HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2015 Item 6 - Appeal 598 Princeton Place
Meeting Date: 9/1/2015
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN
APPEAL FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR USE OF PARKING IN
THE FRONT YARD AT 598 PRINCETON PLACE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California, denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny an appeal filed by
the property owner for use of vehicle parking in the front yard.”
SITE DATA
Appellant Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, Resident
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
Submittal Date May 22, 2015
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area ~18,060 Square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15321, Enforcement
Actions by Regulatory Agencies
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In many areas of the City, neighborhoods have been negatively impacted by illegal vehicle
parking in front yard areas. Addressing front yard parking violations is one of the focus areas for
the Neighborhood Services Division which undertakes proactive outreach and enforcement
efforts. The property at 598 Princeton Place received a citation for illegal front yard parking due
6
Packet Pg. 40
to a boat that was parked outside of the driveway area. The property owner appealed the citation
to the Director who denied the appeal and upheld the citation on December 14, 2014. The
property owner appealed the Directors decision to the Planning Commission which denied the
appeal and upheld the violation on May 13, 2015. The property owner appealed the Planning
Commission decision on May 22, 2015 claiming that the parking area in question is a legal non-
conforming driveway.
1.0 BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2014, City Staff received a complaint regarding parking in the front yard and
inspected the property at 598 Princeton Place (the “Property”) and noted that a boat was parked
in the front yard outside of the driveway, in violation of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Section 17.17.055 entitled, Front Yard Parking. After verifying the violation, a Notice to Correct
was issued to the property owner to voluntarily correct the code violation by May 22, 2014.
The property owner appealed the Notice to Correct to the Community Development Department.
The Notice of Director’s Decision was sent on June 19, 2014, denying the appeal and upholding
the Notice to Correct, citing that the City’s parking regulations set forth in Section 17.17.055 are
intended to preserve the residential character of streetscapes in the City’s neighborhoods.
Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other approved off-street
parking spaces. A Notice to Correct does not levy a fine; rather its purpose is to provide the
property owner with a reasonable timeframe to correct violations. The timeframe is typically 10
days and can be shortened or extended based on the complexity of the issue.
On December 4, 2014, an inspection was conducted to determine compliance with the Director’s
decision. A citation was issued to 598 Princeton Place for the violation of parking a vehicle
(boat) in the front yard, for a fine of $50.
The property owner hand-delivered a second appeal to the Community Development Department
stating the same grounds appealing the Notice to Correct.
A notice of the second Director’s decision was sent on December 15, 2014 denying the appeal
and upholding the citation. The notice of the Director’s decision restated the same findings found
for the previous notice of the Director’s decision on June 19, 2014. That decision also stated that
there are no permits on file for 598 Princeton Place, which address ed the paved area next to the
driveway. The property owner was given an extended compliance deadline and appeal period for
this citation due to holiday closures during the standard ten day appeal period.
The property owner hand-delivered a third appeal to the Community Development Department
on January 9, 2015. The appellant’s letter (Attachment 10) refutes the applicability of violation
17.17.055 Front Yard Parking to the property at 598 Princeton Place stating that the vehicle
parking on the side of the driveway conforms to SLOMC 17.17.55 E Legal Non-conforming
Front Yard Parking in that the pavement for the surface parking has been constructed in
conformance with Section 17.16.020 D.7 Parking in the Other yards, prior to the adoption of
section 17.17.055, and that such parking shall be considered a legal non-conforming use, and
may continue. The appellant’s letter also address the comment made in the Director’s Decision
6
Packet Pg. 41
which states; “There are no permits on file for 598 Princeton, which address the paved area next
to the driveway.” The appeal letter states that at the time of construction, a permit was not
required to modify the front parking area at 598 Princeton Place.
1.1 Previous Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal on May 13, 2015 (Attachment 11) and voted in
support of staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the citation on a 4:3 vote.
Commissioner’s that did not support the appeal felt that there were solutions on the property that
would allow the boat to be legally parked in accordance with the current Municipal Code.
Furthermore, it was noted that supporting the appeal would set a precedent that could undermine
the enforceability of the code elsewhere in the City. Commissioners that supported the appeal
felt that the parking space was established prior to adoption of the code and should be
“grandfathered in”. (Attachment 13, 5-13-15 PC minutes).
ANALYSIS OF CITY’S PARKING STANDARDS
On September 7, 2010, City Council directed staff to prepare code amendments to help clarify
front yard parking and to alleviate nuisances regarding excessive parking of cars and recreational
vehicles in the front yard1. The City Council approved the Planning Commission’s
recommendation amending the front yard parking regulations, MC 17.17.055 on May 15, 2012.
The intent of the ordinance is to preserve residential character and to minimize negative impacts
to neighborhoods due to excessive vehicle parking in front yard areas. In many circumstances,
vehicles were parked on lawns, or additional paving was added in the front yard to accommodate
excessive parking or storage of recreational vehicles. In summary, the revised ordinance
1 MC 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking “The purpose of these regulations is to preserve the residential character of
streetscapes in the City’s neighborhoods. The expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways, interferes with
the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in excessive
vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas which are intended to remain
as open areas within neighborhoods.”
