HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1989, 2 - TRACT 1823: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A SUBDIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LARGE LOT INTO MEETING DATE:
�����►►IUIIIII��p� i �U city of San tuts OBISpo
NUMBER
` ��UL AGE�A ®PoRT ITEM
FROM: all Rossi, Interim Community Development Director BY: Judith
Lautner, ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Tract 1823: Appeal of Planning Commission action denying a
subdivision to divide one large lot into six residential condominiums and one
common lot, on the corner of Highland Drive and Ferrini Road.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution denying>d appeal of the Planning Commission's action denying a
residential condbmiiiium subdivision on the corner of Highland Drive and Ferrini
Road. (Tract 1823)' o.�/✓ u p�tiaE
BACKGROUND V`
Discussion
The applicants received approval to build six apartments (four one-bedroom and
two studios) at the site in April 1986. The approval included an exception to
the density requirement for sloping sites. The apartments are under
construction. Now the owners want to develop the units as condominiums. A
subdivision map must be approved to create condominiums, and the city's
Condominium Development and Conversion ordinance governs the development.
The subdividers, as a part of the application, are asking for an exception to
the condominium development standards because they are unable to meet the
requirements for 250 square feet of private open space and 750 square feet of
total open space per unit.
At the Planning Commission hearing on September 13, the applicants presented
exhibits showing areas on or adjacent to the property that might be considered
'common open space' for the project. Most of the areas proposed do not
qualify as open space, according to the city's condominium ordinance. The
representative further discussed the inequities of the condomium ordinance,
including the variation in open space requirements for different zones and the
fact that apartments are not required to include open space areas while
condominiums are. The Planning Commission agreed that the ordinance should be
revised, but also felt that the project should come closer to meeting the
standards. The commission therefore denied the subdivision. The applicants
appealed the decision.
SIGNIFICANT IMPAC'T'S
The director found no significant environmental impacts would result from
approval of this project.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council chooses to approve the subdivision, the applicants will be able
to sell the apartments individually as condominiums, without the ordinance-
required open space for each unit. We anticipate other similar applications
would be filed, as interest in creating small condominium projects is high.
K v
city of San tins OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1823
Page 2
Data-summary
Address: 591 Highland Drive
Applicant/property owner: Highland Development Company
Representative: Rob Strong
Zoning: R-2-S
General plan: Medium-density residential
Environmental status: Negative declaration of environmental impact granted
8/30/89
Site description
The site is an irregular-shaped corner lot that slopes steeply (between 15 and
30%) near the intersection, then drops to below 158 for about half of the lot.
Six apartments are under construction on the site. There is no significant
vegetation.
Proiect description
The project includes six units, four one-bedroom and two studios, in two
buildings. Garages are provided for ten cars. In addition, there are six
motorcycle and six (at least) bicycle spaces, which count as one automobile
space (ref. section 17.16.060F of the Zoning Regulations) . Two uncovered
guest parking spaces are shown in tandem with the two in garage 'E', making a
total of twelve spaces and one 'equivalent space' on the site.
The buildings are two-story, with garages and storage rooms on the lower
floor, except for studio 'D', which is one-story. Each building steps down the
hill, and is approximately 19' high.
EVALUATION
Staff has identified the following subjects for discussion:
1. Density exception request. The Planning Commission approved a use
permit for the site in 1986. As part of the use permit, the applicants
requested an exception to the density-reduction-with-slope requirement:
The average cross-slope of the site is between 16 and 20%. The density
allowed decreases with increases in slope (see attached excerpt from the
Zoning Regulations). The number of units normally allowed on a lot with
this slope is:
6 'equivalent units' (2-bedroom apartments)/acre X .32 acres =
1.92 equivalent units.
a �.
city of san tuts osospo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1823
Page 3'
Exceptions to the density'requirement may be granted if the parcel is
,essentially surrounded by development at least as dense as the proposed
development'. In no case may the density exceed that allowed on
property in the same zone with less than 158 slope. The applicant
requested an increase to allow 3.8 equivalent units on the site, or
11.88 equivalent units/acre.
The Planning Commission granted a density increase to 11.38 equivalent
units per acre, or 3.64 equivalent units for the site, the average
density in the adjacent R-2-S zone. The six apartments under
construction meet this requirement, as the four one-bedroom and two
studio dwellings are 'equivalent' to 3.64 two-bedroom dwellings. As
discussed below, under 'total open space', the total number of units
allowed on the site contributes to the lack of open space available for
each unit.
2. Streetvard exceptions. Streetyard exceptions were granted at two
different times to this project; ultimately, the exceptions on Ferrini
Road were not required.
The Planning Commission approved a streetyard exception for Highland
Drive, from 20, to 101 . An exception was denied for the buildings, but
allowed for the parking spaces.
While building permit plans were being prepared, a mistake in the
original survey was found. The difference in dimensions required some
revisions to the project, including moving portions of the buildings
into both the Highland Drive and the Ferrini Road setbacks. An
administrative use permit to reduce the streetyards was granted for
these exceptions.
During construction, some foundations were poured in the wrong location,
requiring yet another plan revision. This revision eliminated the need
for exceptions on Ferrini Road and required modifications to the
property next door, owned by one of the applicants. The final plans
include streetyard exceptions for parking backup areas and corners of
two buildings on Highland Drive, but no exceptions on Ferrini Road. The
project is now set lower into the site than it was previously, a change
staff finds an improvement over original plans.
3. Parking spaces. In its approval of the use permit, the Planning
Commission required 2.5 automobile spaces per equivalent unit. This
means the project requirement is:
I
3.64 units % 2.5 = 9.1 = 9 spaces.
