The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/18/2005, PH3 - APPEAL OF THE PLANING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AT council M=6*D��o acEnaa REpoM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM'. John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Bill Roth,Planning Intern (/ SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION APPROVING A . HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AT 1267 PISMO STREET. (130-05 AP-CC) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to approve the Home Occupation Permit for massage therapy, based on findings, and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Situation The applicant, Darcy McKinney, has applied for a home occupation.permit to run her massage therapy business at 1267 Pismo Street (Attachment #3, Home Occupation Permit Application). The applicant rents both units in the existing duplex, living at 1267 Pismo Street, the same unit where she will conduct massage therapy, while her father lives at 1405 Johnson Avenue, the other unit in the duplex. There is one uncovered parking space for the duplex located in the Johnson Avenue driveway which is used by the applicant. The applicant's father does not own a vehicle. Home occupation permits are typically handled administratively without a hearing. However, this request was considered by the Hearing Officer at an administrative hearing on August 5, 2005 after the site was posted and a written request for a hearing was received. The Hearing Officer denied the permit based on parking impacts to the residential neighborhood. The applicant filed an appeal of that denial which was considered by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2005. The Planning Commission approved the home occupation permit for massage therapy, upholding the applicant's appeal. The Planning Commission's decision is now being appealed by Robert Griffin, resident of 1436 Johnson Avenue (Attachment# 8). The appellant believes the permit should be denied due to the impact that customer access to the home occupation would have on limited on-street parking in the area. Detailed information on the previous review of the permit is included in the documents related to the previous administrative hearing (Attachment # 5) and Planning Commission hearing (Attachment# 7). Analysis The appeal of the Planning Commission's action filed by Mn Griffin and his co-appellants states that the Planning Commission failed to (1) "rely upon the preponderance of evidence against the proposed use (including testimony, the Hearing Officer's findings, and the written concerns of the 1 Council Agenda Report—Appeal of.Home Occupation Permit 130-05, 1267 Pismo Street Page 2 Transportation Division" and (2) "condition the permit to assure that the proposed use would; in fact;be consistent with General Plan Use Policy 2.2.13:" The central issues with this application for a home occupation permit are the limited on-street parking in the area and the possibility of"frequent" customer access to the site. Those who do not support the home occupation permit have indicated that area parking is in short supply. Those who support the home occupation permit have indicated that the proposed massage therapy business would generate only limited additional demand for on-street parking. Staff has visited the site on several occasions throughout the day in August, September and October to monitor the availability of on-street parking in the area and found that there are generally parking spaces available on the 1200 block of Pismo Street on weekdays between 9am and 5pm. After discussing the number of trips that would be generated by the home occupation versus those generated by a typical residential use, as well as the characteristics of the proposed home occupation, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 2.2.13, which allows for compatible non-residential activities that comply with established criteria in residential areas. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5426-05 approved the proposed home occupation, subject to the 13 general requirements of the zoning regulations for a home occupation(Sec. 17.08.090 C),without any further conditions being added. Conclusion It is clear that this is a special residential neighborhood that is active in preserving its character and livability. However, because of the scale of the Home Occupation, and the fact that there would be only three to four customer visits per day, separated by at least 30 minutes, the Planning Commission determined that the home occupation would have minimal impact on on-street parking and is compatible with the neighborhood. The Commission acknowledged that on-street parking in the area was limited, due to City improvements such as bike lanes on Johnson Avenue and the bulb- out in front of 1267 Pismo Street which have removed spaces. In addition,competition for on-street spaces from downtown workers parking in the neighborhood does occur to some extent. However, the Commission determined that sufficient on-street parking remains to accommodate the limited needs of this business. The Planning Commission concluded that it would be inappropriate to deny this Home Occupation, which fully complies with City standards. Environmental Determination The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. CONCURRENCES All applicable City departments have been contacted, and their concerns noted in the above discussion. ^z Council Agenda Report Appeal of Home Occupation Permit 130-05, 1267 Pismo Street Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it may only have a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the action of the Planning Commission and denying the home occupation permit to allow massage therapy based on findings. 2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Aerial Map Attachment 3: Home Occupation Permit Application Attachment 4: Letters Opposing and Supportive of the Home Occupation Permit Attachment 5: Administrative Use Permit Hearing Meeting Minutes, Follow-up Letter, and Staff Report Attachment 6: Appeal Application Form#1 Attachment 7: Planning Commission Minutes, Planning Commission Resolution,and Staff Report Attachment 8: Appeal Application Form#2 Attachment 9: Email from Transportation Planning (Peggy Mandeville) Attachment 10: Approved Home Occupations in the Area Around 1267 Pismo Street Attachment 11: City Council Resolution Denying Appeal Attachment 12: City Council Resolution Approving Request of Appeal G:UHiII\Admin(AV)\130-05 A(1267 Pismo)HO\AP CC 130-05 1267 Pismo.doc Aftnhment 1 R-2 OS R-2 O O,5 ' Oy R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2-H R-2 pa• R -2-H R-2 •S �L R-2 -2-H R-3 R-2 y R-3 �A R. -H -3 VICINITY MAP File No. 130-0 N 1267 Pismo Street A 3 -y Attachment 2 04 Ir ♦ ,ter. �;� :�-.�� ,,, �� ' ,;�,�� ZJLVA � f T, ~ \ _ p IF. TMCY CL ck IL y a \1 AZ f s,. •A, 09 �Y rf P� Q r' �I� �✓V�' c� ft w 425Al N t lk i�" itis it, IDAdw 9� r�• f ��n.�' ��+�\ •R� Q r; Attachment 3 ��i�i��I�l��llllh� �►� III II City of SAn LUIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401=3249 July 20., 2005 Darcy McKinney 1267 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Home Occupation Permit A 130-05 1267 Pismo Street Dear Ms. McKinney: The City of San Luis Obispo's Community Development Department received your application for a Home Occupation permit for Amethyst. As you know, the City posts a sign at the site, briefly describing your requested business. Responses and/or concerns are handled by this department. Section 1:7.08.090 of the Zoning Regulations state that any inquiries or concerns received will cause the request to be scheduled for A. public hearing (see excerpt attached). An inquiry/concern was received by this department regarding your requested home occupation of office use for businesses at 1267 Pismo Street. Your request has been scheduled for a public hearing on August 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, upstairs in City Hall, 990 Palm Street. You.should attend this hearing to represent your application request. You will receive an agenda prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please call Jaime Hill at 781-7165. Sincerely, �It% Elizabeth Hudson Permit Technician Attachment: Home Occupation Requirements The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. rCIt1 Of S LUIS OBISPO '!�'II�I '' Attachment 3 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT Community Development Department-990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 (805) 781-7171 Please print dearly or type only in the unshaded areas. Return this completed form with your S��fication fee. This form will be your permit when approved. In some cases,you may have to campy with additional conditions. Also,be sure to get a business tart certificate. NOTE Private property regulations such as dead restrictions or Combons, Covenants and Restrictions(CCBRs)of homeowners associations may restrict or prohibit hone occupations even if such use is allowed by City regulations. Applicants are encouraged to determine compliance with any applicable private regulations before applying for City approval Business Applicant fba n Name (Phone Address j Pie Do you oven the home? ❑Yes NNo. (If you do not own the home,the owner must sin this form consenting to your hone occupation.) Accurately describe c your home occupation* a��_ *Ann detailed desaip w of your home occxape Ow and a alta plan maybe required later. In same cases a hearing maybe required. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL 1. Home occupaflons shall not Involve frequent customer 11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling shall be access or have other charaelerbtics which would reduce allowed (Babysftters or domestic servants are not residents'enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and considered employees of a home occupation.) quiet of residential areas shall be maintained 12.Clients or customers shall not vtslt the home occupation 2. Activhles shag be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m.and 7:00 am. or an enclosed accessory bullding, and shag not atter the 13.If the home occupation Is to be conducted In rental appearance of such structures. (Horticultural activttles may property,the property owner's authorizagon for the proposed be conducted outdoors.) use stag be obtained 3. There shall be no sales,rentol or display on the premises. APPLICANT: I understand that,if a permit is issued,l must meet 4. There stall be no signs other than address and names of the requirements fisted above. If the requirements are not met, residents. the permit will be void and the home occupation must cease 5. There shag be no adverflstng the tame occupotlon by sheet Immediately. address except that sheet address may be Included on business cards and business correspondence originating t {� from the home. t 6. No vehicle larger than a 3/4-ton truck may be used In p I Ina re connection with a home oecupatlon 7. The home occupation shag not encroach on any required OWNER*: As or of the property, I give due applicant nti pang,yard or open space area, permission to conduct business th , subject to these B. Paddng for vehicles used In connection with the home conditions. occupation shag be provided In addition to parking requlred for the residence. l I 9. AcitNfies conducted and equipment or materials used shall Owners Name tprIT, not change the fire safety or occupancy dassiflcatlons of the premises, not use utgitles In amounts greater clan rouse a y —7 _r normally provided for reddentiai use `I Pte/ 141 10.No e shag create or canoise, dust, vibration, smelt, e a ure Igna to smoke, glare, or electrical Interference, or other hazard or `The prop n er of an apartment complex or the park nuisance. manager of a mobs a ome park may sign in place of the owner. ReoeHed by ✓l "s �1` Reosrpf til r i SRW:^lI•�•^'t� WHITE-FILE YELLOW-APPLICANT PINK-FINANCE 15-95 Attachment 4 CITY Of SAN LUIS RISM July is,2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Community Develo"p"ment Department City of San Luis Obispo City Hall 900 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Administrative Officer: Your assistance In denying an application for a mass,a ge therapy business in our _ _. neighborhood would be appreciated. The applicants Darcy McKinney of 1267 Pismo Street has recently moved into the property as a renter and now isattempting to convert a duplex that has historically been residential to a business entity.The application should be denied for two reasons: 1) There is no parking associated with the property and the streets_ in this old tow_n_ neighborhood already are impacted by limited parking space. 