6
Packet Pg. 42
specifies that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on driveways that lead to approved parking
spaces and may not overhang the sidewalk, landscape areas, or other unpaved surfaces. The
ordinance works to clearly specify where vehicles may be parked in the front yard to avoid
vehicle clutter while maintaining safety and visibility.
3.0 EVALUATION OF APPEAL
The following details the appeal of the PC’s decision to deny the appeal and provides staff’s
response to the reasons for the appeal.
3.1 Appeal (Gambucci): On May 22, 2015, Joseph Gambucci filed an appeal of the PC’s
decision to deny the appeal and uphold the citation. The appeal letter expressed similar
concerns as the previous appeal letters, including concerns regarding conformity to sections
17.17.055 B.1, E, and 17.16.020 D.8 as discussed at the Planning Commission on May 13,
2015. Because a permit may have not been required during the construction of the paved area
no approval of the use of the paved area would be on file. The letter also states that the
driveway was constructed prior to the adoption of Section 17.17.055, retroactively making it
a crime to use the driveway as it had been used for the last 20 years and that because a permit
may have not been required during the construction of the paved area no approval of the use
of the paved area would be on file.
Staff Response: The appellant’s letter quotes Section 17.17.055.B.1 “vehicle parking is
permitted on driveways leading to approved off- street parking.” The full text of that
section is as follows:
Section 17.17.055.B.1 Allowed Front Yard Parking: “Vehicle parking is
permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other approved off-street
parking spaces.”
The paved surface in question does not lead to garage parking or an approved off-street
parking space. Section 17.17.055.B.2 reiterates that vehicles are only allowed to be
parked within the driveway width as established in the City’s Parking and Driveway
Standards.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 Allowed Front Yard Parking: Vehicles may only be
parked in areas within the driveway width established to serve approved parking
spaces as defined in City Parking and Driveway Standards. Vehicle parking on
pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway area does not meet the
definition of a driveway.
Section 17.17.055.E2 allows the flexibility for permitted parking spaces out of
2 Section 17.17.055.E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking: In cases where permits have been granted prior
to allow parking in the front yard area that is not in conformance with Section 17.17.055.B.; Or, in cases where
pavement surfacing has been constructed to provide parking in conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 (parking in
“other yards”) prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, such parking shall be considered a legal non-conforming
use, and may continue. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway area to access
6
Packet Pg. 43
conformance with this section to be established as legal non-conforming, or when
parking spaces were designed in conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.73 prior to the
adoption of section 17.17.055, may also be established as legal non-conforming. At the
time of construction a building permit may not have been required for the installation of
the paved surface at 598 Princeton Place. However, even if a permit was not required for
the paved surface, no approval has been granted to use the paved area as a parking space
and therefore cannot be established as legal non-conforming. Simply paving a surface
and parking on it for an extended period of time does not constitute something that
achieves legal non-conforming status. Another example would be the City’s trash can
regulations – just because a resident could have trash cans viewable from the right of way
doesn’t mean that the resident has a continuing right to place them there. Where a
resident places his or her trash cans or, in this instance, where someone can park is a
legitimate exercise of the City’s police power as confirmed in Disney v. City of Concord,
194 Cal.App.4th 1410 (2011).4
The appellant’s appeal quoted Section 17.16.020.D.85 Unenclosed Parking Spaces in
Other Yards, which does not apply to this review since the boat is located in the front
yard and inconsistent with Section 17.17.055. The Zoning Regulations Section 17.100.F
define the “Front yard” as the area of a residential lot that lies between the street property
line and the walls of any residences that face the street, extending across the full width of
the site.
The appeal letter states that the vehicle parking space outside the driveway was allowed
prior to the adoption of the Front Yard Parking Standards. Front yard parking regulations
existed prior to the adoption of the Front Yard Parking standards 17.17.055. The
ordinance was designed to clarify and effectively communicate existing standards (Ord
1579, 2012). Parking in the paved area outside the driveway at this location would have
been out of compliance with City codes and regulations prior to the adoption of Section
17.17.055, and would have been subject to a violation at any time the vehicle (boat) was
parked outside of the driveway area.
The dimension of a parking space, established prior to 1977 was 9 feet by 18 feet.
such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a driveway per section 17.17.055.B. and shall not be
deemed a non-conforming use.
3 Section 17.16.020.D.7 Vehicle Parking: Vehicle parking in front yard areas of residential properties shall
conform to section 17.17.055 of this code. No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether
attended or unattended, within any street yard or upon any unpaved surface as defined in Sections 12.38.040 and
17.16.020 of this code.
4 In that case, with a few exceptions, the City of Concord prohibited parking recreational vehicles in the fron t yard.
The Court held that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the City’s police power to regulate community aesthetics.
5 17.16.020 D.* What May Occupy Yards. Unenclosed Parking Spaces in Other Yards. Unenclosed parking spaces
and parking aisles may be located within other yards. For residential properties parking spaces may not be located
within the “front yard” area unless consistent with Section 17.17.055.
6
Packet Pg. 44
Parking and Driveway Standards define a driveway as the same width of the curb
opening and must be within the width limitation noted on Engineering Standard #21206.
Due to the triangular configuration of the paved surface outside the driveway area, it does
not meet the dimensions of a parking space or meet the definition of a driveway.
