Loading...
PC Minutes 1971-10-193'7-6 Arroyo.Grande Planning Commission October 19, 1,971 The Arroyo Grande Planning Commission met in regular session with Chairman Schultz presiding. Present are Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter and St. Denis. Also in attendance are City Administrator Butch, City Attorney Shipsey and Planning Director Gallop. MINUTE APPROVAL On motion of Commissioner Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Nunes, and unani- mously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of October 5, 1971 were approved as prepared. LOT SPLIT CASE NO 71 -143 RE U IREMENT FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION A. THOMAS Director Gallop advised that a request had been filed on behalf of A. Thomas to split a parcel of property on Elm Street between Fair Oaks Avenue and Farroll Avenue. He pointed out that the property was affected by a Plan Line adopted by the City Council several years ago, and that the Lot Split Committee approved the split subject to a•number of cond.itio,ns;.which he read from the Minor Subdivision Committee Report dated October 7th, 1971. The requirements for the deed for right -of -way within the Plan Line should be recommended by this Commission and presented to the City Council for acceptance. Director Gallop advised that this parcel of land required for right -of -way purposes would be 175' frontage and approximately 36 to 40' in depth, which amounts to approximately one - fourth of the total parcel. This requirement would reduce the potential of each of the two proposed parcels from six dwelling units to four dwel- ling units. He pointed out that the staff, as in all lot split cases, has recom- mended that the developer not only deed the land, but also install curb, gutter, driveway aprons and sidewalks, and that Mr. Berryhill, who is a member of the Lot Split Committee, recommended that curb, gutter, driveway aprons and sidewalk be in- stalled by the City in exchange for the property dedication requirement inasmuch as it does require one - fourth of the property. Director Gallop also pointed out that normally, the most the City has ever done in connection with dedication of right -of- way is the installation of curb and gutter. Chairman Schultz, member of the Lot Split Committee, pointed out that because of the amount of the property to be deeded to the City, the Committee recommended that these improvements be made by the City in exchange for the property. Mr. Butch pointed out that there has never been such a recommendation in connection with a lot split. After further discussion by the Commission, on a motion by Commissioner Porter, seconded by Commissioner Berryhill, motion carried with one "no" vote, that Require- ments 1 thru 9 of Minor Subdivision Committee Report, dated October 7, 1971, Lot Split Case No. 71 -143, be approved and recommended to the City Council for approval and acceptance of right -of -way deed. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 71 -52, TRAFFIC WAY, F -S DIST, TO H -S DIST. (LOVETT) Director Gallop advised that the request for rezoning has been filed on behalf of three ownerships by Mr. Lee Lovett. The property is adjacent to the creek and Traffic Way. Director Gallop pointed out that approximately a month ago, there was a request before this Commission to utilize this area as Highway Service District, and the requested use was denied because it was classified as Freeway Service District, and the owners have now petitioned for a zone change to Highway Service. At the time of the previous request, there was an expression of concern on the part of some of the Commissioners that perhaps this was classified in the wrong district. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 71-52 had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing open. Mr. Lee Lovett, 127 So. Mason, petitioner for the rezoning, was present and advised that an equipment rental service has been proposed for this property,and this is what they hope to do with it if granted the zone change. No further dis- cussion for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing closed. Director Gallop advised that the property involved is the old service station site, the small triangular portion in the radius of the curve, and the Langenbeck property to the west. After discussion, the following action was taken: Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -19 -71 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 71 -217 Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 21, OF SAID CODE. On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Bowles, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of October, 1971. PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING CASE NO. 71 - 53, VALLEY ROAD,.R -A -B -3 TO R -1 DISt. (CRAIG Director Gallop advised that the area in question has been petitioned fo'r'a' change from R -A -B -3 District to R -1 to allow a standard single family residential subdivision, and that the application was filed by Mr. Ken Craig as agent for the owner. The property is located on the east side of Valley Road, south of the "Davis House ", and across the street from Valley Gardens Subdivision, consisting of approxi- mately 13+ acres. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that public hearing for Rezoning Case No. 71 - had been duly published, posted and property owners notified, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing open. Mr. Ken Craig, 1042 Ash Street, advised he is representing the owners, who wish to have the property rezoned for a residential subdivision. No further discussion for or against the proposed zone change, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing closed. Director Gallop pointed out that all existing services are furnished to the subdivision directly across the street. He advised there is a drainage problem on the property, however, this is the sole responsibility of the developer, who is aware of the situation. After discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -218 Z A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 21, OF SAID CODE. On motion of Commissioner. Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles, Jones, Nunes, Porter, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of October, 1971. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF PERMIT CASE NO. 67-104 PHILADELPHIA TIRE CO., 111 ALDER STREET. City Attorney Shipsey informed the Commission of the fact that this is a public hearing, with the Planning .Commission being the fact finding board; that they should listen to testimony to determine whether or not they wish to recommend to the City Council either revocation or no revocation of the Conditional Use Permit in question. He pointed, out that the right . to terminate a use is regulated by the Zoning Ordinance, which specifies that any Use Permit or Variance granted in accordance with the terms of this ordinance may be revoked by the City Council if any of the conditions or terms of such permits are violated. Mr. Shipsey expressed his opinion of the Planning Commission's function is that they are to listen to testimony to determine whether or not any of the express terms of the Use Permit have been violated. 377 378 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -19 -71 Page 3 Director Gallop read the six conditions set out in Resolution 67-59 U, granted by the Planning Commission on April 18, 1967. Commissioner Nunes inquired of Mr. Shipsey that if in addition to the stated conditions in the Use Permit, are there any provisions for other discrepancies. Mr. Shipsey advised that the Zoning Ordi- nance does not provide that, and we should confine ourselves to the violation of these conditions. The basis of the Commission's decision must be based on the find- ings of these conditions. Commissioner Jones stated that at the meeting of September 21st when Commissioner Berryhill indicated he felt that if the Commission is to consider nuisances in issu- ing a Use Permit, they should also have to consider the same conditions in revocation of a permit and, at that time, Mr. Shipsey informed the Commission this was also his opinion. Mr. Shipsey stated he had changed his mind up to this point. Commissioner Berryhill stated that the Commission received a synopsis of minutes on this Use Permit of the last four years, and have heard the same basic nuisance complaints before the Commission and, evidently, the people thought this was the body to hear these nuisance complaints. Mr. Shipsey advised that it is in this respect - stacking of tires, park- ing of trucks can be violations of this Use Permit. Upon being assured by Director Gallop that notice of public hearing to consider revocation of Use Permit Case No. 67 -104 had been published and notices mailed, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing open, stating the Commission would hear those against'.the.•revocation first, and then those supporting revocation. Mr. Duenow, Attorney representing the Philadelphia Tire Company, stated he felt it was important to review the history of this Use Permit, and referred to a synopsis of the minutes from April 1967 to the present time. He pointed out that in March 1971 there was an extensive fire inspection made and violations were found, and that his client proceeded to carry out the corrections, and that some time between March and July of this year the problem of outside storage came up and when the complaints were referred to his clients, they contacted the authorities and it was suggested that they be stored along side the building. This was done. It was further suggest- ed by the Planning Department that a fence be built. This was also done. They were trying to cooperate with the City, and they are trying to cooperate now. There were complaints about smoke, however, there were no facts and no testing, no comparison to the scale. There is a performance standard set out in the Zoning Code that could be tested; no one has alleged that we violated the performance standard in that re- gard. Mr. Duenow stated there was a lot of testimony about alleged emissions and that, regardless of the conditions attached to the Use Permit, this is a serious matter and his clients sought to do something about it. A filter system was installed to handle the rubber dust, and the complaints changed to some kind of vapor or fumes emission. Regarding the allegations of medical problems by neighbors, Mr. Duenow advised that up to this time his client has never been contacted by any neighbor or heard any complaints at anytime with regard to medical problems. Regarding the allegations of noise, there has been no testing regarding noise by those who complained. Regarding