 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1663 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1663 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#130 555 RAMONA#131 555 RAMONA#132 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.1663 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1663 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1663 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#133 555 RAMONA#134 555 RAMONA#135 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.1663 SAN.LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#136 555 RAMONA#137 555 RAMONA#138 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#139 555 RAMONA#140 555 RAMONA#141 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1664 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE.NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#142 555 RAMONA#143 555 RAMONA#144 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#145 555 RAMONA#146 555 RAMONA#147 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1665 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#148 555 RAMONA#149 555 RAMONA#150 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#151 555 RAMONA#152 555,RAMONA#153 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE.NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#154 555 RAMONA#155 555 RAMONA#156 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1666SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 C: FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA*157 555 RAMONA#158 555 RAMONA#159 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 555 RAMONA#160 9 VERDE 10 VERDE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1667 SAN LUIS OBISPO,.CA 93405-1609 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1610 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 13 VERDE 16 VERDE 24 VERDE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1609 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1610 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1610 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER: 186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 25 VERDE 33 VERDE 41 VERDE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1609 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 FILE NUMBER:186-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 57 VERDE 65 VERDE 77 VERDE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 FILE NUMBER:186-00 052-163-009/FILE#:186-00 052-163-031/FILE#:186-00 OCCUPANT AMANZIO JOSEPH C JR ANDERSON JAMES R&MARIE J 81 VERDE 1188 LEXINGTON CT 12297 VIA RONCOLE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-1620 SLO CA 93401- SARATOGA CA 95070- 052-561-035/FILE#186-00 052-543-0021FI LE#186-00 052-542-005/FILE#:186-00 APPEL ANNE ATWOOD MICHAEL ETAL BARASCH STEPHEN B TRE ETAL 672 SERRANO DR#5 1525 EDGEWOOD DR 2602 EI Cerrito SLO CA 93401- PALO ALTO CA 94303- SLO CA 93401-4670 052-163-039/FILE#:186-00 052543-001/FILE#186-00 052543-003/FILE#:186-00 BENSON EDWARD J TRE BJERRE DAVID A ETUX BJERRE DAVID A ETUX 593 LUNETA DR 2873 BIRKDALE LN 5873 BIRKDALE SLO CA 93405-1605 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-8907 052-542-001/FILE#186-00 052-163-034/FILE#:186-00 052-163-040/FILE#:186-00 BUDKE RW&SHARON D ETAL CARLISLE JAMES H CASTLE SHARON L 415 OAKVALE CT 611 LUNETA 580 SERRANO WALNUT CREEK CA 94596- SLO CA 93405-1655 SLO CA 93401- 052-162-002/FILE#:186-00 052541-005/FILE#:186-00 052-163-028/FILE#:186-00 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY CIMBUR NIKOLA&STEFIA CLARKE BETTY M %LDS CHURCH TAX DIVISION 16 VERDE OR 91 PALOMAR AVE 50 E NORTH TEMPLE ST FL 22 SLO CA 93405-1610 SLO CA 93401-1781 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150-3620 052-591-001/FILE#:186-00 052-163-033/FILE#:186-00 052-162-007/FILE#:186-00 COWELL LENNIS&DENISE DEH AAN ERIC H&ELIZABETH M DELTA TAU HOUSE CORPORATION 88 PALOMAR DR 602 SERRANO DR 414 WOODBRIDGE ST SLO CA 93405-1741 SLO CA 93405-1752 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-5515 052-542-002/FILE#:186-00 052-163-021/FILE#:186-00 052-542-006/FILE#:186-00 DEMEESTER DAVID M&D L DEVAUL MARGARET R TRE ETAL GIRARD RAYMOND L&SALLY F 42 