Parking and Driveway Regulations Section 9200.16 of the Zoning Regulations from 1979
states;
Section 9200.16.1.A.2.c Location and Number of Spaces for Parking Lots: No
portion of any parking space or aisle, except driveways for ingress and egress,
shall be permitted in a required street-yard area.
Using the paved area as a parking space is out of compliance with Section 17.17.055 and
Section 17.16.020. The parking of a vehicle at the subject location is not approved or
designed for vehicle use, and does not qualify for non-conforming parking because the
paved area has not been approved from a previous review and does not meet the
definition of a driveway.
4.0 CONCLUSION
Parking a vehicle outside the driveway at 598 Princeton cannot be considered legal non-
conforming because there is no record of any previous approval to park a vehicle at this location
and, in any case, the paved surface was not designed to meet the dimensions of a vehicle parking
space. The use of the paved area as a parking space would have been a violation of City codes
and regulations prior to the adoption of Section 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking. There are five
legal parking spaces available on site at 598 Princeton Place that the boat could be relocated to as
identified at the Planning Commission hearing: two spaces in the garage, two spaces in the
driveway leading to the garage, one space available in the other yard on the side of the residence.
Approval of the appeal would set precedent for failing to enforce code for vehicle parking in the
front yard, and would be out of compliance with the intent of the adoption of Ordinance 1579,
2012 Series, in preserving the residential character of neighborhoods and reducing vehicle
clutter.
5.0 FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the determination of this review.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified finding. This is not recommended as the
parking is clearly not allowed under the City’s ordinance. The effect of interpreting the
ordinance as the appellant has argued would strip the intent of only allowing parking of
vehicles on paved surfaces that were permitted and do meet the definitions of a parking
space.
6 Driveway Ramp; Size and Location. The driveway width is established as the area between the driveway
approach wings. Lots with six or fewer spaces serving residential uses require a minimum width of 10’ and a
maximum width of 16’.
6
Packet Pg. 45
2. Continue action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
Attachments:
a - Resolution
b - Vicinity Map
c - Site Photos
d - Notice to Correct (May 12, 2014)
e - Appeal (May 22, 2014)
f - Directors Decision (June 19, 2014)
g - Citation (December 4, 2014)
h - Appeal (December 11, 2014)
i - Director's Decision (December 15, 2014)
j - Appeal (January 9, 2015)
k - PC Report with Attachments (May 13, 2015)
l - PC Appeal - (May 22, 2015)
6
Packet Pg. 46
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. ______(2015 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL FILED BY THE
PROPERTY OWNER FOR USE OF VEHICLE PARKING IN THE
FRONT YARD
WHEREAS, a citation was issued on December 4, 2014 for parking a vehicle in the front
yard outside of the driveway; and
WHEREAS, an appeal to the citation was hand delivered to the Community Development
Department on December 11, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner on
December 15, 2014 that denied the appeal and upheld the violation; and
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Director’s decision was hand delivered to the Community
Development Department on January 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s Decision denied the appeal and upheld the
violation on May 13, 2015; and
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Planning Commission’s Decision was received by the City
Clerk’s office on May 22, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
the council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 1,
2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci, appellants;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of
the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
1. The expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways, interferes with the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in
excessive vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas
which are intended to remain as open areas within neighborhoods.
2. The use of the vehicle parking in the front yard does not comply with the City’s Municipal
6.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 2
R ______
Code, Section 17.16.020. This section states that the use of vehicle parking in the street yard is
prohibited that does not comply with Section 17.17.055.
3. The use of vehicle parking in the front yard does not qualify as legal non-conforming under the
City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.17.055.E, because there are no permits on record that
recognize a parking space at this location, and the paved area on the side of the driveway does
not meet the parking space requirements.
4. Front yard vehicle parking is only allowed within the driveway width established by the Parking
and Driveway Standards. The paved area outside the driveway does not meet the definition of a
driveway and is out of compliance with the Parking Driveway Standards.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This action is categorically exempt pursuant to
Section 15321 of the CEQA Guidelines, Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by the
property owner.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2015.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
6.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Page 3
R ______
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
______________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
6.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.b
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.c
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
S
i
t
e
P
h
o
t
o
s
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.d
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
N
o
t
i
c
e
t
o
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
(
M
a
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.d
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
N
o
t
i
c
e
t
o
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
(
M
a
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.e
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.f
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.f
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.g
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
g
-
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.h
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
h
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.h
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
h
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.h
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
h
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.h
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
h
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
1
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.i
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
i
-
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.i
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
i
-
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
(
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
1
4
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.j
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
j
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.j
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
j
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.j
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
j
-
A
p
p
e
a
l
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
9
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Meeting Date: May 13, 2015
Item Number: 1
2X
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny the use of parking in the front yard.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 598 Princeton Place BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7524
e-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0978-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and
supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the citation.
SITE DATA
Appellant Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, Resident
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
Submittal Date January 9, 2015
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area ~18,060 Square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
City staff received a complaint regarding a vehicle (boat) parked within the front yard at 598 Princeton
Place. An inspection of the property was conducted, and Code Enforcement staff documented the code
violations. The property owner received a Notice to Correct Violations for parking vehicles in the
front yard outside the driveway. The enforcement action regarding the vehicle parking was appealed
by Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci the property owner and resident of 598 Princeton Place.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to determine if parking a vehicle (boat) in the front yard outside the
driveway is consistent with the Zoning Regulations.