2) This is a residential section of the City; businesses have encroached upon old town-converting home after home into offices and ruining the community aspects of this very special and fragile area.This trend should be stopped. I would greatly appreciate hearing about the outcome of your decision as well as the specifics of the appeal process:should you approve this request. Sincerely, Stephan R. Lamb 1261 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 Office: 756.6509 Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Sibyl Hanson JUL 1 9 2005 1265 Bucbon St San Luis Obispo CA 9M01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 18,2005 Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo city Hall 900 Palm Street Sam Luis Obispo CA Dear Sir or Madam; I am writing is response to the application by Darcy McKinney of 1267 Pismo St to open a massae therapy busum from her home. I realms that operating a bmness from home is convenient and cost eflbct ve but it does not,in this case,sense the good of the community Thqe is n-o paring on a.already busy thoroughfare,Johnson Ave,Clients will inevitably have to parIL in a residential area that already serves as a busy route to downtown SLO. A more suitable place for a business of this type is dowvntown or a commercial area outside of town which provides public puking and does not draw customers into an area of single family residences.. I wish Ms McKinney the best in her new venture but feel that the best iateTest of the community,which is hers as well,is served by denying the business application Thank you for your consideration. alwl - n O Attachment 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS UBlIsru . Mary Ellen Gibson JUL 1 g 2065 1251 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 18, 2005 Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo City Hall 900 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dea-r sir/madam: I am writing with concern regarding the business application of Darcy McKinney at 1267 Pismo Street. She is applying to run a massage therapy business from her home. lam hoping that you will deny this application due to the lack of parking and the desire to keep our neighborhood residential. It is important to protect the residential neighborhoods downtown because they are.under"siege" from businesses such as the one Ms. McKinney wishes to have. Businesses in a residential neighborhood change the neighborhood and weaken the fabricof community. After living here for almost25 years,we are fortunate to live in a very special neighborhood. It has gone from a neighborhood with many student rentals to mainly owner-occupied. We have worked hard to develop community. We.hold a block party every year on Penny Lane,we have a neighborhood"web site www.gibson-lamb.com, and last Christmas made a calendar with each page a photo of someone's house. We chipped together and purchased a tile for the Rotary Club's new Mitchell Parks Gazebo. We value the community we have,and we realize that itis fragile and priceless. I hope you will help us protect this unusual (and endangered)neighborhood. Sincerely, t� Mary Ellen Gibson v,j /d Attachment 4 Eric Meyer P.O: Box 16160 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 356@charter.net July 18,2005 i Ur SAN LUIS OBISPO To: Ron Whisenand --- City of San Luis Obispo7' Community Development Dept. 1 8 2005 9%Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA _ 93401-3249 cOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ron, I am opposed to the Home Occupation Permit application at 1267 Pismo. Guests to the residents of the 1.100 block often have to park a block away. There is no room for any more cars. 1267 Pismo is a duplex unit on a sub-standard lot on the busy corner of Johnson Ave. and Pismo St. with only one off"street space. It has no street parking on either Johnson or Pismo. So it is currently under parked. The various tenants of this 1267 Pismo duplex use the street spaces in front of their Pismo St. neighbor's houses. The guests of these two units also use street parking in front of their neighbors. The 1200 block of Pismo St.is;already impacted by the homes and businesses on Johnson Ave. because there is no street parking on the 1400 block of Johnson and only a few spaces on theeast side of the 1300 block.of Johnson. Employees from the current Johnson Ave. businesses use Pismo St. to park their cars. Overflow customer parking from these same Johnson Ave. businesses also use Pismo: Additionally residents and guests of the OTHER duplex and triplex properties in the 1400 block of Johnson park on Pismo because they are-afraid to back out onto Johnson due to the high traffic speed and limited sight distance towards the RR under-crossing. I would also like you to take into consideration that any site visit you make is during the summer... when most of the neighborhood's student residents are gone... and the neighborhoods second and third units are empty. Additionally... the 4 bedroom house next door to the subject on Pismo is currently empty and for sale. this property also holds a studio and altogether normally puts at least 3 cars on the street. Lastly;this is a residential neighborhood and these homes should remain that way. San Luis Obispo is a very expensive place to live and work now...,so home occupation.may be more economical for many. But business uses slowly erode the quality of life for the . neighborhood... next will come attorneys, architects and insurance sales... and slowly we lose our neighborhood feel. Ours is a vibrant and cohesive residential neighborhood that deserves to remain that way.Please don't start moving in the businesses. Thanks Eric Meyer, 1253 Pismo Ey Attachment 4 Cl OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUL 1 $ 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AIUC at ZAk ja _ w Q � C `,```' 07/18/2005 01:33 94965c'176 W CASELLA Attach-ment .4 aAGE 01/01 i July 18,2005 =�( - COMMUNITY Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo 900 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear sir/madam: We would like to address our concerns with the posted property located 81 1267 Pismo Street. We are homeowners on that street We would tike to see our area.rcmam residential,not commercial. There is already a major problem with parking on Pismo from the businesses located on Johnson Street. The property at 1267 Pismo has o accommodations for off street parking,necessary for a business. Thehomeowners in the area have been restoring and upgrading their homes,making it a very desirable residential neighborhood: It would be a shame to undermine the quality of Life in the area by allowing businesses in. Concerned n_ bots, Bill and Carmie Casella 1225 Pismo San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Attachment 4 1208 Pismo Street EDTYOF LUIS OBISPO SanLuis Obispo,Ca 93401 July 19,2005 EVELOPMENT Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo City Hall 900 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 To the Committee: We are writing to request that you deny the business application of Darcy McKinney at 1267 Pismo Street. Ms. McKinney is applying to run a massage therapy business from her home. We have lived in our current house at 1208 Pismo for over six years,and prior to that lived on the 1200 block of Buchon for several years.We have been a part of this wonderful residential neighborhood for over 13 years. First and foremost,the nature of the project is out of character and incompatible with a close neighborhood of single family residences and home rental properties.Residential use is fully consistent with the cha_racter of this neighborhood. This request for a home business is not justified by a critical or urgent need for business space in the city of San Luis Obispo and the approval of this application would-be a major irreversible step towards setting a dangerous precedent for our residential neighborhood. Any property owner in the area could decide to change their home to a commercial purpose rather than.for residential use.And,as businesses develop,the properties next to commercial property become less desirable for residential use. The consequence of change in neighborhood character is not worth approving this application. A major concern regarding this application deals with parking and traffic safety issues.On weekdays,we are impacted by the employee parking from businesses on Johnson and even from the downtown-area. However,we are particularly affected by multiple vehicles owned by residents of the rentals in the neighborhood. For example: • The particular address in question, 1267 Pismo does not even have an offstreet designated parking space • The other half of this duplex, 1405 Johnson,only has one off street parking spot and the house next door to them, 1411 Johnson,also only has one spot.Historically there have been multiple residents at both addresses with multiple vehicles. Historically,the residents of both addresses have parked vehicles on the 1200 block of Pismo as they cannot park on Johnson Avenue. • In addition,the house at 1262 Buchon has several residents,who usually have several vehicles.Their parking area on Johnson Avenue is not easily accessible and they rarely,if ever,use it.They have also parked some of their vehicles on the 1200 block of Pismo. In addition to the parking issues,the comer in question is not a particularly safe one,as evidenced by the City's attempt to put in a traffic calming measure with the extended:curb(it has not calmed the traffic).The neighborhood is having serious safety issues with the amount of traffic,and the speed of the traffic,using Pismo Street as an access road to the rest of town. We request that you deny this application. There is plenty of available office space in San Luis Obispo.Please encourage Ms.McKinney to investigate space that is zoned specifically for business use,and please maintain_our neighborhood as residential use only. Thank you, Ursula Bishop and Mark Johnson Homeowners JGII IIC nlll -.r fume Duti ebti H uyauen neann iii i r. isrnu - Attachr�ient 4 From: 'The Collier's'<mgbcollier@charter.net> To: <ehudson@slocity.org> Date: 7/20/05 12:51 PM Subject: Home Business Application Hearing 1277 Pismo We with to express our objection to the permitting of a home occupation business at the comer of Pismo and Johnson since there is NO parking available off street for this property. Our block has the impact of employee and customer parking for many nearby businesses and it is progressively more difficult to find parking at our own property. Bruce& Myla Collier 1203 Pismo Street SLO, CA 93401 805-543-9514 Attachment 4 � Via» ze tom -. . 7124 u. � - zt INj % � S`�iP �7iNC z i i AttachTent 4 �m""aeP ed�¢2�.e�5(.ns�irr�'a-ru -ca�a.�ce�ea.-¢.9z.El�e a, J/l.Cczoro G�a'GyecYro��c✓ � U p ol Attachment 4 To Whom it may Concern, 8/16/05 I have been doing property management in the San Luis Area for the last twenty years. I have seen.Darcy McKinney's current home and the unit she hopes to do massage therapy in. She explained to Me that a small but vocal group of neighbors were concerned that she would contribute to the parking problem on Pismo street and Johnson Street. I strongly disagree. Darcy McKinney has one cat. She would never have more than one client car at a time which would park in her private driveway. She has no staff and no room-mate. Very rarely would there be more than her one car at her two units. As a property manager if I were rqaffig the two units Darcy occupies I would expect At least four tenant cars. 1 would expect at least four tenants-and their friends to be crowding that comer of Johnson And Pismo. She represents a very low parking(tensity tenant. I met Darcy McKinney at the spa she previously did massage therapy at: She is very mature, quiet,and ethical person. The whole nature of massage therapy is quiet, and noninvasive in anyway to the neighborhood environr-nent. Ret current landlord who wants her to live there because slid is such a good tenant would not be able to find a better, quieter, person with only one car to rent two-units.. The group opposing Darcy McKinney is wrong. She should be allowed to get her business license, pay taxes, and continue to be the good neighbor she has been for the last two years while she lived there. Sincerely, Kayce Slade Attachment 4 Mary Ellen Gibson CITY OF SAN LUI':� CY�'� 1251 Bachon Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 August 18,2005 COMMUNITY GLV iGF'Py1ti`� San Luis Obispo Planning Commission City Hall 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Commission Members: I am protesting the application of a permit f6r a home occupation at 1267 Pismo Street. I regret very much the fact that I cannot attend this meeting(I did attend the public hearing on August 5). I know you are very pressed for time,but I am.hoping that you had the opportunity to review eview the letters previously submitted on this matter. I hope, also,that you were able to listen to the recording of the initial meeting on August 5. The recording shows Ms. McKinney stating that parking will not be a problem because she will ask her clients to use another mode of transportation. This,obviously, is not a realistic solution. She also states that parking is not a problem because she tandem parks frequently over the sidewalk and"no one in the neighborhood has complained and the police have not stopped by." Blocking the sidewalk and forcing people to walk into the street to get around her car to get to the next block for grocery shopping wouldn't be necessary if there were plenty of parking. I am sure that you are aware that each active business(with clients coming.to the house) approved for a neighborhood changes the community. We are a midentia I.neighborhood under siege from businesses creeping ever so much closer; We are a.precious resource to the city—an active neighborhood with an annual block party,a neighborhood web site, and a close-knit support systern. As a group we supported the building of the new gazebo at Mitchell Park. We have survived being surrounded by student rentals,and are very proud of our micro-community. Please help protect city residential neighborhoods. If you saw the news items about Peter Sander and Bert Sperling and their book, "Cities Ranked and Rated,"you know we were rated third in the US of best cities in which to five. City residential neighborhoods such as the Buchon/Pismo/Johnson deserve protection. We contribute to the intangible quality of San Luis Obispo. Thank you for your consideration. J 1 1 OFi i rrrrr i r »nacnrnent 4 CITY Of SAN LUIS OSICPO . 