the complaint about outside storage, Mr. Duenow advised the outside storage should not have occurred,but that problem has now been solved. He added that with regard to these various complaints, his client, as each complaint was presented to him, made efforts to test on a scientific basis to see if the complaints were valid. With regard to fruit trees and rubber dust in the soil, as soon as this complaint became specific enough, his client obtained fruit'leaves and soil from a neighbor and had them tested by Thorpe Laboratories in Paso Robles, and found there was no evidence of rubber dust and nothing regarding the soil. With regard to noise, another specific complaint brought up this summer, bear- ing in mind the Performance Standards in the Ordinance, his client had the place tested for noise at the property line two or three times, the latest time was either today or yesterday, by Gus Thomason, Audio Consultant, and the test showed the noise level is well within the performance standards. Regarding smoke and emissions,. Mr. Duenow advised that Dr. Koda of Cal Poly made some tests last Saturday, and that the Doctor will have a more comprehensive report when his students complete their work with the samples they took. He stated they didn't know how to test for odors and were open to suggestions. Mr. Duenow listed several improvements undertaken by the owners, at a cost slightly under $7,500, and advised that these improvements, so far as he knows, have nothing to do with the requirements or conditions of the Use Permit. He further Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -19 -71 Page 4 advised that a warehouse has been leased to undertake the operation of sorting casings, etc., so that casings won't he left out in front waiting to be hauled to the dump on a daily basis. He advised that an area on the south side of the build- ing has been red rocked to eliminate dust problems and to allow employees to park on the back part of the lot. He indicated he believes that some of the neighbors are sincere in their complaints, and they intend to take these complaints and im- prove the situation. He advised that the employees in charge of the buffer are in- str,ucted that if.they buff in excess of the hours in the Use Permit they will be suspended wg day without pay; two days, they will be fired. Possibly neighbors have\beard compressors and have mistaken it for buffing, and it may be that employees, from time to time, have violated the Use Permit without the owner's knowledge. With regard to the law that is applicable here, Mr. Duenow stated his clients feel they can't be charged with past errors; that is, violations of the Use Permit by prior owners, and they have the right to presume that the legislative body of a City base findings on evidence. He stated he doesn't think the Performance Standards apply to this hearing; and also he believes it is a law that they have a property right in this Use Permit because money is invested in this Use Permit. There must - be substantial evidence to revoke this Use Permit and taking away a property right that is vested in them. Mr. Duenow pointed out that these are busy streets involved, and he understood that a traffic count revealed that Halcyon has 8,400 cars per day and Grand Avenue has 12,000 cars per day. He referred to a comment of the Executive Director of the Air Pollution Control District that 70% of all pollution comes from cars, and within a six block radius of his clients property, each day cars are putting on some 20,000 car miles. In short, from their point of view, they can see no evidence sufficient to revoke the Use Permit. He doesn't believe the complaint this summer on outside storage can be relied upon if it was done with City officials. Mr. Duenow stated, in deliberating on this matter, he would like the Commission to bear in mind several things: 1. His clients have gone to the City on every occasion and attempted to comply. 2. They met with the neighbors and received not one constructive idea. 3. No neighbor has ever come to them directly with com- plaints. 4. Every time a City official has cited violations, they have taken action to verify the complaint and correct it. If the performance standards set out by the City were to be applied, there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to revoke this Use Permit. Mr. L. J. Roberts, Sales Engineer for A.M.F. Voit, Santa Ana, was present and advised that the Philadelphia Tire Company requested them to come in and set up a quality control program for their shop. They installed an Orbit Tread machine and we recommended to them pUrchasing this new automatic buffing machine that will cut down the amount of noise and elimination of buffing dust. He advised that since the recap shop has been handling their quality control program, he has seen 100% improvement from the standpoint of cleanliness, etc. Philadelphia Tire Company is trying in every possible way to cooperate and run a first class retread shop. Mr. Robert Folkerts. was present and stated that he operated the recap shop in 1968, 1969 and 1970, and he felt the Use Permit was probably violated more when he had it than it is today. He stated he didn't think that since the Use Permit was granted that it has ever been complied with as well as it is today. Mr. Frank Andre, 149 Alder Street, stated he has never had any rubber