The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/02/1993, 5 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION: 1) GRANTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND 2) GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO TWO NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS AT 1026, 1028, 1038, AND 1042 PALM STREET. 1I}lu^�q I�IIIII^�I N III MEETING GATE: city of san �ais oBispo . ,_ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Developme Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planne��/ SUBJECT: Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action: 1) granting a mitigated negative declaration; and 2) granting final approval to two new office buildings at 1026, 1028, 1038, and 1042 Palm Street. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution upholding the ARC's action and denying the appeal subject to the recommended findings and conditions. BACKGROUND On February 1, 1993 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) concurred with the Community Development Director's environmental determination and granted final approval to the Palm Street Office Buildings on the north side of Palm Street, between Osos and Santa Rosa Streets. That decision has been appealed by a concerned citizen. Appeals of ARC decisions are heard by the City Council. Below is a summary of planning actions leading up to final ARC approval: January 26, 1993: Administrative use permit granted, allowing offices in the 0 zone, joint parking, and a 3113" tall building where 25' is normally allowed. January 15, 1993: Lot line adjustment approved, combining six lots into two lots. November 23, 1992: ARC approved demolition of four structures and granted schematic approval with direction to relocate one handicapped parking space, add landscaping, and to use larger trees in the street yard. July 20, 1992: ARC continued the project with direction to: reduce the number of parking spaces required, possibly through the use of tandem spaces; provide additional landscaping; restudy building entries; and to restudy shear walls, skybridge design and materials, and roof designs. June 29, 1992 : Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed and commented on the proposed demolitions and on the project's historical compatibility. CONSEQUENCES OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the City Council upholds the ARC's action and denies the appeal, the applicants will be able to proceed with building permit processing. If the council upholds the appeal, the applicants' cannot proceed with the project as submitted. They would need to �u ►►�IIIII�I�InN�►�d�U city of San L JS OBISPO �` COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 2 redesign the project to address the issues identified by the City Council. DATA SUMMARY Appellant: Timothy Michael Farrell Applicants: Palm Street Enterprise Representative: Craig Smith Zoning: O and O-H General Plan: Office and Office, Historic Zone Environmental Determination:. Mitigated Negative Declaration ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION On February 1st the ARC voted 4 to 1 to approve the project (Commrs. Illingworth and Homer absent) subject to conditions dealing with noise proofing of adjacent dwellings, building color, landscaping, mechanical equipment screening, and pedestrian access (ARC follow-up letter attached) . Commissioners also concurred with the Director's mitigated negative declaration after modifying the project's mitigation measures. Two citizens spoke at the hearing, and objected to the project primarily due to environmental and architectural compatibility concerns. Most commissioners felt that the structures to be demolished were not historically significant, and that with some changes, the project would be compatible with the neighborhood's architectural character. The nearby Teass Building and County Government Center were cited as precedents for this project's scale and overall design: From the outset, commissioners had concerns with the project's architectural compatibility -- particularly with its scale, massing, and roofline (minutes attached) . However the majority of commissioners felt that the project represented a logical design direction for this transitional neighborhood. In response to ARC comments, the applicant increased the sideyard setback for the northerly office building, increased the size of landscape plantings, and made several exterior design changes. Basis For Appeal The appellant raises 12 specific issues in the attached appeal letter. The November 23rd and February 1st staff reports are attached as background, and below is a summary of the appeal issues and staff responses. 1. Loss of historic Palm Street residential frontage. One-third of the site is in the Office-Historic zone: 1026 and 1028 Palm Street, the Woolpert & Associates Law Offices. The rest of the one-half acre site is zoned Office, and is outside the historic ,111111IIU1101� jBl city of San _ass OBISpo SION"" COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 district. The front building at 1026 Palm Street would be partially demolished, remodelled and enlarged. The smaller building at the rear would be removed. Buildings at 1038 and 1042 Palm Street would be demolished. None of the structures are listed on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, nor is there documentation to indicate that, individually, they are historically or architecturally unique. They are, however, part of a neighborhood -- Walnut, Peach, Mill Streets and the north side of Palm Street, between Osos and Santa Rosa Streets -- with a well- defined architectural character in terms of building pattern, residential scale, setbacks, landscaping, and period of construction. CHC members did not agree on whether the demolitions and new construction would detract from the neighborhood. Minutes and a letter from committee member Fourie are attached. 2. Project's setback exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. As revised, the project meets the City's setback requirements. No setback exceptions were granted. 3. Project's height exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. The hearing officer granted a height exception allowing a 3113" tall building where 25 feet is normally allowed. In the Office zone, a maximum height of 35 feet is allowed with approval of an administrative use permit. The hearing officer approved the six foot exception, finding that: 1) the exception would not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas; 2) the project's access arrangements would not direct traffic to use local residential streets; and 3) the project included landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian areas from nearby dwellings. Most of the office buildings' mass is under 25 feet, with the roof ridges reaching 31 feet. 4. Architectural Compatibility. The buildings would be larger than most of the neighboring buildings in the block, with the exception of the Teass Building. Most of the adjacent offices were once houses, and many still retain a "residential" character as viewed from the street. The proposed buildings would each be on 75-foot wide lots, in contrast with the neighborhood's established building pattern and spacing based on 50-foot wide lots. A second-. story pedestrian bridge would link the two buildings. The ARC's demolition and architectural approvals were based on: 1) findings that the demolitions would not remove, damage or change the character of an historically, esthetically, or architecturally significant building; and 2) the form, bulk, scale, siting and materials of the proposed buildings and landscaping will promote the historic character of the O-H zone in which the project is """► Aq�ll1 city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 4 located. S. "If-then" noise mitigation. Under Section 15041 of the City's Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "lead agency" has authority to require project changes or mitigation. measures to lessen or avoid significant adverse impacts. The "decision-making body" must include environmental review as part of a public hearing on its decision to approve a project, and must either concur with the Director's environmental determination, modify the required mitigation, or require additional environmental study. As the "decision-making body" .for this project, the ARC evaluated the initial study and determined that: 1) significant adverse noise impacts to adjacent dwellings were likely due to the project; and 2) that mitigation measure 1 should be modified to require installation of new sound-proofing windows or the equivalent on dwellings adjacent to the public alley (not wall insulation, walls or fencing, or landscaping as recommended in the initial study) . In this regard, the ARC was acting within its authority and responsibility under law. 6.. Environmental review - historical impacts. The Director determined that the project would not have significant, adverse esthetic impacts. The initial study discusses historic preservation and esthetic issues and notes that the ARC is charged with reviewing demolitions, historic significance, and esthetics and that the project would be reviewed for conformance with city standards during public hearings. 7. Increased traffic. The project would generate an estimated 100 additional vehicle trips per day on adjacent streets -- an increase of about 20 percent. According to the City Engineer, the public alley and adjacent streets are adequate to handle this traffic increase without adverse impacts to traffic or circulation. S. Public notice - demolition. Community Development Department records show that legal notice requirements were met. Legal notice is required for ARC and use permit hearing items, including demolitions. For ARC items this involves a legal ad, letters to property owners or tenants within 300 feet, and a sign posted at the site. Administrative use permits also require a legal ad and posting, with letters sent to adjacent property owners and tenants. 9. Public notice - schematic and environmental review. Community Development Department records show that schematic review and environmental review legal notice requirements were met. CEQA requires a 21-day public review period for negative declarations. �'T ��un� ��Nlll�l��nll city of san .pis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT aff Report ' age 5 The Director's environmental determination was published in a local newspaper on November 28, 1992 . No public comments were received until the February 1st meeting. 10. CHC review. Architectural plans and a staff report were distributed to CHC members on June 26, 1992 . Three of the seven . committee members reviewed the project at their June 29, 1992 meeting. A forth member sent in comments to staff. The CHC's comments were then forwarded to the ARC prior to the commission's demolition approval. The CHC's role is that of advisor to the ARC. The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines do not require the CHC to approve either the demolitions or the new project's design. 11. Recent ARC approvals. In 1989 and 1991, the ARC approved similar office projects at 1060 Palm Street (ARC 89-19) and at 770 Santa Rosa Street (ARC 90-120) . These projects involved the demolition of houses and their reconstruction as offices, closely following the scale, massing and architectural character of the original houses. The ARC and staff viewed these as successful office conversions which were compatible with the neighborhood's prevailing architectural character. The floor area of the house at 1060 Palm Street was increased 37 percent by enlarging the second story and extending the building toward the rear of the lot. By contrast, the proposed project will increase the gross floor area on site from approximately 6, 200 square feet in five buildings, to 11, 341 square feet in two buildings -- a floor area increase of about 80 percent. 12. General plan policy. The Land Use Element calls for the long- term conversion and replacement of historic or architecturally significant buildings in the Office zone rather than replacement. Under the Municipal Code, the ARC is charged with determining architectural, historical or esthetic significance. Based on the ARC's final action and findings, the project is consistent with this policy. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "A" , denying the appeal and approving the project subject to the recommended findings and conditions, with or without changes to the project, conditions of approval, or mitigation measures. 2. Adopt the draft resolution, Exhibit "B" , upholding the appeal and denying the project subject to the recommended findings. 3 . Continue the item with direction to staff or the appellant. ►��i ►�IhIIII��N ��lll city of San OBISpo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 6 f 4 . Refer the item back to the ARC with direction. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Exhibit A, a resolution upholding the ARC's action and denying the appeal subject to the recommended findings and conditions. Attachments: Draft Resolutions Vicinity Map Appellant's Letter ARC follow-up letter ARC staff Reports Initial Environmental Study ARC and CHC minutes Excerpt from Historical Program Guidelines. Denying EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION GRANTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING NEW OFFICES AT 1026, 1028, 1038 AND 1042 PALM STREET, (ARC 129-92) . BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San. Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That this council, after consideration of the appeal, public testimony, Cultural Heritage Committee comments, the Architecture Review Commission's action on February 1, 1993 granting a mitigated negative declaration and approving two new office buildings at 1026, 1028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street (ER 129- 92 , ARC 129-92) and staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project is consistent with the prevailing neighborhood character in terms of building scale, massing, and architectural design. 2 . The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, Architectural Review Guidelines, and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. .3 . The proposed additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy or significantly detract .from historic elements of the property at 1026 Palm Street, and new work is not sufficiently differentiated from the existing building to protect its architectural integrity or character. 4. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the City's Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby affirms the Architectural Review Commission's action granting a Negative Declaration subject to the following mitigation measures Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) Page 2 being included in the project: 1. Mitigation measure #1 of ER 129-92 shall be modified to require only installation of new sound-proofing glazing or the equivalent (not wall insulation, walls or fencing, or landscaping as recommended in the initial study) , to the approval of the Community Development Director, with cost not to exceed $5000 per dwelling unit. 2 . The applicant shall notify adjacent property owners of the program in writing, and provide the City with verification of compliance with this mitigation measure prior to construction permit issuance. 3 . * Prior to release of final occupancy by the City, the Developer shall submit a monitoring report prepared by a qualified professional which documents compliance with the noise mitigation measures. 4 . The Community Development Director may at any time modify, add, or delete mitigation measures if the above mitigation measures are determined to be ineffective or physically infeasible. Such changes shall be limited to measures which would meet the intent of the original mitigation. SECTION 3. Final Architectural Approval. The City Council hereby upholds the Architectural Review Commission's action granting final approval to demolition of four structures and the construction of two new office buildings as shown in architectural plans approved on February 1, 1993 and on file in the Community Development Department. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3�7 Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) Page 3 + the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1993 . Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk APPROVED: City dministrative Officer C' tto ne JimoC Community De a opment Director �'O EXHIBIT B • RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING NEW OFFICES AT 1026, 10281 1038 AND 1042 PALM STREET, (ARC 129-92) . BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That this council, after consideration of the appeal, public testimony, Cultural Heritage Committee comments, the Architecture Review Commission's action on February 1, 1993 granting a mitigated negative declaration and approving two new office buildings at 1026, 1028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street (ER 129- 92 , ARC 129-92) and staff recommendations and reports thereon, herby upholds the appeal and denies ARC 129-92 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project is not consistent with the prevailing Palm/Mill Street neighborhood and the Office-Historical zone in terms of building pattern, scale, massing, and architectural design. 2 . The proposed project is not consistent with general plan policies, Architectural Review Guidelines, and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines which encourage new structures in historic districts to promote the historic character of the district. 3 . The proposed additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will destroy or significantly detract from historic elements of the property at 1026 Palm Street, and new work is not sufficiently differentiated from the existing building to protect its architectural integrity or character. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Council Resolution No. (1993 Series) Igo Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1993 . Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk APPROVED: City A inistrative Officer C/ty/ tt� ney/I r 1 Community Develqpment Director s-io ^`1) C� 9 AP i j \ NOP ice' ^ ,sc •.�0'• •`t 1 s N ®` d O � ` �q Oy R 7� X15+`• \\ / �Yr•% .^ 1 V : . S' . �` •° °'1•`' JFK" t v e•�P • �o ! ? r1 10, S s v > POP, at . I _ � _ +..10 f's• Jam• ." r�~�r�r. A' yt ��./• h � v '0-L �t��,. .•J pJ_ a �r� FF • o a♦i� V 1.+ so r�r , . 49 r � ` ,� �`c ,y ,Oyu►•a yc v '�' "h> q• ■ v r1• I d•• • � ,11 W� I \ � a _ PF J d # p ; 11 ►� y f\ �CmH ,/1��), y ''\ qy •�o J• er r . f f 9' .�,.•• ��j y y>:a•�p'o�r .. � �'1.4� +V Vr r /� ! ��' �e�i �.. d' �d'r��t�.•rl.. 7, d 'R CI > ,e Hl-R VICINITY MAP (not to scale) all Cl of Sa]�1 ,IISoBispo , 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Lula Obispo, CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned lherebyappealsfromthedecisionof - - rendered on r^ ) / ; y. which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with: on DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant Namefride rr9 t C E I V E O Representative FEB _ 9 1993 Address CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBiwPo. one Original to City Clerk Catendared for. 3��g Copy toAdministrativeOfficer Copy to the following department(s): A. elOW4s Appeal of ARC approval of ARC 129-92 (office building at 1026, 10287 1036 and 1042 Palm Street, and related demAlition of four buildings) is I hereby appeal this approval on the following grounds: historical, zoning, environmental review, and demolition, including the following specific issues: 1. Said project will result in the unnecessary loss of the prominent historic Palm Street residential frontage. 2. The project's setback exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. 3. The project's height exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. 4. Massings of the replacement structure, coupled with the proposed second story walkway are architecturally incompatible with the current scale of the neighborhood. 5. The negative declaration includes an improper "if... then" noise mitigation measure rather than making the legally-required determination whether there is a "significant impact." 6. The environmental review document dismisses the project's historical and esthetic impacts on the block of fine homes even though it states "this project would contrast with the established building pattern, scale and massing of the office conversions on the north side of Palm Street. The existing ... facades, taken as a whole, resemble a cohesive, small-scale residential neighborhood." And, the project "will, as proposed, contrast strongly with the neighborhood's prevailing architectural character." 7. Increased traffic on the narrow alleyway proposed to service project parking could adversely impact neighboring residences and pedestrian safety. 8. Inadequate notice was given to citizens and neighboring residents on the proposed demolition of four historic structures. 9. Inadequate public notice was given on the schematic review hearing, and on the environmental review of the project. 10. The Cultural Heritage Commission never fully reviewed the demolition of the historic structures. 11 . The project approval is inconsistent with other recent ARC approvals on the block, which have emphasized preservation of the existing historic fabric and building massing pattern. 12. The project approval is inconsistent with General Plan policies that call for "long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement" of buildings such as those to be demolished. S�3 city of sAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 February 4, 1993 Mr. Mark Woolperf Palm Street Enterprises 1026 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 129-92: 1026, 1038, and 1042 Palm Street A request to demolish four structures and final review of plans to construct two new office buildings Dear Mr. Woolpert: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting on February 1, 1993, concurred with the Director's mitigated negative declaration and granted final approval to the project, subject to the conditions that: 1) Mitigation measure #1 of ER 129-92 be modified to require only installation of new sound-proofing glazing or the equivalent(not wall insulation, walls or fencing, or landscaping as recommended in the initial study), to the approval of the Community Development Director, with cost not to exceed $5000 per dwelling unit, as provided in the mitigation measure; 2) Building A body color be toned down with a "dusty pink" color, to the approval of staff; 3) use of medium height landscaping in planters between the parking lot and the public alley, to the approval of staff; 4) revisions to mechanical wells and provision for .pedestrian access from parking lot to street to the approval of staff. The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten days of the date of this letter. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the commission. Please note that Architectural Review. Commission approval expires after one year if construction has not started, unless the commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant an extension of up to one year, but not greater than two years beyond the original date of ARC approval. Minutes of this meeting will be sent to you as soon as they are available. Mr. Mark Woolpert February 4, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Hook at 781-7176. Sincerely, 'off Ronald G. Whisenand Development Review Manager cc: Craig Smith F CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPU ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x 1 BY: Jgff Hook, Associate Plan MEETING DATE: February 2, 1993 FILE NUMBER: ARC 129-92 erxl PROJECT ADDRESS: 1026, 1028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street SUBJECT: Final architectural review of two new office buildings on the north side of Palm Street, between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the Director's mitigated negative declaration and grant final approval. BACKGROUND On November 23, 1992 the Commission granted schematic approval and approved demolition of four buildings with direction to: ■ relocate one handicapped space closer to building A entry; and ■ provide additional landscaping, including larger trees. The project has since received approvals of an administrative use permit and a lot line adjustment. The use permit allows offices with shared parking, and a height exception to allow 31 '8" building heights where a maximum 25' is normally allowed. The lot line adjustment combines six underlying lots into two lots, each to accommodate one office building. As part of the use permit review, the Director also approved an exception to parking and driveway standards to allow parking spaces 14 and 15 to back directly out onto the alley, and allowed landscape planter widths less than the usual minimum of four feet. The applicant submitted revised plans and requests final approval (ARC minutes attached). Data Summary Applicant: Palm Street Enterprises c/o Mark Woolpert Representative: Craig Smith Project Address: 1026 and 1042 Palm Street Zoning: 0 and 0-H General Plan: Office and Office-Historical Zone Environmental Determination: Mitigated negative declaration Site Description: The level, 21,000 square foot site consists of two parcels: Parcel 1 (1026 and 1028 Palm Street) A 50' X 140' lot with a two-story house converted to offices in front, with a small office building in the rear. The front building is to remain and be remodelled to add additional floor area; the rear office building is to be removed. This lot is located in the O-H zone, or Office with Historic overlay. Parcel 2 (1038 and 1042 Palm Street) A 100' X 140' lot with two houses, both converted to offices, and an office building in the rear of the lot, adjacent to a public alley. The three structures, a wood deck, a landscape pond, and six mature trees are to be removed to accommodate the new work. This lot is zoned "0" for offices, ARC Staff Report Page 2 EVALUATION Project Changes ■ Building A's sideyard setback was increased from 5 to 7.5 feet ■ The parking lot was revised to meet maneuvering and handicapped requirements ■ The front entry of building A was redesigned ■ Plant materials and locations were changed ■ Courtyard plan and site details were added ■ Revised colors and material boards were submitted Otherwise, the project's overall design is unchanged. Plans now include additional details describing the quality and character of the finished building (eg. Mexican-style pavers in the courtyard). The commission's November 23rd direction was addressed by redesigning the parking lot near the courtyard, and by increasing the size and number of new trees. The revised parking lot remains very "tight", but meets city standards. Previous staff concerns of scale, massing and architectural compatibility have not been entirely resolved. However based on the floor area, footprint and design direction established by schematic approval, staff feels that the project design details are appropriate and attractive, and supports final approval as submitted. 