Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/16/1994, 3 - APPEAL OF AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES CONTAINING FOUR APARTMENTS AND A GARAGE AT 1231 GARDEN STREET, BETWEEN MARSH AND PACIFIC STREETS. (ARC 72-94)
�Ill�lylll�lllll^�I Ilulll MEETING DATE: 91 INI l Cityo San LUIS OBI SPO -9 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Imo' NUMBER: From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared by: Whitney McIlvaine, Associated Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of an action taken by the Architectural Review Commission to deny a request to demolish two structures containing four apartments and a garage at 1231 Garden Street, between Marsh and Pacific Streets. (ARC 72-94) CAO RECOMMENDATION Uphold the appeal, subject to a requirement that the property owner advertise the structures as available for moving, as outlined in the attached draft resolution for approval. The primary reason for this recommendation is that making the housing available for relocation is an option that addresses both concerns for preservation of housing as well as the property owner's desire to redevelop the site. It is consistent with land use development policies and zoning for this location, and with the survey of historic resources conducted by the Cultural Heritage Committee. In addition, as noted in the report, the site may well be better suited for a parking area to serve adjacent commercial uses than for the existing residential development because of its small size, problems with seasonal flooding, inadequate tenant parking, and nonconforming site development. ARC RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and the proposed demolition based on the following findings: 1. The structures to be demolished are historically, culturally and aesthetically significant. Cumulatively, small diminutive housing, built in the early part of this century, near the downtown, is an important part of the City's housing stock and representative of the historical character of the City. 2. Demolition of these structures would erode the availability of affordable housing convenient to the downtown, which is contrary to general plan policies regarding conservation of housing stock and the importance of housing in and near the downtown. DISCUSSION A. BACKGROUND 1. Data Summary Applicant: Dennis Noble, Noble Building Co. Property Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Chizek Zoning: Office (0) ����► i�II�IIIIIp�► �UI�I city of san tins OBIspo WaA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 72-94 Council Appeal Page 2 2. Site/Project Description The project site is a small lot just outside the Central Commercial zone. The lot is surrounded on two sides by parking and on the third side by a small office building. Several large trees are located around the perimeter of the site. The property is developed with a front house and a rear cottage with an attached garage. The front house has been converted into three apartments. The property owner is proposing to demolish the two structures, and is considering replacing them with a parking area for future use by tenants of the Cuesta Title building. Nonconforming Status: The lot and site development do not conform to current standards for lot size, lot width, and density. The lot is 4,050 square feet in size where 6,000 square feet is the minimum lot size required by zoning. It is 45 feet wide where 60 feet is the minimum width allowed. There are four 1-bedroom dwellings on site, where density standards allow a maximum of one two bedroom dwelling or two studios. Zoning regulations provide for continuance of nonconforming structures until a remodel or addition is proposed which is equal to or exceeds 50% of the structure's value. At that time the structure must be brought into conformance with site development standards. 3. Appellant's Objection The property owner objects to the ARC's decision to deny his demolition request because he feels: ■ the buildings are not historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant; and ■ the site is not ideally suited for housing, since tenant parking is inadequate; the apartments do not meet current building code requirements; and the property floods during heavy rains. B. DEMOLITION REGULATIONS City demolition regulations (Chapter 15.36 of the Municipal Code) are attached to this report. These regulations govern processing of demolition requests. They state that unless the Building Official determines that structures proposed for demolition are unsafe, and should therefore be removed immediately, demolition proposals require review by the ARC. City demolition regulations outline two, very specific courses of action for the ARC: a. If the commission finds that the structure(s) are not historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant, the matter is referred back to the Chief Building Official with direction to issue the demolition permit. (Emphasis added.) . 0 moo` city of San LUIS OBISpo JJjj% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 72-94 Council Appeal Page 3 b. If the commission finds the structure(s) to be historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant, the applicant must submit plans for a replacement project to the ARC for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit. A permit to demolish a significant structure can only be issued if the ARC finds that a replacement structure is as or more compatible with neighboring development than the existing structure. (Emphasis added.) In this case, the Building Official determined that the structures are not unsafe. The ARC determined that the structures are significant. According to the demolition regulations, therefore, the applicant must submit plans for a replacement structure. The regulation are silent, in cases such as this one, where the proposed replacement project would not be a structure, but rather an enlargement of the parking lot behind the Cuesta Title building. C. LAND USE ISSUES A listing of policies and goals related to housing and parking in the downtown area are attached for reference. 1. Housing City land use policies and goals, as outlined in the Land Use and Housing Elements generally favor retention or relocation of existing housing over demolition or conversion. Nonetheless, removal of some dwellings over time is to be expected. A review of building permit issuance indicates that new dwelling construction far exceeds demolition of existing structures. 2. Downtown Parking Residential Parking: Because of the excess density on this.site, parking is inadequate. Off-site parking can be a problem for downtown area residents for the following reasons: ■ No on-street overnight parking is permitted anywhere in the downtown (including this stretch of Garden Street) because of street cleaning. ■ Passes are available for regular parking structure use ($40 per month), but overnight.parking in the garages is discouraged because of the risk of vandalism. ■ Downtown residents can park cars overnight in the municipal surface lots, but must remember to move them or put money in the meters by 9:00 a:m. 33 city of San Luis OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ARC 72-94 Council Appeal Page 4 Commercial Parldng: Zoning regulations allow parking as a principle use in the Office zone with a Planning Commission use permit. No use permit would be required if the lot were combined with an adjacent developed lot. In either case, City parking and driveway standards would apply. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS The staff report to the ARC recommended that the ARC approve the demolition request, based on a finding that the structures are not historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant, in accordance with the procedure outlined in the demolition regulations. The structures are not located in an historic district, nor are they included on the master list of historic resources (properties with significant historic or architectural value) or on the list of contributing properties (properties not in themselves significant, but which contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood). These lists were compiled by the Cultural Heritage Committee after conducting an extensive survey for the purpose of inventorying the City's historic and architectural resources. Demolition regulations specifically confine consideration of demolition projects to: 1) a determination of the structure's physical condition in terms of public safety; and 2) a determination of the structure's historic, aesthetic, or architectural value. While it may be appropriate to modify those regulations to include additional criteria in evaluation of demolition requests, this project can only be subject to ordinance provisions in effect at the time of application. Zoning regulations allow the buildings to be retained as legal-nonconforming structures, and also allow them to be replaced with parldng - subject to approval of a use permit or lot combination, and subject to parking lot design standards. Preservation of housing could be achieved if someone were willing to relocate at least the main house. Recent housing relocation projects include moving the house from 40 Prado Road and the McMillan farmhouse from Orcutt Road. ALTERNATIVES Adopt a modified version of the draft resolution upholding the appeal which directs the Building Official to issue a demolition permit without first waiting for the structures to be advertised as available for moving. 4 ARC 72=94 Council Appeal Page 5 Attachments:' !. & 2 ; Draft resolutions for-approval and denial 3 - Appellant's,appeal statement:an8 letter . 4 ARC staff-report and meeting minutes 5 demolition regulations 6 =' LUE core area map 7' :relevant housing and parking policies'and goals wmL;�appeanarc72=94 til - Upholding Appeal Draft resolution for approval ARC 72-94 .: Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES CONTAINING FOUR APARTMENTS AND A GARAGE AT 1231 GARDEN STREET (ARC 72-94) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding . That this Council, after consideration of ARC 72-94 and the Architectural Review Commission's decision, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The structures to be demolished are not historically, aesthetically, or architecturally significant. 2. As conditioned, the project is consistent with City land use policies regarding housing conservation. 3. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Section 15301 1). SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby upheld and the request for approval of a demolition project at 1231 Garden Street (ARC 72-94) is hereby approved, with direction to the Chief Building Official to issue a demolition permit, but only after the following condition has been met to the approval of the Community Development Director: Draft resolution for approval ARC 7244 Page 2 Condition. 1. The property owner shall advertise availability of the structures to the public. If no one is willing to move either.of the structures within 90 days of initial notice of availability, then the Chief Building Official may issue the demolition permit. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk. APPROVED: i tto y #2 — Denying appeal Draft resolution for denial ARC 72-94 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES CONTAINING FOUR APARTMENTS AND A GARAGE AT 1231 GARDEN STREET (ARC 72-94) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of ARC 72-94 and the Architectural Review Commission's decision, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The structures to be demolished are historically, culturally and aesthetically significant. Cumulatively, small diminutive housing, built in the early part of this century, near the downtown, is an important part of the City's housing stock and representative of the historical character of the City. 2. Demolition of these structures would erode the availability of affordable housing convenient to the downtown, which is contrary to general plan policies regarding conservation of housing stock and the importance of housing in and near the downtown. SECTION 2. Denial. The appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action regarding ARC 72-94 is hereby denied, and the action of the ARC to deny the request to demolish structures at 1231 Garden Street (ARC 72-94) is hereby upheld. Draft resolution for denial ARC 72-94 Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ day of 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i tto V f 3-9 all _�,.- t-.'••>• C1.1111 . .,.- .. - WIS OBIS 990 Palm Street/PostOffice Bat 8100•San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-Moo APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance.with this'appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo MLnMWCod%the Und9mlgriedherebyappealsfromthedeclsionof Architxtural Review Cau®ission rendered on J1231C s. 1894 which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual situation and the grounds for su=kdng fhb appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): Denial of the request to demolish the property located at 1231 Garden Street. The City Planning Department has found that "The structures to be demolished are not. historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant." The finding was specifically to "Approve the demolition request based on this finding and refer the matter back to the building offi,cial.with direction to issue the demolition permit, but only after-the City Arborist has found, after visiting the site prior to any demolition work, that--tree*,he determines should remain are adequately protect from any injury that might occure as a result of the demolition." Please see page 2: The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with: on . DATE&TIME APPEAL RECENED: Appellant Name/tMe Dennis Noble, •Noble Construction RECEIVED lieprese JUL 1 2 W MakDox 1462: , SLo yS406 WYOF SMWIS OBISPO v 543-7577 C�AldtlN�rY DEVELOPME' - Phone IOriginal ycy y Clerk CRY_ Calindared for. H Copy to Administrative Officer - Copy to the-foll owing department(s): ZU All A4 '..t'. . 6 •J.r�6 r :•�.: _ T �1•�!};•. __Tf♦_..OM1•-'".Y.t ``�i..�1�i•L':. - .. /11 r, Y.��r k: ,'.:�:`s r^S_� ?i" ^' t.Jfei•_._:.:... .. ���JJJ - . ' .:L' YLLv+4r1�_d•:.