VERDE DR 618 SERRANO DR 80 VERDE DR SLO CA 93401-1621 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-1621 052-163-025/FILE#:186-00 052-591-003/FILE#:186-00 052-163-027/FILE#:186-00 GLAESER DOUGLAS P ETAL HACKMAN ROBERT M ETUX HALL KEITH&TRACY ETAL 1363 GARDENIA LN 94 PALOMAR AVE 352 RAMONA DR LAVERNE CA 91750- SLO CA 93405-1741 SLO CA 93405-1530 052-542-003/FILE#:186-00 052-162-015/FILE#186.00 052-544-001/FILE#:186-00 HARTER HENRY E JR&KAREN J HOPE PARTNERS A CALIF LTD PTP JANEWAY MARY L TRE 54 VERDE DR 3740 STATE ST 33 VERDE OR SLO CA 93405-1621 SANTA BARBARA CA 93105-3104 SLO CA 93401- 052-163-035/FILE#:186-00 052-591-034/FILE#:186-00 052-163-007/FILE#:186-00 KEAGY LISSETTE A KEANE BERNADETTE T TRE ETAL KIMBALL JEFFREY E ETAL 603 LUNETA DR %EDMOND M KEANE 633 LUNETA ST SLO CA 93405-1655 3558 PARKLAND AVE SLO CA 93405-1655 IRVINE CA 90803- 052-163-003/FILE#:186-00 052-543-004/FILE#:186-00 052-163-038/FILE#:186-00 KREB MILTON R ETAL LAVORATO SAM A JR TR LIPPER ALLEN PO BOX 2240 %MARY AMARAL 585 LUNETA ST LOS GATOS CA 95030- 646 STEDWARDS ST SLO CA 93405-1605 SALINAS CA 93905- 052542-004/FILE#:186-00 052-544-0071FILE#:186-00 052-163-026/FILE#:186-00 MAK MARTIN W&.RITA M MANGELS JAMES I TRE ETAL MATTHEWS DANIEL H&TERESA A 68 VERDE DR 950 SILVER DOLLAR LN 89 PALOMAR DR SLO CA 93405-1621 SANTA ROSA CA 95403- SLO CA 93405-1781 052-163-029/FILE#:186.00 052-591-002/FILE#:186-00 052-163-006/FILE#:186-00 MERTEL MICHAEL E&MARLA MIDDLECAMP ROBERT&K NOEL MOURENZA INDALECIO&LK 322278th Place.NE 90 PALOMAR DR 617 LUNETA OR Medina WA 98039- SLO CA 93405-1741 SLO CA 93401-1655 C 052-162-018/FILE#186-00 052-541-002)FI LE#:186-00, 052-544-003/FILE#:186-00 OAK BRIDGE LLC PUDLO GEORGE&ESTHER A RASMUSSEN PETER B&SHIRLEY A 1880 SANTA BARBARA ST#F 779 CLEARVIEW LN 57 VERDE OR SLO CA 93401-4477 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401- 052-542-007/FILE#:186-00 052-163-023/FILE#:186-00 052-591-036/FILE#:186-00 SETTLE ALLEN K&KATHLEEN L SHAPIRO JONATHAN E&CATHERINE J STAFFORD GREGORY D&.MARGUERITE 1244 DRAKE CIR 600 SERRANO DR 672 SERRANO#6 SLO CA 93405-4908 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401- 052-163-024/FILE#186-00 052-163-001/FILE#:186-0.0 052-163-032/FILE#:186-00 STERLING RH&DH TRE STRASSER LILLY M SWARTZ GERALD V&NANCY P 540 SERRANO DR 530 SERRANO DR 5 MANSON RD SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401-1750 SLO CA 93401-1750 SALT SPRING ISLAND BRITISH COLUMBIA FR 99999- 052544.004/FILE#:186-00 052-544-006/FILE#:186-00 052591-033/FILE#:186-00 TEMPLE CHARLES P&SHIRLEY L TERRY BRUCE ETUX TETMEIR STEPHEN W ETAL 65 VERDE DR 2554 CANET RD 672 SERRANO DR#3 SLO CA 93405-1620 SLO CA 93405-7836 SLO CA 93405-1743 052541-001/FILE#:186-00 052-591-047/FILE#:186-00 052-162-011/FILE.#:186-00 THOMPSON HELEN C TRE TRACT 545 VALENCIA HOUSING LLC A CA LLC 25 VERDE DR %SERRANOS CIRCLE HOMEOWNERS ASS 1880 SANTA BARBARA ST STE F SLO CA 93401- 672 SERRANO DRIVE#17 SLO CA 93401-4477 SLO CA 93405-1743 052-163-010/FILE#:186-00 052544-002/FILE#186-00 052.541.008/FILE,#:186-00 VOLLMER JODY G VONRAUNER ANGELA WAMPLER ALBERT E TRE ETAL 82 PALOMAR AVE 41 VERDE OR 10 VERDE DR SILO CA 93405-1741 SLO CA 93405-1620 SLO CA 93405-1610 052-541-006/FILE#:186-00 052541-009/FILE#:186-00 YETTER ROBERT M&KRISTEN M ZARABOZO P 24 VERDE DR 9 VERDE DR SLO CA 93401-1610 SLO CA 93401 A 609 71 PALOMAR C 052-162-007 , ..... FOQTHILi ;.:;,:.�...::............... F.00THILL...... ,..... �.:•.. .•F007.MILL ... ::::: �.!^iiJJJJJ:.F FJJJJ '•.: •,f i.:...••• .'••.. ........ ... . .. r ff f : D Solid = Owner and Occupant Diagonal Lines= Occupant Only Cross Hatch = Owner Only CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 805 781-7167 02/22/01 09:11 03/02/01 FRI 11:57 FAX 489 0663 JAMES R. MURPHY JRONG AGENDA 1 002 E 3 "6-01 ITEM # '4 LAW OFFICE OF RECEIVED ROBERT K.M. MEYERS TELEPHONE (805) 849-9946 ROBERT K.M. M POST OFF=Box 3632 - ATTORNEY AT LAW 0 2 2001 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 MAR. L .. SLO CITY COUNCIL February 27, 2001 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILI: MAR - 2 2041 (805) San Luis Obispo City CouncilOUNCIL SLO CITY CLERK 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, 93401-3249 EY IUOFiu 0 r ..._ .. ❑;, ;.i.1T TE'1 [3Fc..D11 Re: 71 Palomar Avenue - Use Permit ®/ 0 UTIL DIR ❑PERS DIR Dear Members c f the City Council: , �/� ' ,s 6•� San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution x/11-68, dated March 5, 1968, granted the owners of the subject propf rty a use permit for student housing and operation of a "fraternity house." By letter dated 11/6/00 Acting Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand stated that he and other public officials met and determined that this 32+ year old use permit had expired by open tion of law due to ceased operation. This decision was appealed by both the Delta Tau Hous(: Corporation ("DTHC") and Delta Tau Alumni Association ("DTAA") on November 14, 2 X00. The matter came before the city planning commission on January 24, 2001. There, b y a vote of 4 to 2, one abstention, the CDD's determination was affirmed. This appeal was timely taken. I am a represent ative of the Delta Tau Alumni Association. This appeal by DTHC and DTAA . for review by th e City Council was prepared by lead counsel Linden Mackaoui, Esq. Mr. Mackaoui t:quested the matter be continued to a later date approximately 2 weeks ago. The basis for Mr. Mackaoui's request was the fact that the transcript of the hearing before the City Planni ag Commission was not yet available. Appellant's believe both they and the City Council sh)uld have the benefit of said transcript and the facts, reasoning, and conclusions real-bed in the appealed decisions. Mr. Mackaoui was told that no continuance was possible. This information is contrary to what I believe to be routine practice before the City Council ur der such circumstances. I subsequently 1 earned from Mr. Mackaoui that this matter was set for the Council's March 6 meeting. Beca use I had a family commitment in Los Angeles that evening I contacted the city clerk to seek a,:ontinuance to a date which did not present such a conflict. The CityClerk was very helpfi.l but, after inquiry, informed me it was now too late to have the matter moved to another cour cil meeting but that a request for a continuance could be made at the hearing. Requesting this continuance at the hearing will not allow me to be in Los Angeles to attend my mother's 75th birthday celebration. That is unfortunate. I am more than a little disappointed and puzzled as to why Mr. Mackaoui's earlier request was met with a flat denial when I 03/02/01 FRI 11:57 FAX 805 489 0663 JAMES R. MURPHY JR. A LA 10003 SLO City Counci. 71 Palomar - Use Permit 02/27/01 Pa.Te 2 understand contil nances in such circumstances are routinely agreed upon. Notwithstanding, at the request of the City Clerk, I am forwarding this letter to advise that I will still seek a c mtinuance of this matter when it comes before you. First, I require access to the transcripts of the January hearing before the Planning Commission in order to adequately press at this matter to the City Council. Second, as of yet, Mr..Mackaoui and 1 have not received a copy of the Staff Report or CDD/Planning Commission submission to the city council. Both the DTAA and DTHC were seriously prejudiced before the Planning Commi;sion due to the fact that several requests for meetings with acting director Wisenand were a ither rebuffed or ignored and the CDD allowed us access to their report at approximately 4;00 p.m. Friday evening just prior to hearing. Mr. Mackaoui and I will need time to review aj Ld prepare rebuttal for such submission. Adequate and fair time should be allowed for Mr. Mackaoui and myself to perform such considered analysis. This requested v'ill in no way prejudice the CDD, Planning Commission or the public at large. At issue is a use permit which has been in place for over 30 years. However, in rendering the determinations which we appeal, the CDD and Planning Commission both have taken the position that the organization presently leasing and operating at 71 Palomar, the Association of Student Sand Bc arders ("ASSB"), does not require a use permit and are frm to continue their activities and re:idency at 71 Palomar Avenue regardless of the appeal's outcome. Therefore, allowing appella nts additional time to obtain and scrutinize the transcript record and staff report to the Cit y Council, does not delay any enforcement action or any other action on behalf of the public. 