��,�n�►�►��IIIII��pn �q�lU city of San tuts OBISpo
SM COUNCIL AGENDA REP®R°1'
Tract 1823
Page 4
To allow entry to the project through the adjacent property, the
applicants had to remove the equivalent of one parking space (two others
were relocated on that site) . The project must supply one additional
space to make up for that one lost. The total number of spaces required
on-site, then, is ten.. The project contains ten spaces within garages,
plus two tandem spaces (which block two spaces in one of the garages) , 6
motorcycle and 6+ bicycle spaces. Staff finds that the parking
requirement has been met, either for apartments or for condominiums.
4. condominium standards: Storage requirements. The Condominium ordinance
requires that new or converted condominiums meet certain minimum
requirements that are not imposed on apartments. The requirement for
storage is 200 cubic feet of enclosed, weatherproof and lockable private
storage space, exclusive of cabinets and closets within the unit, per
unit. The minimum opening is 2=1/2 feet, and the minimum height four
feet.
The project provides well over theminimum storage area for all units.
S. Condominium exception Process. The following two items discuss the
applicants, exception requests. The condominium regulations allow for
exceptions to be granted, only if the council finds all of the
following:
a. There are circumstances of the site, such as size, shape or
topography, distinct from land in the same zoning, or compliance
would not be practical because of the location or site design;
b. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege; an
entitlement inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
C. No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception would satisfy
the intent of city policies and regulations.
The council should keep these findings in mind when reviewing the open
space exceptions requested.
6. Condominium standards: Private open space. The condominium standards
for open space in the R-2 zone are: 250 square feet of private open
space, no minimum common open space, and 750 square feet minimum total
open space. All areas, to qualify as open space, must be outside
required streetyards and must have a minimum dimension in any direction
of 10' if at the ground level, and 6' if on a balcony or above-ground
deck.
�l
������►►�Illilll�lp► ��l�ll city of san Luis ogispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1823
Page 5
There are no minimum standards for private open space for apartments.
The original project did not include any private outdoor areas. As part
of the condominium application, the applicants have now proposed decks
or patios for all units. The private open space requirement is met by
four of the units - units A, 8, C, and E. The deck for unit F and the
'patio' for unit D do not meet the minimum area requirement. Unit D's
patio is mostly within the required 20' streetyard. The plans show a
ten-foot yard. This is incorrect. Exceptions were granted to allow
portions of the buildings and parking areas to intrude upon the twenty-
foot yard, but the required streetyard is still 20' . Unit D's patio
also includes walls and five steps, which reduce its effective size, and
is immediately adjacent to the living room of unit E, which looks out
onto it. Staff finds the usability and privacy of this patio
compromised accordingly.
Staff is unable to support exceptions for units D and F.
7. Condominium-standards: Total open space. While the condominium
do not specify a minimum area of 'common open space' for
regulations
this zone, they do require "total open space' of 750 square feet per
unit. 'Total open space' is defined to be private plus common open
space. The two areas that staff finds meet the regulations' criteria
for 'common open space' area trapezoidal area at the corner of Ferrini
Road and Highland Drive (shown as part of 'area 4' on the applicant's
sheet TM-4) and 'area 11. These areas are the only qualifying common
areas that are at least ten feet in every direction and not within the
required streetyard. The qualifying common open space therefore totals
804 square feet. The total open space provided per unit, then, is 804
square feet added to the total of the private open space areas, divided
by six. if the private open space areas are approved as proposed
(including portions within streetyards, that is), the total open space
per unit would be:
1891 + 804 = 2695 square feet total or 2695/6 = 449 square feet
per unit.
The total open space requirement. is not met, lacking 301 square feet per
unit.
Applicant's justification for exceptions:
a. Large streetvards. The representative's letter (attached) notes
the large amount of land devoted to streetyards on this site, and gives
this condition as justification for granting exceptions to the open
space requirements.
Staff feels the intent of the common open space requirement is to
''�n��►►►�VNIIIII�I�����`I MY of San Luis osrspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REP®F M
Tract 1823
Page 6
provide outdoor areas that are usable by all residents. The condominium
regulations specifically omit streetyards from qualifying as common open
space for this reason. While the streetyard on Ferrini Road is larger
than normal, it may not be permanently available to the residents (see
letter from Public Works, attached) and therefore may not be counted as
open space. The streetyard on Highland Drive has already been reduced
by administrative use permit, effectively eliminating any advantage
obtained by the large right-of-way on that street.
b. Paved areas are sometimes counted. The applicants say that they
intended to develop the site with condominiums from the beginning, but.
obtained approvals for apartments to save the time of processing a tract
map. Since the condominium standards do not define 'common open space'
except to say it may not be in the streetyard and must have certain
minimum dimensions, the applicants assumed the parking backup areas
could be counted. They have researched other .nearby condominiums where
the common open space appears to be paved. Staff is not aware of any
condominium developments where parking areas were counted as part of the
open space requirement.
Staff notes that some condominium developments were created prior to the
city's adoption of an ordinance. Others are located in higher-density
zones, where open space requirements are not as great.
C. Condominiumstandardsare discriminatory. The applicants point
out that there are no open space requirements for apartments, while
there are for condominiums. Also, the regulations require smaller open
space areas for higher-density zones. (The applicants discussed a zone
change to R-3 with staff. We said we would not support such a change,
just to meet the open space requirement.) The applicants further note
that the condominium regulations do not differentiate among types of
units - the open space requirement is the same for a studio apartment as
for a three- or four-bedroom dwelling.
In response to this last concern, staff notes that the applicants could
have chosen to develop three two-bedroom apartments, for example,
instead of four one-bedroom and two studio apartments. The open space
requirements for the entire lot would have been half what they are in
this case. We sympathize with the applicants' predicament, but point
out that if the project had been submitted as condominiums in the first
place, most of these problemscould have been worked out. At this time,
the locations of the buildings and open space areas cannot be modified
significantly.
