HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1993, 1 - APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APPEAL TO DENY A USE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AS A HOME OCCUPATION AT 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA, IN THE CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK. (A 180-92)��IIIIIIIII�I�I T MEETING DATE:
city o son LUIS osispo I - s- 3
• COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBER:/
�
From: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
Subject: Appeal of a Planning Commission action on appeal to deny
a use permit granted by the Administrative Hearing
Officer for massage therapy as a home occupation at 3057
South Higuera, in the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park.
(A 180 -92)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the appeal and allow a home occupation for a massage
therapist, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Draft
Resolution No. 1.
DISCUSSION
Background
On October 6th, the Administrative Hearing Officer conditionally
approved a home occupation permit for Mary Hunt, a massage
therapist, who lives in Chumash Village Mobilehome Park. The
Hearing Officer included conditions of approval to address parking
and traffic concerns voiced at the hearing. Please refer to
conditions 8 and 9 in the attached minutes. The Hearing Officer's
action was appealed to the Planning Commission by Mr. Harold
Heidler, president of the park's home owners' association.
On November 18th, the Planning Commission voted (3 to 2, with one
commissioner stepping down) to uphold the appeal and deny the home
occupation, finding that a mobile home park is not suitable for
continual - client visits.
The Planning Commission resolution and staff report are attached,
as are the minutes from both the Planning Commission meeting and
the administrative hearing.
Issues
Traffic: Mr. Heidler indicated that park residents wished to
minimize traffic in the park because both pedestrians and cars must
share the narrow streets typical of a mobile home park. Condition
10 would limit patrons to 1 per day, to eliminate the possibility
of a significant impact on traffic in the mobile home park. During
their discussion, commissioners noted the difficulty in
distinguishing between traffic impacts resulting from visitors, an
accepted activity, and those resulting from limited client visits.
���n,�b,���►IIIIfiIII�INIII city of San Lr.6 OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Parking: Mr. Heidler noted that because the streets are narrow,
residents are encouraged to keep them free of parking, although
parking on the streets is not prohibited. Condition 9 would limit
client parking to the applicant's carport.
Noise /Neighborhood Disruption: Massage is by its nature not a
noisy occupation. Limiting the hours and number of clients
(conditions 8 and 10) would further reduce potential noise impacts.
Enforceability of Conditions: The question of whether conditions
related to parking and number of clients are realistically
enforeceable was raised at the Planning Commission hearing.
Conditions which involve anything other than a visible feature or
alteration to a structure or site will always be subject to this
concern. In this case, the vigilance of-concerned neighbors should
provide an effective deterrent to any violation of permit
conditions. It is not presumed that an applicant will not comply
with conditions.
CC &R's: Those objecting to the applicant's request have indicated
that granting approval of the home occupation permit would conflict
with the park's conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC &R's).
An excerpt from the Chumash CC &R's is attached, which allows for
executive or professional offices "so long as they do not interfere
with the quiet enjoyment by other residential Mobilehome Space
Owners of their Mobilehome Spaces."
CC &R's are private contractual obligations between various property
owners in the park and can. be privately enforced in spite of
permits granted by the City. Permits may also be granted in spite
of CC &R's where conditions are otherwise appropriate for such
approval.
On- site /Off -site: It was suggested by opponents of the home
occupation that the home owners' association board of directors
would support the home occupation as long as all massage activity
were conducted off -site (i.e. away from the applicant's home) . Mr.
Heidler clarified that the board would have no objection to Ms.
Hunt providing massage therapy for clients inside the park,
providing she travel to their homes. Ms. Hunt felt that this
provision would have a similar impact on traffic and parking as
seeing clients at her home since she would need to use her vehicle
to transport her massage table.
Misperception: On November 30th, staff received a phone call from
Ms. Lauraine Davis, vice president of the home owners' association.
She voiced her individual support for the home occupation as
conditioned by the Hearing Officer. She questioned the validity of
the petition circulated against the home occupation permit, and
noted that Mr. Heidler had used the term "massage parlor" in his
discussion of the issue at the board of directors' meeting. She
feared that residents of the park had been misinformed about the
nature of Ms. Hunt's request.
��� +���►�u►►uIIIIIIIII� city of san L.,�ms osispo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ALTERNATIVES
As alternatives to the CAO recommendation, the Council may:
1. Uphold the appeal and modify conditions of approval. Draft
Resolution No. 1 would need to be modified to include any
changes to the conditions which the Council feels are
appropriate.
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action
(Draft Resolution No. 2).
Attachments:
vicinity map
draft council resolutions
appeal
planning commission resolution
planning commission staff report
planning commission minutes
administrative hearing minutes
chumash cc &r excerpt
xeroxed photos of available parking
(actual photos will be available at the meeting)
letters and petition in support and opposition
Upholding
Draft Resolution No. 1
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1993-Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A HOME OCCUPATION USE PERMIT FOR A MASSAGE THERAPIST AT 3057
SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on application No. A 180 -92 on November 18, 1992, and
denied a request for a home occupation permit for a massage
therapist at 3057 South Higuera Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the testimony
and statements of the applicant, and other interested parties,
and the records of the October 6, 1992 administrative hearing and
action, and the November 18, 1992 Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to uphold the
appeal and approve the home occupation, subject to the following
findings and conditions:
SECTION 1. Findincrs.
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons residing or working on the
site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets
zoning ordinance requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
5. The proposed home occupation meets conditions of the
Municipal Code for licensure of massage establishments and
massage technicians (SLO M.C. Ch. 5.56).
SECTION 2. Conditions.
1. The business will be conducted entirely inside without
altering the appearance of the house, grounds, or adjacent
buildings.
Draft Resolution i 1
Page 2
2. There will be no sales or displays on the premises.
3. There will be no signs other than address and name of
residents. Those signs will meet the requirement for the R-
2 zone.
4. There will be no advertising
occupation by street address
5. The home occupation will not
parking, yard, or open space
normally required parking).
6. The home occupation will not
smell, smoke, glare, electri
hazard or nuisance.
which identify the home
or location.
encroach on any required
(parking space in a garage is
create noise, dust, vibration,
:al interference, or other
7. No employees other than residents of the home will be
allowed.
S. Clients or customers shall not be scheduled after 8:00 p.m.
or before 7:00 a.m.
9. Appointments shall be scheduled so not more than one client
vehicle at a time is parked at the premises. All patron
parking is to be located in the carport area.
10. Patron appointments shall be limited to one per day.
11. Permit shall be subject to review if all conditions are not
met, or if any reasonable written complaint is received by
the Police Department or Community Development Department.
At the review hearing, the Hearing Officer may add, delete
or modify conditions, or may revoke the use permit.
On motion of
seconded by
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
r.
and on the
the foregoing'resolution was passed and adopted this day
of
1993.
Mayor
-S
Draft Resolution
Page 3
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
/-10
Denying
Draft Resolution No. 2
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO NOT ALLOW
A HOME OCCUPATION FOR A MASSAGE THERAPIST AT 3057 SOUTH HIGUERA
STREET
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on application No. A 180 -92, on November 18, 1992, and
denied a request to allow massage therapy as a home occupation at
3057 South Higuera Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the testimony
and statements of the applicant, and other interested parties, and
the records of the October 6, 1992 administrative hearing and
action, and the November 18, 1992 Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves to deny the appeal
and uphold the action of the Planning Commission subject to the
following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety, and
welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the
vicinity.
2. The use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will
not be compatible with surrounding land uses because a mobile
home park is not suitable for continual client visits.
On motion of
seconded by
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
, and on the
/ -I
Draft Resolution No. 2
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
Community Devel vent Director
/+Y
�] I �M1``� \� LV �I.Ur.. { I y � I ill ! � �, .'Yi.lj (��:\� ■ I
Lei 'i �`t .�•Z � �•'{ Sl.. (•- ,_ f". n,• �* .. Z1 - �� � /`. - �•\ - �
yM � � `` 'DNt• '`J �� , -_ w � l\� o 'fir, 1 ■
1 ..1 • r • 1 1 � � Ly�,lpE J '`-li t J� o ��•) 1 � ' j
DRIVE
T --- ■
.;. .. ••I �' WI 'Wi I
I' r .,,.,,,, 1 - C ` I� Q l • 1 .. I = h ��,,, � Z I ,..I I :,. � I � _
•u • 1 rl1 .. I J r� J I • 1 - J I„ (__,1 Z ; r_� W ;,,, j ■
r�
Q Crll
cy
En
JU „ UI�� i 1 I.