dust, and no problem of noise or odor. Mr. James Thwaites, representing neighbors in the area, advised that his clients have suffered in their health and have already filed and served a $7,227,000 suit against these people. He stated he felt the Planning Commission has an over- whelming duty to plan for the health and welfare of the people. He advised that only last month Mr. Haynes and himself were with Mr. Duenow and advised him "it is killing our clients ", and disputed Mr. Duenow's statement that no one has ever told him of any complaints. At that time Mr. Duenow stated they were going to run tests, three tests, with filters with and without water injection. They did not tell the Planning Commission what the results of the tests were, and therefore he assumes the results were not entirely favorably. He further stated his point is that his clients think this is a nuisance and he is asking this Commission to find, as a matter of fact, that the operation of this plant is a nuisance. Mr. Donald Haynes, Attorney representing some of the property owners in the area, stated the whole idea of planning is for the highest and best use of the property and that the uses are next to each other in some way, and that in 1967 this Commission made a very serious error. He stated that the minutes show 379 3810 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10-19 -71 Page 5 evidence of nuisance and, all of a sudden today, we are handed an opinion of the City Attorney that all of these things are now irrelevant and the only thing they may talk about are actually five conditions of the Use Permit. He stated of this was a court of law, he would have the right to object virtually to everything Mr. Duenow said, and would have it striken from the record if they are limited to simply talking about the five matters which were set forth in the original Use Permit. He stated they have omitted the violations of no outside storage; it is still there, and that is a clear -cut violation. Regarding grinding of tires, people know there is noise and it is very hard for them to tell whether it is from the grinding of tires or operating industrial use for long hours. Another condition was sufficient off - street parking other than Alder Street for the employees. He advised they have indicated they have off street parking for the employees, but that: he doesn't know where it is. Mr. Haynes stated that what has resulted in Mr. Shlpsey °s ruling is that the Zoning Ordinance and all prior actions of the Commission have been fruitless and, apparently, will end up with a Superior Court case on matters that should be re- solved at the City level. He stated that originally this Use Permit was granted for what was to be a small recapping business. Now it is a major industry use; a large recapping shop. Unless the Commission puts a limit on growth into an original Use Permit, they are stuck with whatever happens in the future. He advised that the people who live in the area have a right to some protection of their City at some level. if.there are violations , either the City Attorney should prosecute, or the Planning Commission should be closing them down. He stated that if they could, and it was relevant, they would talk tonight about air pollution, lawns, plants, noise, odor, vehicular traffic and many other things, but they cannot since it is not relevant. He further stated, it was his opinion, that the Planning Commission with sufficient testimony tonight, has the grounds to revoke this Use Permit even on the grounds that Mr. Shipsey has allowed. The use can never be made compatible with the neighborhood. He stated he felt the residents have to be taken seriously and he asked that the Use Permit be revoked on two grounds; 1) outside storage of materials, and 2) no off - street parking for employees off of Alder Street. Mrs. Allen, 169 Alder Street, stated she has complained about the noise previous- ly, and advised she was away last weekend when it rained, and invited the Commission to see the new paint job they put on their home just last summer. Mr. Bob Goulart, 801 Opal Drive, stated he visited the recap shop a couple of months back and could hardly stand it; breathing the stuff coming out of the building. He referred to Zoning Ordinance 24 C.S., the section under Usa Permits that states that the Commission, when issuing a Use Permit, must find that the issuance of this Permit will not be injurious or detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. It was his contention, in view of the complaints heard over the last four months, that this is not true. Taking this into con - sideration, it would be very difficult for this Commission to find that these con- ditions are not detrimental. Mr. Matt Gallagher, 520 Leanna, requested that all of the reports that the Fire Marshal had made on this piece of property be read into the records. Director Gallop advised that there are a number of different reports in the folder which have been referred to at meetings, and that generally, unless the Fire Marshal finds specific violations, no reports are given to him. He stated he assumes that the Fire Marshal's reports on inspections that were not referred to him are all within the Fire Department records. Director Gallop referred to a report dated August 12th made by the Fire Marshal highlighting many discrepancies. Mr. Gallagher inquired