Exhibit M – Additional Information from Applicant
BRADLEY K. BOULDEN
Attorney at Law
355 E. Avante Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720
Ph: (559) 425-6330
Fax: (559) 553-6220
Writer’s E-Mail: [email protected]
File No. 9800.02
March 3, 2024
V
ia Email To Phillip Siegrist (3/3/24)
Planning Commission
2600 Fresno Street, 2nd Floor
Fresno, CA 93721
Re: Appeal Supplemental Letter To Planning Commission Appeal # P23-03471.
Dear Planning Commission:
Th
is Appeal Supplemental Letter relates to Bauer’s Planning Commission Continued Appeal hearing set for March 6, 2024.
Again, Bauer’s respectfully requests that the Planning Commission modify the Confirmations issued by the City Planning Department provided in response to Zoning Inquiry No.
P23-02357 (the “Confirmation”), to revise the last sentence of Paragraph 7 to provide as follows :
“Based on the record of proceedings in this matter, the Planning Commission confirms that the Site is in conformance with the standards and requirements outlined under Policy and Procedure No. C-002 dated June 14, 2011.”
In
further support of Bauer ’s prayer, and based on the discussion at the end of the Planning Commission Hearing on February 7, 2024, Bauer’s respectfully submits the Declaration of S teven L.
Severance, a State of Calif ornia Licensed Contractor (please see attached declaration hereto). Mr.
Severance testifies therein that well over 7,000 square feet of pav ing exists in the subject storage yard. The link for a YouTube drone video taken by Mr. Severance and identified in his declaration is as follows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4gMGG8cDY.
Bauer’s also offers the following additional information:
• W
ithin the Agenda for this matter provided by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission for the Planning Commission appeal, the exhibit en titled: “Exhibit E - Zoning Inquiry P23-02357 Response Letter”, please click on it and re spectfully take note of the following:
Page 17—Documents submitted in the 2011 Zoning Inquiry (Q -11-035) Application for the approval for C -002 from July 7, 2011, which is one month before the Zoning Planning Commission
Supplemental Letter
March 3, 2024
Inquiry Approval Letter dated August 5, 2011—and two months before the 2011 TSA was signed by Bauer’s and the other towing companies that passed C-002.
Page 29—These are images of the yard taken by the Planning Department prior to the Approval Letter dated August 5, 2011 in response to the Zoning Inquiry Q -11- 035. These are clearly of the subject storage yard . Thus, the FPD and the Planning Department were aware of the paved area before the Approval Letter and signing of the 2011 TSA; and, all this information was available to the City prior to its Zoning Inquiry Decision. The pictures confirm that the City Planning Department knew Bauer’s had paved area in its relevant storage yard as far back as 2011. Mike Sanchez, the signatory of C -002 and in- charge Planning Department Manager responsible for inspecting over 35 towing companies in 2011 inspected Bauer’s storage yard and then authored the Approval Letter of August 5, 2011. Thus, Bauer’s C-002 approval should have never been disturbed, disputed, and ultimately denied by the Planning Department giving rise to this Appeal.
Pages 18 & 65—Evidence that the $510 Zoning Inquiry Application Q -11-035 was filed and payment therefore was received on July 7, 2011.
• Bauer’s, through its counsel at a meeting with the Planning Department , requested that Bauer’s subject storage yard be visited, but the Planning Department informed Bauer’s and its counsel that it had aerial photos and the inspection/representations by the Fresno Police Department.
• In the Appeal Hearing on February 7, 2024, the Planning Department represented to the Planning Commission that the Department recommended that Bauer ’s file a Z oning Inquiry in this matter. This is not entirely accurate. B auer’s was stu ck in limbo with the Fresno City Attorneys claiming they thought Bauer ’s subject storage yard was not and/or might not be in compliance with C -002. The City Attorneys informed B auer’s and its counsel that B auer’s needed to deal with the Planning Department. The Planning Department then intimated that there was nothing in front of them to consider . T hus, Bauer’s co unsel worked with attorney Jeff Rei d to plan to file the underlying zoning inquiry giving rise to this appeal.
• Mr. Phillip Siegrist presented on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, and examined and took photographs of Bau er’s subject storage yard. Mr. Siegrist said the Plan ning Department will concede that the photographs previ ously uploaded on the Appeal Agenda that were in color and taken in 2023 were not of the subject storage yard, but of a separate piece of Bauer’s property that comprises of the wrecking yard, which is wholly and separately apart from the subject storage yard that is the subject of C-002 approval.
• “Exhibit F – Appeal Letter” attached as an exhibit to the Agenda in this matter , on page s 38-40, demonstrate that the Planning Department conceded that Mr. Sanchez, as Planning Manager and in the same position in 2011 as Mr. Siegrist in currently, had the power to approve Bauer’s in 2011 under C -002; and, that the alleged confusion giving rise to this Appeal was the alleged confusing la nguage in the Approval Letter of August 5, 2011, which the Declaration of Mike Sanchez shortly thereafter squashed. Thus, C-002 approval for Bauer ’s should have never been distur bed, disputed, and ultimately denied by the Planning Commission
Supplemental Letter
March 3, 2024
Planning Department —especially since the Plan ning Depar tment found in its Z oning Inquiry De cision that Bauer ’s never operated in any way to lose its Legal, Non- Conforming zoning approval.
For the foregoing reasons, Bauer’s respectfully requests that the Planning Commission Modify the Confirmations issued by the City Planning Department provided in response to Zoning Inquiry No. P23-02357 to revise the last sentence of Paragraph 7 to provide as follows:
“Based on the record of proceedings in this matter, the Planning Commission confirms that the Site is in conformance with the standards and requirements outlined under Policy and Procedure No. C-002 dated June 14, 2011.”
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bradley K. Boulden
BKB:ivs