I '1 •..• CHUMASH DRIVE I�Ir
% L OJAI DRIVE, WI ■
.1 __ ...
I -
! I III
il' � _ Li •,I i { I I��; ✓�1L',= I I. T::J �iIL i I ?'.r�IZIS j 'I L., i
- �ivj.
l c-S_1 jO CACHUMA DRIVE
•� 'I�•I k' . Imo! ., Q;
Ul
It
lz
CUYAMA DRIVE
!; T., I I I ! I I I r
F7 0
ilp
w -. - i -- ..., -. ,�� •' gam= � _ �
1 I.A
-I 0 _ 'u
VICINITY MAP I A 101 -88 NORTH
3057 S. HIGUERA ST. #220
A
I
city.ofsAn tuis oaspo
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of c'c.•,,,,,,,; ; G,n.,�"�,,, /�.�::.��
rendered on 1110 c., /Y /S S 2 which declslon consisted of the following (I.e. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
/C /+,�,Q� Gli,(6c= .iyr�cl
v-�c.:.
�Cr. C�2✓
w7aq�,,,
J"" �"�2t.[• cr,
i ✓L .r m- ,�+-.,�1i., % o�f�t��r'�n� �L� may,- + J�4•
� (-
The undersigned discussed the.declslon being appealed with:
on
DATE $ TIME APPEAL RECEIVED:
RECE1VSED
5'
NOV r
Nov I o 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA
Calendared for [Tilvl2
Appellant: )
ame e
RepMsen=lve
•�CS7 .ef• .csGlt� <� �� �� ��%
Ad ress - .
o
4010<-/ slit - sefss
Ph
Original to City Clerk
City Attorney
Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5115 -92
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did
conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall,
San Luis Obispo, California, on November 18, 1992, pursuant to a proceeding instituted
under application No. A 180-92 by Mary Hunt, applicant.
HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT REQUESTED:
To allow message therapy.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office. of Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
3057 South Higuera Street #33.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium - Low - density Residential.
PRESENT ZONING:
R -2.
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations,
and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has
established existence of the following circumstances:
1. The proposed use will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons
residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible
with surrounding land uses because a mobile home park is not suitable for
continual client visits.
Resolution No. 5115 -92
Use Permit A 180-92
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 180.92 be
denied.
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Settle, seconded by Commr. Hoffman, and
upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Settle, Hoffman, Senn, Karleskint
NOES: Commrs. Peterson, Cross
ABSENT: Commr. Williams
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: November 18, 1992
/- /A
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM #
BY: Whitney Mcllvaine, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: November 18, 1992
FILE NUMBER: A 180 -92
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3057 South Higuera Street
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer's approval of a home occupation permit
for massage therapy.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action.
BACKGROUND
Data Summary
Applicant: Mary Hunt
Zoning: R -2
General Plan: Medium -low- density residential
Situation
On October 6th, the Administrative Hearing Officer conditionally approved a home occupation
permit for massage therapy inside Chumash Village Mobilehome Park. Four members of the
public (all residents of the park or related to a park resident) spoke against the proposed home
occupation, citing concerns with traffic and parking. The Hearing Officer added two conditions
to the approval to address parking and traffic concerns. Please refer to conditions 8 and 9 in
the attached minutes.
Some of the people objecting to this permit felt no home occupations should be allowed in the
mobile home park. The Hearing Officer recognized that the layout, circulation patterns, parking
and density in mobile home parks warrant special conditions to manage home occupations. In
this case, the Hearing Officer limited patronage of the home occupation to one person per day
with no appointments made after 8 pm. Patron parking must be accommodated in the driveway
adjoining the mobile home and not in the street. Staff believes that these special conditions
would limit the home occupation to a level where circulation and parking problems should not
exist.
In conclusion, staff does not believe that there are physical constraints that warrant the
categorical exclusion of home occupations from mobile home parks. Roughly a dozen home
occupation permits have been approved at 3057 South Higuera in the past 5 years.
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may:
1. Continue review with direction to the applicant, appellants, and staff; or
/ -/3
2. Uphold the appeal am ny the home occupation, based
3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action.
Attachments:
vicinity map
minutes from the administrative hearing
appellants' letters
home .occupation regulations
Page 2
appropriate findings; or
I —IAI
DRAFT PLANNT1, 7 CC M4ISSION MINUTES
November 1£ 992
John Wallace, 411
representative, s
conditions in the
units 8 and 9 are
vehicles would no
lot. In answer t
explained that th
unit 9 where in e
City ordinance wh
accessible to uni
Broad Street, Suite b -5, applicant's
id the applicant agrees with the findings and
staff report. He explained the patios for
narrower than the other patios so that large
hit them while parking in the adjacent parking
a question by Commr. Cross, Mr. Wallace
reason the storage shed was located next to
croaches into the setback was to comply with
ch requires storage sheds to be directly
S.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. -.
Commr. Settle sai he approved of the project.
Commr. Williams m ved to approve the request subject to the
findings and two londition-S7.
Commr. Senn seconded the motion.
Commr. Cross said the Commission had reduced its standard for
arprovi-g c'on?cmi. ium projects from 10 to 9 units.
ZiOTING: AYES - Commrs. Williams, Senn, Cross, Settle,
Hoffman, Peterson, and Karleskint.
NOES - None.
ABSENT None.
The motion passed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 4. Home occupation Permit A 180 -92: An appeal of the
Hearing Officer's action conditionally approving a home
occupation permit to allow message therapy; 3057 S.
Higuera Street #33; R -2 zone; Mary Hunt, applicant;
Chumash Village Homeowners' Association, appellant.
----------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Commr. Williams stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Whitney McIlvaine presented the staff report and said that §tiff
believed the additional conditions limiting clients to one per
day before 8:00 p.m. and requiring clients to park in the
applicant's carport addressed the concerns raised by the
appellant at the administrative hearing. She recommended that the
Commission uphold the Hearing Officer's action and approve the
use permit. She said a condition could be added to require
review of the use permit in one year.
Commr. Cross asked staff about the City's inability to enforce
CC &R's.
-ar"S to ha.,e
Cindy Clemens said the City requiras mobile h,�::,a :� -�..�
CC &R's and the City usually specifies it.ems it wants the CC &R's
to address. She said CC &R are private legal covenants between
the parties and the City cannot arbitrate disputes about them.
She said the CC &P.'s should not guide the Commission's decision.
Chairman K.arleskint opened the public hearing.
Harold Heidler, 3057 South Higuera Street, appellant and
President of the Chumash village Homeowners Association, said it
would be appreciated if the City would not contravene the CC &R's.
He said an off -site home occupation permit was approved at the
Homeowners Association earlier this evening, but -in that
instance, customers would not be driving into the park. He said
the park has no sidewalks and expressed concern about elderly
pedestrians. He said in the past, coz-aplaints have been made that
Miss Hunt's clients or guests have blocked other people's
driveways.
In answer to a question by Co „ r. Cross, rlr. Heidler said his
main concern was for traffic, parking, and elderly pedestrians.
He said a 15 -mph speed limit is posted at the park entrance, but
there is not a sign stating t'rat pedestrians have the right -cf-
1 - -- e
way. He said the only Visitor parking was �- 3 = =.''- -z t•�
laundry. He said guests are not allowed to park on the street
after 10:00 p.m.
Comamr. Cross felt that denying the use permit would not resolve
the problem because it was not possible to tell if the people
parking outside Miss Hunt's residence were visitors or clients.
Mr. Heidler said the use paru:it is inconsistent because it allows
a client to be scheduled at 8:00 p.m., but prohibits clients from
being at the residence after 8:00 p.m. and massages last one
hour.