234k ' August 20, 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioners Carlyn Christianson,Alice Loh, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Chairperson Michael Boswell and. Vice=Chair Jim Aiken. C/o Ronald Whisenand 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401- Dear Chairperson Boswell and Commissioners of the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission: Thank you for the work that you collectively and individually contribute to our wonderful city. This letter is regarding the first item on your August 24, 2005 agenda regarding an appeal of a denied request for a home occupation business permit At 1267 Pismo Street; Darcy.McKinney applicant. The Home Occupation_ Permit clearly outlines "requirements for approval" and states in item 8: Parking for vehicles used in connection with the home occupation shail be provided in addition to parking required for the residence.' The applicant may attempt to show photos that indicate that this portion of Pismo Street is a road with parking availability. it should be noted that two houses adjacent to her property are currently vacant and that.Cal Poly is out of session and hence student renters are not in residence. In as much as the current property as it exists is,out of compliance with required parking and that additional parking for the vehiclesconnected with the home occupation can not be provided the appeal should be denied and the City Staff findings upheld: This is a clear and forthright matter. Thank You, Stephan Lamb 1251 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 o� 2� Attachment 4 is LUIS OBISPO � 32U6 �NiT( DEVELOPMENT_ 117Y v ' 60 in�t u HLEdcnvneni 4 I CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO s. 2 3 2 August 20, 206S CON9.iMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Commissioners Carlyn Christianson, Alice Loh, Andrea Miller, Orval Osborne, Andrew Carter, Chairperson Michael Boswell and Vice-Chair Jim Aiken: c/o Ronald Whisenand 990 Palm Street .San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Chairperson Boswell a_nd Commissioners of the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission: Thank you for the work that you collectively_ and individually contribute to our wonderful city. This letter is regarding the.first item on your August 24, 2005 agenda regarding an appeal of a denied request for a home occupation business permit at 1267 Pismo Street; Darcy McKinney applicant. The Home Occupation Permit clearly outlines "requirements for approval" and states in item 8r parking for vehicles used in connection with the home occupation shall be provided in addition to parking_ .requ_ired for the residence." The applicant may attempt to show photos that indicate that this portion of Pismo Street is a road with parking availability. It should be noted that two houses adjacent to herproperty are currently vacant and that t Cal Poly is out of session and hence student renters are not in residence. In as much as the current property as it exists is out of compliance with required parking and that additional parking for the vehicles connected with the home occupation can not be provided the appeal should be denied and the City Staff findings upheld. This is a clear and forthright matter. Thank You,- Stephan Lamb 1251 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Attachment 4 OF sA L 22 August,2005 ,E. 2 Planning Commission City Hall 990 Palm Street L CONI AUNITY DEVELOPMENT San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 To Chair Michael Boswell and Commissioners Jim Aiken,Andrew Carter,Carlyn Christianson,Alice Loh,Andrea Miller,Orval Osborne: We are writing to request that you uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the request fora home occupation for a massage business at 1267 Pismo Street. At the hearing where the request was denied,a majority of the neighbors on the 1200 block of Pismo were represented and requested that the permit be denied.A major concern regarding this application deals with a business with clients adding to an already over-crowded parking situation and also with traffic safety issues. This permit request should have been discouraged when the applicant initially approached the CDD staft Although a charming home,the unit is not appropriate for the intended use. The unit of the duplex in question is non-conforming in that it does not even have an off-street parking spot for the resident.Thus,the impact of approval will be even greater as street parking deals with both the resident and the clients). It cannot be guaranteed that the resident will always have access to use the one spot that is off street for the other unit in the duplex,and parking in the sidewalk behind the spot designated for the other unit is a civil code violation. The odds that in the future,the tenants of separate units will be willing to continue to share one parking spot,without a second vehicle,or more,entering into the equation are slim. The long-term outlook is that the 1200 block of Pismo will be affected by one or more tenant's vehicles on the street,plus the client's vehicles.As the permit will stay with the land,not the individual who requests it,the long-term outlook is one which must be considered regardless of the current applicants'plans to"manage" parking issues. A home business with clients coming and going is also an issue.We are not opposed to home businesses. Gainful employment in a home office situation is ideal for many. The issue is the clients. We are also concerned that if one such permit is approved in a neighborhood, it will make it easier for home businesses with clients to move into what all consider a residential,close-knit neighborhood. It appears this request was delegated to stafflintern who are unaware of the history/character of the neighborhood.This was probably most obvious when the intern supporting the approval of the permit referred to"San Looey Obispo"in his opening remark.This block and the surrounding neighborhood are residential yet are severely impacted by traffic and parking issues,mostly due to previous city planning and transportation decisions.The initial request should have been assigned to a veteran staff member better versed in the parking/traffic issues of the neighborhood. For example: -The City has put a terrific traffic burden on Pismo by not planning for other streets to cut through to Santa Rosa or Broad.As a result,the street is also a major thoroughfare(speedway)for people hying to travel to other parts of San Luis(there are too few other options:Tank Farm,Laurel Lane,Higuera). -The comer in question is not a particularly We one,as evidenced by the City's attempt to put in a traffic calming measure with the extended curb(it has not calmed the traffic). -The combination of poor visibility due to parked vehicles,the heavy traffic use,and the speed of traffic make it extremely difficult to exit or enter driveways on the 1200 block. -It is the end of summer.The rentals are not filled as during the school Year,residents of the street have been on vacations,employee and customer parking from the nearby businesses are down also,probably for the same reason, and,there are two empty houses on the 1200 block.One of which features three units,which has meant multiple vehicles parked on the street in the past The Hearing Officer,Ron Whisenant referred to the fact that it is summer and so parking issues not as obvious as during"Prime Time of year",when he denied the request. Please use common sense and.deny this.application: It is the right thing to do based on the City General Requirements for Home Occupation,and it is the right thing to do in regards to this neighborhood's serious parking issues. Thank you, c., 1147104-7z k- , �4 -s JVL Ursula Bishop anc Mark Johnson 1208 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 Aftachin6nt 4 ROB_ ERT& VIRGINIA GRIFFIN 1.436 Johnsoh.Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 543.3346 August 23,2005 San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, RE- Review of Appeal —Application No. AP-PC 130-05; 1267 Pismo Home Occupation Permit This letter expresses our concerns regarding the permit application cation referenced I above. The decision of the Hearing Officer denying the application should be upheld for the following critical reasons: City standards for.home occupation permits stress that the use should not involve frequent customer access, and that parking for vehicles used for the proposed occupation-use be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. Testimony at the hearing made it clear that the applicant's proposed home occupation will involve more than infrequent clients going to and from the residence. While we generally favor work-from-home as a vi-able alternative for many. professions and occupations, especially under family, medial- - and th commuting constraints, e core issue with this application is the client traffic— not the occupation. The applicant's duplex unit sought for the permit is nonconforming: irig: it does not have an off-street parking space for the resident. Thus, the impact of such a use, if permitted, will on-ly exacerbate an already unsafe condition. It cannot be guaranteed that the resident-applicant will always have access to the single off- street parking space for the other unit in the duplex and Parking on the sidewalk behind the space designated for the other unit would be in violation to California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). There have been a number tenants in this I duplex over the years, and there will undoubtedly be many more — some of whom may not be willing or able to share the single off-street parking space. Plainly then, one or more tenants vehicles on the street will affect the 1200 block of Pismo Street. Then, add in t-he applicant's client-vehicles if the permit is granted, and the already-impacted parking becomes a burden on the heighbors, including the several tenants at 1411 Johnson Avenue (which also has only one off-street parking space) who have historically parked around the corner on 1200 block of Pismo Street. Attachment 4 San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, City Hall August 23,2005 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ATTN: Michael Boswell,Chairperson SUBJECT: Appeal For Denial Business License With Clients, 1267 Pismo Street We, Suzanne and Louis Carpine,are residents at 1227 Buchon Street. Our "neighborhood"includes Pismo Street,just one block over. We are in support of our neighborhood remaining primarily residential,and encourage owner occupancy as much as possible. Our neighborhood's street parking one Pismo and Buchon is already impacted with many multi-unit rental properties. We are in apposition to the City Planning Commission granting business licenses not only in our neighborhood but anywhere within your jurisdiction that would allow a new business the privilege without meeting all Parking Requirements: Secondly, we are in opposition to the City granting a business license to 1267 Pismo knowing that property would remain zoned for business even after this particular renter at 1267 Pismo moves on. Within our neighborhood, most of which is zoned R2, it is the responsibility of homeowners to provide additional parking within the confines of their existing lot should additional bedroom(s) be added. Why shouldn't a client based business be required to do the same? Why would the City allow one more potential burden? Thank you for your serious consideration of our request to deny a business license at 1267 Pismo Streeet.. Sincerely,zanne an o s Carpine 1227 Buchon Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �iiY Ur S�iN LUIS 09ISPO COMMUNITY pEVELOPMENT A tachment 5 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARIIVO Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street MINUTES August 15., 2005 1267 Pismo-Street. Use Permit Application A 130-05; Request for a hearing for a massage therapist as a home business; R-2 zone; parcy McKinney; applicant. (Jamie Hill) Ron Whisenand, Hearing Officer, introduced Bill Roth, staff Intern, who will. present the staff report. Bill states that the applicant has applied for a Home Occupation Use Permit for a massage therapy business in an R-2 zone. This home occupation.business will operate from one unit of the duplex at the comer of Johnson Ave. and Pismo. The applicant has a lease for both units. The applicant will run the business from 1267 Pismo and her father lives in the Johnson Ave. part of the duplex. There is one uncovered parking space which the applicant uses; her father does not have a.vehicle. There have been nine (9) letters that have been sent to the City,including one today. These letters have expressed concerns basically about the negative impact that the business might have on the limited parking availability in the area and possibly some impact on the residential character of the neighborhood. Bill stated that he has had several conversations with the applicant and based on her previous operation of a massage therapy business in San Luis Obispo, she believes that her business will average about ten (10) customers per week and'n-o more than three in one day. Appointments are normally scheduled for about 1 hur With at least a 30 minute break time in between each customer. There would be no more than one customer on the site at one time. Based on business description, visits to the site, review of the letters sent by the concerned neighbors, and conversations with the applicant, staff believes that the massage therapy home occupation can be compatible with the.neighborhood. It is compatible with surrounding residential land uses because the business does not.require any outdoor use and will require no additional employee access: It will require only minimal customer access and it will not disrupt the peace and quiet of-the neighborhood. However, to reduce the potential impact to neighborhood related parking demands, staff has recommenced the following conditions for approval:. A:tachinent 5 Administrative Hearing August 15, 2005 Page 2 1. In addition to complying with the normal home occupation requirements in the City's Municipal Code, the applicant should remove the sign for postal delivery:. 