if state regulations take precedence over our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Shipsey stated, in his opinion, if they are more stringent, they would. Mr. Gallagher stated that since state law takes precedence, the fact that these nuisance conditions exists and have been recorded, the Council should take into consideration what the state says regarding conditions reported here this evening. Mr. George Ribken, 145 So. Halcyon, stated his wife is coughing in the morning when she gets up, and he feels the plant is causing this coughing. He stated that the plant has grown and it seems they are in major production and are putting out more pollution in the air, and the problem is getting to the point where health is involved. Mr. Ralph Richards was present and stated the shop is a nuisance and the pollution is killing the trees because there is nothing else around there to cause it. Mrs. Richards, 151 Alder Street, referred to Mr. Andre's testimony and stated he has lived in the area just exactly three months and she didn't see how he could compare what he has seen in three months to what the neighbors have, who have been Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10-19 -71 Page 6 there for several years. Morris J, Phillips, 152 Alder St., advised the recap shop is continuously dumping tires in front of the building. Mr. Duenow indicated that, apparently, Mr. Thwaites admits he is complaining about a nuisance, and stated that if there is a nuisance, the owners will take care of it. He stated it was irresponsive for attorneys to come here and claim medical damage for people unsubstantiated by any facts. He further stated he talked to a man who has run the plant for 18 years, who has assured him that he does not know of any industrial claims in this respect. He further stated that if there are nuisances, the City should prosecute as public nuisances. He also stated that the Fire Marshal inspected the premises last spring and as far as he knows, his clients have cooperated to correct any deficiency. They have dealt, and will continue to deal with the County Air Pollution Control District. He stated he doesn't know what the neighbor's current complaints are with regards to alleged outside storage; that the City agreed to the - violations of the Use Permit and the company is working in cooperation with the City to resolve complaints and they were trying to resolve the storage problem in a reasonable way. Mr. Haynes stated that the record is clear on two matters; off - street parking and the outside storage of tires. Mr. Folkerts stated that there is off-street parking off of Alder Street. The area is leveled off and red rocked, and was rented for the purpose of off - street parking. No further discussion for or against the revocation of the Use Permit, Chairman Schultz declared the hearing closed. City Attorney Shipsey advised that to complete the records, since some reference was made to three reports of the Fire Marshal, it was his opinion that they should be included in the evidence to the Planning Commission so that they may have the benefit of that testimony. Director Gallop read aloud Reports from Fire Marshal Tony Marsalek, dated August 12, 1971, September 21, 1971 and September 14, 1971 and March 25,. 1971. . Commissioner Bowles commented he had visited the plant today and it appeared that they have made a real sincere effort to comply with the Use Permit. Mr. Shipsey stated the Commission must make their findings of fact on whether or not there has been a violation of the Use Permit, and then make their recommendations. Commissioner Nunes requested that the Commission go through the items and try to reach a decision on the six items. Item 1 - Outdoor Storage of Materials: Commissioner Berryhill stated that he didn't observe any storage on the premises, and his idea of storage would be what went on in the past with casings being stacked outside on the premises. He added that if he were to base his decision on what he saw, he would have to say that they complied with the first requirement. Commissioner Nunes stated that since they took over, they have violated, the condition of outside storage. Commissioner Porter stated there have been violations in the past, however, there has been an effort to correct these violations, but there may be a question as to whether or not there was a stalling until they were forced to do this. Commissioner Nunes referred to the March 25th report by the Fire Marshal, citing a violation of outside storage, and the same complaint in the report of August, stating it is an extreme fire hazard. For six months, that remained a violation of the Use Permit, and in the last two months they have corrected this. In August, the Commission attempted to do something to see that this was enforced. Commissioner Jones stated that obviously there have been lengthy continuous violations until September 14th as reported by the Fire Chief. Commissioner Jones indicated that he has gone by the shop numerous times and there have been casings outside, and this fact has also been acknowledged by their attorney. Commissioner Porter commented that the Planning Director gave approval to leave the tires outside if they were confined within a fence. Commissioner Nunes inquired of Director Gallop if he notified the owners in this case of the error. Director Gallop replied