Commr. Senn felt there was no difference between a resident
having a guest for dinner and Miss Hunt having one client visit
her per evening. He asked if there was a hidden agenda to the
opposition.
Mr. Heidler said most people in the park are against any home
occupation. He said the board's position is only home
occupations that do not impact traffic are allowed in the park.
Mary Hunt, 305 South Higuera Street, Space 33, applicant, gave
the Commission a picture of the street she lives on showing there
was adequate parking in her carport and in front of her mobile
home. She said she teaches during the day and hopes to develop
on -site massage at business locations. She said evenings are the
only time clients would come to her home. She explained she can
+ control the environment at her home to provide an atmosphere
conducive to massage therapy. Miss Hunt said she had not been
contacted since she began her student training in J�!n2' 1192' 10Y
the management of the park or any member of the board of
directors about complaints about parking. She said at the
administrative hearing, complaints were voiced about people
parking in front of her home, and now those complaints have been
escalated to her clients blocking other people's driveways. Miss
Hunt said she questioned the validity of the complaints. She
said there is no restriction in the park on visitor traffic. She
said she was told she could give massages to other park residents
in their homes, which would create parking problems elsewhere in
the park because she would have to transport her equipment to
other mobile homes. Miss Hurt felt the administrative hearing
off- icer's ruling was a fair compromise, and she asked that the
Commission uphold his ruling.
In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Miss Hunt said she had
told the three people she has given free :passages to since the
last hearing to park in her carport. She said only one person is
allowed during a massage.
Ruth Worley, 3057 South Higuera St., Secretary of the Board of
Directors, said a letter was prepared by the management company
to Mary Hunt addressing parking and complaints, but it was
decl -ded not to sera' t ^-at letter until after this meeting. S ^e
said she now felt that dacisl n was
did not know about complaints of her clients blocking other
residents' driveways. S'-e said more than one person. has been
coming to her residence each day, but it could not be determined
if they were visitors or clients. She said the management
company was trying to prevent attitude or run -down physical
conditions that would charge the style of life in the park.
Chairman rarleskint closed the public hearing.
Commr. Peterson said he supported denying the appeal and
upholding the hearing officer's action so that a use permit could
be issued to condition the business. He said if a use permit was
denied, she could have visitors over, and no one would ever know.
Commr. Peterson moved to deny the appeal and uphold,t'.^e hearing
officer's action with an added condition that the use permit be
reviewed in six-months.
Commr. Cross seconded the motion.
Commr. Settle said he was always persuaded when 158 people say
they don't want something. He expressed concern about
enforcement because of the right of privacy. He felt the
fundamental issue was people living outside the park coming into
the park. He said the park was not designed for having a large
volume of traffic. He felt a homeowners association was in a
dilemma regarding enforcement if it is allowed to set a standard
and municipal government allows an exception. He said it was
difficult to revoke a permit. He said any issue regarding
imLruprictJ -a- t.:o' ght acainst ctl'!er oa Yt ?C5 ill li�iyatiui:
Commr. Cross said h- did not feel the :: is -' -= =-
resolved by uViolding the appeal. He said the applicant could
provide this service for free without a use permit. He felt it
was hard to believe one client per day could cause a significant
traffic impact.
Commr. Settle felt there would be complications in enforcing a
use permit. lie said h6 would rather have the homeowners
association than the City involved in enforcement.
Commr. Cross felt the mobile home residents would be quick to
point out use permit violations. He said he did not have a
problem with revoking use permits.
Co,unr. Hoffman felt mobile home parks were different than other
residential areas. He said some use permits viare issued for hone
occupations in R -1 and R -2 neighborhoods that did not allo -w
clients to be seen at residences.
Commr. Cross said a home occupation message ther =FY Was recently
approved on Toro Street which did not requ•iYe and, parking
standards. He said use permits prohibiting clients at residences
were issued for consultant-type n -'-'•e ocCu_''- tick'='
Commr. Hoffman felt there was not a difference between consultant
and massage therapy home occupations in regard to traffic
impacts.
Commr. Karleskint said he agreed with Commr. Settle- He said he
felt uncomfortable in interfering when the City requires
+.- 7n•••�:re ecenrig�inne to hive CC &P.�s. :!e said ^? •,:JUld :1Gt
a. �. ... -.. ..._ -_ _ ..
health, safety, an^ welfare and
make the findings regarding
compatibility with surrounding uses. He said he disagreed with
the hearing officer on his interpretation of what would be
considered a "substantial" increase in traffic. He said mobile
home parks are not designed for business client use on the site.
Commr. Senn said he saw this as a request by someone starting a
business and trying to control overhead. He said he was
sensitive to both parties. He felt one car would not make a big
difference, but-that granting the use permit could set a
precedent that could cause future-problems. He said he would like
to grant the use permit with an expiration on June 30, 1993, at
which time Miss Hunt would have to re -apply for a use permit. He
asked if that would be an appropriate action.
Cindy Clemens said sunset clauses could be built into use
permits, but said that the fee would have to be repaid.
Whitney McIlvaine said the use permit fee was $52.
Commr..Senn said he felt comfortable with requiring Miss Hunt to
pay $52 for a new use permit next June. He believed this
approach would require the appellant to meet the objectives of
/—/8
the mobile home park, and if she ::ss successful, she Mould tare
the business outside her home.
Commr. Cross said he understood the CC &Rs could not be used as a
reason to deny the permit.
Cindy Clemens felt Commr. Karleskint was not using the CC &Rs as
the main reason for not granting the use permit. She recommended
if the Commission denied the use permit, a finding should be made
stating denial was based on traffic and health, safety, and
welfare concerns. She said a tie-was no action.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Peterson and Cross. ._
NOES - Commrs. Senn, Hoffman, Settle, and
Karleskint.
ABSENT - Commr. Williams.
The motion did not pass.
Commr. Settle moved to uphold the appeal reversing the hearing
officer's action for the reasons stated in the discussion
regarding the inability to make the findings of not adversely
:rceCtl y he. =1th, safety, and welfare; the aDDrooriateness or the
the �,±_�.�`ib'_1 ;C• r�rith tre s'rrr.`unaina
proposed location; and _ - - -
land uses.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
Commr. Karleskint requested that a statement be included in the
motion saying that a mobile home park is not suitable for
visitation by-clients on a regular basis.
Cindy Clemens said that would specify what the incompatibility
problem was because of the nature of a mobile home park. She
suggested adding the wordings being a mobile home park" after
the words "proposed location" in the motion.
Commrs. Settle and Hoffman agreed to the added wording.
Commr. Cross felt a statement was needed in the motion addressing
what makes a mobile home park different than other residential
neighborhoods. He said it would be difficult to name street
widths as a limiting factor for clients, when those street widths
are deemed adequate for residents and visitors.
Commr. Settle said one of his concerns was the precedent setting
nature in a mobile home park where streets are private and
smaller than city streets, where a higher population density
exists, and in an area managed by a homeowners association.
Cindy Clemens asked if the Commission was concerned about the
possibility of a cumulative impact rather than this particular
use, and Commr. Karleskint said yes.
Commr. Cross felt if cumulative impact was the concern, the issue
of a certain percentage of home occupations should be allowed in
mobile home parts.
The other Commissioners felt that was a separate issue.
Commr. Cross said he could not support the motion because one
vehicle per day was not a significant impact and he could not
make the findings.
Cindy Clemens said if that trip was multiplied by each unit, it
would be a cumulative impact. She said she believed the
Commission was seeing the possibility of a cumulative impact
because of the precedent - setting nature of this request.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Settle, Hoffman, Senn, and
Karleskint.
NOES - Commrs. Cross and Peterson.
ABSENT - Commr. Williams
The motion passed.
Commr. Hoffman suggested the homeowners association erect a sign
indicating that there are pedestrians in the street and that
pedestrians have the right of way.
The other Commissioners agreed with Commr. Hoffman.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Item S. Planned Development RezJnina Interpretation: A request
for an interpretatioVening garding the application for
planned development as a mechanism for
changing allowed use underlying zones; 1235 Osos
Street; 0 zone; San Medical Clinic, applicant.
Commr. Williams rejoined the Aeeting.