1 astead it will hopefully allow for a complete and balanced presentation of facts to the City Cow icil in the hope this matter will finally be resolved here and not in court. For these reasot s and other good cause as may be presented at the time set for hearing, I respectfully req test that the City Council will continue this matter to a council meeting date in the future somei ime after the "back-log" is cleared and the requested transcripts are available and responsible agencies have transmitted to appellants the documentation and reports they have relied upoi i. I thank-you in advance for your attention in this matter. Very Truly Yoi ss; Robert K.M. N:eyers RKMM:mae c/ Linden Macl:aoui, Esq. c/ Delta Tau A.umni Association c/ Association A Student Sand Boarders FROM CHARMFIIF/CASAELANCA PRC— FAX NO. Mar. 05 2001 09:20AM P1 M. .JIG AGENDA 7 DATE ITEM #= Robert Kreb, Ed.D. P.O. Box 2240 Los Gatos, CA 95031 1 March 2001 UNCIL 03CDR DIR ®,0AO O FIN D19 B�EAO O FIRE S:-';[F CaTMRNEY 0 PVO V-9 To: Mayor and CITY COUNCIL c/o Ms. Sherry Stendah! CLSKIORI0 CI FOUW=CHF ❑M M TEAM 0 REC DIR PAX# 805-781-7109 a uTit oIR C PERSIR D MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Application Number 0186-00 Hearing Date March 6, 2001 PROJECT NUMBER 0186-00 71 Palomar Street Property Owner at 561 Luneta, San Luis Obispo I am opposed to the continuation of any fraternity activities in the immediate or general vicinity of our property at 561 Luneta. My position is based that there have been many incidents of gatherings of young males overflowing onto my property that is presently rented to female students. Damages by these groups include: A) Breaking down the fence between the house and the adjacent property; B) Removing large landscape boulders from the front yard and roiling them onto the sidewalk and street; C) Breaking the sprinkler system by driving SUV's etc. onto the lawn; D) Breaking and entering (kicking in doors) and stealing renters computer systems, etc. in the AM on 18 December 2000; F) Overflowing of party gser s causing the girls at 551 to receive a SNAPS report this past Friday 19 January 2000; G) Continually throwing beer bottles, cans, cups on the property. I think my point is dear that some of the young male adults in the vicinity are without proper respect for the property rights of others, anyway on a Friday or Saturday aftemcon/night after a few drinks. Please do not let these fraternity activities continue In the future. Respectfully, J02f3`$ Robert Kreb; d.D. RECEIVED Property Owner at 561 Luneta, SLO 831-475-0406 MAR 0:5 2001 fax 408-354-7019 SLID CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ���������uii�►�IIIIIIIII1°;111111► council memoRAn6um. February 28, 2001 TO: City Council aL..::R FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO ac D ::_ p RNE ��c51,10Cg: SUBJECT: Request to Continue 71 Palomar Appeal ❑I•'^ T TR R IR The City has received a request from the appellant to continue Item 3 on the March 6, 2001, agenda regarding a use permit at 71 Palomar Street. Staff of the City Clerk's Office has been told that this request is being made because the attorneys representing the appellants will not be available on March 6'. Public notice of the hearing has been given through the newspaper and direct mail to interested parties, and the March 6' agenda had been distributed to Council. When circumstances permit, we attempt to accommodate such requests. In this case, as Council members will note in reviewing Item No. 6 on the agenda, it will be very difficult to reschedule this item given our workload. For this reason, I am recommending that we proceed with the consideration of this matter on the March 6"' agenda. Cc: Lee Price Mark Kopecky Jeff Jorgensen 03/06/01 TUE 15:49 FAX 805 489 0663 JAMES R. MURPHY JR. MUTING AGENDA 16002 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT K.M. MEYERS ROBERT K.M. MEYERS POB+OFFICE BOX 3632 TELEPHONE (805)549.9546 ATTORNEY AT LAW SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93403 March 6, 2001 RECEIVED VIA FACSnvIu.E MAR 0 6 2001 (805) 781-7109 SLO CITY