8. Planning Commission recommends .a change. After discussion of the
apparent inequities of the city's condominium ordinance, the commission
recommended that staff look into changes to the city's ordinances that
�- 6
��u�►�t�IIIIIflII�j���l► city of san tins osispo
NO; COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1823
Page 7
would set the same standards for apartments as condominiums and would
equalize open space requirements for all zones. Staff is adding this
project to its current workprogram.
9. Condominium standards: Laundry and solar heating. The standards also
call for laundry facilities and solar water heating for each unit. Both
of these requirements are met.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Public Works comments on the Ferrini Drive right-of-way are discussed above,
and attached. No other department had any concerns with the request, except
that the building division notes that airspace condominiums are acceptable;
other types of units could result in an inability to meet building code
requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may deny the request, as recommended by staff, may continue the
request, or may approve the request. An approval must include findings for
approving exceptions to the condominium regulations, and may include
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission cannot support the exceptions to the
condominium regulations for private and total open space. As
this project is under construction, there are few opportunities for
modifications available to the developers. Staff feels the project was not
designed to function well as condominiums, and therefore recommends that the
council deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission's action.
resolutions
Attached: vicinity map
initial study
reduced site plan
letter from representative
memo from Public Works
minutes from previous hearings
slope/density excerpt from the Zoning Regulations
appeal statement
JZL:trl823.wpf
a-�
v A
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION ON THE CORNER
OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND FERRINI ROAD. (TRACT 1823)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request TR 1823 ,
and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The project is inconsistent with the Condominium
Development and Conversion Regulations.
SECTION 2. The request for approval of the subdivision
request TR 1823 is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded
by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted, this day
of 1989.
Mayor
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Tract 1823
Page 2
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
'4ty A inistrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
JLi:restrl82 .wp
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION
DENYING A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION ON THE CORNER
OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND FERRINI ROAD. (TRACT 1823)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request TR 1823,
and the Planning Commission's action, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements
will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the vicinity.
2. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements
are consistent with the general plan.
3 . The design of the tentative map and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause serious health
problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially
And unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements for access through (or- use
of property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Devleopment Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will riot have a significant effect on
the environment and has granted a negative declaration.
SECTION 2 . The subdivision request TR 1823 is hereby
approved.
a-rb
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Tract 1823
Page 2
On motion of seconded
by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
(City .A inistrative officer-
City Attor _ y
Community Development Director
a — � I
To
f ✓
DARTMOUTH DR.
SC] 4h S/O
R
R�l
I6MI.1Lk0 1,W /
O 1 0 p ce4re4
n s /
1J, Jb
HIGHLAND 4 CITY LIMITS �M n
.. 339 Sal w •� 1���
r 0 O
`w`S-1 l 4RKP UIOD9
Q .�[T)°D�' Mhl•I�D)G C-R ASAI
,r3 r4 �-1h
rTKi yle tiC rl.r1
p ssr pax. Zw3c �ax _ •//���J/��'\ l
MK„' .,� rt[I•II �yK C;"� ..CIS.
1 11 D
Q —� R-1 ;;�� R—�— R-4 e,�Y- �' R-4
..,{�
_ VN
W 14Q _ 'J>4 . pO MJ
N I ] O ! MN11nYv 5]YI'1
_
A \ 39•_ '�.
[4�'t.11
._
I .» ..
O O 0 0 0 O o o 9 cry
�). ^ c
506 3L4 638--- 590 arc a3c a<g ago / tt aOY a
505 x, FELTON WAY O : �O
539.33)T 543 P1IS
O O O O Q O
A
•'h p f
m - � O
N �
n> + O
n r
N h
^ -i l -J V 0 Imo'
PF
N �
r
� A
N
P71�84 O
CERRO ROMAULOO AVE. s
4v
'z5 537 S9 N, +„ us avr o9] p
w'o 83 05 8
x p t f t p O p -� o O
>Ycx
U11`14 ,'
t
t.
Cltil Of san lids o sp0
�IIIIIIII((I�Illlii l(lilli;j
•I�i'(I INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 591 Highland Drive APPLICATION NO. 50-89
PROJECT DESCRIPTION gyhd=V4sj6A 6#- GAS l2r8m 1^r JMrn SIX rAciAnnrial--rnnAnmininmc
and one common lot
APPLICANT Highland Development Company
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPAREDBY Judith Lautner _ DATE August 28, 1989
COMMUNITY-DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE Alc;k7-&S
NOPM74/f L7rZc it yt r/7 �
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .......................... ...__. NONE*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................KOUF
C. LAND USE ............... ......NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................NONE
E. PUBLICSERVICES ................ NONE
F. UTILITIES............................................................................NONE
G. NOISE LEVELS ............... NONE*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .....................gene
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS..................... NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ................................................NONE*
K. PLANT LIFE............................................................... NONE
. . .
NONE
L. ANIMAL LIFE..............__...._..................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ........... .........................NONE
N. AESTHETIC ................ NONE*
0. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ............. NONE
P. OTHER ........ NONE
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
ATIVE DECLARATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
� - 13
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicants want to subdivide a 14,857-square-foot lot to create six residential
condominiums and one common lot, and to receive exceptions to the condominium standards
for open space. The project is currently under construction as apartments. An
environmental initial study (ER 6-86) was completed for the project, which is attached
and incorporated into this report by reference.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS
Condominium development and conversion ordinance
The regulations for new condominium projects require that certain standards be met for
private and common open space, for storage,. laundry facilities, and energy conservation.
The applicants are asking for exceptions to the open space requirements. The condominium
regulations include a process for the council to grant exceptions if it considers them
justified.
Conclusion: Either the project must be revised to meet the condominium standards, or the
council must grant exceptions to the standards, for approval of the project. If neither
action is taken, the project will be inconsistent with the condominium development
regulations, and must be denied. No mitigation measures are required.
OTHER
Other potential impacts are discussed in the attached report.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact.