1. Environmental review. The commission must consider the project's environmental determination before taking final action. The main environmental issue is potential noise impact. The commission should determine if the project is likely to cause adverse noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases. If so, the commission may require mitigation measures similar to those listed in the initial environmental study, under section III. (1) on page 7. 2. Overlook/privacy. Condition 3 of the administrative use permit (attached) requires second-story windows on the north-or alley-facing building elevations to be designed and located to discourage views into adjacent residential yards and units. The proposed rear windows have a sill height of between five and six feet. Commissioners should discuss this aspect of the project with the architect and determine whether this design meets the use permit condition. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may continue the project or grant final approval. Any action to approve the project must also address the project's environmental determination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Concur with the Director's negative declaration, with or without noise mitigation measures; and grant final approval. Attachments: Vicinity Map, Use Permit A 129-92, Initial Environmental Study ER 130-92, ARC minutes. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISrO ARCHITECTU REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a i BY: Jeff HoOkI ssociate Planner MEETING DATE: November 23, 1992 FILE NUMBER: ARC 130-92 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1026, 1028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street SUBJECT: Request to demolish four structures and schematic review of two new office buildings on the north side of Palm Street, between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Continue the project with direction to the applicant on necessary design changes. BACKGROUND The Commission reviewed this project on July 20th and continued the project with direction to: reduce the number of parking spaces required, possibly through use of tandem spaces; provide additional landscaping; restudy building entries from the parking lot; incorporate shear walls to support upper building levels; restudy bridge design and materials; and to restudy the roof designs. The applicant submitted revised plans and requests final approval (ARC minutes attached). Data Summary Applicant: Palm Street Enterprises c/o Mark Woolpert Representative: Craig Smith Project Address: 1026 and 1042 Palm Street Zoning: 0 and O-H General Plan: Office and Office-Historical Zone Environmental Determination: pending Site Description: The level, 21,000 square foot site consists of two lots of record: Lot 1 - (1026 and 1028 Palm Street) A 50' X 140' lot with a two-story house converted to offices in front, with a small office building in the rear. The front building is to remain and be remodelled to add additional floor area; the rear office building is to be removed. This lot is located in the O-H zone, or Office with Historic overlay. Lot 2 - 0 038 and 1042 Palm Street) A 100' X 140' lot with two houses, both converted to offices, and an office building in the rear of the lot, adjacent to a public alley. The three structures, a wood deck, a landscape pond, and six mature trees are to be removed to accommodate the new work. This lot is zoned "0" for offices, without the Historic zone overlay. The site is bounded by offices on the west, a public alley, offices and dwellings on the north, offices on the east, and the San Luis Obispo County Government Center and County Courthouse on the south, across Palm Street. San Luis Obispo City Hall and the City/County Library are located on Palm Street, about 1/2 block west of the site. The area is located just north of downtown, in what once was predominantly a residential neighborhood. Due to its Office zoning and proximity to government offices, the neighborhood's houses have -ARC Staff Report Page 2 , gradually been converted for office use. f� Cultural.Heritage Committee Comments On June 29, 1992 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) discussed this project. Because the CHC did not have a quorum of members present, it could not take any formal action on this item. Individual committee members voiced concerns with the project, and their comments are in the attached CHC minutes and letter. EVALUATION Revised plans address several of the commission's previous concerns with building entries, roof "silhouettes" to differentiate building character, and to reduce Building A's 3-story appearance. Architectural detailing has been added for variety and interest, and landscape planters have been added. The window changes on the north second-story building elevations (called "south" elevations on sheet A-3) provide added privacy for adjacent residents. Parking, architectural compatibility, and landscaping continue to pose concerns. The overall building design is attractive; however the parking lot does not meet city standards for safe back-up and maneuvering, and the buildings' height and bulk still appear out of character with the predominantly residential vernacular along the north side of Palm Street. Building floor area has increased slightly from 11,333 square feet to 11,341 square feet, and the building setback along the east side of Building A decreased from 7 to 5 feet. Project Changes ■ Site Plan parking lot redesigned vehicle parking relocated from entry courtyard additional bicycle and motorcycle parking provided side and rearyard landscaping added access from courtyard to public sidewalk closed off Building B sideyard reduced from 7 to 5 feet ■ Floor Plan Main building entries redesigned Waiting/reception area relocated Exit stairs have been realigned ■ Building Elevations Rooflines revised, and parapets de-emphasized Architectural detailing added to create two separate building identities Gable roof changed to hip roof at west end of Bldg. A ARC Staff Report Page 3 Second-story windows along rear (alley) elevation modified for privacy Colors revised Design Specifics 1. Parking layout and circulation. City parking and driveway standards require that parking spaces be designed to be entered in one maneuver, and exited in not more than two maneuvers. Exiting from space 34 requires four maneuvers. The standards also require a turnaround if it's unsafe for a vehicle to backup into a public street. Parking spaces 14 and 15 back directly into the public alley with visibility of oncoming cars blocked by adjacent parked cars (spaces 8-11). City standards do not allow tandem parking spaces for offices and other commercial uses. The neighborhood is changing from predominantly residential to mixed residential- commercial uses, and the alley which once served mainly houses is handling increased traffic. With additional office development, alley traffic will increase. Cars backing directly into the alley pose traffic hazards and should be redesigned so that they may exit safely in a forward direction. The parking area is designed as two unconnected, double-loaded bays, each on a separate lot. By code, each lot requires one handicapped space. Two spaces are shown, both next to Building B. One handicapped space should be relocated to serve Building A directly. 2. Architectural Compatibility. Simply put, the buildings are attractive but appear too large for the site. As proposed, the project does not meet setback and parking requirements (7.5' side yard setback required for Building B, 5' shown; 34 spaces required, 31 spaces provided which meet city standards). Downscaling the buildings might improve architectural compatibility, allow the project to meet city setback and parking standards, and provide additional outdoor use or landscaped area. The project is in a neighborhood recognized as having a cohesive, historic character, hence the "H" overlay over a portion of the site and the properties along the north side of Palm Street between the site and Osos Street. The project's scale, massing and overall design is very different from that of the small existing houses on the site. The new offices would double the amount of office floor area on the site. In terms of scale, it is more in keeping with the Teass Building at the corner of Osos and Palm Streets, and the County Government Center on the south side of Palm Street. This and other future projects like it could significantly change the architectural character of this portion of Palm Street. A portion of the existing building at 1028 Palm Street (0-H zone) is to remain; however its character is lost in the redevelopment. 3. Landscaping. The landscape design shows improvement over the previous plan. Four parking spaces were relocated out of the courtyard, and planting was provided along the rear and side of the parking lot. Additional landscaping is desirable, especially at the rear and sides of the site to help soften and modulate building scale, and to allow some tree planting in the parking area. City standards encourage the use of trees in parking lots to 'ARC Staff Report Page 4 provide shade and visual interest. Planter areas should be at least four feet wide to provide adequate room for planting. The 3'6" wide planters along the sides of the lot are mostly within the car overhang area, and are not large enough to allow shrubs or trees. The 24" wide planters along the alley should be at least four feet wide to allow slightly taller shrubs here. The existing buildings resemble private residences in the amount of front and side yard landscaping. Paved parking spaces occupy most of were once landscaped rear yards for the houses. In the new design, the increased floor area requires more parking spaces. As a result virtually all of the large central landscaped area between 1038 and 1042 Palm Street would be removed, and front and side yard landscaping would be reduced. Eight mature trees would have to be removed to accommodate the new buildings and parking. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may continue the project or grant schematic approval. Final approval is not appropriate since the project's environmental determination and public review period is not yet complete. To provide direction to the applicant and staff, the commission should identify one of the action alternatives below: 1) Grant Schematic Approval. The proposed buildings' footprint, scale and massing, and general design character are acceptable. Additional study of building detailing, colors and materials, parking layout and landscaping is necessary. The buildings proposed for demolition are not historically significant and may be demolished. 2) Continuance with direction that the buildings' footprint, scale, massing, or architectural character is not acceptable. The scale, massing and architectural character of the existing buildings should generally be preserved in any new construction; however the existing building are not historically significant and may be demolished. 3) Continuance with direction that the buildings' footprint, scale and massing, and design character are not acceptable. The existing buildings are an integral part of the neighborhood's historic character, and should be preserved. Building changes or additions should closely conform to the scale and character of the main existing buildings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Continue the project with direction to restudy the project's parking layout to meet city standards, building scale and massing, and landscaping. While schematic approval typically "fixes" the building massing and footprint, a continuance would recognize that a reduced floor area may be necessary to meet parking requirements and to integrate the project with the neighborhood character. Attachments: Vicinity Map, CHC minutes, ARC minutes. SnAl city of San lues OBlspo ��►►iNlllll!IIIiI��i !i�� a INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 102$ 1034. and 1042 Palm Street APPLICATION NOER 129-92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Reauest to demolish four structures and build a 6,000 sq. ft. office building and remodel an existing building for a total floor area of 11.333 -sq. ft on a 21-000 sa ft site in the Office zone. APPLICANT Palm Street Enternrises c/o *Mark 1tolnert (Craig Smith, reT)resentative) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY IRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY DATE November 19, 1.992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN (RECTOR'S ACTION, DATE n I � N SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... "-Tone* B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... *lone C. LAND USE ....................................................................... hMavt-e D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. alone* E. PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................ done F. UTILITIES........................................................................ Pone G. NOISE LEVELS .. ..... .............................................. .......... `,one H. GEOLOGIC B SEISMIC HAZARDS BTOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... :lone 1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... None J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. 'lone K PLANT LIFE................................:...................................... None L. ANIMAL LIFE...................................................................... None e M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... None* N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... None O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ......................•.................................... '7nna P. OTHER .......................................................................... ` one III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 2 I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting The applicant wants to demolish four of five office buildings on two lots on Palm Street, across from the County Government Center. The applicant plans to add on to the remaining office building and build another office building, resulting in an 11,350 square foot office complex. The two, two-story office buildings each would have between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet of floor area and would be joined by a second story passageway. The applicant has applied for environmental and architectural review (ARC 130-92). An administrative use permit, variance, and lot line adjustment will also be required to allow the use, to allow a reduced side yard setback, to allow tandem parking spaces, and to adjust the lot line between the two lots that comprise the site. The level, 21 ,000 sq. ft. site consists of two lots of record: Lot 1 - 0026 and 1028 Palm Street) A 50' X 140' lot with a two-story house converted to offices in front, with a small office building in the rear. The front building is to remain and be remodelled to add additional floor area; the rear office building is to be removed. This lot is located in the O-H zone, or Office with Historic overlay. Lot 2 - (1038 and 1042 Palm Street) A 100' X 140' lot with two houses, both converted to offices, and an office building in the rear of the lot, adjacent to a public alley. The three structures, a wood deck, a landscape pond, and six mature trees are to be removed to accommodate the new work. This lot is zoned "O" for offices, without the Historic zone overlay. The site is bounded by offices on the west, a public alley, offices and dwellings on the north, offices on the east, and the San Luis Obispo County Government Center and County Courthouse on the south, across Palm Street. San Luis Obispo City Hall and the City/County Library are located on Palm Street, about 1/2 block west of the site. The area is located just north of downtown, in what once was predominantly a residential neighborhood. Due to its Office zoning and proximity to government offices, the neighborhood's houses have gradually been converted for office use. Data Summary Applicant: Palm Street Enterprises c/o Mark Woolpert Representative: Craig Smith Project Address: 1026, 1028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street 3-a3 Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 3 t Zoning: O and O-H General Plan: Office and Office-Historical Zone II. Potential Impact Review A. Community Plans and Goals General Plan Land Use Element According to the City's General Plan Land Use Element: "Where historic or architecturally significant buildings are located in districts designated for office use, the City should encourage their long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement." The project appears consistent with this policy. While the buildings at 1026 and 1028 Palm Street are located in an historic zone, none of the structures on the site are included in the City's Master List of Historic Resources, or in the list of .Contributing Properties within Historical Districts of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The structures' ages are not known, but they appear to be at least 60 to 70 years old, based on their design (California Bungalow and Mission Revival). The General Plan also provides that: "The City should review all requests for conversion of residential uses to professional office activities to ensure (1) their ability to adequately function as office uses, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and (2) the preservation of the historic and architectural character of the structure where such features are considered significant." The project may not be consistent with this policy, since its planned scale, massing and overall design is very different from that of the small existing houses on the site. This and other future projects like it could significantly change the architectural character of this portion of Palm Street. It is often the arrangement and patterns created by groups of structures within a neighborhood, and not just individual structures, which lend character and historic ambience. The project's neighborhood has been recognized as having a cohesive, historic character, hence the "H" overlay over a portion of the site and the properties along the north side of Palm Street between the site and Osos Street. Most of the houses and converted offices appear to have been built before the 1940s, and of these, most.appear to be in fair to good condition. For example, the existing buildings at 1038 and 1042 Palm Street both have low- . ��7 Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 4 profile, single story elevations increasing to two-story toward the center of the lot. They both are setback from the street property line about 24 feet with abundant landscaping in front, side and rear yards. The new offices would have two-story street elevations, would be setback from the street property line 19 feet (minimum street yard setback is 15 feet), with minimal landscaping would be provided in side and rear yards. An exception to zoning regulations will be required to allow a 5-foot setback along the east side of Building A where a 7.5-foot setback is normally required. An enclosed walkway links the second stories of the two buildings, visually joining two buildings into one and altering rhythm of building facades. Zoning Regulations To ensure compatibility of office uses with adjacent dwellings, city zoning regulations require use permit review for new offices. Before approving a new office use, the Community Development Director must find that: 1) The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 2) The project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. 3) The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. The project may not meet standard 3 because side and rear yard landscaping is minimal, and does not appear to provide adequate separation of parking and pedestrian areas from adjacent residences. Significant Impact: None. These issues are not considered environmental impacts, but rather design or policy issues, best addressed as part of use permit and architectural review hearings. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary or appropriate. While these apparent conflicts with city plans, policies and goals are not environmental impacts per se, they may become the basis for changing or disapproving the project during subsequent development review. C. Land Use Land use conflicts between the proposed offices and adjacent residential uses may result from increased noise due to the increased number of vehicle trips generated by the new offices. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers data, the current uses served by the alley generate about 505 average daily vehicle trips. The proposed project Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 5 would result in a net office floor area increase of about 5,100 square feet, and an additional 100 vehicle trips per day (revised 2/15/93). This represents in overall traffic increase in the alley of about 20 percent. While the numbers of estimated vehicle trips are not large, the increase in alley traffic could adversely affect residents of the two houses and six apartments which back up to the alley. Increased noise from this project and others like it along this section of Palm Street is likely to hasten the conversion of the remaining dwellings to offices. Significant Impact/mitigation: Maybe. In reviewing the project, the Architectural Review Commission shall determine, based on the number, location and orientation of nearby dwellings, whether the project will significantly impact adjacent residential uses due to increased noise. If the Commission determines that the project is likely to have a significant impact due to project-related increases in traffic noise, the applicant shall modify the project to install off-site noise reduction measures for adjacent residential or mixed residential/commercial uses at 1023, 1037, 1041, 1045, and 1051 Mill Street, and 873 Santa Rosa Street. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: installation of double pane windows, additional wall insulation and similar architectural features to reduce noise; installation of landscaping and irrigation; and new fencing or walls; as requested by the adjacent property owners who can demonstrate that: A) one or more dwellings existed on their property as of the date of the project's environmental determination, and B) there are specific measures desired by the adjacent property owner which can reduce the adverse effects of project-related noise on residents, to the approval of the Community Development Director. .The applicant shall notify adjacent property owners of the program in writing, and provide the City with verification of compliance with this mitigation measure prior to construction permit issuance. The cost to the applicant of such measures shall not exceed $5,000 per property improved. D. Transportation and Circulation. A 20-foot wide public alley provides vehicle access to the project's 38 vehicle parking spaces. The one-block long alley joins Santa Rosa and Osos Streets, and serves 15 properties which have frontage on Palm and Mill Streets. Significant Impact: None. Staff estimates that the project will add about 100 vehicle trips daily to adjacent streets. The alley and adjacent streets can adequately handle this traffic increase, and no significant adverse transportation or circulation impacts are likely as a result of the proposed project or other likely projects in the area. �,j Baa Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 6 M. Archaeological/Historical. The "H" or Historic overlay zone boundary bisects the site. The buildings located at 1026 and 1028 Palm Street are located in the Downtown historic zone, and the buildings at 1038 and 1042 Palm Street are not. This neighborhood includes many homes built before the 1940s. Due its office zoning and proximity to city and county government buildings, many of the neighborhood's houses have been converted to professional offices. Previous demolitions in this neighborhood have, in some cases (eg. 1060 Palm Street and 1035 Peach Street), raised architectural compatibility, privacy, and historic preservation issues. None of the structures to be demolished are included in the City's Master List of Historic Resources, or in the list of Contributing Properties within Historical Districts of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The structures' ages are not known, but the structures appear to be at least 60 to 70 years old, based on their design (California Bungalow and Mission Revival). Significant Impact: None. Although the project will not remove or alter historically significant structures, it will, as proposed, contrast strongly with the neighborhood's prevailing architectural character. This is addressed under esthetic impacts, below. N. Esthetic. Esthetics are inherently subjective, and are the main focus of the City's Architectural Review Commission. In an environmental review sense, esthetics are significantly impacted when citywide view corridors or vistas are blocked or degraded (eg. views of the Morros or Cuesta Ridge) by a project. Questions of architectural compatibility, while locally important, are usually not considered to be significant environmental impacts. As proposed, this project would contrast with the established building pattern, scale and massing of the office conversions on the north side of Palm Street. The existing buildings represent a mix of architectural styles; however their Palm Street facades, taken as a whole, resemble a cohesive, small-scale residential neighborhood. Significant Impact: None. While the project does pose architectural design and compatibility issues, it will not block or alter citywide views or vistas. The City's Architectural Review guidelines encourage the preservation of neighborhood character through design. Staff anticipates that this issue will be addressed in detail during architectural review; consequently no mitigation is appropriate or necessary. Initial Environmental Study, ER 129-92 Page 7 III. Staff Recommendation Grant a negative declaration with the applicant's agreement to incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project: - 1) If the Architectural Review Commission determines that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on nearby dwellings due to project-related increases in traffic noise, the applicant shall install off-site noise reduction measures for adjacent residential or mixed residential/commercial uses at 1023, 1037, 1041, 1045, and 1051 Mill Street, and 873 Santa Rosa Street. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: installation of double pane windows, additional wall insulation and similar architectural features to reduce noise; installation of landscaping and irrigation; and new fencing or walls; as requested by the adjacent property owners who can demonstrate that: A) one or more dwellings existed on their property as of the date of the project's environmental determination, and B) there are specific measures desired by the adjacent property owner which can reduce the adverse effects of project- related noise on residents, to the approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall notify adjacent property owners of the program in writing, and provide the City with verification of compliance with this mitigation measure prior to construction permit issuance. The cost to the applicant of such measures shall not exceed $5,000 per property improved. 3) Prior to release of final occupancy by the City, the Developer shall submit a monitoring report prepared by a qualified professional which documents compliance with the noise mitigation measures. 4) The Community Development Director may at any time modify, add, or delete mitigation measures if the above mitigation measures are determined to be ineffective or physically infeasible. Such changes shall be limited to measures which would meet the intent of the original mitigation. Attachments: Vicinity Map, ITE traffic data. Palm Street Offices t SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION AVERAGE WEEKDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 9/28/92 24 HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT GENERAL OFFICE 22 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 447 52 6 10 51 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2 DWELLING UNITS 19 0 1 1 1 APARTMENT 6 DWELLING UNITS 39 1 3 3 1 GENERAL MERCHANDICE .875 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 0 0 0 2 2 TOTAL 505 53 10 16 55 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available TRIP GENERATION- BY MICROTRANS .5-a9 `/• 1r �/ , �� cam.. Palm Street Offices SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION P• AVERAGE WEEKDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 9/28/92 24 HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT GENERAL OFFICE 30.6 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 573 68 8 13 64 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2 DWELLING UNITS 19 0 1 1 1 APARTMENT 6 DWELLING UNITS 39 1 3 3 1 GENERAL MERCHANDICE .875 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 0 0 0 2 2 TOTAL 631 69 12 19 68 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of June 29, 1992 The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. in the City Council Hearing Room #9. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Jerry Michael, Victoria Wood, Dan Krieger Absent: Wendy Waldron, Jack Lewis, Leo Pinard, Denise Fourie Staff: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Terry Sanville noted that the CHC did not have a quorum and therefore could not take formal action on the items on its agenda. Jerry Michael indicated that he had a conflict of interest in participating in the discussion of items #1 (the Copelands Project) and item #2 (the Palm Street offices) because of his past and possible future engineering work as an engineer on the project. Terry Sanville suggested that the applicants be allowed to make a brief presentation to the CHC members and that individual members comment on the projects and that these individual comments be forwarded to the ARC. 1. Review ofo i n r at 879Hi era Street The project architects, Mark oss and Randy Rey were in attendance. Mr. Ross presented the project to the committ members, describing the different types of land uses and architectural treatments, inclu in changes to the existing buildings on the comer of Morro and Higuera Street that will rem Mr. Ross.indicated that a historic ma ker would be installed in the central pedestrian court of the project, noting the historic of the site as a market place. Dan Krieger said that he lik the project very much, the project is in scale with the downtown, and felt that the ree-story building on Marsh Street was a good location for a building of this height an bulk. Dr. Krieger was not sure about the appropriate location of the plaque in that the pre" location of the historic "marketplace" was not known He felt that the project site was, howe r, in a marketing area. Dr. Krieger felt that the Green Brothers clothing business should b recognized in some way because of it had occupied a portion of the site for a long tim and a clothiers business had been on the site since the 1850's. The scale of the structure is v user friendly and the use of the basement of the project for a theater is appropriate. a project's architecture is compatible to the downtown and demonstrates a sensitive use of materials. l S- / Victoria Wood like the project, its architecture and the use of materials and felt that it will work well with the downtown. Randy Rey asked Dr. Krieger if he would be willing to help with the information to be included on the plaque. Dr. Krieger indicated he would provide help and that Mark Hall- Patton at the County Historical Musgo may also be able to provide assistance. 2. Request to Demolish Four Structures at 1028 1034 and 1042 Palm Street and Construct a New Office Building. Craig Smith, project architect, described the proposed office complex. He indicated that in evaluating the architectural/historic setting of the project, that the Teass House on the comer of Osos and Palm was an appropriate que for the architecture and scale of the new project. He felt that it would not be possible to incorporate the various styles and elements of the existing structures on the site into the new building's architecture. The new project's landscaping and courtyard concept also borrowed from the Teass House. Mr. Smith indicated that he was willing to do extensive photo documentation of the plaque existing structures and include some type of plaque on the site and/or displays in the new building that recalls the historic uses in the block and possibly the immediate area. Leo Pinard joins the CHC meeting. Victoria Wood did not like the idea of demolishing the existing structures. However, the house in the center does not have the architectural/historic character of some of the others and might be removed. Ms. Wood liked what was done at 1060 Palm Street (new office building that looks like the old house that once occupied the site) and felt that it was more in keeping with the architecture and building forms in the block. The proposed office building is too large. Dan Krieger felt that the building at 1060 is more in scale with the block. The "gift to the street" is an important concern. He was not sure about the appropriateness of the scale of the new building. He felt that it might be compatible but would want to see a model that showed buildings on both sides of the street before drawing any final conclusions. The concept of using spanish style architecture and the fountain element is not a bad idea. Dr. Krieger felt that the bridge between the two buildings might make it too massive. Leo Pinard felt that the project would pressure the rest of the street to change and felt that the extent of the change caused by this project is not appropriate. He was not in favor of the proposed demolitions. The scale of the proposed project is just toemuch. Also, the element of the project that provides a bridging connection between the two buildings increases the project massing and is a concern. The project is too big to be compatible with the block's historic character. r 3. Progress Reports Jerry Michael felt that since several of the committee members were not present, progress reports would be made at the next CHC meeting. Mr. Michael asked Terry Sanville to write a letter to all CHC members that reminded all of the attendance and quorum requirements and encouraged early notification of planned absences. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Secretary to the Cultural Heritage Committee S-33 l DATE 7/14/92 TO: Jeff Hook Associate Planner � J FROM: Denise Fourier AHC r E Action'stems from 6/29/92 CHC meeting I was unable to attend the regular CHC meeting on 6/29/92 due to my husband's surgery,but would like to comment on the two action items that were up for discussion that evening. Sbpelands' Prgect(879Hiigueral This is a welcome project at this very key location that shows alot of sensitivity to the character of downtown and overall careful planning The proposed new buildings make a good effort of Incorporating historical architectural details into the design. I *derstand that the County Historical Society win be working with the project c-s=.:biers to include a plaque or other marker to note the historic nature of the site ibis_is also =very good idea. In summary, I would vote for Action Alternative #1: Project is compatible_ Dmiorzon of 1028 10341042 Palm Street &Conshuction of New (ice Building I have strong feelings against the demolition of an three of these Palm St houses. ilrs area is art important corridor In the historic district to demolish three houses on this block (rwo of which are in the historic zone)would irrevocably change the character c:- the neighborhood. Overall, this is an inappropriate area for demolition. In summary, I would vote for Action Alternative #1: structures are architecturaay, historically,or aesthetically significant and recommend that they be preserved. The proposed new building is out of character with the nearby bungalows and cottages. Since it is in the middle of the block it breaks up the contiguous stretch of historic bulidings. In addition, it is also very large and out of scale in comparison to the neighboring structures. Even the law office at the comer of Patin and Osos is on a ?naller scale. The single extant structure to be incorporated into the project(1026 Palm) not really evident in the new building so it is as if four extant historic structures are to be demoHfhed. In summary, 1 would vote for Action Altemative #3: Project is not compatible with existing historical resources or with its setting and should be denied for the reasons statedabove ARC Minutes July 20, 1992 f Page 3 gateway may need to incorporat tgnage, lighting, and decorations and should, therefore, be larger. He felt a Morro Street entry could also use some emphasis. Chairman Underwood li d the project and its scale. He wanted the following details to return to the co mmissio for review: ironwork, lighting, landscaping, planter materials, recycling enclosures, a the sign program. He wanted to see the exposed aggregate wall plastered over. H referred the longer bulbout and said pedestrians will leave the theaters in the middle o e street. He liked proposed colors and glazed brick. He would prefer to have a focal ' t at the end of the Morro walkway. Commr. Cooper moved to concur wit the negative declaration and granted final approval to the project subject to the c nditions that the exposed aggregate wall on Morro Street be plastered over; that p blic recycling containers are to be incorporated into the courtyard; that details of iro work, lights, landscaping, benches and planters, signage, and restaurant color are t eturn to the commission for review; and that a Marsh Street crosswalk be explo d; and recommended to the City Council that they authorize funds to create a b out on the northerly side of Higuera Street (in front of the Ross building) to conne with a crosswalk leading to a longer bulbout on the southside, which would b onstructed by the applicant. Commr. Sievertson secon the motion. AYES: Cooper, Sievertson, omer, Gates, Underwood NOES: None ABSENT: Illingworth, Combri The motion passed. 2. ARC 130-92: 1038 Palm Street. A request to demolish two houses and schematic review of plans to construct a new office building; O zone; Palm Street Enterprises, applicant. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission continue the project with direction to the applicant on necessary design changes. ARC Minutes July 20, 1992 Page 4 Craig Smith, architect, responded to the staff report and presented a model of the project and its relationship to other structures on the block. Steve Stinton, applicant and long-time resident, indicated he wanted to construct an outstanding building. Craig Smith said some corrections need to be made to the staff report and CHC minutes. He said that Dan Krieger, Cultural Heritage Committee member, wanted to see the model to get an idea of the context of the project. Mr. Smith felt this was a neighborhood in transition. He felt there was an unwritten policy to look at this side of the street without considering what was going on across the street or down the block. He felt the scale was a compromise. He thought that the 15 percent of the site devoted to landscaping compared favorably with adjacent sites. He noted that the buildings to be demolished were in bad shape and had been altered significantly. He felt that a planter was not needed at the alley since it was not required for other projects in the area. He felt the courtyard area, including a fountain and tilework, would be attractive from Palm Street. He felt this type of project is the way of the future and to make it smaller would damage it. Mark Woolpert, applicant and another long-term resident, noted there were larger offices farther from the center of the city. He wanted to get offices closer to the downtown. He noted the problem with small houses is the lack of parking and that the larger site makes meeting the parking requirement easier. He noted that the adjacent property owners support the project. He felt that other buildings in the area may need to be upgraded to meet ADA standards. He indicated that the alley is,now a nightmare. It is not used by pedestrians and improvements to it can lead to more improvements on the adjacent properties. He felt that at some time the upper levels of the building would need to have access for the disabled and that the cost of a bridge is much less than for an elevator. He explained access to the proposed elevator. He supported the use of tandem parking for some employee spaces to lessen paving, and said the handicap space is the least used, so it was placed near the patio. Peter Shustak, 873 Santa Rosa, noted he had seen a transformation of the neighborhood over the years but felt the block still had a certain character. He noted the there were most older remodeled buildings on the block, but that even the newer buildings (such as the one at 1060 Palm) repeated the original design. He was concerned about the potential for tearing down all the buildings on the block. He felt the alley wasn't great, but it wasn't all that bad either. He asked if the existing structure to be demolished could be used somewhere else. He asked how much more office space was really needed on Palm Street. ARC Minutes July 20, 1992 Page 5 Commr. Sievertson felt the bridge was set back, and, therefore, he was not concerned that the project would appear to be one building. His greatest concern was the amount of parking needed. He felt the city needs a solution for these cases. He felt that the courtyard would be distracted by parking and traffic on the alley. He indicated that it was hard enough now to get in and out of the alley. He liked the older building that is to remain and suggested the applicant consider doing something similar on the right side of the project to step it down. He thought the building looked somewhat large. Commr. Gates felt the site was overbuilt and preferred to see the buildings moved toward Palm Street. She suggested removing one of the sidewalks between the buildings. She noted that most of the clients would come in from the rear so the rear appearance of the building needed to be addressed. She wanted to see more openings and more planting, with the outer walls stepped back. Commr. Cooper had functional concerns with the project. He felt it would be easy to get lots and thought the major entry could be located at the courtyard. He noted that now the entry for Building B was understated and had no porch and that Building A has an entry but no handicap access. He felt that if the addition in Building B were slightly higher, no steps or ramps would be needed. He felt there should be a way to reduce the parking. He also had aesthetic concerns with the variety of detailing that was needed. He wanted to see a cleaner separation of the existing building from the rest of Building B. He felt the project now reads as three buildings. He was not concerned with the rear elevation, but felt it was good to have shear walls for a more solid look near spaces 23, 30, and 31. He agreed with previous comments made by the commissioners. He agreed with adding landscaping along the parking area. Commr. Homer liked the center courtyard and thought it was a good idea to eliminate the parking space views. He liked the size of the project, and felt ramps on smaller projects don't work well as they are too large. Chairman Underwood said his thoughts were similar to other commissioners. He felt it was hard to ignore the CHC's comments and suggested saving the buildings. He agreed that the neighborhood was in transition and felt that this project bridges the gap between residential scale and the county building. He had the same concerns about entry visibility as Commr. Cooper, and wanted to see some parking eliminated, at least spaces 37 and 38. He felt the street.entry should go to the courtyard and separate from there. He shared Commr. Cooper's concern about getting lost on the site and agreed that a central entry would help. He also liked Commr. Cooper's comments on using shear panels. He supported tandem parking and installing planting along the sideyards. He felt the bridge could be constructed in different materials and colors. He suggested ��37 ARC Minutes July 20, 1992 Page 6 preserving the bungalow look of the existing building to differentiate it from the others. He liked proposed architecture. Steve Stinson indicated he hoped to keep the courtyard private for employees and use it for meetings. Mark Woolpert wanted to prevent people from parking at this site and going to the Courthouse. He understood the commission's comments on the entries. Commr. Cooper moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to reduce the parking by requesting approval of some tandem spaces, adding bicycle and motorcycle spaces, and any other means available; to incorporate additional landscaping along the side property lines; to restudy entries from the rear; to look at incorporating shear walls to support upper levels for a more solid appearance; restudy the bridge design and materials; review roof silhouette to either tie the buildings together or separate into three distinct buildings; and to restudy the roof so that there does not appear to be a third story. Commr. Sievertson seconded the motion. AYES: Cooper, Sievertson, Homer, Gates, Underwood NOES: None ABSENT: Combrink, Illingworth The motion passes. Chairman Underwood "commented to the applicant that if parking spaces 37 and 38 could be eliminated, the stairs and the landscaping could be slid through the middle of the buildings. 3. ARC 110-92: 1042 Walnut Stree . A request for final review of plans for new heating, ventilation, and air con ' oning equipment at the Police Department; City of San Luis Obispo, a cant. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, pres ted the staff report recommending the commission grant final approval sub' to conditions noted in the staff report. i draft ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION San Luis Obispo, California Regular Meeting - November 23, 1992 PRESENT: Commrs. Woody Combrink, Madi Gates, Jim Homer, Curtis Illingworth, Bruce Sievertson, and Chairman Mike Underwood ABSENT: Commr. Allen Cooper OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner PROJECTS: 1. ARC 129-92: 1038 Palm Street. A request to demolish two houses and schematic review of plans to construct a new office building; O zone; Palm Street Enterprises, applicant. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the commission continue the project with direction to the applicant on necessary design changes. Craig Smith, architect, responded to the staff report, and explained changes to the project. Property owners Mark Woolpert, Jim Sinton and Steve Sinton were at the meeting. John Ruffoni indicated he liked the design and felt it fit into the neighborhood. Robin Hamlin liked the project. Commr. Gates thought that Building A had an art deco look and doesn't appear to be as residential as Building B. She was most concerned about the quality of materials proposed. Commr. Sievertson thought the project was attractive, but was concerned with the two parking spaces which back out into the alley. He thought that too much pavement was proposed and the landscape setback was insufficient. He felt the buildings had too much bulk. He noted that this was an historical district. He stated that if the buildings are demolished, new buildings must be more in character with the existing neighborhood. 