Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 106; Lusk Mobile Home Park; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (3)TO : FROM: DATE: . RE: MEMORANDUM City Manager City Attorney August 22, 1974 Lusk-Occidental Trailer Park CUP You have asked me to advise you in regard to a request from John D. Lusk & Son dated August 14, 1974, in regard to the subject development. I have attempted to look into the matter and can assure you that it is not a simple one. The original Conditional Use Permit was issued to H. B. Development Company in November of 1969. There are two sections of the Municipal Code which set out the time limits applicable to Conditional Use Permits. Section 21.42.040 concerns Conditional Use Permits in particular and provides that in the absence of specific provisions in the permit itself that the per- mit is void "if construction of the proposed use granted thereby is not completed within one year from the date of granting of the permit". (emphasis added) The other section is 21.58.020 which applies to all developmental entitlements. That section provides that any permit, variance or specific plan becomes ". >. . void if not exercised within the time specified . . . or if no date is specified, within one year from the date of approval", (emphasis added) The Conditional Use Permit granted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 646 does not contain any reference to time limits or phasing of development. Analysis of this problem was complicated by the absence of adequate records on the part of the City. The Conditional Use Permit was processed prior to annexation, a procedure of doubtful legitimacy. 'In any case, the per- mit was made effective upon annexation, 1970 the Planning Department did communicate with Occidental, the property owner, that they would have one year from August 31, 1971, the date of annexation, to commence the construction of their development or the permit would be void. In and of itself, that position seems to me to be erroneous, It is possible to argue, I suppose, that to exercise a permit could be to commence construction. However, in view of Section 21.42.040 it is not necessary to even involve ourselves in that kind of an interpreta- tion. The section clearly provides in unequivocal terms In December of City Manager August 22, 1974 Page Two that a Conditional Use Permit is void if not completed within one year. The next item of correspondence is a letter to the City Manager dated March.5, 1971, where the developer, Sequoia Pacific, specifically asks for assurances that they could have several years to complete their construc- tion of their mobile home project under the CUP. The City records do not reflect whether or not any answer was sent to that letter. There is a memorandum from the Planning Department to the City Attorney dated March 10, 1971, setting out what purports to be the position of the City Manager and the Planning Director that the commence- ment of construction of Unit 1 of the mobile home park would constitute the exercising of the CUP and that the statute would be construed to apply to individual phases of the development, that is, that if more than one year would expire between the completion of one phase and the completion of the total project, Staff would initiate proceedings to review and consider revoking the Condi- tional Use Permit. I am at a loss to understand howFthat- could be the City's position. ., __ . - - - - - - The August 14 letter from Lusk indicates that they were in receipt of a letter from the City Attorney dated March 23, 1971. A copy of that letter is not available in the City's files. I.can only assume from the sense of Lusk's letter that their understanding of the matter is that the one-year requirement would apply to succeeding phases of the project. The interpretation they seek is that the initial commencement of construction within a year period was sufficient to cause a permit'to run until the construction of that unit is finished and as long as the construction of the next unit would start within an additional year, there would be no problem and then they would have an unlimited time to complete that unit,and at the conclusion of that phase an additional year's period would be allowed to commence construction of succeeding phases, and so on, It seems to me it will be necessary for us to, before finally resolving the matter, request that Lusk is Son furnish the City with any and all docu- mentation they may have in support of their position, in- cluding the City Attorney's letter and tb response to Mr, Arnold's letter, if any is available. It certainly would have been possible under our ordinances to have included in the.Conditiona1 Use Permit City Manager August 22, 1974 Page Three a phasing schedule and specific time limits. However, it simply was not done. In the absence of such a provision in the permit, the section to me is crystal clear, The construction authorized by that permit has not been com- pleted within one year: it has not been completed within five years: and the permit is void. There may or may not be sufficient evidence to indicate that the City is estopped from taking that position. We may well be, especially for that unit of the mobile home park currently under construc- tion. However, the parcel owned by Mr. Lusk is a different matter. There are indications from the Planning Department that they may have for some time been communicating to Mr. Lusk that the ability to complete the project may be in question. It seems to me that it may well be that in order for Lusk to build out the project, it will be neces- sary for him to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for it. Their August 14, 1974 letter contains additional factors which indicate that a new permit is required. Their letter reflects that the number of spaces will be reduced by twenty, and more importantly that the park which was approved as a family park will now be developed as an adult-only park. Any changes of that nature in the'program may be sufficient in and of themselves to require at the minimum an amendment of the existing permit, It seems to me that we should immediately communi- cate with Lusk & Sons, and it well may be thab our under- standing of their position vis-a-vis the City is different from theirs, and put them on notice that they should not proceed further with their project until the problem is resolved. We should also request them to send us any docu- . mentation that they may have relating to this matter. I understand from my discussions with the Planning Director that there are planning considerations which would indicate that the development of addftional mobile home parks in that area of the City may not be in our best inter- ests and that he intends to report to you independently in that regard. I will be happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. VINCENT F . BIONDO , JR. VFB : af Enclosures