SU0003062 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background On October 27, 1994, the Development Services Division denied Site Approval Application No. SA-94-38 based upon the inability to make the fourth of five required Findings for approval. That Finding deals with public health and safety, both of which were found to be significantly and adversely affected by the outdoor storage of furniture, appliances, and other debris, and the illegal use of the building in violation of the Uniform Building Code's occupancy and exiting requirements. The applicant had earlier been given the opportunity at a Development Committee meeting to delay action on the application for 30 days to permit a cleanup of the site and to resolve the noted Building Code violations. No actions were taken at the end of 30 days, and the application was subsequently denied. On November 3, 1994, the applicant's attorney filed an appeal of that action. In his appeal, the appellant listed the following bases for appeal: 1. APPEAL STATEMENT: 'The outdoor storage on the site is in the process of being removed and/or relocated to comply with County requirements.' RESPONSE: A field check of the site by staff on December 9, 1994, indicated that the material that had been illegally stored on the site had been removed. 2. APPEAL STATEMENT: 'The occupancy and exiting requirements do not violate the uniform building code and are not a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.' RESPONSE: The Building Official indicated that the requirements for occupancy and exiting were indeed based on provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Following a meeting with the applicant on the site on November 2, 1994,the Building Official determined that the building could temporarily continue to be used as a church, subject to meeting specific exiting requirements and limiting the number of occupants in the building. These requirements were met, and no further enforcement actions were taken at that time because the appeal of the Site Approval application was pending. Based upon the removal of material stored outside and the temporary resolution of Building Code violations, staff notified the applicant that the public health and safety Finding could now be made in the affirmative and that the recommendation to the Planning Commission would be for approval. Neighborhood Opposition The application referral for the project generated a significant amount of opposition from property owners in the vicinity: nine petitions and letters containing 139 signatures (with some names appearing on more San Joaquin County SA-94-38/Fetzer Community Development Page 6