2. There should be no further signs posted with the exception of those stating the address or name of the actual residents of the duplex. 3. The applicant shall inform customers that there is no on site additional parking and they should travel there by some other means rather than private vehicle. 4. The days of operation should be Monday-Friday—9:00 a.m. —5:00 P.M. Staff recommends the approval of the application permit based on findings and conditions. Ron Whisenand stated that he read (8) letters received from: Evelyn Talmage, Stephan Lamb, Eric Meyer, Bill& Carmen Casella, Mary Ellen Gibson, Virginia (Gini) Griffen, Ursula Bishop and Mark Johnson and Sibyl.Hanson. However, the ninth letter he has not reviewed (from Bruce Collier). Ron asked to read the letter at this time. Ron asked about on site parking. Bill stated that no additional on site parking is required for the customers at the location of the home occupation business. Ron discussed the possibility of having.a restriction on the number of customers limited to 3 customers per day and no more than one customer at a time. Bill Agreed that this could be added to the conditions. Ron opened the Public Hearing and stated that it is almost an appeal. Darcy McKinney, applicant, spoke:regarding the parking issue that was .brought up by eight members of the neighborhood who responded by letter. . She stated that she can only work on one client at a time. Some of her clients are excited that she is moving there because they are within walking distance. There seems to be a lot of parking on the street by people who really have no business on that street and walk to other locations. A*tachinent 5 Administrative Hearing August 15, 2005 Page 3 Eric Meyer, 1242 Johnson, stated that the street is heavily impacted by parking. They are impacted by two city streets that have meters and people who park on Pismo. He stated that he is not against home occupation business, but is against the parking impact. Evelyn Talmage, (across_Johnson), she owns four different properties. She states that there has been many changes over the years with the parking situation in the neighborhood and in the 1300 block. She did not realize that when she wrote her letter that two of her neighbors were against home occupation businesses. Ron clarified that his understanding was that she was more upset with the City's improvements and Johnson Avenue. She is not opposed to the business. She also stated that many people who live in San Luis Obispo would not be able to do so if it were not for their home business. She has overall concerns for Johnson Avenue improvements and parking. She states that the people who live in this area live in a pocket;with railroad tracks on two sides (east) and the creek on the west side. William M. Casella, 1225 Pismo, stated that his concern is the parking. The clients not finding parking spaces will impact his ability for parking. Mary Ellen Gibson, 1251 Buchon Street, is concerned about neighborhoods turning over into businesses and neighborhoods becoming more of a commercial character. She feels_ that the area should remain for residents_ a_nd. their parking. Stephan Lamb, 1251 Buchon, stated that he is focusing on residential concerns. He is concerned about the loss of actual family dwellings. He is, asking for a stipulation regarding that both units remain occupied by residents. He agrees with Mary Ellen in that as you look at residential areas, you look at the loss of residences. He was concerned about signage, but stated that staff had already addressed this concern. He further asked if there is a change in the volume of clients and should they increase, what. recourse does the neighborhood have if it goes into noncompliance with the use of the permit. Ursula Bishop, 1208 Pismo Street, stated that she speaks on behalf of three other elderly neighbors: Barbara Clites, 1221 Pismo Street, Allen Berry Nuaes, 1211 Pismo Street, Frank & Paula Gurnee, 1202 Pismo Street. She stated that Barbara, Frank and Al are expressing concerns about home businesses and parking issues. She stated that the majority of the block is Aaachinent 5 expressing concerns. She also states that she is disappointed with the conditions and feels that the applicant should advise customers that there is no on site parking and encouraging them to travel by other means rather than Administrative Hearing August 15, 2005 Page 4 private motor vehicles. The hours of operation Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m..to 5:00 p.m. seem a bit odd and feels so many people would want nights and weekends. She feels that most of the customers are working from 9-5 and would require late appointment times (i.e. 3:30 or after). So; could the last appointment arrive just before 5:00 p.m. and could it extend beyond the five o'clock closure time. She stated that the condition wording needs to be clarified. Virginia (Gini) Griffen, 1436 Johnson, agrees with what her neighbors have been stating. Her biggest concern is the number of clients that may be involved with the home occupation business. She feels because the students are currently gone and that the two buildings adjacent to the duplex are vacant, it gives a false impression that there is sufficient parking. Sandra Rowley, representing.RON asked if this is a land use issue. Ron stated that if was. She suggested a condition that specified no less than a'30 minute break between clients and no more than a specified number of clients per day be added. Bill Coma, 3562 Empleo, member of the SLO Chamber of Commerce, stated that a home office is a trend nationally. He would hate to see the City move it in a direction that would not allow this home business as home use permit. Darcy McKinney, applicant, stated that she understands the neighborhood's concerns and she would also have the same concerns. At her current location, she works Monday:Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and generally has two- three clients per day. She states that she would be happy with that number of clients per day. She will recommend that her customers park behind her vehicle on Johnson. In the past, she has never had a complaint regarding parking issues at her current location (for the past two years). Ron asked if the applicant had ever considered that her phone and her appointments could be scheduled from her home but that she would physically go out to the location of her clients and perform massage therapy services. Darcy stated that she would prefer being in control of the situation rather than having to transport her table to her clients (she does not want to be mobile). The Public Hearing was closed. - Attachment 5 City Of SAn lues OBISPO 990 Palrri Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 August 11, 2005 Darcy McKinney 1267 Pismo Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 SUBJECT. Use Permit.Appl.A. 130-05 1267 Pismo Street. Dear Applicant: On Friday, August 5, 2005 1 conducted a public hearing on your request for a message therapist Home Occupation Business at the above location.. After reviewing the information presented; I denied your request, based ori the following finding: ._ Findb : The Home Occupation Business cannot be accommodated in this neighborhood with parking in short supply, and would reduce resident's enjoymenf:of their neighborhood. An appeal of the. decision has been filed,. The matter has been tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission on'August 24; 2005. This date should be confirmed by your project planner: If you have any questions, please call Jaime Hill at.781-7165. Sincerely, Ronald Whisnand Hearing Officer cc: County of SLO Clerk-Recorder The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Il'�I T1...:.......•...:....:.•.•...11...A— n—#/G11C1721_7AIn - Attachment 5 A 130-05 1267 Pismo Street August-5,2005 Item # 9 Situation The applicant, Darcy McKinney, has applied for a Home Occupation Permit for Massage Therapy. City policy with respect to Home Occupation Permit requests allows neighbors with concerns about the proposed business to request A.public hearing. Eight neighbors sent letters, dated July 18=20 2005, to the Community Development Department. In the letters, the neighbors indicate their concern that the addition of the proposed business will negatively impact neighborhood parking availability and the residential character of the neighborhood. The massage therapy business: would operate from one unit of the duplex at the comer of Johnson Avenue and Pismo Street. The applicant rents both units in the duplex. The applicant lives at 1267 Pismo Street, the same unit where she will conduct massage therapy. The applicant's father lives at 1405 Johnson Avenue, the other unit in the duplex. There is one uncovered (driveway) parking space for the duplex on Johnson Avenue. The applicant owns one vehicle, which she parks in the driveway. The applicant's father does not own a vehicle. Based on the applicant's previous operation of a massage therapy business in San.Luis Obispo, she believes the new business would average ten customers a week and no more than three in one day. Appointments are scheduled for one hour with at least 30 minutes between the end of one session and the beginning of the next session. The Zoning Regulations allow home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and meet the Home Occupation Permit's 13 requirements of approval. Based on the businesses description, visits to the proposed site, review of the letters sent by concerned neighbors, and conversations with the applicant, staff believes that the massage therapy home occupation can be compatible with the neighborhood. To reduce potential impacts to the neighborhood related to parking demand generated by the home occupation, staff has recommended several conditions of approval to be agreed upon by the applicant. Recommendation Approve the Home Occupation Permit based on Findings and subject to Conditions. Findings for Approval of Massage Therapy Business 1. The proposed massage therapy business will not adversely affect the health, safety; or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because no vehicles will be used in conjunction with the business. �19 Z�l Attachment 5 2. The proposed massage therapy home occupation is compatible with surrounding residential land uses because the business does not require any outdoor use area at the home, will require no additional employee access, will require only minimal customer access, and will not disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. 3. As conditioned, the proposed. massage therapy home occupation will be consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 2.2.13, which allows for compatible non-residential activities that comply with established criteria in residential areas. .. 4: The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301), Existing Facilities,of the CEQA Guidelines. Conditions for.Approval of Massage Therapy Business L The applicant shall remove the "Amethyst" sign on the front door of the 1267 Pismo Street unit and refrain from posting any signs other than address and names of residents, to comply with the General Requirements of Zoning Regulation 17.08.090. 2. The applicant shall comply with the thirteen general requirements of'home occupations as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code. 3. The applicant shall inform customers that there is no on-site parking and encourage them to travel to the business by means other than private motor vehicle. 4: The hours of operation for the massage therapy business shall be. Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm. Hearing Date: _ Action: 0 Approve ❑ Approve as modified Deny 0 Continue to Continue.lndefinitely to allow: Ronald Whisenand; Hearing Officer lttachment 6 city Of Sall WIS OBISW Department of Community Development Planning Division Appeal Form ($100 Fee) (Fee must accompany original signed appeal form) Appellant Information: Name: %0-C Mailing Address: _ a - Phone: ?_S 7-(-P&CC Fax: - In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.66 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: Minor or Incidental Architectural Review (appealed to the ARC) .� Zoning Hearing Officer -Administrative.:Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) El Community. Development Director(appealed to the Planning Commission) If a on ` e Archttectura a ie '.Co rn�ssio Cu tural<< -erftagW'Co m�ttee or'P annsng �a ty f�»� s� `� Gommissio it in appeal n Agpeaf=to e •i Council" o i neec�e I and, .obtainid from. the G C errs ices ,' Subject of Appeal: / Thedate the decision being appealed was rendered: Project addrem 12jo`j P00yryp Application number: 1 -- Explain specifically what action(s).you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: 1 Signa ure of'Appellant Date Office Use Only: Payment/check Information: Filing Fee: Paid�+ - N/A Revised: 12-17-03 2H Attachment 6 Chapter 17.66 APPEALS Sections: 17.66.010 Standing to appeal. 17.66.020 Time limits. 17.66:030 Course of appeals. 17.66.040 Content of appeals. 17.66.050 Hearings and notice. 17.66.010 Standing to appeal. Any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except that administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment, as provided in.Chapter 1.20, may not be Appealed. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(A)) 17.66:020 Time limits: Appeals must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday; Sunday or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(B)) 17.66.030 Course of appeals. A. Decisions of the Director shall be appealed to the Planning Commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the.Director. B. Decisions of the Planning Commission shall be appealed to the Council. Such appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(C)) 17.66.040 Content of appeals. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(D)) 17.66.050 Hearings and notice. A. Action on appeals shall be considered at the same type of hearing and after the same notice that is required for the original decision.. B. Once an appeal has been filed; it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9204.8(E)) Attachment 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES August 24, 2005 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was, called to order at 7:00 P.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo. ROLL CALL: Present: Cornmrs. Orval Osborne; Alice Loh, Andrew Carter, Carlyn Christianson, Vice-Chair Jim Aiken and Chairperson Michael Boswell Absent Cd-mm.r..Andrea Miller Staff. Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisehand, Associate Planner Jaime Hill, Planning Intern Bill Roth, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Kim Main ACC-EPTANCE-OFTHE-AGENDA MINUTES: Minutes Of July 13, and July 27, 2005. The minutes were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NOWAGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC-HEARING ITEMS: 1. 1267 Pismo Street AP—PG 130-05 Review of an appeal of the Hearinq Officer's deds-ion-to-di-e-n- s �2 y A request for a home occupation for a massage therapist; R- - zone; Darcy McKinney, applicant. Bill Roth, Planning Intern, presented the staff report, recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the-Hearing Officer's action to deny the Home Occupation Permit. PUBLIC COMMENTS.. Darcy McKinney, applicant/appellant, described her business and asked the Commission to reconsider the decision of the Hearing Officer's denial. Virginia Griffin, 1.436 Johnson Avenue, spoke in opposition to the massage therapy home occupation and presented the. Commission with a letter express-i.n-g her. concerns. She noted that she herself has a home occupation permit. Planning Commission Minutt Attachment 7 August 24, 2005 Page 2 Mary Gibson, 1251 Buchon Street, spoke in opposition to the home occupation and presented the Commission with a letter noting her concerns. Suzanne & Louis Carpine, 1227 Buchon Street, presented the Commission with a letter requesting the Commission deny the home occupation permit.. Ursula Bishop and Mark Johnson, 1208 Pismo Street, presented the Commission with a letter requesting the Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's decision to deny the home occupation permit. Stephen Lamb, 1251 Buchon Street, presented a letter to the Commission requesting they uphold the Hearing Officer`s decision to deny the request for a home occupation permit. Mary Casella, San Luis Obispo, presented a letter to the Commission opposing the request for a home occupation permit. Bruce Collier, 1203 Pismo Street, voiced his concerns with no off-street parking for this business. Evelyn Talmage, 1408 Johnson Avenue, expressed support for the home occupation, noting that parking is not an issue. Eric Meyer, 1242 Buchon Street, spoke against the home occupation. Michelle Cripe, 3427 Miguelito Court, spoke in support of the home occupation request, and expressed concerns with the lack of parking on Johnson Avenue. He stated that he owns the property and explained the history of the parking in the area. Mark Johnson, 1208 Johnson Avenue, expressed concerns with the lack off parking_ in the area and opposed the home occupation. Teresa McCormick, 1240 West Bethel, Santa Maria, expressed her support of the home occupation and stated that she has never had a problem parking at this location. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on parking and compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Ultimately, the Commission found that the home occupation would have no greater impact on on-street parking than would other possible residential uses of the site and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Carter did not support the request and stated that the massage therapy business would generate frequent customer access. Planning Commission Minut August24, 2005 /4ttaChfll@flt. 7 Page 3 On motion by Commr. Loh to uphold the appeal and allow the home occupation which is allowed and encouraged. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Comnirs. Osborne,Aiken; Boswell, Loh and Christianson NOES: Commr. Carter ABSENT: Commr. Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5 :1 vote. On a second motion by Commr. Loh to direct the Community Development Department to -inform the. Public-Works-Department that residents near the Pismo Street and Johnson_Avenue_area. are -concerned-bv the -lack_of-on-street.-parking.- speeding and traffic. Seconded_bv_Comrnr:-Christianson. Chairperson Boswell gave the dissenting vote but did not provide an explanation. AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, Loh, Carter, and Christianson NOES: Commr. Boswell ABSENT: -Commr. Miller .ABSTAIN: None The motion passed on a 5 :1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Ronald Whisenand gave an agenda forecast of upcoming projects. 3. Commission With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday September 14, 2005, at 7`00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street_. Respectfully submitted by Kim Main Recording Secretary Attachment 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5426-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DETERMINING THAT A HOME OCCUPATION BUSINESS FOR MASSAGE THERAPY CAN BE ACCOMODATED AT THIS SITE, AND THEREFORE UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER'S DENIAL OF THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, THEREBY APPROVING THE USE AT 1267 PISMO STREET; AP=PC 130-05 WHEREAS, the appellant, on July 14, 20051 submitted an application for a home occupation; and WHEREAS, on and between July 18, 2005 and August 5, 2005, nine letters were received by the City regarding the proposed Home Occupation, a public hearing before the Administrative Hearing Officer was held on August 5, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, on August 5, 2005, denied the request for a. home occupation at 1267 Pismo Street in the R-2 zone, based on findings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 24, 2005, for the purpose of reviewing the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit for massage therapy at 1267 Pismo Street, Application No. A 130-05 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered .all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Hearing Officer's actions, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The proposed massage therapy business will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because no vehicles will be used in conjunction with the business. 2. The proposed massage therapy home occupation is compatible with surrounding residential land uses because thebusiness does not require any outdoor use area at the home, will require no additional employee access, will require only minimal customer access, and will not disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Attachment 7 Resolution No. 5426-05 Page 2 3. As conditioned, the proposed massage therapy home occupation will be consistent with General Plan _Land Use Policy 2.2.13, which allows for compatible non- residential activities that comply with established criteria in residential areas. 4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301),Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the appeal of the Hearing. Officer's decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit for massage therapy at 1267 Pismo Street, Application No. A 130-05. Subject to the following conditions: 1. Home occupations shall not. involve frequent customer access or have other characteristics which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be maintained. 2. Activities shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit or an enclosed accessory building, and shall not alter the appearance of such structures. (Horticultural activities may be conducted outdoors.) 3: There shall be no sales, rental or display on the premises. 4. There shall be no signs other than address and names of residents. 5. There shall be no advertising the home occupation by street address except that street address may be included on business cards and business correspondence originating from the home. 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton truck may be used in connection with a home occupation. 7. The home occupation shall not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space area. 8. Parking for vehicles used.in connection with the home occupation shall be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. 9. Activities conducted and equipment.or materials used shall not change the fire safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nonuse utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. 10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. 11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling shall be allowed. (Babysitters or domestic servants are not considered employees of a home occupation.) 12. Clients or customers shall not visit the home occupation between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. �y� Attachment 7 Resolution'No. 5426-05 Page 3 13. If the home occupation into be conducted in rental property, the property owner's authorization for the proposed use shall be obtained. On motion by Commissioner Loh, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Corrimrs. Boswell, Aiken, Christianson, Loh, and Osbome NOES: Cornmr. Carter REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Comms. Miller Id Whise mm_nd, Secretary P ing Co issionn Attachment 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1 BY: Bill Roth, Planning Intern MEETING DATE.: August 24,2005 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Deputy Director, Development Revie� FILE NUMBER: AP—PC 130-05 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1267.Pismo Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny a request for a home occupation for a massage therapist; R-2 zone. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the.Hearing Officer's action to deny the Home Occupation Permit. BACKGROUND Situation IV applicant, Darcy McKinney, has requested to run her massage therapy business as a home occupation at 1267 Pismo Street. The applicant rents both units in the existing duplex, living at 1267 Pismo Street, the same unit where she will conduct massage therapy, while her father lives at 1405 Johnson Avenue, the other unit in the duplex: There is one uncovered parking space, for the duplex located in the Johnson Avenue driveway. The applicant owns one vehicle which she parks in the driveway. The applicant's father does not own a vehicle.. City policy, with respect to Home Occupation Permit requests, .allows neighbors with concerns about the proposed business to request a public hearing. Nine neighbors sent letters to the Community Development Department. In eight of the letters, neighbors indicate their concern that the addition of the proposed home occupation business will negatively impact neighborhood parking availability and the residential character of the neighborhood (Attachment #4, Letters Protesting the Home Occupation). The letter from Evelyn Talmage (Attachment #5, Letter in Support of Home Occupation) is in support of the proposed massage therapy business at 1267 Pismo Street. Ms. Talmage also states that nearby residential and office developments have negatively impacted the availability of street parking in the neighborhood. Data Summary Address: 1267 Pismo Street Applicant: Darcy McKinney Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) General Plan: Medium-Density Residential Environmental Status:Exempt from CEQA per section 15301 Existing Facilities (Class 1). Action deadline: The Zoning Regulations require that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. - 7 Attachment 7 AP—PC 130-05 1267 Pismo Street Page 2 Site-Description The area around the site contains a mix of medium-density housing, commercial, and office uses. Many of the multifamily developed sites are nonconforming to current property development standards and provide only minimal on-site parking for residents. Additionally, employees of the nearby commercial and office developments, including the Scolari's shopping center and an assortment of small offices, use Pismo and Buchon streets for free all-day parking. Parking within two blocks of the site is further limited by parking restrictions on the 1400 block of Johnson Avenue and the bulb-out in front of 1267 Pismo Street, which eliminates one on-street parking space. Project Description The application is a Home Occupation Permit to allow a massage therapy business. The applicant, who would be providing these services at her home, anticipates the business will average ten client visits in a week4 no more than three client visits in a day. No business would be conducted in the evening or on weekends. EVALUATION Appeal Summary On August 8, 2005, the applicant filed an appeal to the denial of the home occupation based on "staff recommendation" (Attachment #6, Appeal Application Form). The appellant was supportive of the recommended findings and conditions prepared by staff for the Hearing Officer's consideration (Attachment #7, Staff Report for Administrative Hearing). The Hearing Officer could not support the original_ recommendation and was unable to find that