�i'•'�r.1r�� '.:i`.Y�Y1.'...._Ji:�',.. ... .. .... Request for Appeal with the City Counsel 1231 Garden Street Demolition request Page 2 of 2. The reason for the appeal is initially based on the fact that the ARC is in conflict with the staff proposal to allow the demolition. In our opinion, the ARC did not take into consideration the issues of the condition of the subject property and the surrounding economic considerations. To outline the conditions of the property: ► No building permits on file ► Illegal residential lot, 4050 square feet, in an office zone ► 4 residential units plus a garage covering a majority of the lot ► Parking not available for the tenants ► Health and Safety hazard due to inappropriate ingress and egress of each apartment ► The lot floods during rains, no drainage It should be noted that the owner has the property under lease agreements which are due to expire at the end of August, 1994. He and his family have been planning on the conversion of this property to some other use under their long-range estate plan. This calls for the conversion from the fixed asset to an annuity to provide for the well being and care of the owners in their retirement years. Your help in clearing up this unfortunate misunderstanding with the ARC would be very much appreciated. July 8 , 1994 City of San Luis Obispo Building Division 990 Palm Street/ P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403-8100 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We were out of state and were unable to attend the meeting held on Tuesday evening July 5, 1994. We were surprised and disappointed to learn that you did not approve the demolition of the old units at 1231 Garden Street. After all, that area is zoned commercial and not residential. We have had complaints from our tenants about downtown noises. It is difficult to support the notion that there is not a need for more downtown parking. In fact, the main reason we need to sell is that we are weary of the parking problems for those units. There are four units and only two parking spaces. It use to be that tenant were able to park on the street overnight. Due to no overnight street parking restrictions and a large fine, they can no longer do so. It is an extremely difficult task to find tenants who do not have cars or to find additional parking spaces. We request that the city approve the demolition permit or provide us with relief to our parking problem. It is the city regulations and fines, both no overnight parking and parking meters, that compound our parking problems at 1231 Garden Street and convince us that the area is no longer suited for residential use. Sincerely yours, Gay d Chizek 4985 Hacienda San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401 RcCE'. VE © 1994 CC: Henry Byzinski CV"ovsu+LUSS o515ro Tom Swem 9•„�0��erv�s a+ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHI'T'ECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: July 5, 1994 FILE NUMBER: ARC 72-94 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1231 Garden Street SUBJECT: Review of a proposed demolition of a two structures containing four apartments and a garage on Garden Street between Marsh and Pacific Streets. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Approve the demolition. BACKGROUND Situation A construction permit application was received by the Building Division to demolish the structures. Unless the Building Official determines structures are unsafe and should therefore be removed immediately, demolitions require review by the ARC. In order to approve a demolition, the commission must find that the structure to be demolished is not "historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant." Following this finding, the commission shall refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue a demolition permit. The structures to be demolished are not located in an historic district, nor are they included on the City's master list of historic resources. The property owner is considering replacing the structures with a parldng area for future use by tenants of the Cuesta Title building. This lot is nonconforming in terms of its size and width, and therefore, future development is subject to approval of an administrative use permit. Data Summary Applicant: Dennis Noble, Noble Construction Property Owners: Mr. and Mrs. Chizek Zoning: Office (0) Environmental Status: Categorically exempt (Section 15301L.2) Site and Structure Description The project site is a 4,050 square foot lot just outside the Central Commercial zone. The lot is surrounded on two sides by parking and on the third side by a small office building. There are several large trees around the perimeter of the site. There are two houses and a garage on the property. The front house was converted into three apartments. It is not possible to determine when that happened since there is no building permit history. According to the applicant, the property owner has had trouble with flooding in the past since the property does ` 3-13 ARC 72-44 Page 2 not drain to the street and is surrounded by walls. Loss of Housin; This project will eliminate four dwelling units. Although loss of housing near the downtown is a concern, the project site is outside the boundaries of the downtown housing district wherein a conversion permit is.required. Current development on the site is nonconforming with respect to density, parking, and setbacks, and may not be in compliance with building code requirements. If the site were to be redeveloped with housing, density standards would allow one two-bedroom dwelling or two studios. The lot's small size would make even that amount of development difficult to accommodate. Possibly more relevant, is the fact that the ARC's purview in reviewing demolition requests is limited to a consideration of whether the structures to be removed have any inherent historic, architectural, or aesthetic significance. ALTERNATIVES The Municipal Code only provides for denial of a demolition if the structure to be demolished is determined to be architecturally, historically, or aesthetically significant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the demolition request based on the finding below. And refer the matter back to the building official with direction to issue the demolition permit, but only after: 1. The City Arborist has found, after visiting the site prior to any demolition work, that trees he determines should remain are adequately protected from any injury that might occur as a result of the demolition. Findin 1. The structure to be demolished is not historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant. Attachments: vicinity map f ist�k��--stri`s�ciure� Actual photographs will be available at the meeting o •J'•s r ,r' •� . p'• I �'.XA 'gib. Gj•�S \ •.,l`+'e.,•'• y,r..f u,:') �' � ate'` \�.,, w \\�:. d •y..� C � 't l\\ V., eo:j l'°•J' .L` .;? "' °/ 7f•.�t�'s .a V, {_� t,�� % V • z'rC\` �' \' C— C is � �- _ �`= � \ �"' •^ :r '�, \, � 'J - ' - ;' u.•S a �. .'\ � � �t �^r• ;�,i //: � •. 6.1 " e• ♦*F!• wC'� � .jam•�•' T .;� :.:;i'7.' . .