PC 08.a. ACUP 15-001 Meadow Creek SupplementalTO: COMMISSIONERS
FROM: DOWNING,
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8.a. — CONSIDERATION OF AMENDED CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT CASE NO. 15-001, VARIANCE CASE NO. 15-001, AND LOT
MERGER CASE NO. 15-001; LOCATION — 880 OAK PARK BOULEVARD
(APNs 007-771-053, -062, AND -072); APPLICANT — RUSS SHEPPEL
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2015
Following agenda packet preparation and delivery, staff received correspondence regarding
Agenda Item 8.a. (Attachment 1). Although staff has been aware of the private parking
easement between the two properties, a new legal theory propounded by the neighboring
property owner involving the concept of exclusive use has not been previously identified,
discussed, or analyzed. This would have considerable impacts to the project and site design
if the parking easement area is first and foremost for use by Casa Grande Inn, the full
expanse of which staff has not had time to adequately analyze. For this reason, staff
recommends the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony on
the item given the noticed public hearing, and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain
in order to allow the applicant and the neighboring property owner an additional opportunity to
address this issue and not waste public resources further processing the application if
changes are required to be made to the project.
Attachment:
1. Letter from Glick & Haupt, LLP regarding Agenda Item 8.a.
ATTACHMENT 1
GLICK{ H,4UPT_LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1315 SANTA ROSA STREET
P057 OFFICE BOX 1485
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
TELEPHONE 1605) 544-2450
FACSIMILE (605) 544-32B4
WWW.GLICKHAUPT.COM
FREDERICK K. GLICK Via U.S. Mail & E -Mail
MIM aIGI I( KTMUFMCOM February 12, 2015
Timothy J. Cannel, Esq.
Carmel & Naecasha LLP
1410 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 43401
tearmel@carnaclaw.com
Re: Meadow Creels Pro ect
Dear Mr. Carmel,
We have recently learned that a public hearing is scheduled for February 17th, 2015 in
front of the City of Arroyo Chande Planning Commission to review development permits for the
Sheppel project located on Oak Park Road and James Way. We have only seen preliminary
plans, however, our client Ray Bunnell is extremely concerned with the pians utilization of his
parking easement for Meadow Creek Independent Living units.
Not only does the Sheppel plan show that the parking easement has been moved and
reduced in size, but it also indicates that it is to be shared parking. As you know, there currently
is an ongoing law suit in San Luis Obispo Superior court (Case No. 14CVO 183) , which among
other things is requesting injunctive relief in declaration of Mr. Bunnell's rights with regards to
the parking easement. It is our belief that Mr. Bunnell will be successful in having a
determination by the court that his rights in the parking easement are primary and all other rights,
including that of the underlying owner, are secondary.
Although it was difficult to tell, it does not appear that any of the parking areas associated
with the independent living units are covered which we understand is a city requirement.
We believe that any new plan with regards to the Meadow Creek Project would be
premature until all parties have come to agreement on the parking easement issues and or the
matter has beer) fully adjudicated. Until that time, it would be virtually impossible to have an
accurate count of the number of parking spaces available to the Meadow Creek Project.
'Timothy J_ Carmel, Esq.
February 12, 2015
Pae 2 of 2
GLICK & HAUPT LLP
With the foregoing in mind, we would request that the matter either be taken off calendar
or continued until the parking issues have been fully resolved.
Respectfully,
GLIC K & HAUPT LLP
d K. click
FKG1aw
cc. Client (via e -snail only)
Matthew Dooming (via e -nail only)
Michael Haupt, Esq. (via e-nuul only)