Whitney McIlvaine presented the staff report and explained that
staff has indicated to the applicant that a planned development
rezoning is not the approp fate mechanism for changing allowed
uses in the underlying zo es. She said medical offices are not
an allowed use in the cu ent zone. She said City policy -
generally favors housing and the containment of office uses. She
said staff believes tha an office in residential neighborhood
does not conform to the General Plan and has suggested the
applicant amend the ap lication to request that the property be
rezoned from resident' l.,to office.. She advised that no action
can be taken on this roposal, but' asked that the Commission
address the interpre ation issue. She said the alternatives
available to the Co ission are to find that planned development
rezoning is an appr priate mechanism for allowing an office use
in a residential z ne under General Plan policies and direct
staff to continue rocessing the application as a PD rezoning, or
`-a
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY OCTOBER 16, 1992
3057 South Higuera Street #33. Use Permit Appl. A 180 -92; Request for a home
occupation permit to allow massage therapy; R-
2 zone, Mary Hunt, applicant. (Continued from
September 18, 1992)
Whitney Mcllvaine presented the staff report, explaining that this item was continued to
allow the applicant time to meet with the Homeowners' Association and to hopefully
resolve the various concerns of the Homeowners' Association. She explained that the
applicant plans to do primarily off -site massage, and noted that staff has no problems with
the use as proposed. Staff recommended approval of the home occupation permit based
on standard findings and subject to standard conditions for massage therapy as home
occupations.
The public hearing was opened.
Mary Hunt, applicant, explained that she met with the Homeowners' Association, and they
do not support her operating this business from her home. She felt their main concern
was with traffic. She stated that she has a regular day -time job and is therefore limited
to evening hours for performing massages, and further noted that she had explained to
the Homeowners' Association that the majority of the work would be performed away
from the home. She said that occasionally there would be circumstances that arise where
people cannot accommodate her, and her home would need to be available for those
occasional times.
Terry Sanville inquired as to the frequency of home visits by clients.
Ms. Hunt responded that at a maximum, no more than 10% of her clients would come to
the home. She noted that she has been a student of massage therapy since June 15th,
and to her knowledge, there have not been any complaints to the park management or
her directly that there has been any problems. She said she felt adequate parking is
available in her carport for any client visiting the site, and noise is not a factor. Mr. Hunt
felt that the Homeowners' Association also had concerns with the frequency of client
visits.
Ms. Hunt explained that massage therapists are limited as to how many clients they can
accommodate in a given time frame. She noted her clients are scheduled two hours
apart. She further noted that she does not get home until 3 p.m., and her preference is
to have an early evening appointment at a business location, with possibly one client at
her home each evening. She then explained that on weekends she targets athletic
events, such as the San Luis Triathlon, the Cuesta Biathlon and such, so most of her
weekend work would be at sports events. She felt that the maximum she could handle
at home would be one client per Evening.
/ -a/
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 16, 1992
Page 2
Harold Heidler, President of the Chumash Village Homeowners' Association, spoke in
opposition to the request. He noted that this issue had been thoroughly discussed at a
Board of Directors' meeting, and it was unanimously decided that they could support her
business if all clients were seen off -site. He explained that they felt that seeing clients on-
site would be inconsistent with the CC &R's and the general attitude of the members of
the mobile home park.
Mr. Heidler stated that he had submitted a letter stating his concerns at the previous
meeting, and presented another letter stating the results of the voting of the Homeowners'
Association Board of Directors. He also noted their concurrence with allowing the use
if all clients were seen off -site.
Terry Sanville asked if topics of discussion at the Board Meeting included the idea of
limitations on the frequency of on -site visits,',kr�was %the feeling that any on -site visits
were inappropriate. or,
Mr. Heidler responded that it was the feeling of the Board that any on -site visits would be
unacceptable. He said there have been complaints received regarding parking at this
address -- that clients have been parking on the street during this training time. He also
noted that there had been a canoe in the driveway, and felt this would create a problem
with visitors parking in the driveway. Even if the canoe were moved, Mr. Heidler felt it
would be difficult to make clients comply and park in the driveway. He also noted that
the driveways (actually carports) are of minimal size.
Mr. Heidler felt that there is a noise factor due to the cars and the minimal setbacks in
mobile home parks. Mobile homes have thin, metal walls which noise easily penetrates.
The more traffic there is in the evening, the louder it will be. He noted that you can hear
every car that drives down the street. There are no sidewalks.
Ruth Worley, Secretary of the Board of Directors, indicated that, as Ms. Hunt brought up
at the Board of Directors meeting, there are others in the park that have home
occupation permits. She explained that one of the businesses in particular is already a
considerable problem, and they are trying to use "peer pressure" to correct the situation.
If this doesn't work, then a complaint will be filed with the city. She also noted that the
minute it was known that Ms. Hunt wanted to operate a business out of her home, one
resident said they would open a boutique and another said they would open a nail salon.
She felt there would be a problem setting a precedent.
Ms. Worley noted that the mobile homes are situated close together, and that the majority
of the residents are over 55 years of age. They walk in the middle of the street because
it is private.
o+a
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 16, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Heidler indicated that the street are only wide enough to park on one side. Because
of this, the park continually pursues no parking on the street, although it's allowed but
discouraged. He said he did not want to have to paint one side of the street red to
regulate the parking, so they have approached it by monitoring the parking.
Mary Hunt indicated that it was her understanding that residents are allowed to have a
vehicle parked in the front of mobile home during the daytime hours, and that after 10
p.m. all vehicles must be parked in the carport area. She said she was not aware of any
special restrictions during the daytime hours for parking. She admitted that she has
visitors that park in front of her mobile home, and until this hearing was unaware of any
restrictions regarding parking. Based on her understanding of the restrictions, her clients
could either park in the carport behind her vehicle, or park on the street in front of the
mobile home, provided they leave by 10 p.m. She further noted that no appointments
would be made later than 8 p.m. since they normally run for one hour. There would be
no additional vehicles at the site after the time period set forth in the park's guidelines.
Doris Sisfi, of space #155, said she moved into the park this past year. She indicated
that part of the reason she moved to this park was because it is a retirement park with
residents 55 years of age and older, quiet, no strangers and she could feel safe here.
She said she does not like the idea of any businesses in mobile home parks.
Harold Heidlen said that at one time there was a rule and regulation put out stating no
parking after 10 p.m., which was part of an order by the Fire Chief. He said this rule was
put there to discourage people from parking on the street, but doesn't really address the
total problem. He agreed with Ms. Hunt that there is no rule against parking on the
street. He felt it was against the city rules to have parking on both sides because the
streets are too narrow.
Dodie Williams, 438 Woodbridge Drive, said she thought the primary concern here is
precedent. She did not think there would be any objection to granting the home
occupation permit, provided it be restricted to off -site client visits. Ms. Williams noted that
her blind mother lives in the park and takes walks within the park, and Ms. Williams felt
there is a genuine concern for the number of people walking in the park. She indicated
that the park does not want a proliferation of businesses to arise in this park.
Milberta Wood, of space #69, and concurred with the statements made by Dodie
Williams. She further noted this is an adult park and that is the reason she moved there.
She felt it would be a detriment to have an pf -site permit issued.
Harold Heidlen clarified that the board has no objection to Ms. Hunt having clients within
the park, provided she goes to their home.
/-013
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 16, 1992
Page 4
The public hearing was closed.
Whitney Mcllvaine felt she was hearing some conflicting testimony. She acknowledged
concern about establishing this use as a home occupation, but did not feel the permit
should be denied simply because of CC &R restrictions (which the city legally cannot
enforce) .
Terry Sanville said he visited the site and drove around the mobile home park. He felt
that mobile home parks, as a residential area, are different in character and standards
than single - family neighborhoods, condominium developments or apartment complexes.
He felt that, based on the physical layout of the area, the park is not well suited to
receiving a substantial number of visitors with the purpose of supporting a home
occupation. He felt that the main questions is, what is substantial? Is there any
reasonable level that one could be monitored or controlled and not generate noticeable
traffic or change the character of the area?