COUNCIL San Luis Obispo City Council Attn: Sheri Stem lenhall, City Clerk 990 Palm Street - s— Di'l —1 San Luis Obispo, 93401-3249 0 FIR: ^:;;ZF s Y O FW D,R Re: R Nuest to Continue Agenda Item#3 =''"IORIG ❑fOLl:__CHF ❑I:'. T EAId _ n O REC DIR 7'. Palomar Avenue - Use Permit �P 0 UTIL DIR O PERS DIR Dear Members (f the City Council: This letter is a follow-up to my letter of February 27, 2001 regarding the referenced matter. It further serves as my formal request on behalf myself and the Delta Tau Alumni Association that this agenda item be continued to a subsequent meeting of the City Council. As I advised the Council in my previous correspondence, long before this issue was placed on the March 6th rr eeting agenda I had already committed to attend an important family event this same evening in the Los Angeles area. While I have tried to somehow reconcile this conflict, I have been unal Ile to do so. Therefore, I am unavailable to attend this evenings City Council meeting this eve sing to personally request the matter be continued to a subsequent meeting. Apart from the conflict resulting from my prior personal commitment, the record is incomplete in the matter an([ more time is necessary to obtain a complete record for the Council's consideration. Subsequent to my last letter the City Clerk's office contacted me regarding the transcript from Planning Commission hearing. The City Clerk's office wanted to verify that the transcript wI: awaited was the audio tape recorded during the meeting. I was able to confirm that.wa:• part of the "transcript" which I was waiting for, but that it also included, as I understood it, some form of miniltes from the planning commission's hearing. I further confirmed that N+hen the audio tapes were provided that we would have to have them transcribed for 1 se before the City Council. However, the C.ty Clerk's office was not clear when the audio tape of the Planning commission hea ging was requested. Upon subsequent inquiry,I learned from Mr. Mackaoui that it was his u lderstanding that there was a substantial back-log in transcribing the meeting minutes portion of the transcript and that he had been advised that these would not be available prior to the Cit) Council hearing. Moreover, during our conversation I learned Mr. Mackoui was pretty certa.n he had not ordered the audio tapes. He appeared to be under the mistaken belief that I had done so and the transcription thereof was proceeding. I was under the belief 03/06/01 TUE 15:49 FAX 805 489 0663 JAMES R. MURPHY JR. A LA Fig 003 SLO City Counc 1 Request to Conti iue Agenda Item 71 Palomar - Us,: Permit 03/06/01 Pt ge 2 he had done so when he sought the meeting minutes, I further believed that he had confirmed that fact to me almost 1 month ago, and I further understood the preparation of such tapes was back-logged along with the meeting minutes and that was the reason I had not yet see the meeting transcript. Mr. Mackaoui's misunderstanding was, I believe, the result of an arrangement he ,and I had reached prior to the Planning Commission meeting where I had arranged for a st anographer to attend so that a transcript could be prepared. However, shortly before that meet ng I canceled the stenographer after it was told to me that the planning commission heaj ing would be recorded. Apparently Mr. Mackaoui continued under the belief that this transcri:A was my responsibility while I was operating pursuant to my belief he had sought obtaining the audio recording while he attempted to obtain the meeting minutes. While I sincerel,r apologize to the honorable City Council members for confusion in having the record prepared for this hearing, any confusion was inadvertent and the result of honest misunderstandings for which I certainly hope you will allow me a remedy. In addition, I an i informed that Mr. Mackaoui received the staff report regarding this matter late in the afterr oon Thursday, March 1st. I was able to meet with Mr. Mackoui only briefly. yesterday to rev.ew the staff submission. It appears therein that the transcribed minutes of the planning commi;sion hearing were available to city staff and were made a part of their submission and het was apparently unavailable