PC1 - 1
6.k
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Princeton Place off of Highland
Drive west of Highway 1 in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of single-
family homes in close proximity to the Mission-Nativity Pre School to the west of the subject
property. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the three bedroom residence
was constructed on the subject property in 1958. Please see Attachment 2 for a Vicinity Map.
Site Size ~18,060 SF
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Access Princeton Place
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residences)
South: R-1 (Single-family residences)
East: R-1 (Single-family residences)
West: R-1 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
May 11, 2014
Staff received a complaint regarding parking in the front yard and inspected the property at 598
Princeton Place and noted that a boat was parked in the front yard outside of the driveway, which
violated San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking.
May 12, 2014
A notice to correct was sent to the owner of 598 Princeton Place on May 12, 2014 to voluntarily
correct the code violation by May 22, 2014.
May 22, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated that the driveway was constructed between 1990 and 1991, 19 years prior to the
adoption of Section 17.17.055. The appeal stated that the space used to park the vehicle (boat) is a
legal nonconforming front yard parking space under Section 17.17.055 E.
June 19, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner that denied the appeal and
upheld the notice to correct. The notice of Director’s decision stated that the regulations in Section
17.17.055 are intended to preserve the residential character of streetscapes in the City’s
neighborhoods. Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other
approved off-street parking spaces, vehicles may not be parked on pavement or other surfacing
which has been added outside the driveway area and within the street yard as defined by SLOMC
17.16.020. “Legal non-conforming front yard parking” only applies in cases where permits were
previously granted to allow parking in the front yard area per SLOMC 17.17.055 E.
PC1 - 2
6.k
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 3
December 4, 2014
On December 4, 2014, an inspection was conducted to determine compliance with the Directors
decision. During the inspection a citation was issued to 598 Princeton Place for parking a vehicle
(boat) in the front yard for a fine of $50.
December 11, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated the same description of the first appeal on May 22, 2014.
December 15, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent that denied the appeal and upheld the citation. The
notice of the Director’s decision restated the same findings found for the notice of the Director’s
decision on June 19, 2014, that also stated that there are no permits on file for 598 Princeton Place,
which address the paved area next to the driveway.
January 9, 2015
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal is described in Section 2.3 below.
2.3 Appeal
The appellant’s letter (Attachment 10) refutes the applicability of violation 17.17.055 Front Yard
Parking to the property at 598 Princeton Place stating that the vehicle parking on the side of the
driveway conforms to SLOMC 17.17.55 E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking in that the
pavement for the surface parking has been constructed in conformance with Section 17.16.020 D.7
Parking in the Other yards, prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, and that such parking shall
be considered a legal non-conforming use, and may continue. The appellant’s letter also address
the comment made in the Director’s Decision which stated; “There are no permits on file for 598
Princeton, which address the paved area next to the driveway.” The appeal letter states that at the
time of construction, a permit was not required to modify the front parking area at 598 Princeton
Place, and that the denial of the appeal to continue to park in the driveway has created an “ex post
facto” violation of the law.
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Zoning Regulations
The appellant’s use of the parking space for the boat at 598 Princeton Place is inconsistent with the
City’s Municipal Code. Section 17.17.055.E (Front Yard Parking) of the Municipal Code states the
following:
Section 17.17.055.E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking: In cases where permits
have been granted prior to allow parking in the front yard area that is not in conformance with
Section 17.17.055.B.; Or, in cases where pavement surfacing has been constructed to provide
parking in conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 (parking in “other yards”) prior to the
adoption of section 17.17.055, such parking shall be considered a legal non-conforming use,
PC1 - 3
6.k
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 4
and may continue. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway
area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a driveway per
section 17.17.055.B. and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.
Section 17.17.055.E allows the flexibility for permitted parking spaces out of conformance with
this section to be established as legal non-conforming, or when parking spaces were designed in
conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, may also be
established as legal non-conforming. The property at 598 Princeton Place does not have any
building permits on record to establish the pavement surface as a parking space. The expansion of
the driveway is inconsistent with the Section 17.16.020.D.7 which states:
Section 17.16.020.D.7 Vehicle Parking: Vehicle parking in front yard areas of residential
properties shall conform to section 17.17.055 of this code. No person shall stop, park, or leave
standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, within any street yard or upon any
unpaved surface as defined in Sections 12.38.040 and 17.16.020 of this code.
As stated in Section 17.17.055.E “Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside
the driveway area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a
driveway... and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.” The paved surface does not meet the
definition of a driveway, and does not meet the parking dimensions of a parking space established
prior to 1977 as 9 feet by 18 feet.