His concern was whether or not a level existed that could work well in that physical
location, given the layout of the mobile home park. He noted that he reviewed the
available parking at the site, as well as within the park, and it appeared that there are no
obstructions in the parking bay, and the canoe may be obstructing "easy use" of that
area, but two cars could still be accommodated in the area.
Terry Sanville approved Use Permit Appl. A 180 -92, allowing a home occupation permit
for massage therapy, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of
persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
2. The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance
requirements.
4. The proposed use is exempt from environmental review.
5. The proposed home occupation meets conditions of the Municipal Code for
licensure of massage establishments and massage technicians (SLO M.C. Ch.
5.56) .
/Vt�
Administrative Hearing Minutes
October 16, 1992
Page 5
Conditions
1. The business will be conducted entirely inside without altering the appearance of
the house, grounds, or adjacent buildings.
2. There will be no sales or displays on the premises.
3. There will be no signs other than address and name of residents. Those signs will
meet the requirement for the R -2 zone.
4. There will be no advertising which identify the home occupation by street address
or location.
5. The home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, yard, or open
space (parking space in a garage is normally required parking).
6. The home occupation will not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare,
electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance.
7. No employees other than residents of the home will be allowed.
8. Clients or customers shall not be scheduled after 8:00 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m.
9. Appointments shall be scheduled so not more than one client vehicle at a time is
parked at the premises. All patron parking is to be located in the carport area.
10. Patron appointments shall be limited to one per day.
Terry Sanville explained that his decision is final unless appealed to the Planning
Commission within ten days of the action, and that an appeal may be filed by any person
aggrieved by the decision.
/ rA'45�
RECEIVED
ChumasM Village OCT , 61992
October 16, 1992 E7tit� -g /U ��U
x Lt
Zoning Officer e
City of San Luis Obispo r ci, ors -/�L
RE: Application for Home Occupation Permit to engage in message
therapy, by Mary Hunt, Space 33, Chumash Village Mobilehome Ioh/,
Park. Application A- 180 -92 `
We refer to the statement presented by Harold Heidler, President
of Chumash Village Homeowners Association. on September 18, 1992,
when this matter first came up for hearing. That statement dis-
cussed the policy of strict residential occupation of our condo-
minium, the pattern of pedestrian usage of our streets, and parking
conditions in Chumash Village. Under the zoning regulations of
the City of San Luis Obispo, this condominium has R -2 zoning.
At a General Meeting of the Board of Directors on October 3,
1992, the Board voted unanimously to recommend that the applicant
be given an off -site permit only.
There are other Home Occupation Permits in Chumash Village and
most permit holders adhere to the City regulations governing
the permits. In cases where permit holders appear to be b=eaci.iing
the rules, the residents of this condominium have and are working
to gain compliance, first through peer pressure, and then by
reporting alleged violations and resulting problems to the City.
An effort is made to avoid and eliminate on -site business operations
and to maintain this condominium mobilehome park as strictly
residential. At the Board meeting on October 3, several residents
expressed the desire and support of this policy.
If the City were to now grant a permit for Ms. Hunt to operate
a business within the boundaries of the condominium, we feel
it would set a precedent that would be very detrimental to the
residential cen.cept and its occupants. One on -site permit granted
by the City would quickly be followed by applications for numerous
commercial activities, and the quiet, safe atmosphere of our
senior residential area would be eroded.
We, the Board of Directors and the residents /owners of Chumash
Village homeowners Association, respectfully request that Ms.
Hunt be granted an off -site permit only for her massage therapy
business.
Harold Heidler, President Ruth W. Worley, cretary
Chumash Village Homeowners Assn.
3057 South Higuera Street / Son Luis Obispo, Californio 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
—0210
September 18. 1992
TO: City of San Luis Zoning Hearina Officer
FROM: Harold Heidler. President
Chumash Village Mobile Homeowners Association
RE: Use Permit Appl:caiion A 180 -92: Request for a home occupation
permit to allow massage therapy,; R -2 zone; Mary Hunt. applicant.
Chumash Village is a senior citizen. condominium development with pri-
vately owned streets and no sidewalks except near the clubhouse. In the
Rules and Regulations. Article 7. Paragraph 3. it states:
Drivers of vehicles. motorcycles and bicycles must obey the traffic
signs and speed limits in the Park. Pedestrians shall have the
right of way.
Many of the residents. by their doctor's orders, do a lot of walking on
our streets. Some of them are hard of hearing and ha•re other handicaps.
Residents of the park are used to the right -of -way factor for pedestri-
ans. Strangers in the park would not be aware of this rule for our
development.
We try to limit auto parking on the streets so that the pedestrians do
not have to walk in the middle of the street around parked cars which
increases the danger of them being hit by a moving vehicle.
There would also be more noise in the park from cars driving to her
place of business. This is a problem in a mobile home park due to the
fact that their is no setback for the homes which are on small lots and
street noise is much more noticeable in our park than in other residen-
tial areas.
Our CC b R's were written to protect the owners from this type of spe-
cial use permit. Article VII. USE RESTRICTIONS, Item 7.1 reads as
follows:
No Mobilehome Space shall be occupied and used except for residen-
tial purposes by the Owners, their tenants, and social guests, and
no trade or business shall be conducted except a residential
Hobilehome Space, to the extent that tenants are permitted in the
Project. may be used as a combined residence and executive or pro-
fessional office by the Owner thereof, so long as such use does
not interfere with the quiet enjoyment by other residential Mobile
home Spaces.
My understanding is that these CC 6 R's were accepted by the City of San
Luis Obispo.
Due to the foregoing. and the fact that many residents have contacted me
with their concerns. I believe this special use permit should be denied.
/-0
17.08.040 Home occupation.
A. Intent. The provisions set forth in this section are
intended to allow the conduct of home enterprisesw•hich
are incidental to and compatible with surrounding resi-
dential uses. A "home occupation" is gainful employ-
ment engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling.
B. Permit Required.
1. 'lire conduct of home occupation requires the ap-
proval of home occupation permit by the director, who
may establish additional conditions to further the intent
of this section. A permit is required when a person does
business in his /her home. Home occupations may be
conducted from dwellings located in residential zones or
from dwellings located in commercial zones where
dwellings are an allowed or conditionally allowed use.
A public notice shall be posted at the site of each pro-
posed home occupation. If anyone informs the commu-
nity development department of question or objection
concerning the proposed home occupation within five
days of the posting, the director shall schedule a hearing
for the application as provided for administrative use
permits. If no questions or objections are received by the
communiry development department within five days
after posting, the director may issue the permit upon
submission of all required information and without fur-
ther notice or public hearing.
2 State licensed child day care centers for six or fewer
children are exempt from home occupation regulations
(see state Health and Safety Code, Section 1529.5).
C. General Requirements.
1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent cus-
tomer access or have other characteristics which would
reduce residents, enjoyment of their neighborhoods.
The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be main-
tained.
2. Activities shall be conducted entirelywithin the d%vell-
ina unit or an enclosed accessory building, and shall not
alter the appearance of such structures. (Horticultural
activities may be conducted outdoors.)
3. There shall be no sales, rental or display on the prem-
ises.
4. There shall be no signs other than address and names
of residents.
S. There shall be no advertising the home occupation by
streetaddress except that street address maybe included
1'_
on business cards business correspondence origi-
nating from the horue.
6. No vehicle larger than a three - quarter -ton truck may
be used in connection with a home occupation.
7. The home occupation shall not encroach on any re-
quired parking, yard or open space area.
S. Parking forvehicles used in connection with the home
occupation shall be provided in addition to parkin;
required for the residence.
9. Activities conducted and equipment or materials used
shall not change the fire safety or occupancy classifica-
tions of the premises, noruse utilities in amounts greater
than normally provided for residential use.
10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, vibration,
smell, smoke, glare, or electrical interference, or other
hazard or nuisance.
11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling
shall be allowed. (Babysitters or domestic servants are
not considered employees of a home occupation.)
12. Cl'ents or customers s:`.:.1: - *,he
lion between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m.
13. If the home occupation is to be conducted in rental
property, the property owners autorization for the
proposed use shall be obtained.