to the appellants. Last, as previously expressed, no prejudice to any party involved, except perhaps the minimal inconvenience c f requiring attendance at another city council meeting in the future, will result if the Council agrees to have this item continued to a future meeting. For the foregoing reasons, those set forth in my pervious letter, and any as may be offered at the time set for hearing, I respectfully ask that the members of the City Council allow me the opportunity to r ersonally attend and present the arguments of the Delta Tau Alumni Association reg;irding this 32+year old use permit.. I thank-you in advance for your fair consideration oi'this request. Very T Yol rs, Very ert K.M. N Byers RKMM:mae c/ Linden Mac]aoui, Esq. (Via Facsimile) c/ Delta Tau A.umni Association c/ Association of Student Sand Boarders C 'vCIL ❑CD.^.DIR ❑FIN Us MEETING / AGENDA i3O ❑FIR: ^_'SLS fE 3 M�=0/ R ' ^NEY ❑Fvi D,:i aOR1G ❑FOLIJ:CHF G L: T A'A REC DIR UTIL DIR March 6, 2001 O PERS DIR SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL , e� RE: 0 186-00 Recommend upholding the community development director and planning commission by adopting staff recommendation that the use permit for 71 Palomar (Delta Tau) has expired. DEAR MAYOR SETTLE & COUNCIL MEMBERS: As neighbors and interested parties as to the above noted agenda item, the following arguments are submitted: 1. The use permit resolution 11-68 was for the use of the residence at 71 N Broad as a fraternity house. The use was abandoned and residence uninhabitable for over a year. As noted by code enforcement officers, on multiple occasions entry was denied to prevent any assessment of habitability or occupancy. The final inspection as to the residence occurred 12/4/00. The use permit is for the residence. The illegal occupancy of an accessory building lacking cooking and bathing facilities, not included in the use permit, is insufficient to reestablish the fraternal use of the house. 2. The Associated Sandboarders aren't a fraternity. The statement of their own President, Mr. Ben Arrona, indicates a specific desire to disassociate from the Greek fraternity system and any association with the local colleges. The group has made numerous assertions to both neighbors and code enforcement that they are not a fraternity The current tenants now claim to be a fraternity, shunning any formal club or fraternity recognition status with the local colleges, and are thereby free from any governing controls of those institutions. The young men presently living at 71 Palomar are free to continue to do so. Under current zoning regulations there is no requirement for a permit for them to continue living the group lifestyle they desire. It is noteworthy that the Sandboarders have previously attempted to gain recognition at Cal Poly as Delta Tau Omega and were turned down as a poorly veiled attempt to reinstitute Delta Tau who remains in the third year of their 25 year expulsion from the University.. It is clear that the group of guys living'at the house are being used by the Appellants(DT) in their attempt to retain the 1968 use permit and to resume operation free from the controls of Cal Poly and particularly the Inter Fraternity Council (IFC). Mr. Ben Arrona and his group have been denied recognition by Cal Poly. That determination has no impact upon the stated purpose or goals of the current residents of the house, and in fact conforms with their desire not to be formally associated with any campus or with other collegiate groups. As to the RECEIVED MAR 0 6 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL - O local colleges, DTO or the Sandboarders are a renegade group with no ability to participate in anything on or related to the local colleges. If/when DT resumes active operation they can seek a use permit and meet current conditions, as they will certainly not become involved with the IFC who expelled them previously. DT spokesman Dan Carpenter commented at the Planning Commission that property owners should have checked permits when they purchased their homes. The DT fraternity had been located on site since 1969, as a member of the IFC since that time. IFC establishes activity guidelines with enforcement