5-39 ARC Minutes November 23, 1992 Page 2 Commr. Combrink thought the project was too large for the site. He noted that the Cultural Heritage Committee recommended that the existing buildings be saved. He could not accept a project of this size and felt it was not a good precedent for this area. He liked the proposed colors, materials, and rear parking. He thought the architectural style was going in--the-right direction;-but wanted the architect to follow the Teass house design more closely. Commr. Homer liked the project design. He noted that this was a high demand area and needs for office space must be considered. He felt the project is in scale with the neighborhood. He suggested increasing the size of the jacaranda trees to 24-inch box size, avoid using Pelargonium, and replace the Sycamore with Jacaranda. Chairman Underwood felt this was a difficult project given the present economic climate. He felt the commission should be flexible on design. He liked the project but wanted to see more building setback on the side, more landscaping, and less parking. He liked the art deco style, and agreed with Commr. Homer regarding the trees. He liked the changes made to the entry, but noted that scale was still a concern. Overall, he supported the project. Commr. Sievertson moved to continue the project with direction to modify the building scale and massing; integrate the design with historical character of the existing buildings and area; improve parking, increase sideyard setbacks, rear landscaping, size of front yards; step down Building A on the east side and reduce it's volume. Commr. Combrink seconded the motion. AYES: Sievertson, Combrink NOES: Gates, Homer, Underwood ABSENT: Cooper, Illingworth The motion failed. Commr. Gates moved to (1) approve demolition of four structures, finding that the demolitions will not remove, damage, or change the character of a historically, aesthetically, or architecturally significant structure; and the form, bulk, scale, siting and materials of the proposed building and site landscaping promote the historic character of the O-H zone where the project is located; and (2) grant schematic approval to the project with direction to relocate one handicap parking space closer to the Building A entry; to add additional landscaping; and to use larger trees in the street yards. 7u ARC Minutes November 23, 1992 , Page 3 Commr. Homer seconded the motion. AYES: Gates, Homer, Underwood NOES: Sievertson, Combrink ABSENT: Cooper, Illingworth The motion passed. Commr. Illingworth arrived at the meeting. 2. ARC 71-92: 285 Bridge Street. A request for final review of plans for a new commercial building; M zone; King Ventures, applicant. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the commission grant final approval with conditions. Jerry Spivy, architect, responded to the staff report and noted that John King and Keith Brummel were in the audience. He noted that low-reflective glass would be used on the building. He had no problems with conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, but had problems with conditions 3 and 8. Commr. Combrink was concerned with the reflectivity of the white mullions and stucco. He suggested that earthtone colors be used instead. Commr. Sievertson noted that this was a windy and cold area and that Bougainvillea vine was not a good planting choice. He also had a concern with the building's reflectivity for aircraft in the landing/takeoff pattern. Commr. Combrink reiterated that he preferred earthtone colored stucco and mullions. Commr. Illingworth had not problems with the project. He thought that maintenance may be a problem. Commr. Gates was concerned with the mechanical well and thought it looked out-of- character. She suggested using a darker color for the glass mullions and thought that either green or bronze anodized windows would be acceptable. draft ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION San Luis Obispo, California Regular Meeting - February 1, 1993 PRESENT: Commrs. Woody Combrink, Allen Cooper, Madi Gates, Curtis Illingworth, Bruce Sievertson, and Chairman Mike Underwood ABSENT: Commr. Jim Homer OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, and Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner PROJECTS: 1. ARC 129-92: 1026, 1038, and' 1042 Palm Street: A request to demolish four structures and final review of plans to construct two new office buildings; O zone; Palm Street Enterprises, applicant. Commr. Illingworth stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the commission concur with the Director's mitigated negative declaration and grant final approval. Craig Smith, architect, responded to the staff report, and explained the design changes to the project. He said that his client did not believe that the project would cause a significant noise impact to the neighbors. He asked the commission to require a study to first determine if noise impacts were significant. Steve Sinton, applicant, said that the noise impacts occurred mainly at the opposite ends of the alley near Palm and Santa Rosa Streets. He didn't feel mitigation for noise was needed. Tim Farrell objected to the proposed demolition and questioned whether the commission had considered the CHC's comments on this project. Richard Schmidt was concerned with the "...if...then...... format of the proposed mitigation measure wording. He asked if the project design used passive solar and energy conservation measures. Craig Smith responded that the buildings had operable windows, used passive solar heating, and met Title 24 energy requirements. Commr. Combrink felt that the project would increase noise to adjacent dwellings. He supported including a noise mitigation measure. He felt that using dual-glazed windows for dwellings along the alley would be particularly important. He preferred to see r 7� ARC Minutes . February 1, 1993 Page 2 Building A's roof scale further reduced, but overall, he liked the design changes and colors. Commr. Cooper noted that there were no neighbors at the meeting and wished that the commission has received neighbor input on the project. He felt that a secondary access from the parking lot to Palm Street may be needed. He supported final approval. Commr. Gates thought that Building A's color should be a "dustier pink". She suggested using gutters and downspouts as design elements. She felt that the front entry gates may conflict with bicycle parking. Commr. Sievertson thought there was too much building and paving coverage and not enough landscaping. He felt that the project will look and function like a parking garage and reflect noise toward the dwellings along the alley. He suggested reducing or eliminating the mechanical wells which he thought were too boxy. He preferred to see the east side of Building A stepped. Chairman Underwood liked the architecture and appreciated the changes made to the project. He thought the colors were good, but agreed with Commr. Gates about making Building A's color a "dustier pink." He agreed with staff that there will be increased noise due to vehicle traffic, but felt it probably would not be significant. Commr. Cooper moved to concur with the Director's mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact and grant final approval to the project, subject to the conditions that: 1) Mitigation measure #1 of ER 129-92 be modified to require only installation of new sound-proofing glazing or the equivalent (not wall insulation, walls or fencing, or landscaping as recommended in the initial study), to the approval of the Community Development Director, with cost not to exceed $5000 per dwelling unit; 2) Building A body color be toned down with a "dusty pink" color, .to the approval of staff; 3) use of medium height landscaping in planters between the parking lot and the public alley, to the approval of staff; 4) revisions to mechanical wells and provision for pedestrian access from parking lot to street be submitted, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commr. Combrink seconded the motion. AYES: Cooper, Combrink, Gates, Underwood 1 NOES: Commr. Sievertson ABSENT: Homer, Illingworth The motion passed. D. PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL PRESERVATION The preservation of historic buildings most often depends on the voluntary actions of individuals. However, both individuals and the community at large have a stake in maintaining our town's heritage. The following are principles that should help guide actions that change historic properties. 7' L Changing the Exterior of Hlstoric Buildings Changes to the outside of a historic building should further promote its original architectural style and character. A building may reflect a combination of styles or might have been modified one or more times in the past. Changes to the outside of such a building should not introduce some new or conflicting element and should complement the prevailing architecture of the surrounding area. Changes to parts of a building that have been modified in the past should usually exhibit the building's original architectural style. 2 New Construction Projects The design of new accessory structures (such as storage sheds or garages) or minor structural additions should complement the style of the historic budding. New styles or the use of exterior building materials foreign to the historic structure should generally be avoided New primary structures within Historical Preservation Districts should further promote the historic character of those areas Careful attention to building form, bulk, scale, siting and site landscaping is encouraged All new buildings need not be designed in the same style of surrounding structures However, elements of these styles and building forms should be included in the new structure and it should complement the architectural character of the area The US. Department of Interior has published Standards for Historic Preservation along with guidelines for applying them. People who are restoring older buildings may wish to review these guidelines. Copies can be ordered from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 (The federal stock number is 024-016-00105-2) As information only, people who are restoring buildings included on the Master List of Historic Resources or buildings designated as 'contributini' properties within historic districts may wish to consider the following standards published by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Standards that follow were originally published in 1977 and revised in 1990 as part of Department of the Interior regulations (36 CFR Part 67, Historic Preservation Certifications). They pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the buildi4s site and environment as well as attached, adjacent or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects is a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. L A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment, minimal change to 2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of histo 17' . alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided c materials or 3. ]Each Property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time,Place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development,such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most Properties change ova time; those changes that have acquired historic significance is their o SW be retained and preserved wn right S. Distinctive features, finishes, and rveconstruction techniques or examples of Qaka„a„e},; Property shall be presed. P that characterize a 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired ra regther than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, tenure, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement ofmissing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence 7. Chemical or physical treatments,such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be = IThe surface cleaning of structures, if appropre. iate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest meant &Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken 9.New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the Wig, size, scale, and architectural features to protea the historic integrity of the property and its environment 1Q New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment unimpaired would be 3. Demolishing Historic buildings The city promotes the long-term maintenance and restoration of designated Historical Resources and buildings in historic Districts, lie *city wants to work with property owners to explore alternatives to demolition, such as rehabilitation and reuse of the building, use of the alternative building code's provisions to make rehabilitation more feasible, or possible relocation of the structure to a more suitable site. The demolition of a Historical Resource is the least favored option and should be done only when (i) the condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of comm unity rcsideuts or p living or working on or near the site, or (2) the project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasilble to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site. S For information about the citys development and demolition permit processes, contact the Bolding Division (549-71M)' The staff can explain how these Permit procedures apply to historic buildings I-HLSTORICAL PRESERVATION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Proposals to construct or modify commercial buildings, condominium or apartments are subject to the drys architectural review process. New buildings and major modifications to existing buildings are reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). Mmor or incidental modifications to existing buildings are normally reviewed by the Community Development Director. The CWS architectural review process may also apply to a proposal to change a historic bolding or to eonsWul a new building in a Historical Preservation DistricL When the ARC or the Director are reviewing construction projects or proposals to demolish historic buil Heritage Committee. dings, they may ask for advice from the Cultural Gulin idees that describe the architectural review process are available from the community Development Department For more information about what might be required, contact the department 8 S ti COPIES-10: - WM. PETER TERHUNE ❑'DudesAchw ❑ FYI dQ"CDD DHL 1026 Palm Street o ❑ FN.MIL San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ACRO ❑ FM= � ATrowgEr ❑ FwDIR lG CLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE CFL ❑ MCW.7V-R.4 CJ P,ECDIR 13 CEADFILF. ❑❑ UnLDIR. MEETING AGENDA � - - DATE March 2, 1993 RECEIVED San Luis Obispo City Council MAR 4 2 1993 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 OITY CLERK JAN LUIS OBISPO,CA RE: ARC 129-92 1026, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street Dear Council Members: I am an attorney who has lived and practiced law here, in the city of San Luis Obispo, for over five years. Prior to moving here I lived in Carpenteria, California, for a period of about ten years and visited San Luis Obispo every four to six weeks to visit my in- laws who have lived here for about 17 years. My wife and I moved here and I decided to practice law here because I love the city of San Luis Obispo. I feel it is important for you to know that I have no pecuniary interest in this project. I have been an associate attorney with Woolpert & Associates for the last two and a half years and just yesterday became a partner in the newly-formed law firm of Woolpert Toews & Terhune. I plan to be in San Luis Obispo for the rest of my career, if not the rest of my life. Needless to say, I am interested in this community and have high hopes for its future. Although as indicated above I have no pecuniary interest in this project, I have been involved in the planning process from a creative standpoint and as an observer. I attended the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting and the first, second and third Architectural Review Commission meetings. The Cultural Heritage Committee meeting was interesting and informative'. I was truly appreciative of the time and effort the individuals put into reviewing the project and the review and investigation they undertook regarding the buildings sought to be replaced. There was quite a bit of give and take between the members who attended the meeting, and although there was no quorum and no recommendation was made, their comments were forwarded on to the Architectural Review Commission. From a citizen's perspective, I felt as thought that committee was providing the community with San Luis Obispo City Council March 2, 1993 Page 2 a valuable service, i.e. direction on preservation of culturally and historically significant properties. Basically the bottom line was that that committee did not find these properties to be culturally or historically significant and, therefore, did not make a recommendation to the ARC that the buildings be preserved. My next opportunity to observe the process came with the ARC, and I am pleased to report that after going through the process and spending hours upon hours upon hours of time with the principals involved in the project, the architect, the City planning staff and the ARC, I believe that process ultimately resulted in an improved project from that originally submitted to the ARC for review. In the end, if approved and constructed, the project will be more beautiful and more lushly landscaped than originally conceived. I (as well as everyone I have spoken with about this project) am very excited about the possibility of constructing a beautiful and functional building right where it is needed across the street from the Government Center and in the city center area. As I indicated above, I have been impressed by. the process. I felt as though it worked and was working quite well to balance the interests of progress with the interests of preservation of aesthetics and the character and history of the community. My excitement and confidence in the process has now been replaced by concern and dismay, particularly when balanced with information I have received from various individuals in the community. I have been informed by the principals that as a result of this appeal by one person, all of the work done by the planner, Jeff Hook, and the entire Community Development Department staff, the hearing officer Ronald Whisenand, who made findings and granted a conditional use permit, the ARC members, who made numerous findings and worked many hours, and the Cultural Heritage Commission members, as well as our architect and his staff and the principals involved in this project may all go down the drain. I shudder to think of the money expended by the proponents of this project and the tax dollars expended for the Community Development Department staff input throughout this process. It is of great concern to me that the public hearings held by the Community Development Department and by the ARC are without weight and subject to being undermined by an appellant who is only remotely interested in the outcome and did not take the opportunity to participate in the hearing process when they were taking place. If this is, in fact, the way the process works, it certainly appears to be devoid of fundamental fairness. An applicant deals in good faith with the Architectural Review Commission with the understanding that the Commission will make recommendations and that when findings are made at a public hearing, the findings after all appeal periods have run will carry some weight and not simply be cast aside when an appeal is filed. If this is the case, how can this be fair? How can an applicant San Luis Obispo City Council March 2, 1993 Page 3 ever be expected to present a cohesive presentation to the City Council so that they can accurately and adequately consider a project when the appeal is scheduled for 20 minutes on an agenda when many hours have been spent to get this far in different forums? The fact is that this project has already undergone hours of consideration by the ARC, the Cultural Heritage Committee, and the City staff. Again this process faces questions of fundamental fairness which should be addressed. Probably of greatest concern to me is the fact that but for the appeal of this one individual, this matter would have received final approval by the ARC. and not have been considered by the City Council at all. The important part of that last sentence is "but for the appeal of this one individual. " In order for this to make any sense and for you to understand my concern, you must know that I have received information from a number of independent sources that this appellant, although he may be well known to the City Council as a politically active individual, may in fact be an alter-ego for a member of the City Council. As an alter-ego to a member of the Council, he is able to bring before the Council, through appeals, issues that the Council member would not otherwise have been able to address, allowing the Council member to set the agenda and then vote on the matter. I have received information that a Council member, either currently or in the past, has paid this appellant to do "go-fer" work for the Council member, that this appellant may, as a result of the relationship he has with the Council member, feel compelled to make appeals of this type in order to receive other nonmonetary present or future benefits from the relationship with the Council member. The information that I have received, when coupled with the fact that the appellant is not a neighboring resident of the property and is not directly affected, but can only be considered to be a peripherally interested party who seems to have "come out of the blue, " bolsters my concern for this process. To alleviate my concerns, I would ask that the Council members disclose, for the record, the nature and extent of any relationship they may have with the appellant and any involvement they may have had in bringing this matter before the Council for review. If the relationship is such that there is the appearance of impropriety, the Council members should consider recusing themselves from voting on this particular appeal. If they are truly not an independent arbiter of this appeal, they should be recused for cause. It would appear to me, based upon my understanding of the Fair Political Practices Act, that at a minimum a complete disclosure of any relationships among the Council members and the appellant and/or the applicant must be made. I wish to express my sincere hope that this project be approved. I have always considered myself to be a socially responsible individual and an environmentalist. I am an attorney who practices San Luis Obispo City Council March 2, 1993 Page 4 elder law and who has a great deal of affinity for my older clients. I believe that this project as planned is an environmentally sound project and designed and located in the best interests of the community and the elder clients I serve. I have worked on this property almost every day for two and a half years, and I want to continue to be able to have this as my place of employment. I don't want to have to move to some other part of town into some converted house in a residential neighborhood. I don't want to see any more local residences converted into offices. This is an opportunity to appropriately place office space and to alleviate the demand for continued conversions in other parts of town. I have spoken with an expert planner, and that planner has concurred with my feelings that this is the most appropriate use of this property and this project is the most appropriate one as yet proposed for the property. This is a proposed office building in the well-established city center area of San Luis Obispo. This is not a residential neighborhood any longer. The appropriate strategy for the City Council would be to attempt to preserve the true residential areas that we now have. If we fail to allow construction of buildings such as those proposed, it will continue to put more pressure on current residential neighborhoods and require conversion of residential properties into offices as has occurred here on Palm Street, on North Marsh and all over the surrounding neighborhoods in the past. This is a planning concept known as displacement. The more you try to preserve inappropriately converted dwellings as offices, the further into the community and into residential areas those displaced offices will go. I know that there are Council members who are concerned about our community character and about our very special older homes. I am, too. However, it is appropriate in some circumstances to sacrifice the few to save the many, and for those members who feel the need to preserve our older residences, I think they need to take a very hard look at this particular location, its proximity to the County Government Center, its proximity to the City Center, and weigh the benefits of this beautiful project versus the burdens of trying to preserve some very degraded and dilapidated structures that probably should never have been converted to offices to begin with. From my perspective as an environmentalist I see this project as a great benefit to the community through trip reduction. This property will primarily be leased to attorneys and other individuals who conduct their business as the Government Center, the City Center, and in close proximity to this building. This building will allow people to drive, bike, walk or use public transportation to get to work in the morning and will reduce the need for vehicle trips throughout the day. If they do commute to the property by car, they can park their car and leave it all day until they go home. The project provides for ample bicycle parking San Luis Obispo City Council March 2, 1993 Page 5 to promote the use of bicycles. It primarily puts people where they need to be during the day, will increase pedestrian traffic as opposed to requiring people to travel blocks and blocks, if not miles and miles, to do the business they need to do at the Government Center and downtown, as is the case now. Additionally, the new building will be well insulated and efficient in its energy use, etc. It