D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses by their opera-
tion or nature may interfere with residential welfare and
diminish the convenience intended for commercial zones.
and therefore shall not be permitted as home occupa-
tions:
1. Automotive repair (body or mechanical), or detailing,
upholstery or painting of automobiles.
2. Barber or beauty shop;
3. Carpentry or cabinet making;
4. Welding or machining;
5. Medical offices, clinics, laboratories:
6. Child care of more than six children or instruction for
more than three school -age children or adults at one
time (not counting residents of the home);
7. Appliance, radio or television repair,
1`0
6.14 Exemption from Assessments. All property dedicated to, and accepted by, a
local public authority or public agency shall be exempt from the assessments created
herein. However, no land or improvement devoted to dwelling use shall be exempt from
said assessments. Exc e rp-Ls {ro rn CDutrn ash G C. � 1\ • S
ARTICLE VII
USE RESTRICTIONS
In addition to all-of the covenants herein contained, the use of the property and
each Mobilehome Space therein is subject to the following:
7.1 Condominium Use.
A. No Mobilehome Space shall be occupied and used except for residential
purposes by the Owners, their tenants, and social guests, and no trade or business shall be
conducted except a residential Mobilehome Space, to the extent that tenants are per -
muted in the Project, may be used as a combined residence and executive or professional
office by the Owner thereof, so long as such use does not interfere with the quiet
enjoyment by other residential Mobilehome Space Owners of their Mobilehome Spaces. No
tent, shack, trailer, basement, garage, outbuilding, or structure of a temporary character
shall be used at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently.
No Mobilehome Space or Mobilehome Spaces or any portion thereof,
including the Mobilehomes situated thereon, in the Project shall be leased, subleased,
occupied, rented, let, sublet, or used for or in connection with any timesharing agreement,
plan, program, or arrangement, including without limitation, any socalled "vacation
license ", "travel club ", "extended vacation'.', or other membership or timeinterval ownership
arrangement. The term "time- sharing" as used herein shall be deemed to include, but
shall not be limited to, any agreement, plan, program, or arrangement under which the
right to use, occupy or possess the Mobilehome Space or Spaces or any portion thereof,
r
including the Mobilehome situated thereon, in the Project rotates among various persons,
-31- Icg
L. --.AOOOWP--y
9
KIM
p
SPEED LIIAIT 47
15 MPH 4
---Now
LAi
- ke,
,3a6- 7 let / 4,c< . -j3
November 24, 1992
San _Luis Obispo City Counsel
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: To whom it may concern
Subject: Business license for Mary Hunt
Ms. Hunt has informed me that her previously approved business
license which was modified to allow one business client per day
has been appealed by the home owner's association of Chumash
Mobile Home Park. I believe that the modified business license
granted to Ms. Hunt is a fair compromise for both parties. The
residences at Chumash Mobile Home Park should not be impacted by
the business license as stated.
Ms. Hunt is not the type of person that would take advantage or
abuse the permission of conducting part time business out of her
home. I have known Ms. Hunt for over 8 years and would highly
recommend her character and trustworthiness. Ms. Hunt is an
upstanding citizen and your City should be proud to have her.
In today's hard economic times evidenced by businesses cutting
staff and expenses it is essential for families to be creative in
how they make ends meet.
Respectfully,� %
*G: M. Bland
cc Ms. Mary Hunt
1 NOV 3 u 1992,,11
V! 1 V L'LtNI..
SAN L.�:S vbISFU. c.., VV
/-3l
Im
Bank )f America
R. A. Warren
Vice President and Manager
San Luis Obispo Office
City Council
San Luis Obispo
December 7, 1992
C: Covrtc,L�
f}. JpnaS
L°iry C�-ERK
This letter is being written to express my support for Mary Hunt and to request that you
approve Mary in her application for a use permit for massage therapy.
My association with Mary has been as her supervisor during a portion of her 12 years with
Bank of America. I have observed her for several years as she successfully managed a
credit portfolio of over $10 million dollars. She is a responsible, trustworthy, and very
professional person. These same qualities can now be seen applied to her current position
as a teacher and in her massage work as well.
I feel her recent work in massage therapy will be very beneficial to our community. On
referral from my chiropractor, I have received competent and restorative therapeutic work
from her on several occasions.
The special condition of one client per day is a reasonable and fair solution to her mobile
home park setting. I strongly encourage you to approve her permit and give her the
opportunity to show you that the limited work from her home can successfully blend with
the park area. From past experiences with Mary, I have complete confidence that she will
be able to show how this can be a positive situation for all concerned.
Sincerely,
R. A. Warren
Vice President and Manager
Bank of America Nal
11 05 Higuera Street
a C DEC 14 1992
SAN Lt S OB /SPOJ Cq
ional Trust and Savings Association
Box 731 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 �IAz
G: CounGtJ..
4. :son a s
City C/erk
December 8,1992
City Council
990 Palm street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Re: Approval for use permit/Mary Hunt
I have known Mary Hunt both professionally and as a friend for
the past 5 1/2 years. Her work as a massage therapist is a
beneficial extension of her extensive knowledge and experience in
the Physical Education field. For a person like me who suffers
from High Blood Pressure and Diabetes, she has brought endless
hours of support and encouragement in my own development for a
healthier lifestyle. She is the best trainer and certified
Aerobic Instructor I ever had.
I am writing this letter in support of her application for a
conditional. permit as originally approved by the planning
commission. I am sure that allowing her to have one client per
day will have no adverse effect on the other residences of
Chumash Village Park. I visited the Park more than once and I
feel there is more than adequate parking available for one client
per day. With unlimited visitors allowed in the park, I fail to
see how one single vehicle a day can have a negative impact to
such an unrestricted park setting.
Mary is a mature, hard working, and reliable person. I feel that
she should be given the opportunity to show how professionally
she can follow the conditions of a permit.
Emile E. Attala, Ph.D.
1667 El Cerrito Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
FYT
RFce,
C
1413
C4
1-93
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 1992
Cffy NmNaLOPSMEMD1r
City of San Luis Obispo
- To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Doreen D'Amico. I reside at 3057 S. Higuera, Space #32.
Miss Mary Hunt, Space #33, is appealing a decision of the Planning Commission to not
grant her a business license to operate a massage therapy clinic, from, and in, her home.
I feel very strongly, that if such a license was granted, it would invade my privacy and the
quiet enjoyment I now have.
Nfi&s Huds ggporl is no further than four feet from my norch which i uge freauentty:
Added trafc to tine arza would be hard to ignore.
I chose Chumash Village with great care for my retirement years. The lack of noise and
heavy traffic played a great deal in my decision Having a business next door, no further
than a stone's throw away, is invading my privacy.
I truly hope the council will uphold the previous decision of "No."
We are a community of retired citizens who, having worked hard, deserve the right to live
in Chumash Village without the added worry of extra traffic and businesses opening in the
park.
Doreen. M. D'Amico
November 29, 1992
-may L
3�
yam=
1-v/
ueluud %� o omp0 48613
a a 1 uvu
O[
.SNss�xdWI IS [�
ZWh acrd 9ea�t lUillard `��� y �9oZ
ccr
/-3S
ju
AJ, /f
3 ds7- 7
�ECEVV tLi
Nov 1 ? 1592
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
'rVMUNVTY DEVE' r-qrb -
r
/-3 b
" r
Chumash
Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHO14E PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over SS years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are nsrr:,w, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident
r
A'w'-I
.l
Space $
19L.
i
.'_v Iii • � �
Resident Space #
is ��
:1-4
. J
�,5 Z
All personSsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Higuero Street / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
31
0
Chumash Village
November 1992
!3
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Re 'dent apace r
/,
ide at the following address:
3057 South Higuero Street / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
x
Chumash Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident Space #
Resident ss2ace #
All personfsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Hiauera Street / Son Luis Obispo, Colifornio 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
... .....�_.�....._..._ ..... ........... _.... ... _.. ..
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few. sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets..