JL7:er50-89
y
i
j i
1 1
E i
i
4 t '• �
A
;AVa
6,AN® THE L DEVELORMENT.PANNING ONE BUENA VISTA ROB STRONG
. PLANNING �.,�'CMANAGEMENT ��, A.W.P.43+9550
® MILL
September 13, 1989
Planning Commissioners 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City Hall , 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Subject: ' Tract No. 1823, Highland/Ferrini Condominiums 1��$
v,lDear Planning Commissioners:
Personally and professionally, I fundamentally disagree with the
concept of different property development standards for rental
versus owner occupied housing ! If its considered decent, safe
and adequate for residential occupancy, in my opinion, the right
or opportunity for home ownership should not be denied due to
double standards. Even if such double standards are prescribed,
to encourage better design and amenities for resident owners, or
to prevent problems due to a mix of individual and common areas,
the standards should be constructed, interpreted and administered
with flexibility to encourage rather than discourage or deny the
benefits and responsibilities of ownership. In San Luis Obispo,
however, the double standards vary widely, depending on the
specific property zoning, further complicating what is acceptable .
After receiving the staff report regarding our proposed
subdivision of the six units under construction at .591 Highland
Drive, we have discussed the apparent problems with staff and
tried to find solutions to our dilema. One solution, of course,
is to eliminate the double standards entirely, or at least revise
them to be more uniform rather than variable depending on zone .
This particular property is a corner lot adjoining the existing
R-4 zoned College West Apartments to the south, and three R-2-S
zoned apartment and coindominium projects to the west . Another
solution, although it would not change the actual development of
the property to any significant degree, would be to rezone this
transitional corner lot as R-3. With the improvements we already
propose, and some of the additional revisions refined below, the
development would fully conform to the condominium standards .
(The private, common and total open space requirements of the R-3
and R-4 zones are approximately half those required in the R-1
and R-2 zones. )
Due to slope and access constraints near the intersection of
Highland Drive and Ferrini Road, the site offerred very limited
site plan alternatives without elimination of units: the planning
commission approved requested exception to average cross-slope
density reduction as part of use permit consideration. If the
property remains zoned R-2=S, despite inability to fully comply
with the private and total open space provisions of the
condominium development- standards, the City could consider
the site specifics, and "where no feasible alternative to
authorizing an exception exists, " it could determine that the
necessary findings can be made and grant an exception.
a-
In this instance, some degree of 'exception to- the private open
space standard would- be required for two of the six units due to
established driveway alignments on the adjoining property,
minimum dimension of 10 feet of functional open space calculation
and exclusion of street yard areas . Exception may also be needed
to the total open space standard for the same reasons, depending
on including possible Ferrini Road street. vacation area and the
effective use of the newly landscaped portion of the open space
easement acquired from the adjoining property. (Technically, the
standards do NOT state that paved areas or even required
driveways and parking areas outside buildings must be excluded
from open space calculations. )
The development was designed to conform to all other comdominium
development standards: enclosed storage areas, individual laundry
facilities, solar water heating, and individual utilities to each
unit are all provided. Additional amenities such as fireplaces,
attached enclosed private parking integral to each unit, and
larger more livable interior areas were incorporated although not
required by City regulations . Subsequent to meeting with staff,
we have found several additional revisions and refinements which
we believe substantially improve the effective, usable private
and total open space of our subdivision proposal . These are shown
on the attached "Revised Subdivision Map- Area Summary" , and
itemized below:
a) Relocate motorcycle and bike pdr1king to central driveway,
and expand west side yard to useable common open space to
increase total open space .
b) Revise stairs and walk entries to Units "E" & "F" near
Highland Drive street yard, and enlarge the entry patio of
Unit "D" . (Provides 210 s . f . 84% of required 250 s. f . )
c) Widen the balcony of Unit "F" and enlarge the elevated
deck of Unit "E" (Provides 200 s. f . , 80% of required 250
s.f . ) to provide required 250 s . f. of private open space .
d) Add balconies to west side of Units "A" , "B" & "C" to
provide additional 360 s . f . of private and total open space .
e) Request consideration of newly landspaced portion of open
space easement acquired by this development from adjoining
apartment property. (Enables inclusion as effective total
open space. )
f) Request consideration (or actual vacation) of surplus
street right of way on Ferrini Road to enable inclusion of
approximately 1980 s.f. of effective, usable total open
space, exclusive of required front yard.
As summarized on the attachment, these feasible and effective
open space improvements to the development under construction,
appear to eliminate any exception for total open space and
minimize exception for private open space, 80% for 2 of 6 units .
According to section 17.82. 150 of the condominium development
regulations, exceptions to property improvement standards may be
approved by the council , only if it finds:
"A.. There are circumstances of the site, such as size, shape
or topography distinct from land in the same zoning, or
compliance would not be practical because of the location or
site design;
B. The variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege; an entitle ment inconsistent with the limitations
uporr other properties in thevicinity with the same zoning; &
C. No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception
would satisfy the intent of city policies and regulations. "
We believe that the shape and topography of the site, its unique
access restrictions due to proximity to the street intersection,
and the inability of full compliance due to the location of one
of the two buildings, due to pre-existing driveway placement on
the adjoining apartment property (except by infeasible and
impractical elimination of a unit) , justifies the first finding.
Recognizing that these circumstances prevent complete compliance
with strict interpretation of one standard involving two of the
six units; that the otherwise the development conforms to the
intent of the condominium standards; that the development also
provides additional amenities and features desirable in ownership
housing, but not required by city standards; and that other
properties in the vicinity with the the' Same zoning have been and
could be subdivided only with similar interpretations, approval
will not constitute a grant of special privilege or inconsistent
entitlement.