Parking and Driveway Regulations Section 9200.16 of the Zoning Regulations from 1979 states;
Section 9200.16.1.A.2.c Location and Number of Spaces for Parking Lots: No portion of any
parking space or aisle, except driveways for ingress and egress, shall be permitted in a
required street-yard area.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 reiterates that vehicles are only allowed to be parked within the driveway
width as established in the City’s Parking and Driveway Standards.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 Allowed Front Yard Parking: Vehicles may only be parked in areas
within the driveway width established to serve approved parking spaces as defined in City
Parking and Driveway Standards. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added
outside the driveway area does not meet the definition of a driveway. (See figure 9.7b, below
for examples of allowed front yard parking). Vehicles shall be parked completely within the
driveway surface with all tires completely on the driveway surface.
Parking and Driveway Standards define a driveway as the same width of the curb opening and
must be within the width limitation noted on Engineering Standard #2120.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The use of the vehicle parking space on the side of the driveway is out of compliance with Section
17.17.055 and section 17.16.020 because the paved area that is being used for parking was not
permitted or designed for a vehicle to be parked on, and does not qualify for non-conforming
PC1 - 4
6.k
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 5
parking because the paved area does not meet the definition of a driveway. These regulations have
been consistent since the Zoning Regulations of 1979 that prohibits parking within the street yard
except for driveways that are used for ingress and egress from designated parking spaces. In order
to maintain consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends the Planning
Commission uphold the citation and prohibit use of the vehicle parking within the street yard.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site Photos
4. Notice to Correct (May 12, 2014)
5. Appeal (May 22, 2014)
6. Directors Decision (June 19, 2014)
7. Citation (December 4, 2014)
8. Appeal (December 11, 2014)
9. Directors Decision (December 15, 2014)
10. Appeal letter from Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci (January 9, 2015)
PC1 - 5
6.k
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR USE OF VEHICLE PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD AS
REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 13, 2015 (598 PRINCETON PLACE APPL-0978-2015)
WHEREAS, a citation was issued on December 4, 2014 for parking a vehicle in the front
yard outside of the driveway.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the citation was hand delivered to the Community Development
Department on December 11, 2014.
WHEREAS, a notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner on December
15, 2014 that denied the appeal and upheld the violation.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Director’s decision was hand delivered to the Community
Development Department on January 9, 2015.
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 May
13, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0978-2015, Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, appellants.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, 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 expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways, interferes with the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in
excessive vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas
which are intended to remain as open areas within neighborhoods.
2. The use of the vehicle parking in the front yard does not comply with the City’s Municipal
Code, Section 17.16.020. This section states that the use of vehicle parking in the street yard is
prohibited that does not comply with Section 17.17.055.
3. The use of vehicle parking in the front yard does not qualify as legal non-conforming under the
City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.17.055.E, because there are no permits on record that
recognize a parking space at this location, and the paved area on the side of the driveway does
PC1 - 6
6.k
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15
APPL-0978-2015 (598 Princeton Place)
Page 2
not meet the parking space requirements.
4. Front yard vehicle parking is only allowed within the driveway width established by the Parking
and Driveway Standards. The paved area outside the driveway does not meet the definition of a
driveway and is out of compliance with the Parking Driveway Standards.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Section 15270, Projects which are disapproved, states
that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny appeal APPL-0978-2015.
On motion by _______, seconded by _______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of May, 2015.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 7
6.k
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
HIGHLAND
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
DALY
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
MARLENE
VICINITY MAP File No. 0978-2015598 Princeton ¯
Attachment 2
PC1 - 8
6.k
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 3
PC1 - 9
6.k
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 4
PC1 - 10
6.k
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 4
PC1 - 11
6.k
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 4
PC1 - 12
6.k
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 13
6.k
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 14
6.k
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 15
6.k
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 16
6.k
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 17
6.k
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 18
6.k
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 19
6.k
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 20
6.k
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 21
6.k
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 22
6.k
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 23
6.k
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 5
PC1 - 24
6.k
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 6
PC1 - 25
6.k
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 6
PC1 - 26
6.k
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 7
PC1 - 27
6.k
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 28
6.k
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 29
6.k
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 30
6.k
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 31
6.k
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 32
6.k
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 9
PC1 - 33
6.k
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 10
PC1 - 34
6.k
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 10
PC1 - 35
6.k
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
Attachment 10
PC1 - 36
6.k
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
k
-
P
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
w
i
t
h
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
M
a
y
1
3
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.l
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
l
-
P
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.l
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
l
-
P
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.l
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
l
-
P
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.l
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
l
-
P
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
6.l
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
l
-
P
C
A
p
p
e
a
l
-
(
M
a
y
2
2
,
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
0
8
1
:
P
r
i
n
c
e
t
o
n
F
r
o
n
t
Y
a
r
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
)
City Of
witi< san luis OB1sp0
Filing Fee
Tree Appeal: $109.00
All Other Appeals: $273.00
Pa
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Date Received
SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION 6-1 e ,UC-9 iz .) PLtC f-
(��-A4 3 tl c C- / _ St- C) i� r 45 L/05
Name Mailing Address and Zip Code
Phone Fax
Representative's Name
Title
Phone
SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL
Mailing Address and Zip Code
Fax
MAY 22 ' "015
1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the:
'R,tAWi✓lJej l_6M/C4/S5 /i�/
(Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed)
2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered
3. The application or project was entitled:
!4PPL_ —oq4� - -z.) 1,5-
113 / 2615—
s-7 9 (A)eev j �LAe
4. 1 discussed the matter wit he following City staff member:
K E F-
LL t on
(Staff Member's Name and Department)
S111Z<)15—
(Date)
5. H s this matter n the subject of�i �?revious appeal"? If so, w, n was it heard and by whom:
t j t � AIAJ/ Al 6 (--fir 1✓1 X4
SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL
Explain specifically what action /s 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
Reason for Appeal continued
SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY
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 fee of $273 , which must accompany the
appeal form.
Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an
appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be
notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your
representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your
case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes.
A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you
need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be
advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the
Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance
does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action is at the discretion of the City Council.
I hereby agree to appear and /or send a representative to appear on my behalf when
said appeal i"cheduled for a public hearing before the City Council.
C&UVt� -,�, 5-I Z-2 /1s
($igr( tur of Appellant) (Date)
Lions to t e fee: 1) Appeals of Tree Committee decisions are $109. 2) The above -named appellant has
already paid the City $273 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body.
This item is hereby calendared for
cc: City Attorney
City Manager
Department Head
Advisory Body Chairperson
Advisory Body Liaison
City Clerk (original)
Page 2 of 3
07/13
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
5/22/2015
Appeal of alleged violation to San Luis Obispo City Council. APN 052 - 451 -009
This is an appeal of an alleged code violation of MC 17.17.055 — Front Yard parking at 598 Princeton
Place, SLO.
I believe that the use of the pavement as parking is consistent with the City's Municipal Codes. It
appears that when the parking codes were written there was flexibility built in to handle out of the
ordinary situations like mine.
The property at 598 Princeton Place, conforms to 17.17.055.
SECTION 17.17.055 B.1 States:
Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to approved off - street parking.
SECTION 17.17.055 E State:
(Legal Nonconforming Front Yard Parking (in cases where pavement surfacing has been
constructed to provide parking in conformance with Section 17.16.020. D.7 (parking in
"other yards ") prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, such parking shall be considered
a legal non - conforming use, and may continue.)
SECTION 17.16.020 D.8 states:
Unenclosed parking space and parking aisles may be located within other yards consistent
with 17.167.055.
The denial contradicts the wording of SLOW 17.17.055 and 17.16.020
I purchased this property in November, 1993 and the front driveway area is just as it was then. There
have been no additions or changes since it was constructed. The driveway area in question was
constructed long before I purchased the property. This was easily over 20 years prior to the adoption of
17.17.055 on May 15, 2012. 1 have not added on to the driveway area in question. The entire driveway is
a monolithic concrete pour that was done all at once. It's possible that the driveway was built prior to
the zoning regulations of 1979 that were mentioned in the report prepared by Kyle Bell regarding this
case. Again, there is no record of when the driveway was built. Kyle said he tried to find record of the
construction but was unable to.
Page 1
In his Denial of my appeal to this issue, The Community Development Director, Derek Johnson, stated:
"There are no permits on file for 598 Princeton, which address the paved area next to the driveway."
The driveway was constructed so long ago that a permit was not required to modify the front parking
area at 598 Princeton Place. This was verified by Kyle Bell when I met with him on May 5th, 2015.
It was not a requirement to permit the construction of the additional parking when it was done. It was
not possible, nor was it necessary, to obtain a permit. Therefore, no permits would or could be on file.
With that said, there was no approval process at the time of construction so how could the driveway
area be approved or not approved?
SLOMC 17.17.055 has retroactively made it an alleged crime to continue to use my driveway the way I
have for the past 21 years. Parking on the additional pavement was legal when the construction was
done. SLOMC 17.17.055 was passed and after the fact, made it allegedly illegal to do so.
• 1 have been parking my boat in that same spot for over 20 years now. It is an established
practice and started many years prior to passing of SLOMC 17.17.055.
• At no time has a neighbor complained to me about the boat and where it's parked.
• The boat fits within the area it is parked in without being off the pavement.
Approximately 11 years ago, I was contacted by a city planner at that time and after he inspected my
property he agreed that it was legal nonconforming. He contacted me because the owner of 505
Princeton Place wanted to add an additional driveway to his property that faced Highland drive. That
person used my property as an example in his request. That property owner was granted a permit to
build a second 2 car driveway at 505 Princeton.
In their denial of my parking issue, the Planning Department stated that they are concerned with the
Residential Character of the Neighborhood. I'm here to show you that I'm a strong proponent of the
Preservation of the Residential Character or our neighborhood.
Nobody is more interested in our neighborhood character than the 8 of us property owners at the cul-
de -sac end of our street. We have collectively worked with both sellers and rental owners to persuade
them to sell or rent to families.
Collectively we have spent over $500,000 on our homes in the last 20 years in order to maintain the
residential character and fight back the blight that is destroying other streets in the area.
The true threat to the Residential Character of our neighborhood are the STUDENT RENTALS.
I look forward to meeting with you, the City Council, regarding this issue.
Page 2
Thank you.