the home occupation would be compatible within this neighborhood with its limited parking supply. Administrative Hearing The applicant applied for a Home Occupation Permit on July 14, 2005 (Attachment #3). On July 18, 2005, within.five(5) days of the posting of the site, the City received a written request for a public hearing from Stephen R. Lamb of 1251 Buchon Street. In total, the City received nine letters from neighbors regarding this home occupation. Within the nine letters, the issue of limited parking was raised eight times and the issue of neighborhood residential quality was raised six times (Attachments #4 and #5, Letters Opposing and Supporting the Home Occupation). The Hearing Officer reviewed the permit application and held a public hearing on August 5, 2005 (Attachments #8 and #9, Minutes and Follow-up Letter from Administrative Hearing). At the hearing, the applicant explained that based on current business practices at a downtown location, the home occupation business would average ten customers a week with no more than three customers in one day. In addition, appointments would be scheduled for one hour with at least 30 minutes between the sessions. The applicant also stated that some of her clients live near the site and would be able to walk to their appointments. The applicant has stated that she is the primary caregiver to her father, who will live in the other unit of the duplex, and her lease stipulates that she is required to occupy both units. Because of this, there will continue to be only one vehicle for the residents of both units of the duplex, which can be accommodated on site and not contribute to the overall number of vehicles parking on the street. It is important to note that there would be no guarantee that someone else may occupy this /e, � Attachment 7 AP—PC 130-05 1267 Pismo Street Page.3 adjacent unit in the future, which could create competition for the single on-site parking space available to this property. Six area residents voiced their concerns at the hearing. All six speakers indicated that area parking was in short supply due to the lack of on-street parking on the 1400 block of Johnson Avenue and overflow parking from the nearby commercial uses and rental units. These speakers were concerned that the massage therapy business would require frequent customer access, which would increase demand on the already limited on-street parking availability in the area. The speakers stated that informing customers that there is no on-site parking and encouraging them to travel to the business by means other than private motor vehicle, as recommended by the applicant, or any additional condition intended to liiriit impacts associated with customer access to the massage therapy business would not be enforceable. One neighbor said that, despite the existing parking problems, she felt that the proposed home business should be allowed, as the subject property does not contribute to the existing problem and the demand generated by clients would be minimal. After listening to the neighbors' concerns regarding parking, the Hearing Officer denied the permit based on the .finding that the home occupation business cannot be accommodated in this particular neighborhood with parking in short supply. The Hearing Officer indicated that home occupations provide an important opportunity for businesses that are just starting out. However, he pointed out that the intent of a home occupation as stated in Section 17.08.090 of the Zoning Regulations is for "home enterprises that are incidental to and compatible with surrounding residential uses." Lack of parking in the neighborhood, although not caused by the applicant, makes this a unique neighborhood where client visits will cause negative impacts that would "reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods" (Sec. 17.08.090 C1). General Plan Analysis The General Plan designation for this site is Medium-Density Residential, and the. Zoning is Medium-Density Residential, which allows home businesses with approval of a Home Occupation Permit. The public hearing process allows the City to review home occupations for consistency with General Plan policies when legitimate inquiries or concerns generated by the posting of the home occupation request are received. In addition to compliance with the General Plan. designation and meeting the required City standards, the Planning Commission should consider the testimony of the concerned neighbors in determining whether this home occupation is an appropriate use at this particular site, given the particular site constraints. The following General Plan excerpts relate specifically to the proposed use: EC 1.3.40: Home Occupations Zoning regulations will provide for home occupations which are compatible with residential neighborhoods and which will reduce residence-to-work trips. The home occupation massage therapy business presently being considered would create an opportunity for the applicant to reduce residence-to-work trips. However, the business could potentially generate customer trips to the site per day that may be more appropriate in at a site with more on-site parking or in a neighborhood with more available on-site parking. 7 � Attachment 7 AP—PC 130-05 1267 Pismo Street Page 4 LU 2.2.13:Non-residential Activities Residential areas may accommodate limited non-residential activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria. Other Home Occupation Permits have been approved in the area, but none on the 1200 block of Pismo Street and none requiring customer access. (See Attachment # 10, Approved Home. Occupations in the Area.Around 1267 Pismo Street.) Zoning Regulation Analysis The purpose of the Zoning Regulations is to implement the General Plan through land use regulations. The Zoning Regulations provide "general" categories for various uses, which typically require minimal staff interpretation and reduce land use determination inconsistencies that can occur when subjectively reviewing uses for zoning consistency on a case-by-case basis. 17.08.090 Home Occupation The provisions set forth in this section are intended to allow the conduct of home enterprises that are incidental to and compatible with surrounding uses. A "home occupation" is gainful employment engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling. The standard home occupation requirements are intended to minimize impacts to the neighborhood and ensure that the use is compatible with the adjacent residential uses: However, because area parking is in such short supply, the Hearing Officer found that customer access to the home occupation massage therapy business would create an additional demand for on-street parking that would pose an unreasonable hardship on the neighborhood. 17.08.090 C. General Requirements 1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent customer access or have other characteristics,: which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and quiet of the residential area shall be maintained. The Hearing Officer determined that the proposed Home Occupation for Massage Therapy fails to meet this general requirement. The potential for frequent customer access to the home occupation would increase demand on area parking and reduce area residents' enjoyment of their neighborhood. CONCLUSION Home businesses can provide numerous benefits for home workers and the community. They provide useful services and can encourage business growth by eliminating the need for some small businesses to rent costly commercial space. Working at home can save commuting and child/dependent care costs, and can give those who might be unable to work outside of the home, including single parents, caregivers;the elderly, and the disabled an opportunity to earn a living. Though home occupations can provide benefits to the city and the home worker, the needs and quality of life of neighborhood residents should be considered. Neighborhood residents have made it clear that the addition of this home occupation to the area would be incompatible with Attachment 7 AP—PC 130-05 1267 Pismo Street Page 5 the needs and interests of-this neighborhood. Due to the potential impact that frequent customer access to the proposed massage therapy business would have on area parking, the Hearing Officer determined that the proposed home occupation could have a negative effect on area residents' enjoyment of their neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's determination, and deny the appeal and.the Home Occupation Permit. Other Department Comments Transportation Planning: The Transportation Division has recommended that on-site tandem parking not be permitted in the duplex driveway at 1405 Johnson Avenue due to the high collision rate on the corresponding segment of Johnson Avenue (Attachment#11, Email fiom Transportation Planning). ALTERNATIVES I. Continue review of the appeal. Direction should be given to the applicant and/or staff regarding desired information. 2. Adopt a Resolution approving the request of appeal. Action approving the appeal should include the basis for approval, including but not limited to the various residential protection policies in the General Plan. At hments: Attachm t 1: Vicini Map Attachment : Ae ' Map i Attachment 3: me Occupation Pe t Application Attachment 4• _ ers Opposing Attachmen : Lett e Supporti Attachm t 6: Appeal pli tion Form ttac ent 7: Staff Rep for Administrative earing At ment 8: Admini ati Use Permit H ng Meeting Utes a ment 9: Follo -up Lett from Ad nistrative Heari Attac nt 10: roved Home ccu- tions in the Are Around 1267 Pismo Street Attachme I 1• mail from Transp tion Planning (P ggy Mandeville) Attachment : Residential Parki D trict Ordin e Attachme 1 . Map of Propos Old To n Distr' t Attach ent 14: ning Co -. 'ssion Res o ti - Denying Appeal Atta ent 15: Pl;_ "ing mmisSion Resol n Approving Request of Appeal c Attachment 8 Filing Fee: ;100.00'. Pald-j�_ R "end WA SEP 0. 2 2005 "fM of TO sEcnav a SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL-TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION l: APPEUANrrn anON - [See attached W of Co-Appellant Names,Addresses and Phone Numbers) - - - - - - - - -- - - -- --- -- _--- Name MaToV Address and Zip Code Phone - - - Fax Robert E Grdlm 1436 Jdmson Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Representative's Name Mailing Address aril Zlp Code: -- Co-Appellant 543-3345 5433346 Title PFione - - - Fa5 — SECTION 2 S(BJECT OFAPPEAL - - 1. in accordance with the procedures set forth in ride 1,Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), 1 hereby appeal the decision of the: Planning Commission (Name of Officer,CormmillBe or Commission decision being appealed) - 2 The tM the decision being appealed was rendered; —_ August 24,2W5 3. The application or project was entitled: Home Occupation Permit Application, 1267 Pismo Street,AP-PC 130-OS - _ Int 0424M M Agog&-Q,9 2 FL J a� wiao e 4. 1 discussed the matter with the followtrng City staff member: Jaime Hi0 Community Development Depm In on August 26,2005 (SOaff Members Name and Department) (Data) 5 Has this matter been the sub*ad of a previous appeal? N so when was it beard and by whom: _AdministraLve Hearing August 5. 005 by tieanng Officer,iion Whisenand SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what adbVs you are appealing anda�yh you believe the Council should considw your appeal Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach addNonal pages,If necessary._ This firm continues on the ager sAde. Page 1 of 3 Attachment 8 Beason for Am"con1bued The Planning Commission,in adopting Resolution No.05.11 approving the permit application,failed in VIS Resolution Findings(Section 1)to: 1. Rely upon the preponderance of evidence against the proposed use('including testimony. the Hearing Officer findings,and the written concerns of the Transportation Division);and 2. Condition the Permit to assure that the proposed use would,in fact,be consistent with General Pian Use Policy 2.2.13(see Administrative Hearing Minutes at page 2). • ",y>� � ,x��R i iVl cf .•� 'yy i� F' `e:y��1Pr..x,.r� „ L .p, KjNa. +,��-} r liw. :,�,}-.,.A„��_ .L: >2'Ltn =7F �T;. '..•�'> P _ .,r ,.fMic^{qA w:^ A .G"+Y` ,S �.G;..¢ �� w `fI^J•, ,may' Y r . 'C• K FIr 1.J, -J& fN�'+ �•1.'?': )' GLu�J� ��:.r G�f h��rx1C ✓�"h°1+5-'•; .'1 . �XM TYt Y ..�45 -1�� .1� C} t`. � 'F�A w;, NIRM Y t i x�F i . i ♦ :tr - r:�y j1z f t.x}i.t s?.. t v x "> 2x r,�\^+*�e'-.4v, ,� - l 'i, 1•: \ ''�'yy a•S.. ? r3 ..i } '"' ..f.. L a^y�, �t t �y�,.X43.d:�,� �Y^•fF1F c� +'�J ^"^t ii^^ it n . :+,W. .t•:. -.>iC ri T• .1�i. n�^.4} tCr i �1 ^.)P�'Ry' ' 0"s ti•. :4Y.# : .uV- � Y wy. 4s(^ t"1 4 .�, 1 � •:4:T TF_yf • `T J. � 5' 1{ { 'r'„1 � -: �' '7, t' } 'A" .4 W_, ` V 4 �G hhf A' 3'. 'T K'•t�C'r TG^ 11K p.M(SJ r,;,`�_. '1;. t� � t9 ,..'ir w sa. :t,a 4.. ♦e+. v + ! ,°_;`' "�.�N 'raT'� y Jti�nj�•.. b•_.r,� r } :9'�S."',W.+. I�. :R i. :'L" tau � +a srj. .r.� �. armor,. .tq..L.�... ''.4:. .t:, .,,{:• w'- 2� �K>':�i ''-S�J��^ y ^w. a�+e.,�✓':r. r � �.� '' .: '.i tfF- 'S,iz' S xr'��Y��ir •bar fit � '"'i '.,w r?�>`.:.'y`A"SS t�'a'-`'� �4,e�,.�•1+�.ri t'ki�d�.��•CL`v'�>•� .e`''-�•'f`4t�'i�'V��•ty�7.aY. yC"-a7J J�tF �n.^'S. t ��-.+. x�o �'�!. /��Y. T + s ..�'+�' �d x,3� :�`'"`."G�s,'S�.��S r •.x vc� �'} 'rid 'Jig� ,j. � q �. � a � ,M.�];�'�Jy'Y•I� she G; ""m".x :ti:r i•1"r'.{`. s.S/�'�J!t;I '!,./`P`. x,¢ .pmt 9f+/. J�'!'rf•.'