for inappropriate behavior to safeguard the neighborhood, fraternity members and their guests. Certainly no prospective property owner could envision a city sanctioned fraternity use not including an association with the college and related standards of behavior and enforcement. It is the neighbors who have an issue as to the "takings (sic) clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions" as the appellant raises as ground in this appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Lydia& Bob Mourenza 617 Luneta DR San Luis Obispo, CA Ri^hard Schmidt V544-4247 'MOX11N C911:15RIA- Ij414 �UJ�f{{ w rn AGE �J ITEM #� RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e- c , CIL :3DIRR IR CA h March 5, 2001 VIA FAX ca ^':.EF �ATTO EY 1 Re: 71 Palomar Fraternity Use Permit �7-,,IuoRIG :CHF Y ❑lu AIla To the City Council: DIR Lc r1V0- While I'm staying neutral on the question of revocation of the fraternity use permit for o0 this property, I do have two concerns about this property's future. Clearly, the property is integral to the uphill R-1 neighborhood on Palomar and Serrano (and not to the downhill R-4 district), which thus far has avoided being turned into a rental slum, as has happened to the neighborhood immediately to the west of the subject site along Lunetta. I am concerned that if the permit is revoked, the city must take proactive measures to protect the neighborhood. In particular, there are two issues: 1. The appropriateness of R-4 zoning for the site. The site is topographically and in fact a part of the adjacent R-1 neighborhood, and R-4 is thereforeinagprop it ate. R-4 is also inappropriate in that.it encourages demolition of this listed historic property rather than its preservation. I request therefore that you initiate downzoning to R-1 if the fraternity use is vacated. This matter is explored in more detail in the attached 1999 letter to the planning commission. 2. The opening of Lunetta to through traffic must not occur under any circumstances! Presumably it is the current intent of the city that when the 71 Palomar property redevelops, Lunetta will be widened and become a through street. The city needs to alter its circulation element to eliminate Lunetta as a through street between Palomar and Verde. This connection is not needed. But, if this street is opened to through traffic, all the traffic between downtown and Cal Poly and the hundreds of houses on the side of San Luis Mountain will use this street for access. So will the huge high density nucleus along Lunetta. This will dump thousands of careening cars per day onto Palomar and Serrano, where they don't belong and cannot be safely handled. Till now, the city has turned a blind eye to the actions it takes which make traffic conditions in this neighborhood intolerable, but on this occasion, you are being informed Schmidt to City Council re 71 Palomar, Page 1 of 4 RECEIVED MAR 0 6 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL Richard Schmidt V 5444247 17113/5!1 W 1114 PM 0314 in advance of what will result and what you can do to prevent further erosion of quality of life in the R-1 neighborhood due to misplaced through traffic. The city staff is totally oblivious to the already serious traffic problems and excessive traffic volumes on Serrano below Palomar -- I am told that they back up their contention there is no problem with the fact they've never conducted a traffic count on the street! The city and neighborhood have lived for years without a through link on Lunetta. We can continue to live without that link just fine. So, I request that.you deal proactively with the problems that would be caused by opening Lunetta by making it city policy that Lunetta stay closed to through traffic. Thank you for dealing with both these concerns as you deal with the narrower issue before you Tuesday night. Sincerley, Richard Schmidt Attachment: Letter to Planning Commission 11.16.99 Schmidt to City Council re 71 Palomar, Page 2 of 4 Richard Schmidt 9544-4247 M3/5/1 0911:13 PM D2/4 RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu November 16, 1999 Request for City-Initiated Rezoning Consideration Dear Planning Commissioners: Please accept this letter in