Joseph Gambucci and Katherine Aaron
598 Princeton Place
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405
c. 459.8350
h. 541 -1139
Page 3
City ,Administration
390 Palm Street, Safi Luis Obispu, CA 93401 -3249
1405 781 N 14
.July 21, 2015
Joseph Gambucci
598 Princeton Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
DECISION TO DENY USE OF PARKING IN THE FRONT" YARD AT 598 PRINCETON
PLACID:
Dear Mr..loseph Garnbucci
This letter shall serve to advise you that your appeal for the above matter was received in the City Clerk's
Office on May 22, 2015. This item shall be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday,
September 1, 2015 for Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. The agenda and Council Agenda Report will be available
on the City's website at _- www.slocity.orgagenda and in the Office of the City Clerk by Wednesday,
September 26, 2015.
As the appellant, you are invited to attend this meeting. City Council meetings are held in the City Council
Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. During the Public Hearing,
appellant(s) are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes to provide testimony to the City Council.
Please don't hesitate to contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781 -7100 if you have any questions or
concerns.
Stn 'rely,
cr'
.
L +ior J. M j is Ci
cc: City Vanagc is Office
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Department
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO) SS.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING — 598 PRINCETON PLACE
I, ANTHONY J. MEDIA, declare as follows:
That I am the City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo; that copies of the Notice of Public
Hearing before the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, in conjunction with the above -
referenced project, were mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the
20th day of August, 2015. A copy of said Notice is attached.
Said mailing was completed by causing a copy of said Notice, with postage prepaid, and
depositing same in the U.S. Mail at San Luis Obispo, California.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 20th day of August, 2015 at San Luis Obispo, California.
Meeting Date: 09/01/2015
Re, Appeal of 598 Princeton Place
UNE2
UNE4
OCCUPANT
221 DALY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1013
OCCUPANT
549.JEFFREY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1003
OCCUPANT
629 JEFFREY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1021
OCCUPANT
290 MARLENE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1024
OCCUPANT
296 MARLENE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1024
OCCUPANT
544 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
OCCUPANT
553 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
OCCUPANT
556 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
OCCUPANT
577 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
OCCUPANT
583 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
OCCUPANT
584 PRINCETON
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
OCCUPANT
613 STANFORD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
OCCUPANT
635 STANFORD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1I23
OCCUPANT
652STANFORD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
OCCUPANT
660 STANFORD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
OCCUPANT
667 STANFORD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
OCCUPANT
500 WESTMONT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1127
ARGENTE LYNN S & MAURICIO G
2449 PARKLAND TERR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 -4649
BECK GERALD P THE ETAL
298 COUNTRY OAK WAY
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420 -5116
BENNETT STEVEN A THE ETAL
597 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1003
BORBA JOHN W THE ETAL
288 DALY AVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1014
BORIN NORMAN A THE ETAL
569 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
BOWER WB & SA
631 JEFFREY DR.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -
BROWN CHARLOTTE THE
646 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
CATHOLIC CHURCH SLO
PO BOX 2048
MONTEREY CA 93942 -2048
CORTEZ CATHY D THE
957 CREEKSIDE PL
MANTECA CA 95336 -
CZECH ADOLF D & GENEVIEVE M
612 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
DAVIDSON JAMES R THE ETAL
895 N CALLE CIRCULO
CAMARILLO CA 93010 -2815
DAVIES GEORGE R III & VALERIE J
572 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1121
DONATELLI PAULA THE ETAL
296 DALY AVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1014.
DUVALL RUSSELL I THE
605JEFFREY
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1021
EBNER STEPHEN ETAL
621 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
FISHER HELEN F THE ETAL
297 MARLENE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1023
FLOYD BARRY D & KAREL 1
643 JEFFREY STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 -
GAMBUCCI JOSEPH ETUX
598 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
GOTHE ARTHUR G THE ETAL
644 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1022
HERBEL SHIRLEY A THE ETAL
8455 SANTA ROSA RD H4
ATASCADERO CA 93422 -4946
HERRMANN BRADLEY E THE ETAL
1184 DEAN AVE
SAN JOSE CA 95125 -
HOM PETER THE ETAL
620 STANFORD DR
SLO CA 93405 -1123
KALENIAN WILLLIAM J THE ETAL
568 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
KARLESKINT BARRY M THE ETAL
623 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1021
KARPIN CORY H THE ETAL
585 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1003
KEEHN REBECCA R THE
628 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
LANDRETH JAMES R THE ETAL
613 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1021
LARSON WAYNE A THE ETAL
3922 FOOTHILL RD
SANTA BARBARA CA 93110 -1208
U & U LLC
7561 PROSPECT RD
CUPERTINO CA 95014 -
LITTLE HC & NM
588 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 -1121
MAININI RONALD A THE ETAL
5827 BROOKLINE LN
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 -8900
MALENA LEONARDO THE ETAL
21852 LAS NUBES DR
TRABUCO CANYON CA 92679
MEINHOLD ALICE -JO THE ETAL
468 WESTMONT DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1125
MEINHOLD ANDREW G & DAWN M
1950 BRIDLE RIDGE TRAIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
GLPIN A EDWIN THE ETAL
550 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1119
PASKETT DARREL K & STELLA G
561 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1003
PEDOTTI JON
2222 SAN SIMEON CREEK RD
CAMBRIA CA 93428 -1826
RIEGER NICOLE ETAL
68 SAN BENANCIO RD
SALINAS CA 93905 -
ROBERTSON TRAVIS
561 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
ROJAS ANNE H THE
PO BOX 41823
SANTA BARBARA CA 93140 -1823
SANSOM PHILLIP D & MARY L
289 MARLENE DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93405 -1023
SCHROETER ROBERT & ANGELA
617 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1021
SHERRY JOHN E THE ETAL
3415 NW BRAID DR
BEND, OR 97701
STANSFIELD WILLIAM D THE ETAL
653 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1123
STORK GREGORY H & MAGNOLIA P
573 JEFFREY DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1003
TIETIE WILLIAM D & SHEILAH R
545 PRINCETON PL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405 -1118
VANBEEK DONNA M THE
634 STANFORD DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 -1123
MY of San Luis OBlspo
City council puBLIc hCAmnq
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to attend a public hearing,
relative to the following;
What: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny use of vehicle
parking in the front yard at 598 Princeton Place. Address of
Application: 598 Pr'snceton Place
Where: City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
When: September 1, 2015 at 6 :00 P.M.