As explained above, with the additional improvements proposed
after consultation with staff and as shown on the exhibit called
"Revised Subdivision Map" for Tract No. 1823, there are no other
feasible alternatives to authorizing the exception to private
open space standards for two of the six units, (except rezoning
the property to R-3, which would enable full compliance) ; and the
intent of the city policies and regulations is met with 80% of
the required private open space involving these two units, and
with an average greater than the minimum standard. (The standards
do not distinguish the amount of open space required, depending
onthe size of unit, but the two units involved are a studio and a
one bedroom unit rather than a larger dwelling .
In conclusion, I consider the comdominium development standards
to be inappropriate, inequitable and inconsistent. Despite this
opinion, I believe that the unique nature of this property and
the development approved by the city and under construction,
justifies the required findings, particularly after the proposed
additional improvements which the city can encourage by approval
of the Revised
Map or Tract No. 1.823.
Sincerely, g, .C.P.ronI
�_`�
s
s
. o
y
w•J.ii•. f'r'
+a • ' r aY-' ,� as c =
� y $
74 I I1 : I _
�``r � •iii:Z�'
i
It i
� 4 .
Y _ P
tl
c O+O
Y
O
Y
O
• 1
{ i 1 •mYO[D.lmrtna UAWYV roL � •�p1 a16M 7
i
C .MIOMLAMO-PtNRIYI COMDOIIIMIYY>t _ R
S = � < ] -maro awa Ye•Ow••oio a�4.4 w w
C?> � ��
��IIaIIBlllllilll� III���;����������QII111Ii1�lll� ���
cit of San LUIS oBispo
MEG@ 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 13. 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
FROM: LJe rry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT /CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF FERRINI ROAD R/W
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1823. PROPOSED AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM AT
59.1 HIGHLAND DRIVE
I was asked by Dick Cleeves to consider the possibility of abandoning a
portion of Ferrini Rd. R/W in order to provide additional open space to
meet the requirement for the above-mentioned project. There is a variable
width "parkway", greater than a typical iV foot-wide parkway (including 6
ft sidewalk) . However. there is a proposal for a future modification of
the Highland Dr/Ferrini Dr intersection to improve the vertical sight
distance with respect to highway 1 (Santa Rosa St) which may include a
realignment of Ferrini at the intersection. It will definitely require
the lowering of an 18-inch diameter watermain and the cost to do that is a
big factor in the current delay in doing this work.
Therefore, this department recommends denial of any consideration to
abandon any portion of the existing R/W.
Additionally, the proposed trees along the Ferrini Rd. frontage for the
current apartment complex encroaching into the R/W .must be pulled back to
"at least" the R/W line so as to not impact any grading or "require tree
removals with the possible realignment of the street.
c; Jack Brazeai
Building Div.
Dick Cleeves
file
N/jkferrini
ik
�-ate
PLANNING COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, California
Regular Meeting - April 9, 1986
PRESENT: Commrs. Randy Dettmer, Janet Kourakis, Jerry Reiss,
Bruce Seivertson, and Chairperson Patrick Gerety
ABSENT: Comm s. Donna Duerk and Richard Schmidt
OTHERS
PRESENT: Toby Ross, Community Development Director; Glen
Matteson, Associate Planner; Anne Russell, Assistant
City Attorney; Wayne Peterson, City Attorney; Barbara
Ehrbar, Recording Secretary
MINUTES: Regular meetings of February 12 and 26, and March 12 ,
1986.
On motion of Commr. Kourakis, seconded by Commr. Reiss, with Commr.
Seivertson abstaining, the minutes of February 12 and March 12 , 1986
were approved as written, and the minutes of February 26, 1986 were
approved as amended by Commr. Kourakis.
1. Public. Hearincr: Use _Permit- U1244 : Requests to allow increase in
density allowed due to slope; to allow a 6-unit apartment
complex; to allow common access driveway; and reduced Highland
Drive street yard to 10 feet; 591 Highland Drive; R-2-S zone;
Highland Development Company, applicant.
Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending approval of the use permit subject to findings and
conditions listed in the staff report and an additional finding as
follows: "The site is essentially surrounded by development of
similar density, " and an additional condition that the new apartments
have a minimum parking requirement of 2 .5 spaces per unit.
Chairperson Gerety declared the public hearing open.
Rob Strong, representative for the applicant, reviewed the
surroundings of the property and the topography of the site. He felt
it was inappropriate to average the three R-2 properties to the
west. He referred to a provision in the code that allows the
slope-density reduction not to be applied when a property is
essentially surrounded by development of an equal or greater density
a - I
•� i
P.C. Minutes
April 9, 1986
Page 2
and asked that this property, which is a transition between
high-density residential and medium-density residential, be allowed
the medium-density designation. He felt it- was possible to develop
the property without encroaching upon the steeper slopes. The design
concept utilizes the slope beneficially, creating a streetscape of a
single-story building and an interior of a two-story with a backdrop
of two-and-a-half or three stories.
Mr. Strong noted the critical issue was a different interpretation of
the slope density than recommended by staff. He requested a 12-unit
per acre allowance so that the project would not have to be
modified. A modification to the project would not make an external
difference to the design proposal, but the size of one of the.
one-bedroom units would have to be trimmed to create a studio. He
pointed out that proposed parking was far in excess than what was
required. He supported staff's recommended findings and conditions
with the exception of Condition No. 1 dealing with density.
Chairperson Gerety declared the public hearing closed.
Commr. Seivertson supported staff's recommendation and moved approve
Use Permit U1244 subject to findings and conditions as noted in the
staff report, including the additional finding, with an amendment to
condition 23 , stating that parking spaces shall be provided at the
rate of 2 .5 spaces per equivalent unit minimum.
Commr. Kourakis seconded the motion, Resolution No.. .3022-86. .
Commr. Gerety indicated he would not vote in favor of the motion
because the motion did not address the issue of setbacks. He could
possibly only support it if an additional condition was added which
would state that no building would be allowed within the building
setbacks.