•moo 86 �' ,'s a `•� *`';�° � �c��'�,>' '�_ ., >pt 1 �3/2 Po °E. t� E tiJ6 p•a°pp►b'\r' ,f1' ri �k5,•q ^`-'\ :r'?,fie 7c�•, �3L ♦ r x`60 tib\Y t`r p\� Jf,� 1 ��6Ar„ !'yam C �� (j� �• r /. }e ep O94 6a� el dr A 6 � � f �; l'` '4J� �GRAP�iIC�SCZSLE: ^k 0 50 100 200 300dli /3 VICINITY MAP I ARC 72-94 NORTH 1231 GARDEN ST ARCHITECTURAL. REVIEW COMMISSI0I: San Luis Obispo. California Regular N—feeting - July S, 1994 PRESENT: Commr- Woody Combrink, Ron Reiger, Tim Farrell, Jim Aiken, and Peggy Ia, eville ABSENT: Commrs. Curti Illince,%vorth and Laura Joines OTHERS PRESENT: \Whitney McIh>aine, sociate Planner PROJECTS: 1. ARC 13-93: 1190 Laurel Lane. Revi w of landscaping, site furniture and other details for an approved 46 unit resident. 1 project on the southwest corner of Laurel Lane and Southwood Drive. App ' nt requested continuance of this item. The representative has requested continuance of this ite Plans had already been submitted for the landscaping and other details, but the a licant wants to make changes to the landscaping plans before the Commission sees them. Staff recommends that the item be continued. Commr. Aiken motioned to continue the item to the August 1, 199 meeting. Commr. Mandeville seconded the motion. AYES: Aiken, ?Mandeville, Combrink, Farrell, Regier NOES: None ABSENT: Illin�1-orth, Joines 2. ARC 72-94: 1231 Garden Street. Review of proposed demolition of a residence and garage; 0 zone; Dennis Noble, Noble Construction; applicant. Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner, presented the staff.report recommending that the commission approve the demolition request based on the finding below, and refer the s. �� ARC Minutes July 5, 199A Page 2 matter back to the building official w;th direction to issue the demolition permit, bt:t only after: 1. The Ciry Arborist has found, after %isiting the site prior to any demolition work, that trees he determines should remain are adequately protected from any injury that might occur as a result of the demolition. Finding 1. The structures to be demolished are not historically, architecturally, or aesthetically significant. Dennis Noble explained that the property is at a lower elevation than surrounding properties. N1r. Chizek, owner, felt the demolition would put the property in a better marketing position. Kyle Farrel lives at the property in unit 7#2. She objects to the demolition because she thinks there is already adequate parking in the vicinity. She feels it is a nice place to live; it is convenient to downtown, fully equipped, and affordable. Commr. Farrell has been in the rear unit and he hates to approve the housing demolition without replacement plans. He stated the Cuesta Title parking lot is rarely full and he acknowledged the building is not fully rented. Since the existing Marsh Street parking structure will be expanded he does not support more surface parking. Commr. Aiken stated that there has been no provision made for displaced residents. He feels there is a need to preserve low cost residential use. Commr. Mandeville feels there is a conflict in land use policy. Commr. Regier opposes the demolition on grounds that cumulatively structures like this do contribute to the community. Commr. Combri.^.k a-Tees with Commr. Regier. He feels it's contributing as small diminutive housing in the downtown and is an important part of building stock. Commr. Aiken made a motion to deny the demolition request finding that: 1. The structures to be demolished are historically, culturally and aesthetically significant. Cumulatively, small diminutive housing, built in the early part of this century, near the. downtown, is an important part of the City's housing stock and representative of the historical character of the City. -�7" ARC \Minutes July 5, 1994 Page 3 2. Demolition of these structures would erode the availability of affordable housing convenient to the downtown., which is contrary to general plan policies regarding. conservation of housing stock and the importance of housing in and near the downtown. Commr. Regier seconded the motion. AYES: Aiken, Regier, Combrink, Farrell, Mandeville NOES: None ABSENT: Illin,rorth, Joints The motion passed. I Rq=E-S: Commr. Aiken motioned to accept the minutes of June 6, 1994. Commr. Farrell seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission scheduled for July 18, 1994, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted, Whitney McIlvaine Recording Secretary 1:0-1:._6. 1_0 twenty feet from put-';c proper—,% :!lues. adequate 1:•:6.140 License requirements. protection shail be :.ro%ided ler pedestrians a,^.0 1; :,. ,+_ L public proper+ o:re SailsiaGi?C^.Oi i:,e�L']ili:,a ;-a N ork...+'i,h iF: + en,il Via+'?a+'alit ( �;ij fir. ficial. Ord. 9:0 .� : 1panl. i;=S prior cocz ,� a, ,. ;:a .:., cut h; l nia St .e CL. c ..g _ c\' � san a ..V sl. -ss 81 00.11) ::cense. Exception: Or. ciLd tia „e :i: :ii'_5. 153 .1:0 Damage to public property. mavbedtmolisedb+ :' ecw: rthereof.prc,ic- As Cond]1:0^.cfC�•ia:nln°a*�eTT1t i0 t'eu—:Cl- 'ng the dlsia'Ce 1'C.;, the rput iC sit e'•+atm or ish. re., +•e o: move anti• tu;lding. s.r.:c:;::e o: 1 i e' a e_�al rght-of-�+�ay to i're burng is d . 1 to �r. .. .. utility. t:, ^ermit:ee assumes !i2c lily for anyts 1,:z theheightoft... Culldl;]S.:t235llied: iti,.. ..._:est damage to public prepe:ty occasioned by such point on the:cof.crtenfeet. .+hiche+e. sg:ea:er. moving. de :o,itjon. or rernovP1 operations. (Ord. 956 $ 1 (par,). 1933: prcrcCde Applicants fo demolition permits scall provide inforT-,ation an plans when requested. for pro- tection of pubic property. Information (and plans) shall be sp iic as to type of protection. Article II. Demolition to Buildings structural adecu:c• and lector. Approval to 15.36.150 Permit-Required—Applic_don— use or occupy publi property shall be obtained Contents—Processing before proceeding ,.vii demolition work. (Prior procedure—Expiration. code§ 8800.13) A. Permit Required. The work of demolish- 15.36.130 Disconnectin service lines. inganybuilding orstructure shall not commence until a permit has been issued by the building A. Electrical Service. power to all electric service Imes shall be shut-o and all such lines official in accordance with the pro�'isioTs'set cut or disconnected outside the property line forth in ocher portions of this chapter. before demolition or movi,. work is com- menced. B. Application for Permit All applications for permits to wreck.demolish,or aze a buildir;or Prior to t're cutting o such tines, the _ . property owner or ;tis agent s:. 11 notify and stncuie shall be r _de :o the building G-r._l and every application shall state: obtain the appro%•al of the erect;is r%icearency. 1. The pret~se location of the building or B. Other Se.nice. All gas. water. - eam. storm structure to be wrecked: and sanitary sewers.or other service H es shall be 3The type of equipment•o be used to •+reek shut-offand capped at the property li a or curb the building: before demolition or moving work is com- menced.Prior to theshuttineorTofsuch li es.the 3 The le^.nh. width. height and pri^.cipal owner sh=i1 obtain the - materials or consttvction of the building: property - _pp.o�ai :trip q• Thelenethoftimerequiredtocompletethe utility serice areaey or department in+ol+ d. proposed work: C. Temporary Ser+ice. If it is necessan to add.. , maintain anv power. '.