lieu of personal appearance during public comment time. I write to request that you -- as a commission -- initiate consideration of a rezoning that's needed both to save a great neighborhood and to preserve an important historic resource. The subject of my concern is the former Delta Tau fraternity house property at the corner of Palomar and Luneta. This property is, topographically and in fact, an island of R-4 within an R-1 environment. The house sits on a hill far above the adjacent R-4-PD apartments, and is physically part of the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. In researching the zoning history, it is apparent that the R-4 designation was given as a favor to legitimize the fraternity use, not because anyone really considered the property appropriate for the other high density uses permitted in the zone. (The old story of zoning for the project at hand rather than the uses the zoning ultimately permits!) With the demise of the fraternity, the property's owners want to sell the one-acre parcel for the 24-units-per-acre usage allowed in R-4. This would be devastating for the surrounding neighborhood, which would literally have the city's highest density immediately in its midst. Normally, there are buffers between higher and lower intensity uses. If the parcel is developed at R-4, there would be no buffer. In the past, the large amount of space between the house and the neighbors served as something of a buffer. Just up Luneta from the old fraternityone can see the effect of introducing R-4 apartments into an R-1 neighborhood with no buffer. The neighborhood has become a rental slum.All but a couple of homeowners have given up and moved out. Although there are some nice and nearly hew houses in that block, they are no longer homes. The fears of current residents of Palomar, Serrano and Broad about the fate of their neighborhood should dense apartments replace the fraternity is thus founded on observation of the fate of a similar street nearby. Furthermore, the old fraternity house is on the city's master list of historic structures, the Schmidt to City Council re 71 Palomar, Page 3 of 4 Richard Schmidt 4 5444247 M315/1 011:13 PM p 114 i highest classification for historic buildings. It is therefore inappropriate to look at it as ripe for demolition for a change of use. My request is as follows: That the commission initiate consideration of rezoning this parcel (indicated on the attached map) from R-4 to R-1. Supporting rationales include the following: 1. Preventing the R-4 redevelopment of this parcel is essential for perserving the quality of the nearby R-1 neighborhood. Under the General Plan, the city has an.affirmative responsibility to protect existing neighborhoods. 2. The existing zoning is illogical and inappropriate given the topographical inclusion of the parcel within the surrounding R-1 zone, and its topographical separation from the adjacent R-4 zone. 3. The existing zoning's encouragement of demolition and redevelopment is inappropriate given the historic resource designation of the property. Should the city not seek to protect its historic resources? (This is arguably the best Greek Revival style house in town.) 4. Apartments are not necessarily the highest and best use of the property. This fine old house with its acre of view property and mature trees would make a fine estate. My real estate sources suggest such an estate would be a valuable commodity in the local real estate market, and if marketed for that purpose likely about as valuable as the parcel would be for redevelopment. In any event, the present owners have held the property for so long that any sale would produce a major windfall, and they would not be hurt by a rezoning. 5. Time is ripe for the rezoning. The property is vacant and for sale. This is therefore the best time to initiate a rezoning, before a new owner with expectations of inappropriate development enters the picture. 6. Traffic from the apartments, if built, would have a devastating impact upon the residential streets of Palomar and Serrano. This would also be an inappropriate outcome. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Schmidt to City Council re 71 Palomar, Page 4 of 4