2009 RES R-06-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECTION 2. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented, and the findings made in this Resolution, the City Council hereby revokes the CUP. SECTION 3. Based on the entire record before the City Council, and all written and oral evidence presented, and the findings made in this Resolution, the City Council hereby revokes the CUP because: A. This case presents facts that are distinguishable from those in Community Dev. Comm'n v. City of Fort Bragg 204 Ca1.App.3d 1124 (1988). More specifically, Fort Bragg involved complex governmental and financial commitments, which required federal review and approval of each step of the project, from site location, to architectural and engineering studies, to the bidding of the actual construction contract. The proposed project at the Subject Site does not involve federal oversight or involve complex financing that would justify any delay. B. Even if the Fort Bragg standard of "good faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use" were the appropriate standard, it would not apply to the case at hand because: 1. The Permittee has not demonstrated a good faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use. The facts in Fort Bragg indicate that the permittee had, prior to expiration of the conditional use permit, pursued and obtained a funding commitment from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, that the permittee purchased the subject property at a cost of $95,000, hired architects and engineers for the performance of preconstruction work at a cost of $85,000, had soil borings performed, arranged for the removal of two small structures, and submitted plans to Fort Bragg's building department for review. i. Here, the Permittee was granted the CUP on August 24, 2004 and took until September 29, 2005, which is well over thirteen (13) months since issuance of the CUP, to initiate the building plan check process. In the ordinary course of the planning and development process, it takes some time for City staff to review submitted building plans. In the absence of the time it took City staff to review the last set of building plans that the Permittee submitted, it took the Permittee well over well over thirty-two (32) months to revise building plans that City staff had returned to it on December 20, 2005. ii. Unlike issues of federal oversight and complex financing, which the Fort Bragg court found to be justifiable reasons for a delay, the Permittee has failed to provide any reasonable explanation of why it has taken the Permittee well over four (4) years to commence upon the proposed use. The Permittee has failed to substantiate its claim that the City, or its plan check consultants, caused unreasonable delay resulting in the Permittee's failure to complete the building plan check process. C. To the extent that the Fort Bragg standard of "good faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use" is applicable, it would apply to both revocations, as well as expirations of conditional use permits.