Commr. Seivertson indicated he would be willing to amend his motion
to add a condition stating that no building shall be within the
setbacks.
Commr. Kourakis, as second to the motion, agreed to the additional
condition.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Seivertson, Kourakis, Dettmer
NOES: Commrs. Reiss, Gerety
ABSENT: Commrs. Duerk, Schmidt
The motion passes.
a -�
Draft P.C. Minutes
September 13, 1989
4. Public Hearing: Tract No. 1823.. Consideration of a tentative map
creating a 6-unit residential air-space condominium; 591 Highland Drive;
R-2-S zone; Highland Development Co., subdividers.
Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director, mentioned that the
newspaper notice listed "519" rather than "591" Highland, but that the site
had been properly posted and the proper 300-foot mailing had occurred.
Judith Launter, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the
commission deny the tract. She also distributed a Public Works memo
recommending against abandoning a portion of the right-of-way.
Comm-r. Crotser stated he spoke with the subdivider, Dick Cleeves..
Commrs. Kourakis and Karleskint indicated they spoke with the subdivider, Val
Gillespie.
Commr. Hoffman stated he spoke with both subdividers.
Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing.
Rob Strong, One Buena Vista, subdivider's representative, submitted a letter
in support of the project and discussed in detail the open space requirement.
Be did not agree with condominium development standards. He discussed the
rezoning potential to R-3 and exceptions needed, street alignments, and right-
of-way/open space areas. He discussed changes to the site plans including
relocation of bicycle and motorcycle spaces and unit redesigns. He discussed.
the landscape easement area and felt the shape, topography, and. site access
were special circumstances warranting exceptions. he discussed the parking
compliance.
Val Gillespie, Box 3, Rte. 192H, subdivider, was concerned with condominium
standards and the open space issue. He discussed the possibility of R-3
zoning. He wondered why parking areas could not be counted as open space.
Dick Cleeves, 6079 Joan, subdivider; stated the project would provide
affordable housing.'
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commrs. Hoffman and Karleskint felt the subdividers had made creditable
efforts to improve the project to meet the open space requirements for
condominiums.
Draft P.C. Minutes
September 13, 1989
a -a3
Page 2
Commr. Crotser agreed that it was time to re-evaluate condominium open space
requirements. He did not think rezoning to R-3 was feasible. He was
concerned with Units D and E and stated he could not make the findings.
Commr. Kourakis was concerned with the need for exceptions and the open space
calculation problems:
Commr. Roalman was impressed with the project but did not feet the standards
were met and could not support another exception.
Chairperson Duerk agreed there were inconsistencies in the condominiums
standards versus rentals, but was concerned with granting exceptions and,
thereby, setting a precedent.
Commr. Roalman moved to deny the request as the project did not meet
condominium standards..
Commr. Kourakis seconded the motion.
AYES: Roalman, Kourakis, Crotser, Hoffman, Duerk
NOES: Karleskint
ASSENT: Schmidt
The motion passes.
a a�
AGENDA ITEM 4 57
A G E N DA N O T E S
k ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
DATE: � " � Ti1 -n 1�Friday 2:30
Project Planner: aI L �7� L //vcl�-. PROJECT NO.�q. �—ff�
Presenting.Planner: SGt/��.2 Address: J-/ l 1 66 !(4-C)D pIL
PUBLIC TE IRONY:
APPLICANT_�jtEPRESENTATIVE: �1
OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT:
HEARING OFFICER COMMENTS:
ACTION QI,Q,4 Apj rn 44_O d
- - c:;2—c
���II�►►�IIUIIn11811111II�������������l�I►►IIIIeI II��
city of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-6100
December 9, 1987
Highland Development Co.
Dick Cleeves
670 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 160-87
591 Highland Drive
Dear Mr. Cleeves:
On Friday, December 4, 1987, I conducted a public hearing on your
request to allow reduced street yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,
at the subject location.
After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request
without conditions, based on the following findings:
Findings
1. The proposed street. yard reduction will not adversely affect the
health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the
site or in the vicinity.
2. The proposed street yard reduction is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3 . The proposed street yard reduction is exempt from environmental
review.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning commission
within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person
aggrieved by the decision.
If the use or structure authorized by this use permit is not
established within one year of the date of approval or such longer
time as may be stipulated as a condition of approval, the use permit
shall expire. See Municipal Code Section 17 .58..070.D. for possible
renewal.
If you have any questions please call Pam Ricci at 549-7168.
Sincerely,
�Yop -GT-7e)A) o ti �1 Y �
c.o� e=P T7 61U
Ken Bruce
Hearing Officer
drs
a -a
�o.
uo" :. cW1uriN onvtuau nv1.1 7116
W
a3 I u y
I � e
/ w
t• I ~ r
1 LZ'
wzl to ti 6
� c nam
a �
Chapter 17.16 �\
1."Density"is the number of the dwelling units per net
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS acre. In the C/OS and R-1 zones,each dwelling counts \
as one unit. In the other zones,different size dwellings \\
Sections: have unit values as follows:
17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions. a. Studio apartment,0.50 unit;
17.16.010 Density. b, One-bedroom dwelling,0.66 unit;
17.16.020 Yards. c. Two-bedroom dwelling,1.00 unit;
17.16.030 Coverage. d. Three-bedroom dwelling, 1.50 units;
17.16.040 Height. e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms,2.00 units.
17.16.050 Fences,walls and hedges.
17.16.060 Parking space requirements. 2.The following procedure shall be used to determine
17:16.070 Parkingand drivewaydesign and exceptions. the maximum development allowed on a given lot or
17.16.080 Fire protection. land-area:
17.16.090 Screening of outdoor salesand.storage.
17.16.100 Utility services. a.Determine the Average Cross-slope of the Site. "Average
17.16.110 Satellite dish antenna. cross slope"is the ratio,expressed as a percentage of the
difference in elevation to the horizontal distance be-
tween two points on the perimeter of the area for which
17.16.005 Applicability of other provisions. slope is being determined, The line alongwhich slope is
measure shall run essentially perpendicular to the con-
A.Development of property within the city maybe sub- tours.
ject to provisions of this code not contained in this
section or chapter, including, but not limited to, the i. Where a site does not slope uniformly,average cross
following: slope is to be determined by proportional weighting of
the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas,as deter-
1. Fire prevention code,Chapter 15.08; mined by the city engineer.
2.Building regulations,Chapter 15.04;
3.Demolition and moving of buildings,Chapter 15.36; ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on the
4.Subdivision regulations,Title 16; natural topography of the site,before grading.