+ater, or other lines during _. The name and dd..ss . :h_ � +.,_its) e. dernolitien Cro, 1. g. such s ,ail' ail be tem— porarily relocated Cr protected on :he satisfac- 6: Proof of permission :rorn the om nerts) and tion of the consin:ction regulations divisionand other vested interests to do the proposed ++orx. 7. Method(s) of demolition. utility agency and in accordance xiih all applica- C. Procedure for Processing Application for ble ordinances. (Prior code § SS00.I:) Demolition Permits. Upon receipt of an applica- tion for a demchiion permit. .he building c—.—, c;--i shall refer the =pplication 10 ll'e a:cii:ec:u:al 15.36.1:0 review commission for rl.ncement on their next ished is a dangerous bui'.dirg. as defined in the open agenda. L;nlfOrm Code far ti,e Air rent of D:i gerous I N'ons:gr,:fican-, Ci"':etures. if ,t e Ctmoli Suildings. the vUlid:ng O:15C:al ma`.'. %"ith -'he tion project is not :n cont inetion with a reriace- community deveiopmeni r,'irecior•s concur- ineniprojeCta:,uule.�;:CC37.^.cic'.t�:71r:'.ani' renCe. issue the de nQiltlon permit xviiCOL'i t^: hisorcai, aresitec:u:zi or acs:he ticsi_niIII",I architectural re\iew commission re\ie\v 'n`i- totheeommunity.the ARC shailreferihemaner findings set for,h in this subsection. Accessory back to the buildme omucial with Girecuon to bUildlnes, sheds. garages Mrd similar hi.;;d-.r.r issue the demolition pei-nil.T'eeemolltionPer- will not need arch:tectural re%•ie'.v CG+:,.T,iSs1011 mit shall be effective on date of issue. review: 2. Sienificzr,t Structures. 1D. Expiration of Permit. a. if the structure :c be de::.o'ais ed is dere:- ,, a ,. ;.; :er- �l. The work authoriz-� y cernc!;,;cn mined by the ARC to have histo,—ic.architectural mitt shall be commenced within seven calendar Or aesthetic siEi,ii,CanCe to the CG,Ti,T,llr,lt;.: t,-le dayq tom the date of issuance of such permit and ARC shall direct the applicant to submit plans shall e continuotis until the work is compie:ed. for ARC review pursuant to subdivision 3 of this For the urpose of this chapter,the term"coniin- subsection. uous" s al1 mean the normal rate of progress in b. Within ten days of the ARC determination keeping iih good demolition practices. if the that an application to demolish involves a signifi- work is sus ended or abandoned after the work is cant structure,the city clerk shall place an adver- commence the permit maybe revoked. tisement in a newspaper of general circulation in 2. The len h of time permitted for demoli- the city, announcing the proposed demolition. tion of a onetwo story wood frame buiding The ad shall show the location of the structure on shall not excee shim calendar days front :he a vicinity map with the street address. The city date of permit#ance. clerk sW, also, within the aforementioned ten E. Bond. Asndition for issuing a permit days, notify by firs-clan mail, any persons or to demolish a buildi or structure,the applicant organizations that have asked to be notified of shall provide the ci`y with surety bonds as application for deMoi4:1—ion pernits• follows: 3. Findings Required. On ai] demolition p jets, a cash deposit. a. When a significant structure is proposed for certificate of deposit or bopayable to the city. demolition, plans for its replacement shall be in an.amount set by the iilding official as a submitted to architectural review commission reasonable estimate ,`or the uarar.tee set forth for review and approval prior to rile issuance of a herein,but not less than one t. usand dollars or demolition permit. The archiiec ural review twenty percent of the value o e demolition. commission must determine that the proposed contract price,whichever is creat ,to guarantee replacement structure is as. or more. compatible the completion of the demolition. ]�mo'.al of all with neighboring development than the existing debris.cleanup of he site. erection barricades structure. ccnsis;ent %vith ARC guidelines. when required and tilling of depresfaon be'-ow b. Upon ^at:;ne '.l•Iis deter nination. the adjacent.grade. architectural revie•.v commission will direct the Exceptions: buildineofficial to issue the demolition permit.If 1. On wood frame. one and rvo story inale- this determination cannot.be made. the demoli- family or two-family residential building the tion permit shall not be issued. city building official may reduce the anountof 4. Exceptions. Upon determination by the the cash bond to not less than five hundr$a building official that the structure to be demok dollars. \ c Land Use Element Planning Commiss�� 111 �, ��. af - �` ` ' � �- I iA '.'(�•.../��/�,j1:1i���:::::�:::•.::�. tom+ l / •• 1 ze / • S:..... ...t.. :... .. , /.::. . .... ::.: .:: i/� ` I iii 'J �.I::� -.:v.. i%• I I I r ,I I ;:.i;� :��:ti:;�_!'y:��-6•:::::.^:1�1 1 . ..::........ .Y.:: _ :7fir. •��• �,.L:. ti ? .. .................. :�. l :::...•: :.I j I.. ::.�::::... :.�.. > : ::: :... . ... ........ :......... „r......... ............ . d' :•: :.. •t1 ., . . ......... ...... .... .. ....... ::::: ......... .. .. ....... ........ .......... .... ...... ... .. ..... 41 Xl ..:.. ?� /r :::::�-:;``;'a. ::::: �....._...t.,..�'::.:....;::�:.- :.x..............1....1 \ 7-7 lM u:. N SCALE r'_eoo' i l CORE FIGURE 4 i - DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA I RELEVANT HOUSING POLICIES AND GOALS Land Use Element Policies: The land use element update contains two policies specifically related to downtown residential uses (policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). These policies support protection of existing housing within and around the commercial core. Downtown Plan Goals: Primary goal # 14 advocates the preservation of residential uses on the periphery of the downtown. However, the conceptual physical plan shows this site redeveloped with new commercial structures. The text for this area also advocates ground floor commercial uses with residential uses above. Housing Element Policies: Goals listed in the currently adopted housing element include conservation of existing housing and the least possible displacement of current occupants, as well as maintenance of a stock of housing types to meet the needs of renters and buyers at all income levels. The proposed housing element update also contains a goal of housing conservation and prevention of tenant displacement. Specific policies under that goal include: 1.23.1 The City shall discourage the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing housing. 1.23.2 The City shall discourage the conversion or elimination of existing housing in office, commercial, and industrial areas. 1.23.3' ...