."eY. .n �fl�' •G•'s 'i1 .R.cJ~ Yi ,tris ttern Is hereby calembred for c: City Attomer City Adm>nie+radve Officer Department head Advisory Body Chairperson - ¢ City Clerk(o�rtrQ�� 111 NLILL Ron L*.!Sen arm ala{ JYG K-4 A�'� �t 4 ��+� Attachment 8 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Application: Home Occupation Permit 1297 Pismo Street AP-PC 130.05 LIST OF-CO-APPELLANTS Name- _ - _-- -Address - -----_ __ - Phone 1.Stephan R.Lamb 1251 Suchon Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 756.6509 Mary Ellen Gibson 2.Wginia Griffin 1436 Johnson Ave,San Luis Obispo 93401 543-3346 Robert E.Griffin L Eric Meyer 1253 Pismo Stred,San Luis Obispo 93401 886.0914 1242 Bud=Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 Cynthia Meyer 4.Ursula Bishop 1208 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 545.8643 Mark Johnson S.Sibyl Hanson 1265 Buchon Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 786.4234 0.Dr.James Shea 1236 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 788-0584 1240 Pismo Street,San Luis Ott 93401 7.Big Casella 1225 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 781=0290 Carmie Casena 8.An Kelleher 1218 Buchon Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 544-4897 Sherry Fontan 9.Dave Kuykendall 1218 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 542-9559 Meg Kuykendall 10.Frank Gurney 1202 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 546.9458 Paula Gurney 11:Barbara Cotes 1221 Pismo street,San Luis Obispo 93401 549-9961 12.Lou carpine 1,227 Buchon Street, San Wks Obispo 93401 783-2991 Sue Catpine 13.Michelle Stoutenborouph 1241 Pismo Street,San Luis Obispo 93401 544-9494 14. Diana Goukl-Wells 1525 Johnson Avenue,Safi Luis Obispo W401: 543-4803 Ben Wells 15. Bruce Coffer 1203 Pismo Street, San.Luis Obispo 93401 543-9514 We Collier Attachment to Appeal Form Attachment 8 c, ® vols A ram, 990 Palni Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 RECEIVED SEP i5Mij September 7,2006 -- I SLO GO CLERK s Mr.Robert E. Griffin 1436 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE- Appeal,File Number. AB-PC 130-05 Dear Mr. Griffin: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council,City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting,but'in no event later than forty-five calendar-days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk ' Your appeal can be scheduled for the October 4h Council meeting,however,due to the number of items already on the agenda that evening,your item-would not be heard until Very late in the evening or the need may arise to continue the item to a future date. With this in mind, we are requesting to schedule your appeal 46 days from the date of filing, this date being the October 18m Council meeting. If you are in agreement of this request,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than September 16d'. An envelojasbeenenclosed for ur convenience. - r Robert E. Griffin Sincerely, Elaina Cano Administrative Assistant EThe Clty of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. L` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(806)781-7410. ;Jaime Hill_ 1267 Pismo Street ' Page Attachment 9 From: Peggy Mandeville To: Hill,Jaime Date: 8/2/05 1:48PM Subject: 1267 Pismo Street The Transportation Division has several concerns about the request foe a massage therapist as a home occupation. There is a high collision rate on this segment of Johnson Avenue. Because of this, we don't want customers to tandem park on-site and back out onto Johnson, so we recommend that when customers make their appointments they be notified that there is no on-site parking available. Unfortunately,this in tum will force customers to park on-street in the neighborhood. If this becomes an issue for the neighborhood, I assume the permit can be brought up for review. CC: Lvick, Robert; Senor, Dario 3 s/ Attachment 10 Approved Home Occupations in the Area Around 1267 Pismo Street Pismo Street(near 1200 block): 1. 1042 PISMO ST. -ACUPUNCTURE THERAPY. Approved 12112/2000. 2: 1155 PISMO ST. —RECYCLED DECORATIVE ACCESSORIES..Approved 11/12%2002. 3. 1309 PISMO ST. —DESIGN&DISTRIBUTE CHILDREN'S APPAREL. Approved 06/11/1997. 4. 1337 PISMO ST.—INFORMATION MANAGEMENT/DATEBASE/NETWORKING SERVICES. Approved 09/10/2004. Johnson Avenue (near 1400 block): 1. 1324 JOHNSON AVE. —THEATRE COMPANY. Approved 08/13/1998. 2. 1.418 JOHNSON AVE_. —LANDSCAPE_DESIGN AND CONSULTATION. Approved 01/05/1999. Buchon Street (parallel to Pismo Street): 1. 1175 BUCHON ST.=HANDYMAN SERVICES. Approved 06/5/1997. 2. 1176 BUCHON ST.—SWIMMING POOL SERVICE. Approved 09/03%2002. 3. 1177 BUCHON ST. —INTERNET MANAGEMENT SERVICE. Approved 01/21/2000. 4. 1234 BUCHON ST. _PIANO TUNING AND REPAIRING. Approved 05/24/2000. 5. 1251 BUCHON ST. —WEB SITE FOR SLO COUNTY SENIORS. Approved 05/24/2000. 6. 1258 BUCHON ST. #A—OFF SITE COMPUTER SALES, SERVICE AND REPAIR. Approved 07/31/2000. 8/16/2005 2:44:32 PM Attachment 11-J RESOLUTION NO. XXXX(2005 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AT 1267 PISMO STREET AP-CC 130-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 24, 2005, for the purpose of reviewing the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit for massage therapy at 1267 Pismo Street, Application No. A 130-05; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the home occupation permit was received on September 2, 2005;and: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellant, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Planning Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed massage therapy business will not adversely affect the health, safety; or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity because no vehicles will be used in conjunction_ With the business.. 2. The proposed massage therapy home occupation is compatible with surrounding residential land uses because the business does not require any outdoor use area at the home, will require no additional employee access, will require only minimal customer access, and will not disrupt the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. 3. As conditioned, the proposed massage therapy home occupation will be consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 22,13, which allows for compatible non-residential activities that comply with established criteria in residential areas. 4. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Class l (Section 15301), Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's approval of the home occupation permit for massage therapy, subject to the following conditions: Resolution NO.XXXX(2005SL J) Attachment �� J Page 2 1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent customer access or have other characteristics which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be maintained. 2. Activities shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling unit or an enclosed accessory building, and shall not alter the appearance of such structures. (Horticultural activities may be. conducted outdoors.) 3. There shall be no sales,rental or display on the premises. 4. There shall be no signs other than address and names of residents. 5. There shall be.no advertising the home occupation by street address except that street address may be included on business cards and business correspondence origiriating from the home. 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton truck may be used in connection with a home occupation. 7. The home occupation shall.not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space.are& 8. Parking for vehicles used in connection with the home 'occupation shall be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. 9. Activities conducted and equipment or materials used shall not change the fire safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than.normally provided for residential use. 10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, vibration; smell, smoke, glare, or electrical interference,or other hazard or nuisance. 11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling shall be allowed. (Babysitters or domestic servants are not considered employees of a home occupation.) 12. Clients or customers shall not visit the home occupation between the hours of 10:00 p.m..and 7`.00 a.m. 13. If the home occupation is to be conducted in- rental property, the property owner's authorization for the proposed use Aall be obtained. On motion of , seconded. by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT: Attachment u Resolution No.XXXX(2005 se. Page 3 The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,2005.. David F. Romero,Mayor ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM.- AwAdh Lowell City Attorney ,3-�S Attachment I7. RESOLUTION NO.XXXX(2005-Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AT 1267 PISMO STREET,THEREBY DENYING THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT. AP-CC 130-05 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 24, 2005, for the purpose of reviewing the appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision to deny a request for a home occupation permit for massage therapy at 1267.. Pismo Street; Application No. A 130-05; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the home occupation permit was received on September 2, 2005 ; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties and appellant, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff an the Planning Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings 1. The Home Occupation Business cannot be accommodated in this neighborhood with parking in short supply, and would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhood. SECTION 2. Action.. The Council hereby approves the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a request for a home occupation permit for massage therapy at 1267 Pismo Street, Application No. A 130-05. On motion of , seconded by _ , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ,2005. David F. Romero, Mayor — Reso�ubon No.xxxx(2005 s,_ s) Attachment I,Z� Page 2. ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell City Attorney '�II��BI�II�III�� IIIIIIIIIIII� �- IIII�IIIII C"_Ityof sAn kiis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RECEIVED SEF i 5 2GJ'i September 7, 2005 SLO CITY CLERK Mr. Robert E. Griffin 1436 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal, File Number: AP-PC 130-05 Dear Mr. Griffin: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk` - Your appeal can be scheduled for the October 4"' Council meeting, however, due to the number of items already on the agenda that evening, your item would not be heard until very late in the evening or the need may arise to continue the item to a future date. With this in mind, we are requesting to schedule your appeal 46 days from the date of filing, this date being the October 18th Council meeting. If you are in agreement of this request,please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than September 16'' . An envelo as been enclosed for ur convenience. J Robert E. Griffin Sincerely, C.� � ; Lama Cano Adminisirafive Assistant �� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. _J ' ll,wL��cz�� , W�u.J�vl-ev'��t i Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid R fEibed N/A ' fv } C Of SEP 0 2 2005 *REFER TO SECTION 4 W LUIS OBI Sp01 SLO CITY CLERK APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION [See attached List of Co-Appellant Names,Addresses and Phone Numbers] Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Phone Fax Robert E. Griffin 1436 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Co-Appellant 543-3346 543-3346 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: Planning Commission (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: August 24,2005 3. The application or project was entitled: Home Occupation Permit Application, 1267 Pismo Street,AP-PC 130-05 Q3 0942 IPM 119 MICC G 200�fl 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. Jaime Hill Community Development Department on August 26,2005 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a orevious appeal? If so.when was it heard and by whom: Administrative Hearing on August 5,2005 by Heanng Officer, lion Whisenand SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 n Reason fiorAppeal continued The Planning Commission, in adopting Resolution No. 05-11 approving the permit application,failed in the Resolution Findings(Section 1)to: 1. Rely upon the preponderance of evidence against the proposed use(including testimony, the Hearing Officer findings, and the written concerns of the Transportation Division);and 2. Condition the Permit to assure that the proposed use would, in fact, be consistent with General Plan Use Policy 2.2.13(see Administrative Hearing Minutes at page 2). SECTION& APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBIUTY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with.City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing We of$100,which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing; and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. Ifiyou feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Cleric. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public,the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that It will be granted,that action Is at the discretion of the City Counrdl. I y agree to appear a send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal Js, c u a pu head fore the City Council. r q L o s' (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of T m' decisions. 