5.Building setback line(plan line),Chapter 17.74;
6. Street right-ofway dedication and improvement, iii.Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall be
Chapter 17.76; rounded up.
7.Excavation and grading,Chapter 17.78;
8.Architectural review commission,Chapter 2.48; iv.Noslope-rated density reduction is required in the C/
9.General plan amendment regulations,Chapter 17.80; OS,C-R,GC or PF zones.
10.Sign regulations;Chapter 15.40;
11. Condominium development and conversion regu- v.The maximum development allowed for each average
lations,Chapter 17.82; cross-slope category is as follows:
12.Flood damage prevention regulations;Chapter 17.84;
13. Downtown housing conversion permits, Chapter TABLE 1
17.86; MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR
14.Growth management regulations,Chapter 17.88; CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES
15.Resource deficiency,Chapter 2.44;
16.Environmental review guidelines,adopted by coun- % Average Maximum Density
cil Resolution 3919-1979. Cross Slope (units per net acre)
B.Where provisions of this chapter conflict with provi- R-1 R-2,0 R-3 R-4
sions of other applicable laws,the more restrictive pro- C-N,C-T
vision shall prevail. (Ord. 1006- 1 (part), 1984: prior
code-92025(A)) 0-15 7 12 18 24
16-20 4 6 9 12
17.16.010 Density. 21 -25 2 4 6 8
26 + 1 2 3 4
A. Determination of Allowed Development.
18
By approving an administrative use permi4 the director - 1 (part), 1982: prior code
may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with -92025(B))
slope where the parcel in question is essentially sur- 17.16.020 Yards.
rounded by development at least as dense as the pro-
posed development. The exception shall not authorize A.Definitions and Purpose.
densi tygreater than allowed for the categoryof less than
fifteen percent slope for the appropriate zone See also "y . i
Section 17.12.020D,Nonconforming Lots-Regulations.) 1 A and is an area along a property line within which I
no structures,parking spaces or parking backup spaces
b. Determine the Net Area of the Site "Net area"in- may be located,except as otherwise provided in these
dudes all the area within the property lines of the regulations. Yards are intended to help determine the '
;r
--way dedicated to Pattern of building masses and open areas within neigh
development site minus street right-of ;i.
the city. Net area includes the area occu led b allowed gs. Yards are
borhoods. They also provide separation between com-
nonresidential uses P y bustible materials in neighboring buildin
further intended to help provide air circulation,views
Q Multiply the resulting area (in whole and fractional and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination
acres) by the maximum density allowed (in units Per and use of solar energy.
acre)according to the table in subsection A l:a.of this
section. 2.These regulations provide for two types of yards:
d.The resultingnumber(indwellingunits,carriedoutto a' "Street yard"means a yard adjacent to a local street,
the nearest one-hundredth unit state highway, or adopted setback line. Frontages on
residential development ) . A y the i maximum Highway 101 are not street yards.
dwelling P Potential. Any combination of
their combined unit values do not numbers may beexceed the b.An "other yard"is any yard other than a street yard
potential
B.Measurement of Yards.
B.Density Transfer.
I.Street yards shall be measured from the fight-of-way
I.Developmenttransferred line or adopted setback line to the nearest point of the
area covered by potential
may
(PD) Zoe, in wall of any building
conformance with the requirements of Chapter 17.50. 2.Other yards shall be measured from the property line
2.Where a portion of lot is within a zone or zones that to the nearest point of the wall.of any building.
:allow residential use and the rest of the lot is in a GOS 3.The height of a building in relation to yard standards
zone,and the portion within the GOS zone is not large is the vertical distance from the ground to the top of the
enoughtpotentall w oneeC/OSzo e dwelling, the framay tioafy5ferr nal ll o roof,to at a point which is a specific distance
the other portion of the lot,without planned develop- from the property line. Height measurements shall be
ment rezoning. based on the natural topography of the site, before
grading.
C.DensiryAveraging. Where portions ofalot are within C.Yard Standards.
two or more different zones that allow different maxi-
mum densities, and any portion is not of the size re- 1.Street yards shall comply with the following:
quired for a lot in that zone, density may be averaged
over the whole lot,with each portion contributing to the i
overall maximum development potential in proportion
to its area and maximum allowed density.