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident i
r
4
i
i
Space # Resident S2ace #
�. 7
lza
All personSsigning this petition reside at the following address:
30.57 South Higuera Street / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
C-L
Chum'ash Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Space # Resident Space 3
_,5
64
�Z- - - - --
�2
All personfaigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Higuera Street / Scan Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
zo
j
ChumasA Vi I l age
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is-a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident Space R
,j-
.4v�� -c
7
1G
117-
X84
Z/ ►�/!��
-�Mo4u-- 1 �6(
All personSsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057. -South Higuero Street / Son Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
_ 2
_a
7
X
Chumash Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHO14E PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident
Space #
%5--
1aS
/13
i
Reside ht Space #
Z
All personSsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Higuero Street / Son Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
_ k
,Z. Z
Chumash Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHU14ASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
. Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Space #
�3
�o
11,3
Resident
Ll
Space // #
Z.
67
7
Gs
71
All pe4rnfsigning his petition reside at the following address:
J
3057 South Higuera Street / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
I
Chumash Village
November 1992
2Z
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resi nt Space #
7 q7
4
i0i
"Pi-
,F, 73_
Resident SS2ace #
W6
I � _
Lip__ JM�ORATAWZA!
r
LAY
/ /
I
I
All personfsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Higuero Street / Son Luis Obispo; Colifornio 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
.0
Chumash Village
November 1992
0
The undersigned residents of CHU14ASH VILLAGE MOBILEHO14E PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident Space #
J G_
�j iii +I 4i-y,.
Resident Space #
All personfsigning this petition reside at the following address:
3057 South Higuero Street / Son Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
U .. ..
Chumash Village
November 1992
The undersigned residents of CHUMASH VILLAGE MOBILEHOME PARK
are opposed to the City of San Luis Obispo authorizing Home Occupation
Permits that increase traffic and /or parking on our privately owned
and maintained streets.
Chumash Village is a condominium residential area for persons
over 55 years of age. Many handicapped senior citizens live here, and
they walk the streets for exercise. We have very few sidewalks, the
streets_ are narrow, and park rules give pedestrians the right of way
on the streets.
The senior residents of Chumash Village need a special, controlled
place to live. Please do not force us to install a gate and guard at
the entrance to our private property; we can ill afford it.
Please do not take actions that will disrupt our lives. We will
appreciate it if the City of San Luis Obispo would keep a copy of this
petition on file for future reference.
Resident Space # Resident Space #
zz
. �v.,. ire
All personSsigning this petition reside-at the following address:
3057 South Higuera Street / San Luis Obispo, California 93401 / (805) 543 -4272
e
Richard Rappert
Locksmith
Larry Stabler
landscape maintenance
Dr. Norma Spry
Minister
Brian Harvey
Contractor
Joseph Reynolds
Haz. Mat. Consulting
Larry Ridenour
.Computer program /consult
James Vasquez
Bookkeeping /Computer Svice
Cy Robinson
Handyman
Lupe Hahn
silk Flower Arrangements
.16th �A L�� / 0
ANA fx
AGENDA
DATE #84 D
... S-173 ITEM #
3/5/91
#220
8/19/88
#231
12/17/90 A pmvec, 6me OC6"Pa4ci
10/19/91 Chvmash V1,110-5e
#168 M061lehome Fc3k
4/26/90
#92
8/18/89
#92
8/1/89
#183
5/16/89
#217
10/6/.87
mq
AV
m
RECEIVED ❑M:
JAN 5 1993 o D'wn�
CITY COUNCIL 0 ❑ f-IREC i
❑ FIREC[ -;gyp
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 77Uy Q FWDUL
❑ � o POu� ��
CRFADFU ❑en
nro
To City Council,Citiy of San Luis Obispo, Cali�NGENDA /
DATE _1�SITE�
Regarding Permit for Mary Hunt,massage Therapist.
As stated under Issues,Traffics
I am a resident of Chumash Mobile Park, and I personally see no prob-
lem with Mary Hunt's business creating any traffic increaset as she
plans to have only an occasional patient recieve therapy at her home.
I understand, from her, that the majority of her patients will have
their treatments done in their own homes, so I believe there will be
no problem with more traffic here .
We have wide streetst32 feet is wider than the average mobile park
street.
CC &R's: I cannot concieve of any noise or interfereence from her busin —
- ess,which would conflict with anyone's "quiet enjoyment ".
Misperceptions
Mr. Heidler referred to Mrs. Hunt's business as a "Massage Parlor"
at a Board meeting I attended.Ita bad aspersion on Mrs. Hunt's acct -
ivities in her business, and caused many people to think it would be a
totally "different" sort of business.
I would like to ask that the permit for Mary Hun
approved,
One of the Chumash Mobile Park residents=
✓1n ,
Mary A.' Bauip'�, and LeRoy L. Baum
z be re- instated,or
COPlE M:
la Caa� CDDDIR
C?fZO FIR DIR
o ❑ PmFaMP
o i❑ FW DIR.
s ❑ Pouaal.
❑ MCMT.TEAM ❑ F.ECDIE.
�CREADFILE ❑ %P
_ J
oAe-
RECEIVED
AN - 5 1993
LUIS OSMPO. CA
MEETING AGENDA
DATE i--- 9. ITEM #
C3 pDenotes
Action. ❑ F17
CAO F�ATD DIR
ACAO O � CNEF
E
ED C. uCEa-t
0 MCMT TEAM CJ PEC DIR.
CREADFax ❑ LD7R
&
S �r sw•8
San WS Obispo, CAD, 95
83401
MEE,n* MEI
ff
DATE
- o eeAl
f
AI I
f
ol
JAN - 4 1993
CITY CLERK-- —
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
coundi CDD DUL
CAO U FIRDIFIL
ACAO FIRECHIU
ATroiuqEy
CUMK/OPIG. ❑ POUCECK
Mcgril
.T&WO-F
C READ FHX ❑ UTILDM
MOOG AGENDA
December 23, 1992
The City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTENTION: Council Members
SUBJECT: Mary Hunt - Use Permit Issuance
CGP rI'S.' TO:
A
❑' Denotp eon ❑ FYI
G=ndl
CDD DI1
O
P>
❑ FIN. DIX
L-d ACAO
❑ q F
FW DIP,
Q
POLICECH
7/%J-zc&i
El P.Ec DI1
❑ .0 AF
Ci T.
❑ UM 011
V Fill
With this letter I hope to clarify certain areas and give
supporting material as to why the Council should approve the
issuance of a conditional use permit for massage therapy from my
home.
As a student of massage therapy since June 15th, 1992 I have
been giving free massages on a limited basis in my home. I feel
there have been no adverse effects to the Chumash Mobilehome
Park or to my neighbors from this activity. Not until I filed
for my use permit did allegations about parking arise. At the
first hearing reference was made concerning parking in front of
our homes. Our streets are slightly narrower and we do have a
rule where we do not park on the street after 10:00 p.m. It is
common practice to park on the street during the day. I wrote a
letter to the HOA to clarify this rule and have not received a
response. During the second hearing these allegations were
changed and thus stated that my visitors were blocking the
carport areas of my neighbors. You will find attached
statements from both adjacent neighbors that this has never
occurred. The home directly across from me has been vacant for
more than a year and a half. I have reviewed the park's file in
the main office and there are no written complaints from
neighbors for the entire eleven years I have lived in the park.
Again I wrote the HOA requesting written support of these
allegations or a statement of retraction. No response has been
received as of this writing. It can clearly be seen that these
parking complaints are false.
The HOA shows concern for traffic levels in the park. We are
allowed an unlimited number of visitors and service vehicles to
come to our home. It has already been stated by the HOA that
they would not be able to distinguish between a visitor to my
home versus a client. Whether I have ten visitors to my home or
nine visitors and one client the effect is the same. The HOA
welcomes my services for the residents -of the park. I would
have the same effect on the park by loading up my equipment and
driving to their home to provide a service as they or any other
client would have if they came to my home for this service. In
the first situation the traffic impact is acceptable but in the
second identical situation it is not. There is a clear
contradiction of standards by the HOA.