2)The above named appellant has already paid the.City$100 to appeal this same.matter offlclal or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for 1?e-�td l e c: City Atomey City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson - r+'L �e�`--L /30�`"� City Cleric(orloinaq o)o i i/n e N LLL Page 2 of 3 RDri W jr,i5en anA- 8/03 /illy Arm APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Application: Home Occupation Permit 1267 Pismo Street AP-PC 130-05 LIST OF CO-APPELLANTS Name Address Phone 1.Stephan R. Lamb 1251 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 756-6509 Mary Ellen Gibson 2.Virginia Griffin 1436 Johnson Ave, San Luis Obispo 93401 543-3346 Robert E. Griffin 3. Eric Meyer 1253 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 886-0914 1242 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 Cynthia Meyer 4. Ursula Bishop 1208 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 545-8643 Mark Johnson 5.Sibyl Hanson 1255 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 786-4234 6. Dr. James Shea 1236 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 788-0584 1240 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 7. Bill Casella 1225 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 781-0290 Carmie Casella 8.Jim Kelleher 1216 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 544-4897 Sherry Fontan 9. Dave Kuykendall 1218 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 542-9559 Meg Kuykendall 10. Frank Gurney 1202 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 546-9456 Paula Gurney 11. Barbara Clites 1221 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 549-9961 12. Lou Carpine 1227 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 783-2991 Sue Carpine 13. Michelle Stoutenborough 1241 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 544-6494 14. Diana Gould-Wells 1525 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo 93401 543-4803 Ben Wells 15. Bruce Collier 1203 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401 543-9514 Myla Collier Attachment to Appeal Form un; DATE 09/02/2005 FRI --TIME 10. MOSALE ---,----.- -- THANK YOU KIM - No.022431 ------- 00001 CITY OF -------------- SAN -LUIS OBISPO COM. DEV. DEPT. _ DATE 09/02/2005 FRI TIME ---- 37 MISC TOTAL $100.00 CHECK $100.00 $100.00, - - THANK YOU -- KIM ------ No..022432 00001 C.C .r QnC 1) Restrict number of customers to 3 per day and no more than one customer at a time. (This number of customers was agreed to be added to conditions by Bill Roth at Administrative Hearing 8/15 (pg. 28) and applicant has stated she would see no more than three in one day (p. 32) and no more than one at a time. ) (NOTE: As written by staff to the Planning Commission (pg. 43) "Appellant was supportive of the recommended...conditions prepared by staff..." So why were these conditions not supported by the Planning Commission and listed as. a condition in their action?) 2) Days of operation will be Monday through Friday as recommended by staff at Administrative Hearing in August (pg. 28) and agreed to by Ms. McKinney (pg. 43) . No evenings, weekends or holidays. 3) Neighborhood requests that business hours to be 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Hours of operation initially recommended by staff (and agreed to by Ms. McKinney) were 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The street experiences some of its heaviest traffic when the high school gets out at 3 p.m. From then. on, especially 5-6 p.m. is busy. Note: At initial hearing in August hours were recommended by staff to be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. And at Planning Commission were inexplicably changed (with no discussion) to be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. , which reflected general wording, not something that had been planned to consider the neighborhood. 4) See Peggy Mandeville' s memo representing the Transportation Division (p. 51) : Condition for this Home Occupation Approval to come for review. Neighborhood requests a one-year review/administrative hearing. 5) Condition that this particular permit is not transferable to a_nev occupant OR to the owner of the property. It has appeared from comments at the Planning Commission meeting that approval for this permit is based partly on Ms. McKinney's statement that she is now her father's caretaker and that he is in residence at 1405 Johnson (tape from initial hearing, and pg. 32) . As the situation may affect the approval of the permit, it should not be transferable. Also, Bill Roth/planner? wrote (pg. 43) "It is important to note that there would be no guarantee that someone else may occupy this adjacent unit in the future, which could create competition for the single on-site parking space available to this property." Note that this is one reason Condition 5 needs to be met, as Ms. McKinney has stated she will use that off street spot on Johnson for her own vehicle, lessening effect of her business on Pismo Street. 6) No customer vehicle may be parked at. the 1405 Johnson address. People inexperienced at exiting/entering a driveway at that section of Johnson Avenue will be dangerous. Also, driveway pad is not large enough to hold most full size vehicles. 7) Per initial staff recommended Conditions (p..33) : The applicant shall inform customers that there is no on-site parking and encourage them to travel to the business by means other than private motor vehicle. PLUS, advise. customers who do drive not to park near the bulb-out. This is a dangerous area for people not used to the street to either slow down near or to try and park near/exit from. J J \� O 7 T v r c Z —� '42LLP ala �t K � i RECEIVED X i 14 [005 Menito SLO CITY CLERK TO: City Council Members Via Ken Hampian,CAO Frone Bill Roth,Planning Intern Data October 14,2005 Re: Appeal of Home Occupation Permit for Massage Therapy at 1267 Pismo St. During the process of copying multiple attachments for the staff report regarding 130-05 AP-CC, I missed the back side of a double-sided letter from Robert and Virginia Griffin, dated August 23, 2005. Please include the complete letter(attached)for the City Council meeting on October 18,2005. Thank you. tour cls —CDD DI-f - QED FILE CAO ACAO Fe3 FIN }MEETING AGENDA FIRE CH!E= I ATTORNEY 5- P'vV pili 1 Q3 CLERK/ORIG HEADS 4-1POUCE Ci:'= ; ❑ DEPTH fr i.ITIL Dii� 1 ROBERT& VIRGINIA GRIFFIN 1436 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 543.3346 August 23,2005 San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Review of Appeal =Application No. AP-PC 130-05; 1267 Pismo Home Occupation Permit This letter expresses our concerns regarding the permit application referenced above. The decision of the Hearing Officer denying the application should be upheld for the following critical reasons: • City standards for home occupation permits stress that the use should not, involve frequent customer access, and that parking for vehicles used for the proposed occupation-use be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. Testimony at the hearing made it dear that the applicant's proposed home occupation will involve more than infrequent clients going to and from the residence. While we generally favor work-from-home as a viable alternative for many .professions and occupations, especially under family, medical and commuting constraints, the core issue with this application is the client traffic - not the occupation. The applicant's duplex unit sought for the permit_is nonconforming: it does not have an off-street parking space for the resident. Thus, the impact of such a use, if permitted, will only exacerbate an already unsafe condition. It cannot be guaranteed that the resident-applicant will always have access to the single off- street parking space for the other unit in the duplex, and parking on the sidewalk behind the space designated fo_r the other unit would be in violation to California Vehicle Code Section 22500(f). There have been a number tenants in this duplex over the years, and there will undoubtedly be many more — some of whom may not be willing or able to share the single off-street parking space. Plainly then, one or more tenant's vehicles on the street will affect.the 1200 block of Pismo Street. Then, add in the applicant's client-vehicles if the permit is granted, and the already-impacted parking becomes a burden on the neighbors, including the several tenants at 1411 Johnson Avenue (which also has only one off-street parking space) who have historically parked around the comer on 1200 block of Pismo Street. 1 i • The Johnson Avenue/Pismo Street major arterial corridor for significant. cross-City traffic. There is no parking along Johnson Avenue between Buchon and Pismo Streets, and there are no speed limit signs on Johnson Avenue between Marsh Street and near San Luis Drive_ . As a consequence, the typical vehicular speed is excessive and careless driving habits abound. The absence of any Neighborhood Traffic Management Program for this corridor should serve as a warning to the City; the applicant and her clients that such a home-occupation use creates a significant safety risk. Access to and from the single off=street parking.space for the applicant is on to Johnson Avenue at the critical comer with Pismo Street: Sight-distance is limited and turning into and backing out this space is dangerous—requiring courage and the forbearance of speeding drivers and those attempting to tum left on Johnson Avenue onto Pismo Street. Access to and from Pismo Street driveways and street,parking in the 1200 block is also very difficult and often. dangerous. Vehicles parked on the street. frequently block views for neighbors attempting to back out of driveways, and. prevalent excessive speeds of vehicles turning from Johnson Avenue make getting into and out of driveways and street parking risky. s`pectfully itted; Robert Griffi Vrginia Griffi 2 RECEIVED o theSan Luis Obispo City Council: �l ��118 tUU� Reference AP-Pc130-05 3LO CITY CLERK We the undersigned persons-APPROVExhe granting of a Home Occupation Permit ro-ftty McKinney, a licensed Massage Therapist, at 1267 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401. We understand she will comply with the thirteen requirements as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday from 9am to 5m. NameAddress Phone DVA SVl) kvak (3a® BVC�011 - V)5- 911 1320 �3QC h 3 IJ o- i(b iv 0 ( a. ,V L i Rei c �c COUNCIL CDD DIFRED FILE CAO FIN DIR 0 ATTORNEY )]A DPW DIR IE CLERK/ORIG POLICE HF ATE 0 S oSITEM P P14 3 "r l REC DIR Pc/3 _ � urlL DIR ICEI:VEDthe an Luis Obispo City Council: Re ence AP-Pc130-05 LERK e the undersigned persons:COVE the granting of a Home Occupation Permit McKinney, a licensed Massage Therapist, at 1267 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401. We understand she will comply with the thirteen requirements as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday from 9am to 5 m. Name Address Phone /, �i ��f' � L✓ IL��I t� SJ�tvi S ahS? S .S S�SD 9 41 z I�,w - z S 29)3 &ooJ SA. 5145-9211 oiveo/ 1311 ( 1 � GL P,w'YV Is3v -S/)l a'Stre16Ft �� arr'�e k �ilc yr 33 a i6W s+YX341 1BgveA (11 ?er 1335 PIS vnD y391 jd L-f --20 95 1317 PIYM6 51 lRb %33 7�1 zz jChw SRU— 1536 ( � P�e_ �.em .9� Q6-6 Z7�-5295 RE_C:IVIRQQthe an Luis Obispo City Council: �; _ Reference AP-Pcl30-05 ftT 1U05 a the undersigned persons'APPROVE the granting of a Home Occupation Permit SLO CILg�rc McKinney, a licensed Massage Therapist, at 1267 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo We understand she will comply with the thirteen requirements as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday from 9am to 5 m. Name Address Phone Z j 13-34 5W y618 Jq 0 Al0-- G -655s ,- A-t,-c 5-fl-t - 1014 AI A4C.GOWA) a-Dari LOIN( 7- 0, cwJ� A Ave, �S�-q3b- 17eJ _. 1�) I - - �� a_ 1363 EAL4N JIL4 S-47- qS?5 �f (,Xo2D 0 k1 i,7C7 1324 �ID;g0Sb�-1 63� SS rZ I? a,n/ L_0U 1353 �- 10I O , Avt �54 k _ 59 55 r3 a 533 f 5nlZd 2 6 - 652 zvM 12 � � bUchor T6 the7anLuis Obispo City Council: Reference AP-Pc130.05 We the undersigned persons APPROVE the granting of a Home Occupation Permit 1 to Darcy McKinney, a licensed Massage Therapist, at 1267 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401. We understand she will comply with the thirteen requirements as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code. The hours of operation shall be Monday through i Friday from 9am to 50m. AddressPhone Name _ To the an Luis Obispo City Council: Reference AP-Pcl30-05 We the undersigned persons APPROVE the granting of a Home Occupation Permit I to Darcy McKinney, a licensed Massage Therapist, at 1267 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo 93401. 1 We understand she will comply with the thirteen requirements as listed in Section 17.08.090 of the City's Municipal Code.'The hours of operation shall be Monday through _ Frida from 9am to 5)M. _ - Name Address Phone _ RECEIVED 47 COUNCIL 2-CDD DIR ® CAO '211 FIN DIR JCT 1 7 X005 B ATT RNEY u FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK f CLERK/ORIG E PDIR ❑ DEPT HEADS `' POLICE CHF L REC DIR ®` ---- S-uIL DIR 6-HR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE O i8' 0TEM #� .ter r rsvp goy Q r� s _ o O Ill r�`gra s rs6 e' hti ride NIT . r `F� m pG• (�, _rt�D, i t r ; IL bL vL r yrs INNINNEEMPA ■■■MEN ■■■■■ ■ Room 94 "MEMO M NOON mummom Willull mus ■M■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ . ■ �7■tai■ C. . ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I rm 1 it rw limmm.140 M ■■■ ■ ■: .� ■R■■■■■■■A■■■■ ■ 'iiil ■tl■EROMMENS ■ . .....■..� ■■■■SCC■■ i■ ��■��■�■■'- s C LLLCL�:' ciao I Ia a m bHIM s4l,4wI ■�■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �� ONE, ■c ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■a- ■;�1■ .rvj '■ Ali■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■i ■ �: ■�, ` ■�` �NZ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ M ■l ■ i ■�■�7ruiiil�iit� " ' ■rr■rii�i ■�■;\ ��■ mamm ■ ■■■■�■■■■■NONE ■■■. ,�■; , ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ M ■`■ \MEN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■' NAZI= C`1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■ICi■'.\ ■ ■, !■iii ■ ■! ■ffimmm1i ■m■ ■ ■is■i■■a■�■SEE 0am E ■ ■�►' ■a ■immmC'!■: ■. ■u■■■�■■F�■� ■'■■ ■ ■■■■■M■■■■■MOON ■■■■■■■■ 1 _ ' 1 1 - 1 1, - o- r 1 , 1 1� � � l I 1 f • �. til '� �� `'