[T]he City, in the interest of both economy and housing variety, will encourage recycling such (older) dwellings rather than their demolition. Downtown Housing Conversion: The project site is outside the boundaries of the downtown housing district wherein a conversion permit is required. (Municipal Code Section 17.86.040) RELEVANT PARKING POLICIES Land Use Element Policies: The 1994 update of the general plan land use element states that major increments in parking supply should occur in structures at the edge of the downtown core, and that office and retail uses outside the core could provide on-site parking. (1994 LUE Update policy 4.10) The project site is outside the core, as defined by Figure 4 in the update (Attahment 6). Downtown Plan Goals: The physical concept plan for the downtown includes elimination of surface parking in the core area as primary goal # 6. The project site is outside the traditional core area as described by the downtown plan. However, the plan-view illustration of the larger downtown area suggests eventual infill of most surface parking to accommodate mixed-use and commercial functions. y 1 ' . � � .��_• alt Z( • + �'I rr� ;II�� �� r a;.- `'.:" ,, s. I ,. is � TV S I � 3 'a r __ h �. �'`-- !f , i• (' 1 iib + t'r��- 11.. }•• Iti rteJi' �. 1 r ' 1 3 555 fl. l 14 IL , � • KIM.. III•^" �' _1 3 r f \ v + � • y ti ;F ��a `a � a,�tar �� /'�11.,• �1•./ � ,} � N { iol — 1 CK J: v' dsr'. .1 f• Y • ' I }I ,ly � � :,y v;• ,i rr��, Ilk 1 I. , I F+K i ii L 'yl l I is I jI I u' fr �. - R `a it; , ra J - uL f _ I `7 I � r f \ �d\�\��\�R! - � \ � / : � � ��2 /:\ � �» 2��� �+ . � � �, y� \ - � � � : - . j� � \\ : , �� , � ) f � ■ . \ 2 ; � ? � / . ` � � z ^� � . : � > }\ � � �, � � t %�, � ©$� | :��\ , .g . . / \�, ( /� � � .� � <� _ r f � . `�% � �\ �/ d�< � � ��i N � � ��� �` < � \ ` ��, . � � ��� . ¢ z . . � ��1\\: \ \��s \ � a�< , ° \ . ( . < � : . . > � %�� �� ( � . \ :\_ \ \ � i ? / ; \�\ «� �';STING AGENDA E ITEM # July 8, 1994 City of San Luis Obispo Building Division RECEIVED Palm Street/ P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403-8100 CITY COUNCIL SFl�! I I nS OBISPO. 1.A TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We were out of state and were unable to attend the meeting held on Tuesday evening July 5, 1994. We were surprised and disappointed to learn that you did not approve the demolition of the old units at 1231 Garden Street. After all , that area is zoned commercial and not residential. We have had complaints from our tenants about downtown noises. It is difficult to support the notion that there is not a need for more downtown parking. In fact, the main reason we need to sell is that we are weary of the parking problems for those units. There are four units and only two parking spaces. It use to be that tenant were able to park on the street overnight. Due to no overnight street parking restrictions and a large fine, they can no longer do so. It is an extremely difficult task to find tenants who do not have cars or to find additional parking spaces. We request that the city approve the demolition permit or provide us with relief to our parking problem. It is the city regulations and fines, both no overnight parking and parking meters, that compound our parking problems at 1231 Garden Street and convince us that the area is no longer suited for residential use. Sincerely yours, • �NCIL DD DIR Gayl d Chizek ❑� F1"IR 4985 Hacienda �O ❑P(RECHIEF San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401 RNEY VPW DIR QZLERK/ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR Itf—TTFL DIR 0 PERS DIR CC: Henry Byzinski _ Tom Swem M__.1NG AGENDA DATE ITEM# 8/4/94 City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street AUG - 9 1994 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal of ARC finding for 1231 Garden St. CITY CLERK " 'IS OBISPO.C' Dear Council Members: We purchased these units at 1231 Garden Street in February of 1960 to supplement our income when we retired. Even though there were four units and only two on- site parking spaces back then, fewer tenants had cars and there was overnight street parking, as there still is in most if not all residential neighborhoods in San Luis Obispo. At the time the population of San Luis Obispo was about 18,000 people. As the city grew and as the city passed ordinances restricting overnight street parking, by not allowing on-street parking in the area between 3 am. and 5 a.m. and only allowing two-hour parking between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., it created a parking problem for us at the apartment units. The fines for any violations are heavy. Thus, parking and finding tenants without cars has become a problem. We tried a property management company, but our experience was less than satisfactory, due to high costs and high vacancy rates. So we manage the units ourselves. In the Fall of 1988 I had a heart attack and had bypass surgery. I decided to take early retirement but I continued to manage the apartments. In March of 1994,I had a stroke and my doctors insist that I cut back on my commitments. For the past several years Cuesta Title Co. and others have.approached us several times about purchasing the property. Up until now, I told them that we were not interested in selling. Unfortunately, things have changed in numerous ways. I now need to sell the property at 1231 Garden Street. It is within three blocks of the center of the city surrounded by businesses and it is the only property in the block being used as a residential property. This area has been zoned commercial for at least the last 34 years that I know of. In our opinion, it has outlived its time as a residential property. The tenant leases expire August 31, 1994. One unit is vacant now and the remaining units will be vacant at the expiration of the leases. We feel it is our basic property right that this property be allowed to be used for commercial purposes starting with the approval of the demolition permit. Sly O .vr� � Mr COUNCIL CDD DIR Gia lord J. Chizek �,. eCAO 13 FIN DIR y , Marcelline A. Chizekf�ACAO 13 FIRE CHIEF Owners ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR Z�'CLER19 MG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REG DIR O C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR �� 13 PERS DIR NOBLE BLILDING CO 1PANY DENNIS E. NOBLE Post Office Box 14621 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Lic. B528350 (805) 543-7577 FAX (805) 543-7721 As a licensed general building contractor, I, Dennis Noble, have been retained by the property owners, The Chizek family, to obtain a demolition permit for the property located at 1231 Garden Street, in San Luis Obispo. Since the initial application for the demolition permit was submitted, upon review by the Architectural Review Committee, the permit was denied. I am now submitting this written statement, to the City Council, since I am unable to attend this evening due to my family's vacation. I ask the Council to review the history of the above mentioned address and find that this single family dwelling has been modified into four separate dwelling units, somewhere between the years 1926 and 1946. You will find that this property does not conform to today's standards in terms of the uniform building codes. Further evaluation will reveal this building is surrounded by adjacent properties that maintain buildings that are significantly higher in elevation. This places the Chizek's property in a hole. This could cause the potential problem of