REG EIVED
DEC 2 4 1992
CITY CLERK
eeu i t nR nSISPO. CA
The City Council
December 23, 1992
Page two
Lastly, a petition has been provided by the HOA. After the
circulation of this petition I received over five phone calls
from park residents asking me if I was aware of the innuendos
expressed as this was circulated. I had already heard firsthand
such remarks from the president of the HOA. I attended an HOA
meeting to request support in the issuance of my use permit. At
the close of the discussion concerning my permit the president
clearly referred to my work as "massage parlor ", laughed a
little and then corrected his usage to massage therapy. I found
his remarks insulting and very unprofessional. I feel this same
attitude was carried over as he circulated the above mentioned
petition.
I contend that for almost five and one -half months I have done
free massage work on a limited basis from my home with no
adverse affects to the park or my neighbors. I feel a
reasonable compromise was reached between the views of myself
and the HOA when the planning commission officer approved my use
permit and limited contact to one client per day. I strongly
encourage you to uphold the original approval. I feel it
clearly reflects both parties' viewpoints and fairly applies the
guidelines for a use permit. Allow me an opportunity to show
that I can follow these conditions at no additional impact to
the residential area.
Sincerly,
Mary Hunt
3057 S. Higuera, Space 33
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
541 -4995
cc: Planning Commission
Attachments
STATEMENT OF FACT
As owner of Space # -3 y/ , my carport area has never been blocked by any visitors to Mary
Hunt's home at Space #33 in Chumash Mobile Home Park.
Date: /.2 -� / ��� f2
Signature:
Address:
Phone: �'
STATEMENT OF FACT
As owner of Space # J � . , my carport area has never been blocked by any visitors to Mary
Hunt's home at Space #33 in Chumash Mobile Home Park.
Date: Ili
Signature: ✓40-
Ad ress: , 3d57.
.' .s Do 61,4 LZS /
Phone:
No 1:74 .n s
10 19-:1, cj� G,WS
6/dGrCrr�C r„[ Gf9rC d� /� nAd[ SED '-s
l �-� Gor -�k J h A ✓ 5769 T4
/ N CA u rn a s �A•e,� ,�,e�
MiG AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
December 18, 19
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
Dear City Council,
COMINTO:
❑ • Dawto Aeon
❑ FYI
a- C=mdl
d CAO
C'CDDDUL
❑ FN. DIR.
QKACAO
12'ATTORNEY
❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ FW DUL
CLERK/ORIC.
MGMT. TEAM
❑ READFILE
�TT.
❑ POLCCE CH
❑ REC. DIR.
❑ IMLDUL
Cff' Rig
I apologize for not being about to attend the hearing for Mrs.
Hunt, I have recently had back surgery and am not able to get
around easily yet,
Mrs. Hunt is asking for a City Permit to practise her
profession, massage therapy, out of her home in Chumash
Village and as she has previously stated, the bulk of her work
will be elsewhere in the city.
The President of the Board of Directors of Chumash Village
called her profession a "massage parlor," I consider these
words a gross misrepresentation of a viable, necessary and
acceptable profession. You may know that many medical doctors
recommend message therapy for their patients.
Mrs, Hunt came to my house not long after I was out of the
hospital and gave me a message that was recommended by my
doctor. As a Licensed Vocation Nurse I think her work is
above reproach. I have absolutely no objections to her
continuing her profession in our community.
I ask you to please authorize Mrs. Hunt's request to continue
her work as a massage therapist. Many people can benefit from
Mrs. Hunt's skills, We are in a recession and work is not
easy to come by. When a person has a skill and is able to
perform it as a benefit to many people, I say let her do it.
Thank you.
RECEIVEO
DEC 2 91992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Sincerely yours, c
Lorraine Davis,
Vice- .President of the
Board of Directors
of Chumash Village
3057 So, Higuera
No. 134
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
December 23, 1992
City Council -San
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,
Luis Obispo
Ca 93401
Dear Council Members,
6 -tTING AGENDA
DATE �_ ITEM # =
COFIIN TO:
Duo es Ac on,,.,/ FYI
Z CDD DIR
CAO
ACAo
❑ nw. DIR
rirECHIEF
/ATTOR7—
CLcRK /O?,IG•
❑ FIV DIR.
O
MGMT.T
POLICE CH
=1+qq
CyIZEgD FIL
rJ P EC. DIR
Q 'T,L DIP,
_l Or1
�'�C
This letter is in regard to the use permit for Massage
Therapy requested by Mary Hunt. Mary would like to use her
home, located in the Chumash Mobile Home Park, for her place
of business.
I believe it should be explained at this time that massage
therapy is a valid form of therapy. A massage can take from
1 1/2 hours to 2 hours, massages are usually not done one
after another. There needs to be time to rest, since an
great amount of energy is expended.
While receiving my use permit from the planning department,
Mary was also trying to receive hers. A gentleman from the
Chumash Home Owners Association spoke against the permit
stating a concern about more traffic in the park and parking
problems. Having visited Mary on several occasions for
massages, there was not a problem with parking; she
requested I park in her carport. Mary will be working away
from home starting in January. I doubt that any of the
residents in the park will notice a change in traffic flow
by an occasional massage client.
I understand the-concerns of the residents for their park;
but, I also know they will see no marked changes in the
traffic or parking.
I would like to point out, at this time, that during the
planning hearing the gentleman for the park-made the comment
that Mary was more than welcome to do massages on the
residents in the park. I wonder what was meant by that
comment? She would need to use her car to transport the
necessary equipment, where will she park?
RECEI V EU
DEC 2 � 199
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
Thank you for your time and I hope you will consider this
request seriously. Mary is quite serious about her massage
work. Give her the opportunity to use the skills she worked
so hard to achieve.
Sincerely,
Rayleen A. Wight C.M.T.
MICHAEL S. KROUT
A LAW CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1264 HIGUERA STREET
P.O. BOX 1028
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406
805/544 -2137
TELECOPIER 805/544 -2111
December 17, 1992
Members of the City Council
City Hall
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo,
CA 93403 -8100
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 1 .ITEM #
RE: Resolution No. 51.15 -92
Mary Hunt, Application No. A- 180 -92
Dear Honorable Members of the City Council:
COPIZ TO:
❑' of Action ❑ FYI
�� ICDD DIR
i CAO ❑ FIN. Dip,
[�ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TTCdtNiY ❑ FWDIR.
Id CLE!iK /O ?,IC. ❑ POLICE Cfi
❑ MGM?: TE %A4 acw READ FILE - T.r_ l'
I am a resident of the City of San Luis Obispo and am acquainted
with the applicant, Mary Hunt.
Ms. Hunt has served as a volunteer masseuse for the Cal Poly
Bicycle Club, and at various local athletic events including
triathalons and bicycle races.
I am myself an avid bicycle rider and I also row a single scull.
Ms. Hunt has provided me with the benefits of her abilities in
the area of therapeutic massage, on a gratuitous basis, when I
have been sore or pulled a muscle following a race. Although I
would like to compensate Ms. Hunt for the very beneficial therapy
which she provides, I am not able to do so due to the zoning
restrictions.
I do believe that Ms. Hunt has great ability and she would like
to be able to use this ability on a very limited commercial basis
in her home.
I would strongly urge each of the Members of the City Council to
permit her a limited home occupation with such reasonable
restrictions as may be necessary to protect the neighboring
property owners.
Ms. Hunt does not wish to expand her operation into a major
commercial enterprise of leasing space. It is my understanding
that she only wishes the right to offer therapeutic massage to
her friends and acquaintances on a very limited basis as outlined
in her application. At present, she provides those services at
no cost to.the recipients and certainly with no disruption to the
Park. The same numbers of people who now receive gratuitous
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK STATE 1970
ADMITTED TD PRACTICE IN NEVADA 1970
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CAEIFORNIA 1972
1 \�J DEC 2.1 199L
�/►, i RY OBS
'" f AN LUIS BI..P O, CA
Members of the City Council
Page Two
December 17, 1992
massage therapy from Ms. Hunt will be paying for the same
services and there will be no increase in the traffic to the
Park.
I respectfully request that the City Council grant Ms. Hunt's
application for a home occupation permit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Mich ae I. Krout
MSK:sch
cc: Mary Hunt