For questions, contact:
Anne Schneider, Chief Building Officiai . (805) 781.7572 • aschneider sloe:iit .or
Cs5-5 y Commence ore else toiled o If yrav challenge the above proposed action 10 caurr, you rnov be limited ro to isinq rhose
City C you ar t, O reatie 10 (raised at ter public hearing descrlbea this notice, or 1n written Correspondence deflvered to the
City Coc:ncii at, or prior to the Public lrearfrip. The rtgendc and Rep., ts for this meetin
and Online at www_.iladtv.nra(aoenda1, 4 are avGflohle 1n the City Clerk $ office
K
THE
Newspaper of the Central Coast
EIVED
AUG 2 6 2015
C r% rrry JI-
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, Californi
Anthony J. Melia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Augu5t21,2015 1914158
In The Superior Court of The State of California
01WRLM15002M
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
LUIS OBISPO CITY
SAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR NGSL
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The San tole Obispo City Gcunclt lrnittes
all Interested persons to attend publtc hear-
ings on Tuesday. September 1, x2015, at
6.00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chem -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
California, relative to the following:
1. 1680 EI MERIO COURT - _APPEAL
PF THE_TfiEE COM I nIL 4 _W1119 N
745. aEMY It Tii FiQMQVAkAPpLfCA.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
XIQN
ss.
A public hearing to consider an appeal of
County of San Luis Obispo
the Tree Committee's decision to deny a
tree application at 1680 El Caserio Court.
The Committee approved the removal of
three palms to the west (left of the drive -
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
way facing the home from the street) and
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
denied removal of three palms to the east
(right of the driveway). The Tree Commit-
interested in the above entitled matter; am now and at
>
tee considered this matter on April 27,
2015 and June 22, 2015.
all times embraced In the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
This application is on file at the City of Luis
Obispo City Clerk's Office, 990 Palm
THE TRIBUNE a newspaper of general Circulation
>
Street. For more information, you are It, at
ed to contact Ron Combs, City Arborist, at
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
( 805 ) 781 -7023 or by emailrcombsGslo
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
clly.arg.
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
OF TH T PRINCETON PLACE - APPEAL
E PLANNING COMMISSION'S DE-
published in the above -named newspaper and not in any
cisiON TO DENY THE USE OF PARK -
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;
ING IN THE FRONT YARD
AUGUST 21, 2015 that said newspaper was duly and
A public hearing to consider an ci appeal a1
the Planning Commission's decision to de-
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
ny use of vehicle parking In the front yard
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
at 598 Princeton Place. The Plan ring Com-
mission considered this matter on May 13,
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
2015.
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
This application is on file at the City of Luis
of the State of California.
Obispo Comrmunity Development Depart-
ment, 819 Paim Street. For more informa-
tion, you are Invited to contact Annel
Schneider, Chief Bullding 0111cla1, at (805)
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
781a572orbysmall schrie1derQs10C1 .
foregoing is true and correct.
axg.
The City Council may also discuss other
hearings business items before or Otter
the items listed above. If you challenge the
listed
proposed project in court, you may be ilmll-
ture Princi al Clerk)
( S I g na p k )
ed to raising only those Issues you or
DATED: AUGUST 21, 2015
someone else raised at the public hearing
described In this notice, or In written corre.
AD COST: $213.40
spondence delivered to the City Council at,
or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available
for review in the City Clerk's Office and on-
line al www.slocVty,aTg on Wednesday, Au-
gust 26, 2015, Please call the City Clerk's
Office at (805) 781 -7100 for more Informa-
tion. The City Council meeling will be lele-
vlsed [Iva on Charter Cable Chennel 20
and live streaming on www.slocity.ora.
Anthony J. Melia
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
Augu5t21,2015 1914158
Cify Of SP,71 LOS OUS110
City Cierk's Office
990 F!alrr 57, •', r - e r.
Sar, Luis (%ispo, CA 9340]
PROJECT -)JTE MAP:
I yq, F 6-1 elan !,I
Hasler
08/2012015
$00.352
ZIP 93401
RECEIVED
UP 0 9 2015
S1
- L( - 1, 1 y (�.J-FRY
STAN 11 � —
(, - T,
1 7c�-c 1
U 4dL'1vgqq4 jil 1,1,111 11+111 IfiliIIJI)II111111il'it
111