he had advised them of this fact, and that after notifi- cation, they immediately started correcting the situation. Item 2 - No grinding of tires be permitted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8 :00 a.m., and such grinding to be confined to a partitioned area equipped with a vacuum system: Commissioner Schultz stated it has been alleged that there has been grinding after hours, but this could have been a situation where there could have been machinery operating, and that the grinding is confined to a petitioned area and it is now equipped with a vacuum system. In the past the vacuum system 381 382 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -19 -71 Page 7 was cited by the Fire Marshal in that it had been running over and discharging rubber dust on the roof. Commissioner Porter stated it seemed that this condition was being corrected, and that over a period of time it seemed to have gotten less in that regard. Director Gallop advised the original vacuum was insufficient to handle the load, and that in the past year there has been definite progress made according to the Fire Marshal's observations. He pointed out that all the Use Permit specifies is that it should be equipped with a vacuum system. Item 3 - No burning of any kind permitted on the premises. Chairman Schultz indicated that this has not been a problem. Item 4 - Review in six months. Chairman Schultz stated that this has been reviewed. Item 5 - Sufficient Off- street Parking to the approval of the Public Works Department of a location other than on Alder Street. Chairman Schultz stated that there has been parking available across the street. Director Gallop advised there has been off street parking provided at times. Commissioner Berryhill stated the building appears to be in better condition than the whole neighborhood, and it was his feel- ing when he toured the plant, that objections on the off- street parking, housekeeping and outside storage had been eliminated. Commissioner Nunes stated he felt the Commission should be judging them on the conditions of the Use Permit and on how they have handled them. From March to now they have had the opportunity to do all of these things; if we say they are now in conformance, we have no assurance that there won't be a few tires out on the side again. Chairman Schultz stated that the operation has been sold many times, and there is nothing to prevent it from being sold again. The property owners now would intend to operate it within the highest degree, but that doesn't mean it won't be sold to new owners. Chairman Schultz further stated that now they do have off - street parking. Item 6 - Approval of the Fire Department. Chairman Schultz stated that the shop has been in extreme violation and the violations have been corrected. The last report of the Fire Marshal gives it a pretty good bill of health. Commissioner Berryhill advised he asked the Fire Chief, based on his last investigation of the Recap Shop, if it constituted a fire hazard, and the answer was "no ". Chairman Schultz summed up the foregoing items as follows: Item 1 - No outside storage -- this has definitely been a violation. Item 2 - no grinding between the hours of 6 :00 p.m, and 8 :00 a.m., and the use of a vacuum system -- "It looks like they are pretty clean on that ". Item 3 - No burning -- No problem on this item. Item 4 - Review in six months -- This has been done. Item 5 - Off- street parking -- In the past there is evidence of violations; as of now, there is off - street parking. Item 6 -- Approval of the Fire Department -- The operation has been in violation many times, and it looks like, as of now, it is in good shape. Commissioner Porter commented that the fact that there have been violations since. 1967 and these things have gone on for many years, he felt there was some responsibility on the Commission as well as the violators. Commissioner St. Denis stated that this operation has been going on for 20 months, and in that 20 months' time, the Commission has attempted to satisfy the citizens and it has finally gotten down to the point where the Commission is considering revocation of the permit. After further discussion, the following action was taken: RESOLUTION NO. 71 -219 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING REVOCATION OF USE PERMIT CASE NO. 67 -104. On motion of Commissioner St. Denis, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Jones, Nunes, St. Denis and Chairman Schultz NOES: Commissioners Berryhill, Bowles and Porter ABSENT: None 1 Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, 10 -19-71 Page 8 the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of October, 1971. Commissioner Berryhill commented that he is a property owner in that area and has tenants that live in the area and from his investigation of the property, he felt he could live with it as a property owner. He stated the Commission has pushed for these improvements and it appears that the owners have done them. Commissioner Bowles stated he agreed with Commissioner Berryhill and he felt the operators have made a very sincere effort to come up with these improvements. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, on motion by Commissioner Nunes, seconded by Commissioner Porter, and unanimously carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10 :40 P.M. ATTEST: Secretary 383