flooding, especially in light of the fact that the garage and back unit are approximately twelve to sixteen inches lower in elevation than any of the rest of the dwelling. Additionally, the garage and the back unit are not five feet from the property line, another nonconforming feature of this dwelling. -2- Further problems faced by the present property owners will be the significant cost of rendering this building consistent with today's codes or standards. Presently, the parking provided for the tenants is inadequate. There is no provision for handicapped access. In an effort to address the concerns voiced by the ARC, in terms of preserving the Pepper Tree, located on the side of the property closest to Cuesta Title, I assure you that this does not pose any problem, nor should it prevent approval of the permit. This contingency could surely be agreed upon, and the tree need not be damaged or removed. Final concerns should address this property's foundation, which is unreinforced.masonry, composed of brick. This is the reason for the cracking in the front of the building and along the concrete driveway ribbon. If the present owners were forced to conform to the present earthquake standards, as the commercial property owners in San Luis Obispo are mandated by the State, the cost would be prohibitive, and would also trigger the need for the above mentioned improvements, in compliance with todays standards. STEPHEN MACIE XX0bX t- -ec HI Structural #3974•S, CA Civil 428063 U5ff2 1009MORRO ST.,0205P.O.BOX 13410 5AN LIUIS ODISPO.CA 93406 605-541.3537 8/3/94 Rainbow Realty Henry Byzinski 460 Marsh St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 4-Unit Apartments, 1231 Garden Street, SIA As per your re rn+est, On August 30 1994, I inspected the building of the above mentioned address to observe stzuctural adequacy and general conditions. I was able to look at the interior and into the attic of unit #2 and under the floor of units #243. To clarify my qualifications, I am a licensed structural engineer in the state of Hawaii since 1986 and a licensed civil engineer in California specializing in the structural engineering field since 1977. I graduated from Cal Poly in 1970 with a degree in Architectural Engineering so I ha-re some architectural background. Before I obtained my engineering certification, I was a partner in an electrical contracting firm in San Luis Obispo. GENER&L: There are two main buildings, one in the front with three units and one in the back (unit #D4) . Also there is a 2-car garage, wood frame with corrugated steel roofing and sides. The front building has been added onto many times in the past and contains a conglomerate of roofing types and wall coverings. For the most part, the exterior walls are stucco with portions being of wood siding. The floor in of raised floor construction on a concrete foundation. The roofing is some heavy spanish tale as well as some asphalt s::ingle. STRUCTURE: The roof is a low slope roof with redwood 2x4 rafters spaced at 32"oo and lx sheathing. The ceiling joists are redwood 2x4 or 2x3 at 16"oc with a lath and plaster ceiling. The interior wall surface is lath and plaster. The floor is 2x6 joists spaced at 1611oc with lx sub-sheathing and lx hardwood flooring. There are 4x4 girders spaced S'oc with 4x4 support posts to concrete pads spaced at V oc. There is a perimeter concrete footing with a masonry stem wall at the older portion of the building. j STEPHEN MACIEmmmamagineer HI Stroctmil *5974•S, CA Civil *28063 2 IWO WRRO SX.,+0205 2 j P . "1X 11410 5, ;r i1S OBISPO,Ca 93306 E05-541-38-17 PROBLEMS OBSERVED: The roof framing is i,: Batisf.�ctory conditior, but the size and the spacing of the structure is net adequate to support the dead and live loads re'Tjired by r,Irrent codes. The floor joists are adequate for residential :oadinq but the adequacy of the 4x4 girders is questionable. In many areas, there were no connections of the roof sheathing the support walls below to provide transfer of any lateral loads transmitted through the roof sheathing as a diaphragm. There was visual evidence of settlement in cracking of the plaster and the masonry foundation as well as unevenness in the floor surface. There were no positive connections of the floor girders to the posts or the post to the footings and no anchor bolts at the perimeter stem wall were observed. There were some newer electrical sub-panels with breakers added but the wiring itself seemed to be of the old type without any grounding system present. The plurnhing appeared to be fairly old and some leaking was observed around a few of the drain lines. There are four trees on the lot, 2-Acacia, 1-Avocado, and 1 unknown variety. None of the tree trunks are more than 8" diameter. Each tree has branches touching the existing roof of the building. AESTHETICS: The appearance of the buildings is nothing special in way of architectural significance or design. The rooms are small and, in the standards of today, virtually unusable. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no observable structural -failures to warrant condemnation of these structures, the cost inherent in remodeling which would result in bringing the structure up to present day codes would not be offset by the aesthetic value or use of the buildings as they now stand. It would not be detrimental to the neighborhood to demolish these structures and replace them with a new structure. Please contact this office if you have further use of my services. Yours truly, �Rc�FEJlpyq ' FId MqC ' 5 Z, la N0. 28063 A Asten Macie, Eip.a31•08 a} SHM \ Jf CIV1%- a�Q �,qlf GF CAI���� REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS 570 Marsh Street,PO Box 186 San Luis Obispo,Ca.93406 Thomas C.Swem,Broker August 1, 1994 City of San Luis Obispo Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 re: Appeal of ARC finding for 1231 Garden St. Dear Council Members, I have been asked to review and comment on the request for a demolition permit for 1231 Garden Street in San Luis Obispo. It was brought to my attention that the initial permit application, submitted to the ARC for their review, was rejected by the ARC for the following reason; 1) "The structures to he demolished are culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant. Cumulatively, small diminutive housing, built in the early part of this century, near the downtown, is an important part of the City's housing stock and is representative of a certain time period in the City's history."wid 2) "Demolition of these.structures would erode the availability of affordable housing convenient to the do477tON71, which is contrary to general plan policies regarding conservation of housing stock and the importance of housing in and near the downtown". I must say that I was somewhat taken back to hear this in that I was under the impression that the City Planning staff had recommended the demolition and they had reviewed all of the pertinent historical and cultural issues. Over the years it has been a fact that the ARC and many individuals in the planning department were not objective when reviewing applications. This was highlighted in the independent consultants report dealing with the planning department's problems along these lines. In the past few months I personally must say that the planning department, under Mr. Jonas and Mr. Whisenand, is a very positive and helpful department to work with. I have been working with this department for the past nineteen years and the changes are dramatic. Since the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Chizek, submitted the appeal I have had the opportunity to review some of the City information that suggests that the Page 1 demolition of this property is not only appropriate, it is absolutely available under current law. In the City's publication, The Historical Preservation Progran: Guidelines. it shows all of the issues pertaining to the classification of historical or cultural. This first item of interest is the very specific districts that were developed. Three to be specific. 