will replace very inefficient structures that are poorly insulated and drafty and are difficult and expensive to heat, cool and power. It is my feeling that this is my neighborhood, I actually spend more of my waking hours here in this neighborhood than I do at home, and I want to see this neighborhood changed for the better. This project, in my opinion, will be a beautiful addition and complement to this neighborhood, and will be a focal point and something for this community to be proud of for years into the future. Thank you for your consideration of the issues I have raised and for receiving my opinion. Very truly yours, Wm. PETER TERHUNE WPT:ab cc: Jeff Jorgensen MEETING AGENDA DATE-J..:.:-a ITEM #. ERNST AND MATTISON ----- A Law Corporation Don A.Ernst 1020 Palm Street Raymond E.Mattison P.O. Box 1327 COPI�TO: Patricia Gomez San Luis Obispo,California 93406 n. esA� �] FYI(805)541-0300 `(J3'j �ZCDDDIR CAO ❑ MI.DiR [�/ , Cko ❑ FFM CHIEF P, �A Tf M'4EY ❑ FW DUL March 2, 1993 [7 CLERK/onJC. ❑ FOuCEa-. ❑ MCMT.TES,14 U &EC DIR 0 Cp,�y El U'l]LDIR San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Palm Street Enterprise Project Dear Council Members: I am the property owner at 1020 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. I have owned the property since 1980. It is a green, two-story, completely restored, Victorian house that is used as the office building for Ernst and Mattison. I have watched with interest the proposed developmental project known as "Palm Street Enterprises" . The project is immediately adjacent to the property that I own. I am intimately familiar with all of the buildings that are involved in the project. In fact, I considered purchasing, at one time or another in the past 10 years, all of the parcels involved in this project. I have examined the structural components of all of the buildings. I am aware of the difficulties facing any current owner of those properties. The only prudent thing to do from a safety standpoint is to tear the buildings down and reconstruct new buildings. Particularly the building known as "The Criminal Defense Center" is unsafe in its present condition. There are buildings being used that are unreinforced rock and masonry that pose a hazard to all using the current buildings. I have viewed the plans for the project. I am aware of the owners of the project. The owners are long time devoted members of the San Luis Obispo community. They are interested irr its history and heritage. I believe the proposed plans are in complete keeping with the architectural flavor of the Palm Street block. I feel it would be a great addition to the City of San Luis Obispo. MAR _ 2 1993 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA San Luis Obispo City Council Page 2 March 2, 1993 These are difficult times. These difficult times are increased every time an individual wishes to improve his property for the betterment of the surrounding community and is met with administrative delay and difficulty. This is a good project. It will enhance the community. It will keep the flavor of the homes as they currently exist. It will add jobs to the community. It will increase the safety of the community. I urge the City Council to approve the proposed project. It should be noted that I have no interest in the building. In fact, I am aware that under construction there will be significant amounts of dust and debris that will necessarily fall on my building. However, I am willing to forego those short term difficulties for the betterment of the block and the community as a whole. I would urge you to approve this project. sincerely, A DON A. ERNST DAE/sr ' I:cECEI `/ E . WOOLPERT MAR 0 21993 MARK"''G°LPERT J.CHRISTOPHER TOEWS TOEWS & GFF;Cc OF WM.PETER TERHUNE 7L CITY ATTORWY OF COUNSEL . u`nII7T1►TE JAhffS C.BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1026 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 MEETIN AGENDA (SI S41� -4028 DATE ' '9 ITEM # FAX 541 CAMBRIA OFFICE 778 ARLINGTON RECEIVED CAMB93428 (805)927-027-0 41010 March 1, 1993 OR _ 2 1993 COP13TO: ❑•Demtes Action �.,/ ❑ FYI Council CITY CLERK CouncilL!1 CDDDIR Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA CAO ❑ FIN.DIR City Attorney 21 ACRO ❑ FiRECH]EF P.O. Box 8100 ATTOR'VEY ❑ FWDDL FCLEIZK/OR1Q ❑ POILICECK San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ❑ MGMT.TEA!,I C] REC DIL ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UnLD[R. Re: 1026, 1028 , 1036 and 1042 Palm Street �ZZAE-- ❑ Dear Mr-. J ^4e lc7 _ ns`en: I have had the opportunity to review the appeal of the ARC approval of ARC 129-92 after the last hearing on February 1, 1993 filed by Tim Farrell. The primary question and concern that I would like for you to address is the scope of the hearing before the city council and what issues, if any, the council is able to review. It is my feeling that most if not all of the specific issues raised by the appeal have been previously decided at public hearings for which the appeal period has run. The hearings I refer to are specifically those held by the ARC on November 23, 1992 and by hearing officer Ronald Whisenand on January 22, 1993 . The findings of both the ARC at that hearing and the city hearing officer in January have become final as a result of the passage of the 10 day appeal period after each of those public hearings. I will go into more specific detail on each of the specific issues later in this letter. It is my feeling that the only two specific issues that may be subject to the review of the city council would be Mr. Farrell's issues eight and nine regarding the adequacy of notice. I believe that the city gave adequate notice of the hearings regarding the proposed demolition and the schematic review and approval and the environmental review and negative declaration. It would seem, however, that these are threshold issues, and if, in fact there is a determination that there was inadequate notice there may be some argument that the other issues are in fact :able to be considered. However, if as I believe, all of the public hearings have been properly noticed and conducted and the appeal and/or public comment periods have past without appeal or comment the balance of the issues sought to be appealed have already been determined and appeal at this time is untimely and review should not be allowed. Jeffrey G. Jorgensen March 1, 1993 Page 2 On November 23, 1992, the ARC approved the demolition of four structures finding as follows: 1. The demolitions will not remove, damage, or change the character of a historically, aesthetically, or architecturally significant structure; and, 2 . The form, bulk, scale, siding and materials of the proposed building and site landscaping promote the historic character of the O-H zone where the project is located; and, 3 . Grant schematic approval to the project with direction . . . these findings together with the findings of the hearing officer, Ronald Whisenand, at the public hearing held on January 22, 1993, are determinative of all the issues raised by Mr. Farrell. Mr. Wisenand's findings six and seven as set forth below are specific to certain issues an more fully discussed later in this letter. 6. The projects' location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. and 7. The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separately parking and pedestrian circulation areas from nearby residential uses. Also all these findings together with the findings of Arnold Jonas based upon the initial study of environmental impact granting a negative declaration on November 20, 1992 have covered all of the issues sought to be appealed here. The appeal period for the November 23, 1992 hearing expired on December 3, 1992. The 21 day public comment period on the negative declaration expired on December 19, 1992. The appeal period for the January 26, 1993 public hearing expired February 5, 1993. As such, the appeal of Mr. Farrell filed February 9, 1993, is not timely with regard to any issues previously decided at those prior hearings or as a result of administration act. I think it is important to note that the appellants perspective and the issues he now seeks to bring up were adequately represented and discussed at all levels, both at the CHC and the ARC. Nevertheless, the various findings were made and approval granted. This is to say that nothing Mr. Farrell brings up now is new. M Jeffrey G. Jorgensen March 1, 1993 Page 3 With regard to Mr. Farrell's specific issues my response is as follows: Issue number one has previously been resolved by the findings of the ARC at the November 23, 1992 hearing numbers one and two above. Issue number two is a non-issue as no set back exception was necessary or granted. Issue number three has been resolved by the November 23, 1992 findings number two above and the findings of the hearing officer set forth in the January 26, 1993 letter attached. Issue number four has been resolved by findings number one and two of the November 23, 1992 ARC hearing above. Issue number five is a non-issue as a result of the issuance of the negative declaration and the passage of the 21 day public comment period without comment and the fact that the California Administrator of Regulations §15064 (a) (1) presumes when a negative declaration is granted that there is no "significant effect. " That is to say that that code section requires, if there is a "significant effect, " that an EIR be done and that a negative declaration is allowed. That section provides for mandatory language as follows: "When a lead agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR. " (emphasis added) As such, there being no EIR the presumption is that there is no "significant effect. " Issue number 6 was fully discussed at the ARC hearing on November 23, 1992 and has been resolved as a result of the findings provided above. Issue number seven was fully resolved by the negative declaration and the January 22, 1993 findings which became final February 1, 1993, specifically findings number four, six and seven (see the attached letter) . Issues eight and nine have been discussed above. Issue 10, again, has been resolved by the findings made by the ARC on November 23, 1992, specifically finding number two. The ARC had the Cultural Heritage Commission review comments and made their findings on November 23, 1992 in light of those comments. Issue 11, again, has been resolved by the November 23, 1992 findings. M Jeffrey G. Jorgensen March 1, 1993 Page 4 Both 11 and 12 have been resolved by the specific finding that the structures to be demolished are not architecturally, historically or aesthetically significant. In summary, it would appear that Mr. Farrell is now attempting to appeal matters which he should have addressed at the appropriate public hearing where each decision was made and/or appealed in a timely manner and that he cannot now come in after the appeal periods have run to seek readdress through the city council. The findings cannot now be changed and the negative declaration became final on or before January 22, 1993 . It should also be noted that even if there were a judicial challenge of the appropriateness of the negative declaration as a result of no public comment having been made to the negative declaration during the 21 day public comment period, a court pursuant to regulation 15074 (b) would not be able to consider any evidence other than the evidence already considered by the community development, the ARC and the city hearing officer. No new evidence could be considered under those circumstances and no new evidence can be provided now. Further, it is my contention that there is no new evidence regarding the environmental impact of this project in any event because as determined previously there is none. It would appear that the only issues for review by the city council at this point is whether or not appropriate notice was given of the prior hearings and those decisions that were made at the last ARC hearing held on February 1, 1993 . Those issues are as follows: 1. Mitigation measure #1 of ER 129-92 be modified to require only installation of new sound-proofing glazing or the equivalent (not wall insulation, walls or fencing, or landscaping as recommended in the initial study) , to the approval of the Community Development Director, with cost not to exceed $5, 000 per dwelling unit, as provided in the mitigation measure; 2. Building A body color be toned down with a "dusty pink" color, to the approval of staff; 3 . Use of medium height landscaping in planters between the parking lot and the public alley, to the approval of staff; 4. Revisions to mechanical wells and provisions for pedestrian access from parking lot to street .to the approval of staff. It should be noted that none of these issues have been specifically addressed by Mr. Farrell in his appeal. Please let us know your position on the scope of this appeal and the issues which will be addressed by the council. I believe it would be in the best interest of all concerned for you to let the Jeffrey G. Jorgensen March 1, 1993 Page 5 appellant and the council members know what they should be addressing themselves to in view of the limited time available and the numerous items on the agenda. Very truly yours, WOOLPERT TOEWS & TERHUNE MARK WOOLPERT MW:jm F:\WPNET\JUDY\Letters\Jorgense Mark Wheeler General Contracts M�..(�NG AGENDA 93 PO. Box 15.San Luis Obispo DATE 3-t-B ITEM # California 93406 License Number:315734 Office: (805)543-9054 Z40Home: (805)489-9193 February 26, 1993 Mr. Jim Sinton The Palm Street Enterprise 1026 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 1038/1042 Palm Street Dear Mr. Sinton: Per your request, I have inspected the structures on the above addresses with the intentions of what it would take to recondition them, bringing them up to codes for office space. I found the structures on 1038 in a disastrous state of repair. I truly feel that any money spent here would be money wasted. The front structure has moisture damage and dry rot throughout. The rear structure, with walls made by stacking rocks with unreinforced mortar, has extremely serious structural problems. 'It is, in fact, unsafe. Both of these structures would be next to impossible to bring "up to snuff" with anything short of a small fortune. They are not worth saving. The house on 1042 Palm, while being cosmetically in better shape, also has extensive dry rot problems. There, is no concrete foundation, which in itself can be remedied with a new foundation. The major problems I found with this structure are the termite damage and dry rot . in the lower wall areas and the roof framing. A lot of the rafter tails are only held together by paint. I stuck a screwdriver into the rafters and the exposed beams and several are dry rotted. I feel that once we were to start removing damaged areas for repairs, the building would start to disintegrate around us. There would be so much damage that we would end up rebuilding the entire structure, from the new concrete foundation up. It would not make sense, in my opinion, to repair this structure. Please understand that I make my living doing renovations and remodels, and I would not feel right advising you to spend any money on these structures without you understanding that it would require less of an investment to just build new. Please call if I can be of fur • i n E).D�Action 1 El FYI e Sincere y, �,� u ODDDIR YC+AO El IN.DIR MCAO 1:1 FRE arkt Wheeler s ATTM'E' ❑ FWDIR, RECEIVED LTJ CLERK/ORIC. ❑ POLICEC7i. ❑ MCMT.MAM G RECDIR FEB 2 6 1993 ❑ PxADFILE ❑ UTILDIR. r ❑ GiT'Y CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA D s�r mw•r M I ,;rl � oe o February 25, 1992 Palm Street Enterprises 1026 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention: Mark Woolpert RE: Condition of Building at 1042 Palm Street Dear Mark: We have been in this building for 14 years and we have had numerous problems, as listed below: 1. There' is no hot water heater due to potential fire damage. 2 . The wiring has been patched up over the years. 3 . There is quite a bit of termite damage. Every summer we have a huge outbreak of termites which consists of literally thousands of hatched termites all over the front porch. 4. We have had to have the building sealed at different times over the years due to a tremendous amount of rat infestation. 5. We have had leaky ceilings that we have had to have repaired. 6. The environment is very cold as this building is difficult to heat. My list of problems with this building could go on and on. If you feel that you need a more expansive list, please do not hesitate to contact me. While we appreciate the wonderful old buildings in our beautiful town, we feel that the building that we are occupying and the one next door to us are potential fire hazards, and as such are not "wonderful old buildings. " "6 1042 PALM STREET• SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 O 301 S. MILLER STREET. SU17E 221 • SANTA MARIA. CA 9345A SAN LUIS OBISPO SANTA BARBARA SANTA MARIA (805) 541-0333 (805) 963-3328 (805) 925-161.3 FAX (805) 541-2136 FAX (805) 922-9623 Page 2 Mark -Woolpert Palm Street Enterprises February 24, 1993 Over the years we have spent large amounts of money to keep this building in just "fair" condition. In order to bring this building up to a safe earthquake, fire and basic comfortable standard to be occupied I believe the costs would be prohibitive. We are excited about the prospect of a new building and being able to be one of its first tenants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need anything further regarding my opinion regarding the condition of this building. Very truly yours, 7 JLC:cw s' Appeal of ARC app►�val of ARC 129-92 (office building at 10263 1028, 1038 and 1C Palm Street, and related de ition of tour buildings) I hereby appeal this approval on the following grounds: historical, zoning, environmental review, and demolition, including the following specific issues: 1. Said project will result in the unnecessary loss of the prominent historic Palm Street residential frontage. 2. The project's setback exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. 3. The project's height exception permits inappropriate building massing along a frontage of prominent historic homes. 4. Massings of the replacement structure, coupled with the proposed second story walkway are architecturally incompatible with the current scale of the neighborhood. 5. The negative declaration includes an improper "if... then" noise mitigation measure rather than making the legally-required determination whether there is a "significant impact." 6. The environmental review document dismisses the project's historical and esthetic impacts on the block of fine homes even though it states "this project would contrast with the established.building pattern, scale and massing of the office conversions on the north side of Palm Street. The existing ... facades, taken as a whole, resemble a cohesive, small-scale residential neighborhood." And, the project "will, as proposed, contrast strongly with the neighborhood's prevailing architectural character." 7. Increased traffic on the narrow alleyway proposed to service project parking could adversely impact neighboring residences and pedestrian safety. 8. Inadequate notice was given to citizens and neighboring residents on the proposed demolition of four historic structures. 9. Inadequate public notice was given on the schematic review hearing, and on the environmental review of the project. 10. The Cultural Heritage Commission never fully reviewed the demolition of the historic structures. 11. The project approval is inconsistent with other recent ARC approvals on the block, which have emphasized preservation of the existing historic fabric and building massing pattern. 12. The project approval is inconsistent with General Plan policies that call for "long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement" of buildings such as those to be demolished. COPIESTO: ! MEETING AGENDA ❑••Deutm Amon DATE Jw;J3 REM # 5 a1 IJ CDD DIR. LrJ AC OiZ�TEY ❑ �D M [�'QB K/ORIC. ❑ PO=CH. ❑ MCMT.TFh`i ❑ rEC DIR. ❑ C DFIL'c ❑ TUMDUL _II i ,. Staff Report Timothy michael Farrell \- ARC Appeal: Palm Street Demolitions March 2, 1993 On February 1, 1993, the ARC voted to give final approval to a demolition request for four structures on the 1000 block of Palm Street and the subsequent erection of two office buildings on the site connected by a second story pedestrian walkway. It is my intention to demonstrate the necessity to preserve the structures slated for demolition not only on historical and aesthetic grounds but also invalidating their proposed demolition on procedural grounds. It is also my intention to show that the proposed replacement structure is wholly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and violates precedent established by the city on the grounds of proper massing, contextual architecture, and established height limitations. The proposed development would result in the loss of the prominent historic Palm Street residential frontage. Not only should these .structures be looked at individually, but also as a whole. Exhibit A consists of five photos of the individual houses set for demolition (or in the case of 1026 Palm, a remodel which would effectually destroy the architectural and historical integrity if the building). Exhibit A also includes photos of the Palm Street Frontage from north-easterly and south-westerly vantage points on Palm Street.. The, purpose of this is to show the continuity of the existing structures in how they relate to each other. What we have here .is a shining example of a 1920's era city block existing behind the County j Courthouse. The I is are manicured, the paint is ash, these structures are living monuments to our heritage and snapshots of a time gone by. The only noticeable reference to these photo's being recently taken are the new automobiles that grace the curbsides of this irreplaceable frontage. The proposed removal and alteration of these artifacts of history would result in an unparalleled loss not only to the street frontage but also a loss to the city as a whole. The second portion of the item deals with the staffs previous comment that the structures do not individually hold any historical significance. I thoroughly disagree. The initial environmental study notes that the structures are not included in the City's Master List of Historic Resources. As most of us know, the Master List of Historic Structures is a woefully inadequate listing of our city's historic resources. One merely has to look at the absence of the historic 19th Century Leitcher Apartment Building from the list to see how incomplete this list really is. Clearly, this list should never be a deciding factor to allow demolitions of historic structures in San Luis Obispo. The 1000 block of Palm Street was part of the McDougall Subdivision. The first house to be erected on this block was 1026 Palm. It was constructed as a one and a half story dwelling by contractor Emil Srorz for Richard Mathew Bernard in the summer of 1907. The cost to Mr. Bernard was to be about $1,200.00. Within three years Mr. Bernard constructed a second house on the site. This was made, possible since he had purchased three lots of the McDougall Subdivision and constructed this dewlling, 1028 Palm, on the back portion o. is 23 and 24 while construct" the forward house on lots 24 and 25. (Exhibits B & C) The owner of these two properties, Mr. Richard Mathew Bernard, was a local merchant (Exhibit D). He was a native of New Jersey and a veteran of the Spanish American War, moving to San Luis Obispo around 1900 and marrying a local girl, Grace Chaloner. After working for Southern Pacific for several years as a brakeman and conductor, Mr. Bernard owned and operated a cigar store on 894 Monterey Street, the site which currently houses Kinko's Copies and Craig Smith's Office. Mr Bernard sold his house to Ben Cerini, around 1920. Mr Cerini s listed occupation was a Cigar Store Clerk, possibly an employee of Mr. Bernard. Nlr Cerini was a native of Switzerland and moved to this area around 1904. He owned this house until his death in 1950 and his wife continued to live there until she died in 1963. The most prominent of the four structures to be removed is the house on 1042 Palm. This building is noteworthy for two reasons. First is it's architectural significance. The building at 1042 Palm is a fine example of the "California Bungalow" style architecture. Once prominent in San Luis Obispo, as the 1976 Historical Element to the General Plan States, most of these examples of this architectural style were razed in the 1960's and early 1970's and "replaced with duplexes, triplexes, and low density apartments." (Exhibit E-1) In order to maintain the integrity of what was .San Luis Obispo's architectural past, it seems pertinent to preserve the house on 1042 Palm for this reason alone. On historical . .grits, 1042 Palm was build by seph Green, a second generation haberdasher. His family owned and operated Green's Clothiers on Higueras Street, currently the site of the Copelands Building now under construction. The Green's were prominent downtown Jewish businessmen in San Luis Obispo and I am told that most men in the city .purchased their clothes from his store. Mr. Joseph Green was the son of. Kaufman Green, native of