D. Density Bonus for Low-income and Moderate-in-
come Housing. Pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65915, the city may negotiate a density
bonus or other benefits in exchange for provision of
housing affordable to households with low or moderate
income,as defined in the Government Code.(Ord.I085
-l Fx.A art 7;Ord.1006-1
(P )'198 (part),1984;Ord.941
JI
i
19 j
�►i� ����1������ � u�All citytuiso sanOBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
I
in accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1:20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from1 t�he decision of L� -/�1/�l/l�l(7 _ A4M ._ _ rendered
on W _,24. /.31 9. which ecision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
�C or C T /� . !8 2 3 X3.4
�to�coo 1,3S
/. A 'N7` Pk .4 ion o — Com 00 s
�r �r i P T T r /�(DA-/r_70s
2 . t j±EF R-L �us4 c, ro a�x�ss . �� Zon[11\j ,�'-3
3 �G ""054c� To C.On[5lco� �6C'—T0AJ D ' (:Z
/1,400
"ntDQrs -,[76A<.fvJ(,=j \n1ITi-4 ALLeu-).4'3t,6 /onrS
y �I-T c�Isio/ ��
The undersigned discussed tthfe de 1sion be ng appealed from with:
on
Appelant:
� �+
—T Name/Title /
Q��� I�LEQ C �tCK C(_66Ve s . 4ft!!�I-IJE<
Representative /I
-SEP Y. 198y (007 1 --J GA�.r �L. , .�L-O
Mum Ga Address
S11- 44331, X14- 5310
Phone
Original for City Clerk
/O /7 Q / Copy to City Attorney
CFened for: 7 Copy to City Administrative Officer
CopY�t9.�the following department(s) :
t.....1Cty Clerk
a �� 0
MEL,- .JG AGENDA
DATE /o-17-ef ITEM #
October 12, 1989
banouc acccr by Load Person
Ra pond by:
Mayor and City Council Members
RP
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CAO
City Hall , 990 Palm Street IJ� CityAtty.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 J/Clerk-ori ..
�R.� �
P1r.r.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members , I J"Lf
After reviewing the staff report, we would like to point out what
we feel are some misinterpretations . We will begin with page one.
and progress through the report in numerical order . Staff feels
that approval of the project will open the door for other small
condo projects . The exception section of the condo regulations
allows for approval if there are circumstances that only apply to
this site and because of this the variance does not set a precedent
for other projects . Page 2 under site description states that our
project "is an irregular-shaped lot that slopes steeply" . This site
also has two other irregularities , it is trapizoid shaped lot and
it is a corner lot .
Page 3, item #2 states that we were allowed a reduction in the
Highland streetyard with the provision that no buildings would_
encroach into the reduced streetyard . No building encroaches into
either the Highland Drive or the Ferrini Road streetyards . During
construction no foundations were poured in the wrong place . They .
were built and poured per city approval . It was found that our
surveyor made an error in laying out the foundations . This error
re.sul.ted in a change order being submitted to the city in regard to
the rearrangement of three extra parking spaces . These spaces have
been moved and replaced per staff approval . The only change that
the surveying error created on the streetscape was the lowering of
the profile of the project , which staff finds to be a positive
change .
Page 5 discusses private open space in regards to all of the units .
Staff states that the private open space for unit D is built in the
street yard . It is not , we were granted a reduction of the Highland
Drive street yard from 20 ' to 10 ' . See attached Use Permit Appl . #A
160-8? . Unit F private open space can be enlarged , by increasing
the width of the deck , to conform to the Condo Regulations . We
stated at the Planning Commission meeting that we were willing to
make this change . Unit D has 80+% of the required open space . All
of the other S units can comply with the private open space
requirement , and it is very usable . -
Page 6 , #? item b . states that staff is not aware of any condo
projects that include paved areas or projects that were granted
exceptions . We pulled the staff report on a project two lots west
of our project . It is zoned R-26 and is a Condo project that does
not appear to meet the Condo Regulations . We pointed this out to
staff , yet they still say it conforms . The Condo Regulations do not
RECEIVE ®
OCT 1 6 1989
J6-/5R M.
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
define common open space . In doing research for our project we
looked at other known Condos in our neighborhood . It was very
apparent to us that paved areas are considered allowable open
space .
Page 6 , #8 The Planning Commission recognized that there are
ambiguities and inequities in the Condo Regulations . We support
their concerns and feel .that on the basis of the deficiencies of
the ordinance, we made a very reasonable attempt at compliance .
Staff states that we could have received approval if we had built
three 2 bedroom units instead of four t bedroom and two studios .
These three 2 bedroom units could have contained the same amount of
square footage as our six unit project , however . they would only
require half the open space for potentially the same amount of
occupants . Does this make sense that a small project , with smaller
more affordable units is penalized, while a larger, more dense unit
is required to provide less open space per occupant?
Sincerely ,
byer&xDZ�/ZO X/��"aC
Sand & Val Gillespie
HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT CO .
NOTE FROK CITY_ CLERK'S OFFICE: Revised Tract PSap submitted with this letter
available in Council Office for inspection.
DanoteS adon by Lead Person
Respond by:
Wbounoil 6� �a�inavd MEETING AGENDA
A0 GATE /o-/Z-891TEM #
City Atty. cfan� �ii�bo; i �f40f
Vql k
Trl veei
l
C°e J. JJU.tJ/C�
RECEIVED
�ossi
s
OCT 1 2 1967
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA \\\ \\\
4
SII III��III�IIIIIIIIIII�IIIII��uIINl►1111 �u city of sAn lolls OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Boz 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from. the decision of 6LD /�/�rQ/N(W CZA,1M . rendered
W
on F D, �.�9��1. which cis ion consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed): _ l
FC ye fp?60J10 640 0 6^j T
No, Co/v /�-a2AA iG Cantc�o�J�r�viv� os .
126 fC)5-4` (a ISe-Us5 )2.e- Zo1,l /,,,jb %b R-3
ToConlSreE� ��c��oAj lD Con>�a
,�N�0S -06-AL,ivv kAJITw �LowA6LE ionl.s
Ct�nECt--wiAj 61-F6 PQ03
The undersigned disdussed Vie dedision being appealed from with:
on
Ap711-67"LA-AJD
lant:
y�VLL d i�fiv'� C C,
_T Name/Title /
RM31YBD S CK - 1
Representative
-SEP 15 1989 (oOZ I --�� ��. �L�o
�CFff,aLEaK � Address
59-3 - /!4 / 541- 44331 S ZF4- 53f
Phone
Original for, City Clerk
A p Copy to City Attorney
Fen ed for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
ComLA(L-the following department(s) :
O City Clerk