1231 Garden is not in any of these districts. Under Resolution No. 6157, page 3, section 4 (2) it defines the Historical Resource or Historical Resource Site. This is where it gives the authority to define property. It states; Airy improvements, buildings, sites, areas or objects or scientific, aesthetic, educational, cultural, architectural or historical significance that have heen desig7iated by resolution of the Cormcil and included itt the Inventory of Historical Resources. It continues with; Historical Resources or Historical Resource Sites are classified av follows; ► Priority =1: Already place on the National Register. ► Priority:-22: Determined eligible for the National Register. ► Priority=3: Eligible for the National Register. ► Priority "4: Potentially eligible for the National Register. ► Priority;t5: Not eligible for the National Register but significant at a local level. This document is followed by three volumes titled "Complete Report: Historic Resources Survey". This is a comprehensive collection of every property in the City that has historical or cultural significance. Attached to this letter is the page out of Volume 3 of this survey that covers the area of the subject property. It is significant to note that the serial number given to each property has a suffix that describes the property, the National Register Rating and the Type of Structure. Please note that 1231 Garden was not selected by the Cultural Heritage Committee as Historic or Culturally significant. If the commissioners felt that there was historic or cultural significance the address would be listed and the code would include a suffix of -05R. Also please review the three volumes. They include pictures and complete descriptions of properties that do fall into these categories. As to the specific structures, it is necessary to note that there are no building permits, for either building, on file. In addition to this the front building was converted, illegally, to a triplex. The property additionally has many other flaws. The lot is-legally non-conforming in that it is only 4,050 square feet, the improvements can not be rebuilt if lost in a fire or other disaster, the lot coverage is non-conforming, parking is not available and the lot floods because of inappropriate drainage. Page 2 It is additionally significant to note that the property is completely surrounded by commercial development with the Cuesta Financial Plaza on the north and west sides, another office building on the south side and Great Western Bank and the Garden Street Inn directly across the street to the east. As to the zoning, the property is located in the "O" Office zone, not the Central Commercial zone. Issues dealing with the "C-C" zone do not transfer to the "O" zone. I was contacted by the City planner that is working on this appeal, and the previous application for demolition. She inquired if I felt the owners would consider offering the property "For Sale" to someone who would wish to relocate the improvements to another site in the City. In my opinion I do feel that this would be acceptable for a short period of time, say 30 days or so. In addition I also feel that given that the City is considering mandating that this be a condition that they also consider waiving the cost of permits and application fees for said moving of the improvements. This would give an additional incentive for someone to consider taking on the project. In closing I do want to commend the planning department, and specifically Ron Whisenand and Whitney McIlvaine, for their excellent work on this application, the request for appeal and all of the phone calls and meetings. They truly have been great to work with and I look forward to working with this department in the future. On the other hand the ARC has been inconsistent and arbitrary. In this instance they have gone beyond the law by effectively taking this owners property via their decision without proper compensation. Everyone I have discussed this issue with agree that the public can live with rules, they just can not live with the inconsistent and arbitrary reviews without the benefit of laws or ordinances to back them up. Although I will be out of town and not able to attend the August 16th meeting in which this item is scheduled to be heard, I urge the Council to strongly consider overturning the decision of the ARC pertaining to the demolition request of 1231 Garden Street. Thank you for your time and consideration. 4Siiely;s C. Swem -'.- ".Attachment :r Page 3 •• - �\ dNMI tv • ��sy. .: tic , �• .: -i� - ; .r_ ' �[`. r - :;m{ •� r Address Seri-al Number` Historic District 532 Dana 0037-04R Downtown 550 Dana 0038-04R Downtown 1119 Garden 0103-04C Downtown 1123-27 Garden 0204-05C Downtown 1129-33 Garden 010.5-05C Downtown 1130 Garden 0106-05C Downtown 1212 Garden 0039-04C 2132-34 Harris 0040-04R 75 Higuera(65 Higuera) 0107-05C 236 Higuera 0108-05C 570 Mguera 0109-05C •719 Higuera 0110-05C Downtown 726 Higuera 0111-03C Downtown 736-38 Higuera 0112-04C Downtown 740 Higuera 0113-05C Downtown 767 Higuera 0114-03C Downtown 777 Higuera 0115-03C Downtown 796 Higuera 0116-05C Downtown 799 Higuera 0117-05C Downtown 842-46 Higuera 0118-04C Downtown 849 Higuera 0119-05C Downtown 852-56 Higuera 0120-05C Downtown 461 Islay 0041-04R 463 Islay 0042-05R 497 Islay 0043-05R 535 Islay 0044-04R Old Town 591 Islay 0045-05R Old Town 644 Islay 0046-05R Old Town 670 Islay 0047-04R Old Town 687 Islay 0048-03R Old Town 690 Islay 0049-04R Old Town 790 Islay 0050-04R Old Town 777 Johnson 0051-05R Mill Street 1720 Johnson 0052-03R 1019-23 Leff 0053-04R Old Town 100 Madonna 0121-04C 536 Marsh 0054-030 547 Marsh 0055-04R 774 Marsh 0122-04C Downtown 859 Marsh 0123-03C 893 Marsh (889 N-larsh) 0124-05C 901-81 Marsh 0125-03C 1117-19 Marsh 0056-04R 1129 Marsh 0057-04R 1135 Marsh 0058-04R 1141-43 Marsh 0059-04R •Serial Number- 0000 - 0 0 X Sequential National Register Rating Type of Structure Number 1 = Already placed on the National Register R= Residential 2 = Determined eligible for the National Register C = Commercial 3 = Eligible for the National Register O = Other 4 = Potentially eligfble.for the National Register 5 = Not eligible for the National Register but significant at a local level 9-91