Poland, who moved his family here from San Francisco in about 1876. In 1912, Mr Green commissioned James Maino to build for him a house of 30 feet frontage and 48 feet in depth on the site' now known as 1042 Palm. Said building was to be of frame and plaster construction and composed of one story costing $1,500.00. (Exhibit E & F) Mr Green and his neighbor, Mr Bernard were both members of the Odd Fellows Lodge and Mr Green was also a charter member of the Retail Merchants Credit Association. Mr Green died in 1930 and the house passed to his widow, Nellie. (Exhibit G & H) The three houses at 1026, 1028, and 1042 Palm Street all have historical merit. They were all built before World War I and were owned and occupied by downtown businessmen who helped shape the history of San Luis Obispo. The background on 1038 Palm is still sketchy at this point, except for the fact that it was built between 1918 and 1926. Architect Ken Haggard will be able to fill the council in more thoroughly on the structure. The second point of . my appeal deals with the proposed replacement structure to be located at the 1026-1042 Palm Street site. I see three problems with this project. First is the proposed height exception. As the staff report concedes, the usual limits for an office building is 2., .eet, the exception would add )ther 63" to this self imposed limit to a 31'3" height. Absent from the hearing officer's findings is what the proposed height exception would do to the street frontage character, the key to this appeal. This exception would allow the proposed office building to be out of architectural context with the rest of the block. What is far more damning to this project is the fact that it is architecturally incompatible with the rest of the block. One only has to read the staff report to begin to question the validity of placing this specific project on this site. It reads, "In terms of scale, (the project) is more in keeping with the Teass Building at the corner of Osos and Palm Streets, and the County Government Center on the South Side of Palm Street." (Exhibit I) First off, the County Government Center is one of the largest buildings in the city and is across the street from the project, not adjacent to it. Secondly, the Teass Building, located on the corner of Palm and Osos Streets, is not really a factor in comparing it with the center of the block as although it retains more of a Palm Street frontage, it's consistent with the Osos Street Frontage, while the frontage on Palm Street is quite a different style of architecture in placement and design. The Teass house provides a good anchor for the block, however, one would have to admit that it would be out of place in the center of the block where the builder wants to place his version of that structure. The buildings fronting Palm Street maintain a cohesive architectural style that was prominent at the time they were built between 1907 and 1929. The block as it is now holds a certain kind of charm. The proposed building calls for two rel ement structures built on 75 wide lots as opposed to the current 50' wide lots. This would be achieved by merging three lots into two.. The plans call for a second story passageway to connect the two- office buildings. This would eliminate any vision of this being considered two buildings. What you are actually getting here is one large office complex, three times the size of any of the current frontages on the street. The staff report states that the construction of this project on this site would be "very different" than that of the surrounding neighborhood. I would go as far to say that the proposed structure would destroy the residential character on Palm street that past ARC actions have fought so hard to preserve. The final problem of incompatibility deals with the amount of trip generation the project claims to create. This project, according to the figures you have before you, would generate an additional 100 vehicle trips per day, an increase of 20%.per day. If the council was given the Staff report that the ARC received, they would see that the trip generation was listed at 505 trips per day, and the resultant increase was not 20% but 25%. I question the change in the numbers, was it an error? Why the update after the appeal was filed? (Exhibit J) The one thing that staff fails to mention is almost all of these trips generated will be entering in and out of the 20 foot wide alley, as that is where the proposed parking lot is located for the project. I would argue that most people would make use of the free parking in the back as opposed to paying the meter out front. Twenty feet wide sounds like a lot of space, but I seriously doubt that this alley, designed around 1910, was meant to hold the increases in traffic that this project proposes. A final item of note is that the increased noise and traffic, according to the staff report, will significantly increase the likelihood that remaining residential uses in the area will be changed to office space. This raises the possibility of losing this area to expansive offices, and the elimination of this residential character for good. (Exhibit I) environmental impacts, and must not be worded in the vague manner of the subject Initial Study's noise mitigation. Much of the problem with this project's approval stems from a combination of improper public notice, out-of-sequence actions, and an apparent abridgement of what the public is led to believe is supposed to happen at the ARC's "schematic review" stage. Schematic review "is optional but highly recommended for most projects... Schematic review allows the ARC to evaluate basic concepts and discuss plans before an applicant makes a major commitment of time and money to a design." ("Architectural Review In San Luis Obispo," Page 5.) That sounds rather tentative. However, staff alleges that except for specific design details, the project was approved at the schematic stage. If plans are so sketchy that an applicant hasn't made "a major commitment of time and money to a design," just what is being "approved" at the schematic stage? If the public is being told that schematic review is tentative and optional, why are allegedly binding approvals taking place then? In fact, up to and including the schematic stage, all of the city's public notifications regarding this project had failed to provide the public with accurate or complete information about the project's nature. (How many notices were there?) Neither the extent of the demolitions proposed, the nature of the project, not even the correct project address, -- none of these had been included in public notices up to and .through the notice for schematic review. As I stated in the appeal, the City gave improper notification of residents about the proposed demolition. Located in your packet is what the city sent out to neighboring residents and a copy of the notice that appeared in the Telegram Tribune (Exhibit K & Q. Note what is written there is the proposed DEMOLITION OF TWO, NOT THREE) NOT FOUR, BUT TWO STRUCTURES and the proposed construction of AN (ONE) OFFICE BUILDING at1038 Palm, not 1026, 1028, 1038, AND 1042 AS IS THE CASE, BUT JUST ONE SITE ADDRESS, THEORETICALLY ONE LOT AT 1038 PALM. This improper noticing possibly could have had an effect on the amount of people who testified at the November 23rd meeting when the "schematic approval" took place. I have spoken to several people who have informed me that they would have surely spoken up sooner had the notice been properly printed in the paper. How can you expect to have full public input if you do not proper notice the residents of San Luis Obispo? There is also a problem with the approval of the project with regard to CEQA compliance. Staff alleges that demolition was approved by the ARC, along with all of the project except for specific details, on November 23 1992. However CEQA requires that "Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration... The decision- making body shall approve the Negative Declaration if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Regulations Section 15074.) However, the proposed Negative Declaration was not publicly noticed until November 28, 1992, FIVE days after the ARC supposedly approved the demolition and project design. (Exhibit M) State law requires a public comment period, .and center of the block is demolished and replaced by a large, modern office building of a different scale, massing and architectural character from its neighbors. ' Indeed, there is established precedent for the preservation of this very same block, established only three years ago. The case was a house located at .1060 Palm, next door to our current 1042 Palm. (Exhibit P) The owner wished to demolish the existing structure and create a larger office structure. The permission for demolition was approved, however, the result was far different than the owner intended. Due to the owner allowing the house to deteriorate the demolition was allowed, however, the resulting building was required to keep in character with the other existing houses on the block. The resultant structure is the grey house on the right of 1042 Palm and turned out quite well. The owner of 1060 Palm had to go through a tough process to see that he conformed to the existing massing of the street frontage and maintain the same architectural integrity as the original building. Why allow this case to be any different? The final note I have in wrapping up is that the proposed project does not conform with General plan policy. The staff report you have in hand has misquoted the General Plan, it should read that policies call for "long term conversion and conservation rather than replacement" of buildings. I think this passage sums up the outgoing sentiment of most people in San Luis. We are proud of our heritage, and we have gone to many lengths to preserve it. The denial of this project that I am asking for is not out of the ordinary for San Luis Obispo. There are so few examples of frontages like this next to any _ Z � Zkl- 44 CL o w p o t'.4 Q ti L' rrz r • h O C L r •ti ' V sJ {I L C .� .� � � a; �hhVV - S• 7 44 1 � � C*.s C C ^ C p Z u (� C .•� U 1� 't c •.r � v C C 2 .� ' '" i ^r u bn v w y 'C ._ � •c C .� a. Q " •� big .� � � �" +. Y �• v.a Cl ^ •. ifCa,'N.ti,e ,•.:tii•I '.r,. :p;�'.';.. 1.14i :'t'.. ... r•, M1 J' t ''"lll� i T h 4 4yr ,?,yy ,�' +� �Ya� a a n �i ♦r'�' $' • a' f 1 i ✓1 T r t5( A c r! (hI i� I .1 t• •2•+N' a,,� r' �+•i r 4l�' t�. :i�+h !e n��+4 tl� + W..}r ( r 'a L •(. .' a ye r..rn �r�r�ra Alt. rY'�lt1+w � . r • t M&, Y,, ,^r,.t �r�r + r J t �` .I a'' ( t � t' J ( , a, .y, y.•sn Z � .d.'. � l .nb .. . ,�t'+;y9 til < < -•YUY-WMw.LL•,••uir.LL. :..I M.••,n r'.,.� - :.aV.n N C+ a b w b O d (D C.(D CDr �. C ►~•• O O n - H n H m K7 'L7 N H n M H r* rt m O n r+ 'L3 O n N T CD g 17 r* CD M w 7 _ T+ N V• C O O A H (D H O O O O O CD M H < N I 7 X "• H C. r+ +j =F* O r+ r• w (D (D o r+ - (1) (D p� r• CD (D r y 0. C) N d 7 b r+ K 7 (D N O g n w 0. w O w n 0. 7 O m r+ H C N (D (A r+ p� N !n r+ CD O w tD & r•. W fn `< O :J r+r+ M H 4) W C (A y P. .* C y£ CCD 7 r 10 w 71 O ++• n n r r (�, to E n N E v o (D w n a b o P. r+ N CD H H r+ . M w �• o T+ w S W. H rfl H P. O n CD w w r• N N H. H ¢gt� � rr w CO CD (D N (D O r7+ O H. w WC IOq -1 & F• M C r+ 1* N Tom•• � ►a.. X (CD M H N N 0 9 & HO +-h `< r+ DHi H CD go CD (D tD E (D N r+ r+ w 0. +-• CD C S CD r �• �- .- w T~+ t :r X W. r0+ O �• O N 7 in N b O H `< %< Da rr+ Vr d - M M r = E H ►+ H w J•• O O r+ n :30 r• n a H. c > < w CD z y N N C. < Y (D E (D O c N• < o0 00 A (D W w H. r+ r+ (D Co H O W. H C. W. N O - O �• X H. 00 b 7 H `< :5 r+ (D r+ r+ N r+ +.• O O T+f 7• O go c N (D W H 7 rT P. ', < (D - `d O O' 9 n (D H. to w E O T'• O r• X N N O O M r+ r+ H N O O M O r O r+ C, r-•• 7 H H C �' `< O N T+T t QO ++• 00 (D £ co W. 7 fn O y O t O to T+T N r+ 0. 7 N w O r+ 3 (D -w O• C C )'• r•+ :3' N r+ O H N 'O (D rT IA n O (D ,cl 't a r~+• T•y (D - M O• N H A 7 K ri �' H `C Oo 7 O N r+ (D w r+ ►' O (D n W O n -ct 71W R b O N O M N O S r+ N N O O t9 p. R b N 7 O `< w a < r••. O fD N y W HA O 9 :L C 9 - H CLN (D a0 po W N l9 W. v 'l7 rT (D W. t7 (D (D N (D N y w r. y W L1. Do (D 'CyJ N O 'CJ H. H N Id 7 7• O (D co O O 7• 7 O H r? 9 r+ r• 7 (D N W. C Cn N rt 0 CD �• d w b n o w < r<D (ND Tw O o M N = 7 N .. n �. r rt < co <CD m n < H w (D bg w - O r O r+ a< w H w rw+ r• 4 � H. H. (nD ►w Id (OD (6 Oco N ty < 0 H W 0. r+ `< go `< r+ O (D 5 (6 (Do m A w ONCD W r+ r+ w r+ u ' t K w o :r (<D w r. n (D 0 r•. m CD r 7 CL C O w - n r+ y r+ N r+ b r+ g r+ y r+ r C. < H N pT r-TT M w w a (xD �' w o 0 7 0 �' N 7 C, r r G r+ N < rf O r• 0. N N• w c C d rnT C-) w C. ~p. C• H H. O C. r• T� w a b C. (D (D C r+ 7 (D ry N N r+ Co N P. 0 n N L O O (D N rt Tn•.4 H. N P. O F+• +r rT n CC yy n o > r+ pn� Py rn+ :' 4-•• w H H w N K N 1/t m N (D N 7 C. C :'•+ O TOy rw'+ (n n (ID yyC n• ~ w (D X °T r' r+ ti w OH W ry+ r7 y fD r+ m M n �, \ O (yD CL F-• N r+ O n O (D b H m r0•T '-j ~ r+ H O FN+ rw+ r* Q. t/•• H N n A H �j• O aFr N 7 n H (D b r+ r• O d 'dp rr+ ts H. C. W a' i6 :r •d N (D (D 9 N r+ rt 8 't7 `C O rr c H H N H C. O S S rD m £ r• (�r+D Hrt C oC W C. H Or+ (D y "d r+ (D O•EA N CL r D O m < LA 00 Nn M :r O p r+ M (D CD E rN r+ (D W r+ r+ C. •[ X N TO{ N vi M y s y S 7 a, r+ f- (CD N n r• to N (ND rT 7 C) (HD (CD rw•T O pi r0+ n. n cl pmptt (� o to < 7•( o H. ren o o . rw, r7 N b +c•{ M• C w F•• w 00 N CD C. 7 N y Oa O (n(+ � D1 O Fes+• H. � m 7 O. �(HyD f+ r+ I. M HO C H Z N r+ +-• w O O O. (D 4i +-• 'p H. w O tD H n CFO _H K •C C. O 7 0 N £ 3 r✓ 00 r--• C rH+ N O DD) o < v Co (n o N `C •a N H w m a `G T•t o w X - d O N rt H (< O QQ D r+ H O In TT{{ C r m tai :3 C w w N w O S m b O r r# w pp T••• r+ 00 +•+ y r+ m r+ w n9 N W C. y N x H a rD w > r+ Dv N o n o X n o r+ (+ w w Lq N H 9gCD N O n 9 r+ M O n p C r• ydy E C. O (D frny (7 (D N C7' :r K (HD N O < N 0. S 7 `< O m 7 /(� M O H ►' O w to n O (D (D O N 10 M 1 V� fDFNCL N ° w (° +• O CDD 6. f�D y M O CD ' '] tD (D r+ H C. N• 0. :3 t I 7 N N t (D 7 t w rN + W (; jvZZ. el zr 55-eb CDr n w w o a _ rt ez w- DQ ;--t » w V U x ? O n �\ ...r. r5 ` \ eb r5 1 ° aqei m a n a 1 '1 t7 C eD A a F) ^ .......................... • w ro C10 33 ° d C) so rb .y�... ..... ................. . rr a -ocven ours aesl nea Eo .it the prohibition law -. hent reform program > dent Hoover and his .orcement commission . ng prepared today for S LJ 'je fe .tea..?r,}, t Vi -//y D i congress. : Plane Vound 'nngg thee list was the to transfer enforce- J95EPH )m the treasury to the - Total Wreck _partment, which is-the I e 41 G, ssure of the. seven dryrUNEH91 FLO X ire confident they can A11STO*\, Conn:, Jan. 14. tt the present session. It � 'riie lint I-,airchil(I inonoltlan( 1trAn(-ed bofore night in I'rivale funerti xt•rtic•es f('t : NNLich ninit•1 Maria an(1 IV!! b% Heiire.wntative Wil- Ju�cl,h (lrecn, lmoic •r S:ln Luis tel)IIMI •Jtn, ltrtpicl (:its•, S. 0I,i:zl,u n1(r(halit, were held Tues- i:irhI1.111.10: Set Out on :111 :110 Lit of the colnntittce Olt (lad• :It 10 a. 11).; It the Inel.ar(lsont test fruni I•'grininn(lale, L. I„ ,•sikn(liturrx ttncl it will Le TUt;(•rai 1,81'1(it's. - -- - I'1']tlax', leas fuun(1 wrrcke(1 her, irulaedlately to Willi:uu• 1':111 hearers %vere : ('. P. I:aelrel, •utive cunlalitee tfur cult- Johit xor(on. Ed MOrtin, S. �' day. wri-lit, .>,J.l•ett -NvIsoit and -N. W. - '1'hc hoQio; of the tt�'o avir: ,•r six Lill. provide : 8atldercork. wcrr ilral• the sLil,, whicli waa Other MIN. }'rft•ticl!A '::nA-rulatices rr lho do- 1\• (mina LA I,}' fire. iflcatinn of all l:iw. refer I , (.;1,c.,i fillc(1 thc� funeral ch:;l,r.l nhiLfticul• ! wi:h fluwor.. Tile l,l:rne '��:1s clisr,tvc•toa in rndn►ent of the �'olstea(1I wuucl: near Alnzt„n Lake by I Iuterilient n•. c nt the Inatl:olcnrn Ruwlt,r. a gantek('e�er. i_pasllockti effect �c_riwn...,t-I.::�en rrmrtr:ry. -_ _. TIJC 1ui•alit}• here the foo H.)poly ot%'ner.. ,ln.c•ltlt Creon died Suu(l:!} .1t :l (,,l flies (iie(1 li:l(1 h( ru tL't g: ;Ing prohibition n"ents of ; 1oral h,(q,it:ll. He hall hevn in fail nnt�• :uandnlunic•ipal of I • I )•ar(i of two nirtuail pilots a'i ru trr: hc•cIlih fill* ,,•feral nu,u111.• the last 1111-ve ears. �l ,I„ I. �,; rho Ret:lil \lel•rhattt. I _ ling -III l"il "Ca"11:11 or slig i 1'1'((1 t.._ -.\�tU: I:li�(111---( ll(�(�} illl'll' f inT�7einiiii►or`. x.toro. (luriul, the cervi( , .. as Mr. Irwin?; the lu,nlir cust��nr.c (7r(•olt w:r. one of tho'eharter n1c.n- 'er•the coast rnard. the ur•� llization. f 1('r11J� (•n111 ihl• c i 9'NKEH F91,1S art. L:• (-liutinatirtti jn1 y Jlnor c:t.c�*. j argirg the powers nf the ate" colnati.Sloners tvurl. the federal ennrts. , ESCUE CHE 5 TO HIS ' DEAT sue-tion Ugality. A wet getletaily linVe , \]:1'; Y illtIi, a:ul. 14. (U.P.f—1 i eetlons only- t(• t!u• 1:1.1 j wrt S. Mnriin, v:r•o prvAllrnt of St-naturs lila<�. 11elno• : h:ulkin- firmof �. W. Slntu; (:,uu�J:ul�. �ta� Lill(.(l -t.orl:��•_i.n..a �il..our1, wet. for in- jr,�1n a oi�llt �l(,r�- witl(I(Jw .,f LOS AN(IIET.1•;S. Jun. 1-t.- tU.F; - , 1•:,r): . Atone :11,:rrt'=nt, at-Cu2.7 pressed doubts about. the Ros(•w• 'vret\•>. fakir, ; :1(iv:ull:i 61' ,nality of any ineasnre i . t(, flu' l,ulire. with the right of trial L�• 't tcnipuhlr� Ittll is the l,lir.c:1r11� 11:11-till eta. to havo loft 1te of the fact that Attor- I`hich lrtt'e swel,i 5ont'.1ern ('ali;()r. 1;��1,t today. lx,lict., who w('re iiia nlnuntain.. pltviaecl ihroll"111 fnrrlterl 11mt he wa. .ufferin•• fl* -at %itiellell, who rules nn I'driffed ( nn�(m. t„rt:t} in .r:1r( h .,f !Ions. has prononneed hi ►- rl l>1(•:1.1,r(• ltarllc . aur? wor;,- � '1 !,( rv„n� l.reakciutvn, �ai,l. rnr of the prvj)oxnls. ,,r. uho mai be sufft ria;; frog \ur ml* hi ; othrr 1,u.In( s; art. au(I trra=lt lumt:(•r incl lark of shelter. ti(•� h(• tva� pre�i(1o11t many of ilto (:ihlns :Incl resort i o :1 f ihr ul4+ns•,!(l,lr Ilnf( Corp)! Corp)KT t!-ill : clirerlot of the Y(.rshi w which were virinallN ;nu.�(•(] 1 ....:...:.... �r 1Y1A11.UUfltU %) NUV Hw..[.ST is !• �r. Joseph.: Greed HEFFNER IS - Is Summoned OUIZZED 0 RED WITH JuL;vI,It Grccu, well loiOWn 1110111 ber of one of the plunger families; of sai, Luis (11,i.;,Ilo, anti w'I,o.. hail 1ROSTORM thiel practically t111 '1118" life in this City, cried :it a hosl11ta1 bore Su11 day tlloruili,^,. 111. Grtell lead keel!-.. ill f+ MI).- 11e:11th for suuu� m�,uth!;. I,u[ 1�'ati �a� Known Dead not seriun-ly ill until lase SaturcLly Taylor Case Vr Imes• uighT. wIm1I his condition be,•time Scores Held 11"itl lie :Ig t,tliell t,' 'I),- ',os- Tells Stoiy of pit:i'1. w1wre he diad witlihi a few11r�llr:. . lountalns. I fou of t1,e We Mr. incl Mrq. 1 Llxder. x.ujrl:,.m Green, Ile was born ill exA Sall I•'rauc;svo, and bron.-Itt to this - r ;rr by 111-4pare111> nhilc_ rut iufu : ,t. LOS ANGELES, Jan. I nows and blit4zards ;� ,l ,tl5 ago.auntain .regions of I.:it.t 1. with .hiti brother. .Mnurice (UP)—The renewed investigc- Grevii. he suct•eeded to tla• clutl,in;; tion of the eight-year-ol -alifornia, Nevada, 1Iju%:nvss of the f:lther, :,ttd 11:1.; :I murder of William Desmon Arizona today had pfirt„er ill the sture at ilio time of hl-,i dearth. Taylor quickened. in interet known deaths over Beride his brother. '.alibi(,(% lie iq here today when Otis Hefner -id while the fate of swrivetl by l,ls wwo%v, 3Irs. Nellie I who claims important knotr erwas un-ersons Grec•n, one daughter, mi." mea. tont P scrn. Kr„ue111 and anutl,er hruthc•r. ledge of the case, arrived her A. 13. t:n�n,. court reporter l,t•ro. from San Francisco for quer Kirkpatrick, 35, Living bis entire lift- ill this rom- tinning. King, 32; both of ntttllity, mr. Green had a vory wide Hefner, a former convict rlrcle of Avarm friends and lii, �iz., were frozen to was taken directly to the of ay night when their `loath c•a sed sorrow tliroughuot 11"! Tice of District Attorney Burot entire cummiuilty. Y became stalled in F'anerair- serrlt" will-•4+0 hilt! Fitts. mountain region of '1'tivwiay morliliig froni the Itic h:Ird- Ed Ding, special investiga• sen, fnueral parlors, and will be pri- tor. who wtis goo north for Iief rom Prescott, Ariz., tate• uer. said the latter told Mill thi vera] nlutorixls erre -- snore stury he told when he tva> e lwen c•:I ight In drifts found by the lin;led Prrss. I alid hold nut been rr;_ lit-filer stated thea 11111t he Iva- H9CIN TIP clo-w frimid of I:cllt:url tian�t�. C'anywi exI,er;ence+l :'ormer talct for Tuylor. and that !�no•rvfall that till c-o1,1_ he and Saadi %vere at the Tayloi ire`s %vere doth. 1'rc•si• � Pq PST' V101r4!or lrnn>;alo�� shcntly af10r the scrc�cu'il% 'collo ofVex1c-,cr ••••�� imirtlprtvt 'ARC Staff Report Page 3 Second-story windows along rear (alley) elevation modified for privacy Colors revised Design Specifics 1. Parking layout and circulation. City parking and driveway standards require that parking spaces be designed to be entered in one maneuver, and exited in not more than two maneuvers. Exiting from space 34 requires four maneuvers. The standards also require a turnaround if it's unsafe for a vehicle to backup into a public street. Parking spaces 14 and 15 back directly into the public alley with visibility of oncoming cars blocked by adjacent parked cars (spaces 8-11). City standards do not allow tandem parking spaces for offices and other commercial uses. The neighborhood is changing from predominantly residential to mixed residential- commercial uses, and the alley which once served mainly houses is handling increased traffic. With additional office development, alley traffic will increase. Cars backing directly into the alley pose traffic hazards and should be redesigned so that they may exit safely in a forward direction. The- parking area is designed as two unconnected, double-loaded bays, each on a .!-,separate lot. By code;each lot requires one handicapped space. Two spaces are shown; both next to Building B. One handicapped space should be relocated to serve Building A directly. 2. Architectural Compatibility. Simply put, the buildings are attractive but appear too large for the site. As proposed, the project does not meet setback and parking requirements (7.5' side yard setback required for Building B, 5' shown; 34 spaces required, 31 spaces provided which meet city standards). Downscaling the buildings might improve architectural compatibility, allow the project to meet city setback and parking standards, and provide additional outdoor use or landscaped area. The project is in a neighborhood recognized as having a cohesive, historic character, hence the "H" overlay over a portion of the site and the properties along the north side of Palm Street between the site and Osos Street. The project's scale, massing and overall design is very different from that of the small existing houses on the site. The new offices would double the amount of office floor area on the site. In terms of scale, it is more in keeping with the Teass Building at the corner of Osos and Palm Streets, and the County Government Center on the south side of Palm Street. This and other future projects like it could significantly change the architectural character of this portion of Palm Street. A portion of the existing building at 1028 Palm Street (O-H zone) is to remain; however its character is lost in the redevelopment. 3. Landscaping. The landscape design shows improvement over the previous plan. Four parking spaces were relocated out of the courtyard, and planting was provided along the rear and side of the parking lot. Additional landscaping is desirable, especially at the rear and sides of the site to help soften and modulate building scale, and to allow some tree planting in the parking area. City standards encourage the use of trees in parking lots to city of san lues oBispo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 1028 1034,- and 1042 Palm Street APPLICATION NO ER 1 -92 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to demolish four structures and build a 6,000 sq. ft. office building and remodel an existing buildinn for a total floorar a of 1. 333=s •.o a 21 00 .s -f. : site- i the. Office. zone.. APPLICANT Paln Street E-itei-nri-zes C/o mirk "'ool-nert (Craig Snith renresentative) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ): NEGATIVE DECLARATIONMITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY IRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY DATE_Noverber 19, 1992 ` \ 1 �L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN InECTOR'S'IACTION{ DATE SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING , s: 11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS \q. a*1 A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... B. POPULATICN DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... °ione C. LAND USE ....................................................................... *Mavhe D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION "one.-. E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ................................ 'gone F. UTILITIES........................................................................ `:one G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................... ............................. "ore H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS one I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... `lone J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. 'lone K. PLANT LIFE............................... ........................................ `�nnP LANIMAL LIFE...................................................................... ' M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ................................................... ;'Nonon ee*" - N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... O. ENERGY/RESOURCEUSE ........................................................... 'Tnna ;Ione P. OTHER .......................................................................... III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT (3��F Initial Environmental Study, ER 130-92 Page 5 would result in a net office floor area increase of about 8,600 square feet, and an additional 126 vehicle trips per'day. This represents in overall traffic increase in.the alley of about 25 percent. While the numbers of estimated vehicle trips are not large, the increase in alley traffic ..could adversely affect residents. of.the two houses and six apartments.which back up , to the alley. Increased noise from this project and others like it along this section of Palm Street is likely to hastent onversion of the remaining dwe Ings to-of ices. f Significant Impact/mitigation: Maybe. In reviewing the project, the Architectural Review Commission shall determine, based on the number, location and orientation of nearby dwellings, whether the project will significantly impact adjacent residential uses due to increased noise. If the Commission determines that the project is likely to have a significant impact due to project-related increases in traffic noise, the applicant shall modify the project to install off-site noise reduction measures for adjacent residential or mixed residential/commercial uses at 1023, 1037, 1041 , 1045, and 1051 Mill Street, and 873 Santa Rosa Street. Such measures may include, but are not limited to: installation of double pane windows, additional wall insulation and . similar architectural features to reduce noise;-installation-oflandscaping and irrigation; and new fencing or walls; as requested by the adjacent property owners who can demonstrate that: A) one or more dwellings existed on their property as of the date of the project's environmental determination, and B) there are specific measures desired by the adjacent property owner which can reduce the adverse effects of project-related noise on residents, to the approval of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall notify adjacent property owners of the program in writing, and provide the City with verification of compliance with this mitigation measure prior to construction permit issuance. The cost to the applicant of such measures shall not exceed $5,000 per property improved. D. Transportation and Circulation. A 20-foot wide public alley provides vehicle access to the project's 38 vehicle parking spaces. The one-block long alley joins Santa Rosa and Osos Streets, and serves 15 properties which have frontage on Palm and Mill Streets. Significant Impact: None. Staff estimates that the project will add about 95 vehicle trips daily to adjacent streets. The alley and adjacent streets can adequately handle this traffic increase, and no significant adverse transportation or circulation impacts are likely as a result of the proposed project or other likely projects in the area. Initial Environmental Study, ER 130-92 Page 4 profile, single story elevations increasing to two-story toward the center of the lot. They both are setback-from thestreet• property line-•about 24-feet.-with.abundant landscaping in front, side and rear yards. The new offices would have two-story street elevations, would be setback from the street property line 19 feet (minimum street yard setback is 15 feet), with minimal landscaping would be provided in side and-rear yards.. An exception to zoning regulations will be required.to..allo.w a.5-foot... ..: .. :: ;.. . setback along the east side of Building A where a 7.5-foot setback is normally required. An enclosed walkway links the second stories of the two buildings, visually joining two buildings into one and altering rhythm of building facades. Zoning Regulations To ensure compatibility of office uses with adjacent dwellings, city zoning regulations require use permit review for new offices. ,Before approving a new office use, the Community Development Director must find that: 1) The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas: 2) The project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. 3) The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. The project may not meet standard 3 because side and rear yard landscaping is minimal, and does not appear to provide adequate separation of parking and pedestrian areas from adjacent residences. Significant Impact: None. These issues are not considered environmental impacts, but rather design or policy issues, best addressed as part of use permit and architectural review hearings. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary or appropriate. While these apparent conflicts with city plans, policies and goals are not environmental impacts per se, they. may become the basis for changing or disapproving the project during subsequent development review. C. Land Use Land use conflicts between the proposed offices and adjacent residential uses may result from increased noise due to the increased number of vehicle trips generated by the new offices. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers data, the current uses served by the alley generate about 505 average daily vehicle trips. The proposed project c,i cy of san IDIS oBIspu' INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 1028 1034 and 1042 Palm Street APPLICATION NOTR 130-92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Reouest to demolish four structures and build A C 130-92 a 6,000 sq. ft. office building and renodel an existing building for a total floor -area of 11 333 so ft on a 21 000 so, ft, site in the Office zone. APPLICANT Palm Street Enterrises c/o 'Sark !'.00lnert (Craig Snith, renTesentative) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Y NEGATIVE DECLARATION' X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY IRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REOUIRED PREPARED 6Y n DATE July 10, 92 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN /IRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS 1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING It.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................... ............................. NoneO° B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..... ...................................... None C. LAND USE ....................................................................... Yes* D.:TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................ None* E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................ None F. UTILITIES......... .................... ............. ....................... ... .... °:One • G. NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. ...... "one H. GEOLOGIC S SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS . ........... ........ 'iore 1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... .''Tone J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OUALITY .............................................. ' One K. PLANT LIFE...................................................................... None. LANIMAL LIFE...................................................................... None M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL!HISTORICAL ...................... ............................. 'gone* N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... ;done'` O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE .......................................................... 'Jon,- P. OTHER .......................................................................... 'lone III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT Initial Environmental Study, ER 130-92 Page 4 Zoning Regulations To 'ensuie compatibility of office uses with adjacent dwellings, city zoning regulations require use permit review for new offices. Before approving a new- office use, the Community Development Director must find that: 1) The location, orientation, height, and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas. 2) The project's location and access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. 3) The project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. The project does not appear to meet standards I and 3 because: 1) Second-story office windows would look down upon rear yards of adjacent houses at 1037, 1041,. and 1045 Mill Street with no provision for landscape privacy screening :: ..;:..:along the alley, _ !Y.J!1 V41sjt'O:^:Ya-d ter• •. .:.�:..c=.+, .tom '.i.,. `3•. ..!. :S^. .f••...... �!b :.':, '�.. .. - '.. r:.:P.;r e:.. �..;u. .'%.i'�':`'". -:'+-^.. 2) The project does not appear to include sufficient yards and landscaping to separate parking and pedestrian areas from adjacent residences. Significant Impact: None. These issues are addressed as part of use permit and architectural review hearings, and no mitigation measures are necessary or appropriate. While these apparent conflicts with city plans, policies and goals are not environmental impacts per se, they may become the basis for changing or disapproving the project during development review. C. Land Use Land use conflicts between the proposed offices and adjacent residential uses may result from: 1) increased noise due to the increased number of vehicle trips generated by the new offices; and 2) loss of privacy due for Mill Street residents whose rear vards abut the public alley. Based on Institute of Traffic Engineers data, it is estimated that the existing offices generate about j7JL1TipS per average weekday (two-way volume). The proposed offices would generate an estimated 271 vehicle trips per average weekday -- an increase of about 50 percent. X44 7��a iJ Caw_ -e �-- While the numbers of estimated vehicle trips are not large, the increase in alley traffic is likely to adversely affect the few adjacent residents, and could hasten the eventual conversion of the remaining dwellings to offices. It is the City's goal to maintain the quality of life for residents in the Office zone. III�II IiAI 111N Ill lllllll� tl T:'�A91:U'r"'U!L. �I��li�l► ��;;;�;�� ;i; ,:�;�; city of tuissan oBispo ..CII �!��• �I 1� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ARC 130-92 On November 23, 1992, the Architectural Review Commission will review a request to demolish two houses and construct a new office building at 1038 Palm Street. The meeting will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other public hearings may be held before or after this item. You are being notified because our records indicate you own property or reside near the proposed project. Please note that any court challenge to the action taken on this item may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in .written correspondence delivered to the.City of San Luis Obispo at,:or.prior to, the...: . . . , . public..hearing. . - . . . .... If you have any questions, please call Jeff Hook at 781-7176. Investments gis-ituu fully furnished, 522,000. An Used Car * * * * * * * * * Will carry paper. 544-6 1. Y e ' Council Chamber of City Hall, b 990 Palm Street. I ^t " s/Arnold B.Jonas,Director ) !; :.1; ' Community Development city of san tins oBispo�"ov.ta,1992 dv<3525 t - NOTICE I ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION John Madonna 1 Construction Co. November 23, 1992 Lic.#358030 10 The city Architetural Review Commission will hold a regular P.O. Box ,CA meeting at 5 p.m. Monday, November 23, 1992 in the Council San Lula Obispo, 51 93403 Hearin Room (Room 9)of City Hall, 990 Palm St.,to review the 1805)543-7751 9 FAX (605)543.7754 signs and projects listed below. This is a public meeting and Sub bids are requested on anyone may comment before the commission takes action. ail trades from qualified sub- (Number in parenthesis is city file number). contractors & suppliers in- PLEASE NOTE: Any,ccurt challenge to the action taken on cluding qualified MBE, WBE these items may be limited to considering only those issues DBE subcontractors and sup- raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in pliers for the following written correspondence delivered' to the City of San Luis project bidding on 11.18-92: Obispo at, or prior to,the public hearing. Salinas-River Bank protec- Projects: tion, San Ardo Sewage Treat- 1. 1038 Palm Street: A request to demolish two houses and ment Ponds, Monterey Coun- schematic review of plans to construct a new office building. ty,CA. (ARC 130.92) Bids 11-18.92 @ 2:00 2. 285 Bridge Street: A request for final review of plans for Nov.14,16,17.18,1992 dv43450 anew commercial building. (ARC 71-92) NOTICE OF 3. 1010.Murray Street: A request for final review of plans to PUBLIC HEARING expand the existing rehabilitation in-patient unit at Sierra Vista A Public Hearing will be Hospital. (ARC 198-92) held TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4. 3650 S. Higuera Street: A request for schematic review of 24 1992, at 9 a.m., by the plans for an addition to the Eagles Lodge. (ARC 205.92) County Board of Supervisors Signs: to consider the application of 5. 879 Higuera St.: Review of Architetural details for a new ROBERT ELSTON for a Vest. retail complex (ARC 107.92) ing Tentative Parcel Mpp (CO 6. 1304 Foothill Boulevard: A request to allow a sign in the 92.019)to allow a subdivision parking lot for Sigma Nu Fraternity. (ARC 91-T41) of a 6.34 acre site into 2 7. 297 Madonna Road: A request to change the sign program parcels of 3.16 and 3.17 for Great Western Bank. (ARC 206.92) acres, in the Residential Sub- s/Arnold Jonas, Director urban Land Use category.The Community Development � 0C site is located on the north `iov.14,1992 dv43531 side of Callendar Road, ap- 4, 849 Higuera Street: Use proximately 0.8 miles east of A f.0 Permit Appl A209.92; Re-•. Highway 1, in the community M11A. CITY Cf quest for a temporary use of Callendar-Garrett, in the- �/ san LUIS OBISpo permit to allow an an exihibit; South County Planning Area. ADMINISTRATIVE C-C-H. zone; ARTernatives, County File Number: PERMITS applicant. S910104P. 5. 279 and 285 Bridge Also to be considered at PUBLIC HEARING Street. Use Permit Appi.off- A -the hearing will be approval 71.92; Request to allow The City of San Luis Obis- of the Negative Declaration po's Zoning Hearing Officer site issued for this application's will hold a public hearing at parking at 279 Bridge environmdntal determination' 2:3p 9 Street, and to allow atom- in accordance with the s li NovOembero201at;r�o21 Friday, mon-driveway; M zone; King cable provisions of the Cali- Ventures,applicant. fornia Environmental Quality Council Hearing Room (Room 6. 75 Zsca Lane, Suits 100. Act, Public Resources Code 9), upstairs in City Hall, 990 Use Permit Appl. A 207-92. Section 21000 at seq. Palm Street, to consider the Request to allow an engineer- The hearing place is the following: ing office; C-S-S zone; West- San Luis Obispo County 1. 720.726 Foothill Boule. land engineering,applicant. 'Board of Supervisors Cham- vard. Use Permit Appl. PLEASE NOTE: Any court bers, Room 224, County Gov- i U1515; Review of an ap- challenge to the action taken ernment Center, San Luis ' proved use permit allowing a on these public hearing items Obispo, California. At the i fraternity: R-4 zone: Delta may be limited to considering hearing any interested per- ; Upsilon Fraternity,applicant. sons may express their views only those issues raised, at , 2. 3057 South Higuern the public hearing desc ed �r or against, Or to Change ; Street#220. Use Permit Appl. . *he proposal. o this notice, or in written _ n int. a• a.,.,�e,., �••.+ .,•---�- If vn„ '-:.!p nvx, Tin nc ohn.n I Century 21 TEAP SAILBOAT, 18' with cab- in & trailer. $2600 541-1921 77n ' 489.6095Q g WET BIKE. 528-4221 r© A lot of fun. 466.3945 s ii B. The applicant shall notify adjacent property owners of the /s/P " W i CILy O� program in writing, and provide the City with verification of Cot i, compliance with this mitigation measure prior to construc- Nov. Sall LUIS OBiSPO tion permit issuance. The cost to the applicant of such V measures shall not exceed$5,000 per property improved. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATIONS C. Prior to release of final occupancy by the City,the Developer On November 20, 1992, the City of San Luis Obispo's shall submit a monitoring report prepared by a qualified Community Development Director decided whether the professional which documents compliance with the noise projects listed below could harm the environment. The mitigation measures. director's determination(s)were based on initial environmental D. The Community Development Director may at any time studies prepared by the city staff. Anyone can review these modify, add, or delete mitigation measures if the above T studies at the Community Development Department in City mitigation measures are determined to be ineffective or Po' Hall, 990 Palm Street (each project's file number is shown physically infeasible. Such changes shall be. limited to will below). measures which would meet the intent of the original 2:3 In most cases, the director's action on each project is (1) to mitigation. Dei require the preparation of an environmental impact report(EIR); Arnold B.Jonas,Director Col or (2) to issue a "negative declaration" which means that the Cofiimunity Development 9), project will not cause significant harm to the environment and Nov.28.1992 dA5293 Pal no further study is required. Negative declarations are NOTICE OF PUBLIC LIEN SALE toll sometimes granted after the project's sponsor has agreed to Business&Professional Code 821700 1 change the project so that it will not cause significant harm. Notice Is hereby given that a public Hen sale of the Us( These types of changes are also identified in the descriptions following described personal Property will be held at the hour- Ret below. Anyone may review and comment on the director's of 8:00 AM, on the 5th day of December 1992, at 3650 Broad vel, determinations. Comments may be filed with the Community Street, San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of ing Development-Department within twenty-one (21) days of this California. The property Is stored by Darrel's Mini Storage, oth potice.Also, anyone may comment on a determination when a Inc. to project is considered by a city commission or the City Council. Space Name General Description Ch; For more information about procedures and deadlines,call 781- # of Goods, froi 7170. 0544 BRUMANA,•Andrew bike,glass doors,toolbox P ------ 'r028;1034and1042 Pafm-Street(ER-130-92)--A-requestto-1073--CASEY-,-Joel —guiter,-sofa;ladder—— -- - the demolish four structures and building a 6000 square foot office 1429 CASEY,Louis compressor,hyd.jack,refrig. on building and remodel an existing building for a total floor area 0940 CHRIST,Charles microwave,typewriter,sofa to of 11,333 square feet on a 21,000 square foot site in the Office: 0486 HOEFFLER,John golf clubs,dresser,desk issi zone. Negative Declaration with the applicant's agreement to 0898 JACKSON,Helen refrig.,table,chair hes Incorporate the following mitigation measures into the project: 0208 LITTLE,Robert bike,stereo,t.v. tice A. If the Architectural Review Commission determines that the 0334 MATZ,Kim t.v.,mirror,skis enc .r project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on 0477 MURPHY,Judith deck,chair,metal drawers Sar 0886 PACTRAC INC.' compressor,gas blowers,deck nearby dwellings due to project-related increases in traffic 0682 SUMNERDenton bikeheadboardskis to, , , , noise, the applicant shall install off-site noise reduction Nov. measures for adjecent residential or mixed residential! 0927 WALDON,Joe sofa,dresser,mist. — r commercial uses at 1023, 1037, 1041, 1045, and 1051.Mill This notice Is giver In accordance with the provisions of Street, and 873 Santa Rosa Street. Such measures may Section 21700 at i*q. of the Business end Professional Code Include, but are not limited to: installation of double pane of the State of Calif omla.. windows, additional wall Insulation and similar architectural 11.5.92 features to reduce noise; installation of landscaping and /&/Debbie Dawson Irrigation; and new fencing or walls; as requested by the Nov.2128,1992 tM3473 adjadent property owners who can demonstrate that:A)one The Cultural Heritage Com- TH' or more dwellings existed on their property as of the date of minee eg will hold a rular cm the project's environmental determination, and S) there are �r �ry meeting et 7:00 p.m., Mon- specific measures desired by the adjacent property owner Salt UIS t78tsp0 day, November 30th, in the sea ". . whkh caa reduce the adverse effects of project-related CULTURAL HFF.RiTAGi: Council Hearing Room(RoomOf noise on reslderrts,•to the approval of. the Community COMMITTEE 9) of. City: Hall, 990 Palm Stn pevelopment Dirottor, November 20,1992 Street. fon • �►illnill�lil ' '''ll►Ififlllillifli��i��''II�lI"'' � citySa1tuis oBispo! II 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 TO: Cultural Heritage Committee �, FROM: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner'// SUBJECT: (1) Request to delolish four structures located at 1028, 1034 and 1042 Palm Street; (2) Proposal to construct a 11,333 square foot office project. REQUESTED ACTION A. Demolition Request The Committee is being requested to review the proposed demolition request, determine the historic or architectural significance of the structures, and forward a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). raposal.is�to�demolish.two.officebuildings,and.an.apartment_and,.garage.located.on.,.:•_::...:; Palm Street across the street from the County Government Center. The CHC should: 1. Determine that the structures are architecturally, historically or aesthetically significant (state reasons) and recommend that they be preserved; or 2. Determine that the structures are not architecturally, historically, historically or aesthetically significant (state basis for findings) and support the proposed demolition; or 3. Determine that the structures are not architecturally, historically or aesthetically significant but recommend that they be relocated rather than demolished. B. Proposed Office Project The project site (now occupied by the structures proposed for demolition) is level, has 21,000 square foot in area, and consists of two parcels on the north side of Palm Street. A public alley is at the rear of the lots. The site is surrounded by offices, apartments, and homes, with the County Government Center across the street and City Hall 1/2 block southwest on Palm Street. The lots have several small-to large-sized trees. A small ornamental pond and four mature trees are to be removed from 1042 Palm Street. A converted house at 1026 Palm Street is to remain, but will be remodelled as part of the new office complex. 1026 and 1028 Palm Street are located in an historic zone, and 1042 Palm Street is not. The "H" district boundary divides the site. This area includes many homes built before the 1940's. Due to its office zoning and proximity to City and County government buildings, many of the area's houses have been converted to offices. Previous demolitions in this neighborhood have, in some cases (eg. 1060 Palm Street and 1035 Peach Street) raised architectural compatibility, privacy and historic preservation issues. The project site is located in one of the City's older neighborhoods which has been recognized as having a cohesive, historic character. The City's General Plan Land Use Element encourages that "where historic or architecturally significant buildings are located in districts designated for office use, the City should encourage their long-term conversion and conservation rather than replacement." Photographs from he CHC files are attached. The CHC should forward a recommendation to the ARC concerning the office project, finding that: 1. The project is compatible with existing historical resources and with its setting. No changes to the project are recommended; or 2. To improve the compatibility of the project with its setting, the following changes are recommended: (CHC to specify); or 3. The project is not compatible with existing historical resources'or with its setting'and should be denied (state'reasons): Attachments MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of June 29, 1992 The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. in the City Council Hearing Room X19. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Jerry Michael, Victoria Wood, Dan Krieger Absent: Wendy Waldron, Jack Lewis, Leo Pinard, Denise Fourie Staff. Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Terry Sanville noted that the CHC did not have a quorum and therefore could not take formal action on the items on its agenda. Jerry Michael indicated that he had a conflict of interest in participating in the discussion of items #1 (the Copelands Project) and item #2 (the Palm Street. offices) because of his past and possible future engineering work as an engineer on the project. Terry Sanville suggested that the applicants be allowed to make a brief presentation to the CHC members and that individual members comment on the projects and that these individual comments be forwarded to the ARC. 1. Review of Proposed Retail Center at 879-Higuera Street _.. ... . . ...>.:,;,�� The project architects, Mark Rawson and Randy Rea were in attendance. Mr. Rawson presented the project to the committee members, describing the different types of land uses and architectural treatments, including changes to the existing buildings on the corner of Morro and Higuera Street that will remain. Mr. Rawson indicated that a historic marker would be installed in the central pedestrian court of the project, noting the historic use of the site as a market place. Dan Krieger said that he liked the project very much, the project is in scale with the downtown, and felt that the three-story building on Marsh Street was a good location for a building of this height and bulk. Dr. Krieger was not sure about the appropriate location of the plaque in that the precise location of the historic "marketplace" was not known. He felt that the project site was, however, in a marketing area. Dr. Krieger felt that the Green Brothers clothing business should be recognized in some way because of it had occupied a portion of the site for a long time and a clothiers business had been on the site since the 1850's. The scale of the structure is very user friendly and the use of the basement of the project for a theater is appropriate. The project's architecture is compatible to the downtown and demonstrates a sensitive use of materials. Victoria Wood like the project, its architecture and the use of materials and felt that it will work well with the downtown. Randy Rea asked Dr. Krieger if he would be willing to help with the information to be included on the plaque. Dr. Krieger indicated he would provide help and that Mark Hall- Patton at the County Historical Museum may also be able to provide assistance. 2. Request to Demolish Four Structures at 1028 1034 and 1042 Palm Street and Construct a New Office Building. Craig Smith, project architect, described the proposed office complex. He indicated that in evaluating the architectural/historic setting of the project, that the Teass House on the comer of Osos and Palm was an appropriate que for the architecture and scale of the new project. He felt that it would not be possible to incorporate the various styles and elements of the existing structures on the site into the new building's architecture. The new project's landscaping and courtyard concept also borrowed from the Teass House. Mr. Smith indicated that he was willing to do extensive photo documentation of the plaque existing structures and include some type of plaque on the site and/or displays in the new building that recalls the historic uses in the block and possibly the immediate area. Leo Pinard joins the CHC meeting. Victoria Wood did not like the idea of demolishing the existing structures. However, the house in the center does not have the architectural/historic character of some of the others and might be removed. Ms. Wood liked what was done at 1060 Palm Street (new office building that looks like the old house that once occupied the site) and felt that it was more in keeping with the architecture and building forms in the block. The proposed office building is too large. Dan Krieger felt that the building at 1060 is more in scale with the block. The "gift to the street" is an important concern. He was not sure about the appropriateness of the scale of the new building. He felt that it might be compatible but would want to see a model that showed buildings on both sides of the street before drawing any final conclusions. The concept of using spanish style architecture and the fountain element is not a bad idea. Dr. Krieger felt that the bridge between the two buildings might make it too massive. Leo Pinard felt that the project would pressure the rest of the street to change and felt that the extent of the change caused by this project isnot appropriate. He was not in favor of the proposed demolitions. The scale of the proposed project is just to much. Also, the element of the project that provides a bridging connection between the two buildings increases the project massing and is a concern. The project is too big to be compatible with the block's historic character. 3. Progress Reports Jerry Michael felt that since several of the committee members were not present, progress reports would be made at the next CHC meeting. Mr. Michael asked Terry Sanville to write a letter to all CHC members that reminded all of the attendance and quorum requirements and encouraged early notification of planned absences. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Secretary to the Cultural Heritage Committee 7 v DATE 7114/92 To. Jeff Hook,Associate Planner FROM: Denise Fourier LHC n);• Action items from 6129%92 CHC meeting I was unable to attend the regular CHC meeting on 6/29/92 due to my husband's surgery,but would like to comment on the two action items that were up for discussion that evening Lopelands' Protect (879 iguera) This is a welcome project at this very key location that shows alot of sensitivity to the character of downtown and overall careful planning the proposed new buildings make a good effort of incorporating historical architectural details into the design. I !.!rderstand that the County Historical Society will be working with the project Pers to include a plaque or other marker to note the historic nature of the site. ibis is also very good idea. In summary, I would vote for Action Alternative #1: Project is compatible_ DemoN`jon of 1028. 1034. 1042 Palm Street & Construction of New Office Building I have strong feelings against the demolition of all three of these Palm St houses. ibis area is n Important corridor in the historic district; to demolish three houses on this block (t::o of which are in the historic zone)would irrevocably change the character the neighborhood. Overall, this is an inappropriate area for demolition. In summary, I would vote for Action Alternative #1: structures are architecturaLy, historically,or aesthetically significant and recommend that they be preserved. The proposed new building is out of character with the nearby bungalows and cottages. Since it is in the middle of the block, It breaks up the contiguous stretch of historic buildings. In addition,it is also very large and out of scale in comparison to the neighboring structures. Even the law office at the comer of Palm and Osos is on a :.7nalier scale. The single extant structure to be incorporated into the project(1026 Palm) is not really evident in the new building so it is as if four extant historic stmctures are to be demolifhed. In summary, I would vote for Action Alternative #3: Project is not compatible with existing historical resources or with Its setting and should be denied for the reasons stat edabove MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of January 29, 1990 Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairperson Jerry Michael, Gloria Heinz, Priscilla Graham, Dan Krieger, Patricia Nicholson, James Fickes, Mark Hall-Patton, Leo Pinard, Bruce Si evertson Absent: Wendy Waldron Staff: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director On unanimous voice vote, the Minutes of December 7, 1989 were approved. 1. Comments1recommend2tions concerning the demolition of a house at 1050 Palm Street Terry Sanville introduced the item indicating that the CHC had previously reviewed and suppqrted a proposal to enlarge and expand the existing house to accommodate offices. Because of the deteriorated condition of the building and the need for a new foundation to support the proposed office additions, the applicant is asking permission to demolish the house and construct a new office projec that replicates the architecture of the house as seen from Palm Street. CHC members said that they were concerned that the roof of the house had been removed threc years ago, that the house had been left to deteriorate, and that the demolition of the house was being requested on the purposeful neglect of the property owner. On motion by Pinard, seconded by Krieger: (A) The CHC reaffirms its previous action to support the preservation of the existing house as part of a project to develop offices on the site. (B) The CHC finds that the house is architecturally and historically significant because it contributes to the architectural character of the adjacent historic district and fits into the architectural pattern in the block. (C) Sufficient information was not presented to the CHC to support the applicants contention that it is infeasible to rehabilitate the existing structure or to reinforce the existing foundation to support additional construction. (D) The CHC appeals the action of the ARC to declare that the existing house is not historically or architecturally significant and may be demolished. (Motion passed 8 Ayes, 1 No) MEETING OATS 01111111JR- ill City Of San LUIS OBISPO - 3— - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Imo""NUMBER: FROM: William C. Statler, Director of FinancelN' Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager SUBJECT: MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and file the mid-year budget review for 1992-93. 2. Approve mid-year budget requests for operating programs in the amount of$125,800 summarid as follows: Parks and Landscape - Water $ 98,600 Elections 8,800 Child Care 2,500 Business Improvement Association 15.900 TOTAL $125,800 DISCUSSION The City's two-year Financial Plan provides for the submittal of a report on the financial status of the City to the Council every six months. Although quarterly financial reports are distributed to the Council on an ongoing basis, the formal submittal of a review at the mid- point of the fiscal year provides an opportunity to identify and present any fiscal problem areas to the Council and to recommend corrective action or additional funding if required. Accordingly, the enclosed Mid-Year Budget Review document has been prepared in order to present a summary of the City's financial position at the mid-point of Fiscal Year 1992- 93, and to provide projections of the City's financial position at the end of the fiscal year compared with original budget estimates. The report document includes a transmittal memorandum which provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the City's financial position at this time, and compares the projected year-end fiscal position with the five year financial forecast presented to the Council on November 10, 1992. REPORT ORGANIZATION The Mid-Year Budget Review document for 1992-93 is organized into the following four sections: Section A - Transmittal Memorandwn The transmittal memorandum provided in this section summarizes the City's financial position at the mid-point of the fiscal year, and highlights significant trends and concerns. ��N�►��IIIIIII�P° ��1�11 city of san L..s OBISPO no COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Section B - Ezcerpt firnn the December Qumtedy Fu mecud Report The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) for December 1992 has been previously distributed to the Council. For reference purposes, the transmittal memorandum from the December QFR along with selected graphics included in that document have been provided in this section of the Mid-Year Budget Review. Section C - Fwanchd Condition Summary This section summarizes the City's financial condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year, and provides projections of the City's financial position at the end of the fiscal year compared with original budget estimates. This section is organized into three major parts: ■ Summary of actual revenues for 1991-92 and a comparison of current projections for 1992-93 with original budget estimates. ■ Summary of the current operating budget by function and program for 1992-93 based on the original budget as adopted by the Council, carryovers and Council approved reductions made by Council during the fiscal year as of December 31, 1992, and the mid-year budget requests. ■ Summary of actual revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for 1991-92 for each of the City's operating funds and a comparison of current projections for 1992-93 with original budget estimates. Section D - Mrd-Year Budget Requests This section contains the four mid-year budget requests totaling $125,800 for Council's review. SUMMARY The Mid-Year Budget Review for Fiscal Year 1992-93 has been prepared in order to present the Council with a formal review of the City's financial condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year. Four appropriation changes are recommended from the current 1992-93 budget totaling $125,800. It is recommended that the Council receive and file the Mid-Year Budget Review report for 1992-93 and approve the mid-year budget requests. - i 1 Y - rs.AJe At -. SAS CALIFORA TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE A. Transmittal Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B. Excerpts from the December 1992 Quarterly Financial Report Transmittal Memorandum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Graphic Summaries & Tables - Budget & Actual Revenue Summary - All Funds Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3 Operating Expenditures by Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4 Operating Expenditures by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5 C. Financial Condition Summaries Revenue Projections - All Funds Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Combined Statement of Operating Program Expenditures . . . . . . . . . C-3 Operating Expenditures By Program Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 Leisure, Cultural, & Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8 GeneralGovernment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 Changes in Fund Balance All Funds Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10 All Governmental Funds Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11 All Enterprise and Agency Funds Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12 GeneralFund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-13 Special Revenue Funds Library Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14 Business Improvement Area Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15 GasTax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16 Transportation Development Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17 Capital Project Funds Capital Outlay Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18 Parkland Development Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19 Equipment Replacement Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-20 Debt Service Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-21 Enterprise Funds WaterFund . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22 Sewer Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-23 ParkingFund . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-24 Transit Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25 Agency Fund - Whale Rock Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-26 D. Mid-Year Budget Requests Public Works - Parks and Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 City Clerk.- Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2 Recreation - Sun & Fun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3. Business Improvement Association - Revenue Shortfall . . . . . . . . . . . D-5 PREFACE The City's two-year Financial Plan provides for the submittal of a report on the financial status of the City to the Council every six months. Although quarterly financial reports are distributed to the Council on an ongoing basis, the formal submittal of a review at the mid- point of the fiscal year provides an opportunity to identify and present any fiscal problem areas to the Council and to recommend corrective action or additional funding if required. Accordingly, the enclosed Mid-Year Budget Review document has been prepared in order to present a summary of the City's financial position at the mid-point of the current fiscal year, to provide projections of the City's financial position at the end of the year, and to recommend selected appropriation adjustments. To accomplish these goals, the Mid-Year Budget Review document for 1992-93 has been organized into the following sections: Section A - Transmittal Memorandum The transmittal memorandum provided in this section summarizes the City's financial position at the mid-point of the fiscal year, highlights significant trends and concerns, and makes recommendations as appropriate. Section B - Excerpt from the December Monthly Fvmmncial Report The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) for December 1992 has been previously distributed to the Council. For reference purposes, the transmittal memorandum from the December QFR along with selected graphics included in that document have been provided in this section of the Mid-Year Budget Review. Section C- Financial Condition Summary This section summarizes the City's financial condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year,and projects the City's financial position at the end of the year. This section is organized into three major areas: ■ Summary of actual revenues for 1991-92 and a comparison of current projections for 1992-93 compared with original budget estimates. ■ Summary of the current operating budget by function and program for 1992-93 based on the original budget as adopted by the Council, encumbrance carry-overs, Council approved reductions, and mid-year budget requests. ■ Summary of actual revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for 1991-92 for each of the City's operating funds and a comparison of current projections for 1992-93 compared with original budget estimates based on the revised revenue projections and recommended expenditure changes. Section D - Mid-Year Budget Requests The mid-year budget requests submitted by the operating departments and recommended by the City Administrative Officer for Council approval are provided in this section. i SECTION A TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM i TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM March 2, 1993 TO: City Council FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance �j�W11 Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager Iwl r� Carolyn Dominguez, Accounting Manager SUBJECT: MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW FOR 1992-93 OVERVIEW This document has been prepared in accordance with the City's Financial Plan policy of submitting a report on the City's financial status to the Council every six months. Although quarterly financial reports are distributed to the Council on an ongoing basis, the formal submittal of a review at the mid-point of the fiscal year provides an opportunity to identify and present any fiscal problem areas to the Council and to recommend corrective action or additional funding if required. Summary of Findings and Conclusions As discussed further in this report, the City's overall financial position and expenditure trends at the mid-point of the fiscal year are generally on target with 1992-93 budget projections, which include Council approved reductions and encumbrances/carry-overs. However, we continue to experience significant shortfalls in several key General Fund revenue sources, which was highlighted in the comprehensive Five Year Financial Forecast provided to the Council on November 10, 1992. In Fiscal Year 1991-92, revenue shortfalls were partially offset by the receipt of unanticipated, one-time revenues which are not foreseen during 1992-93. In responding to this fiscal reality, the Council has already approved significant expenditure reductions and policy changes which are reflected in this mid-year budget review. These changes will help ensure that we maintain our fund balance policy and enter the 1993-95 financial planning period in a strong position. It should be noted that a comprehensive analysis will be performed in May of 1993 to address water and sewer fund revenues, which is consistent with the City's policy of annually reviewing our enterprise fund rates. Accordingly, this mid-year budget review primarily focuses on programs and projects financed through the General Fund. FINANCIAL CONDITION SUMMARY For reference purposes, the Transmittal Memorandum and selected graphics and summary tables from the December Quarterly Financial Report have been included in Section B of the Mid-Year Budget Review document. These excerpts summarize the City's financial A-1 condition at the mid-point of the fiscal year and provide an overview of any significant exceptions to expected results. The following provides a comprehensive discussion of revenue trends, and the projected financial position at the end of 1992-93. Revenues Included in Section C of this report is a summary of revenues by major source which provides actuals for 1991-92 along with a comparison of the 1992-93 original budget estimates and current revenue projections. It should be noted that the original budget estimate used for the 1992-93 revenue in this document is the Council approved revenue in the 1991-93 Financial Plan Supplement, which was already reduced by approximately $1.2 million from the original 1991-93 Financial Plan. And although 1992-93 projected total revenue is higher ($363,100).than budgeted, it is important to note that tax revenues are projected to have shortfall of $761,700, which has direct impact on the General Fund. In preparing the mid-year review, critical analysis has been performed in specific revenue areas which requires additional comment as follows: Property Tar Revenues Original estimates for property tax revenues did not take into account the reductions from AB8 which was passed by the State during the summer of 1992. The County Auditor Controller has determined that the City's property tax revenue will be reduced by approximately $420,000 from ABB. Additional projected decreases of$146400 are due to an increase in SB 2557 fees and reduced property valuations compared with original estimates: values only increased by 3.5% from 1991-92 versus projections of 7%, reflecting the lowest level of increase in this revenue source since the passage of Proposition 13. This revised projection is consistent with our November 10, 1992 forecast. Sales Tar Revenues Sales tax estimates for this fiscal year were based upon projections that the economy would begin to recover in the later part of 1992. While the City has just experienced its first quarter of improved sales tax revenues after eight consecutive quarters of decline, our sales tax advisor (Hinderliter, dellamas and Associates) projects that we will have a shortfall of $333,000 from our original budget estimates. It should be noted, however, that this is an improvement of approximately $300,000 from our November 10, 1992 forecast. Timuient Occupancy Tar Revenues The revised projection for transient occupancy tax revenues is based upon 1991-92 actual revenue and a projection of the additional revenue from a full year at the higher rate (from 6% to 9% implemented in October 1991). This revised projection is consistent with our November 10, 1992 forecast. UfMfy Users Tax Revenuer This revenue source was originally estimated to increase 3.5% during.this fiscal year over prior year actual. Based on the actual 1991-92 revenue the revised projection has increased by $85,300. This revised projection is consistent with our November 10, 1992 forecast. A-2 Fines and Forfeuures Under legislation SB1297 the State is allowed to receive 50% of the City's vehicle code fines which reduced the original budget by $125,000. An additional reduction of $55,000 is projected due to a large number of non-payments to the County. Subventions and Grants The overall revised projection for subventions and grants reflects an increase in revenues of $680,700 in 1992-93. This revised projection is comprised of four significant areas: ■ Although trending of motor vehicle in-lieu (VLF) funds projects an increase of $44,000, (this is actually less than expected by $26,000 since AB8 increased VLF subventions by $1.65 per capita). ■ Carry-over grant funding for the Nipomo Street Bridge project is estimated to provide $400,000. ■ Grant funds in the amount of $240,300 from the State Local Transportation Partnership Program to reimburse street paving are anticipated prior to year-end. ■ State grant funds for safety improvements at various City playgrounds are anticipated prior to year-end ($60,000). Service Chages A projected increase of $251,300 from original estimates for this category is primarily due to the following: ■ Engineering fees are trending at a level over the estimated budget by $103,000. ■ Although transportation impact fees will be brought to Council within the next few months, it is doubtful that any fees will be collected prior to this fiscal year-end. Accordingly, the projection has been reduced by $150,000. ■ The $190,300 increase is for Zone 9 and is a reimbursement not originally anticipated. ■ Based upon prior year actual revenue, additional revenue from a fifth Sun & Fun program, and fee increases approved by the Council on November 10, 1992, the projection for recreation fees has been increased by $140,200. ■ Based upon prior year trending and the fact that most housing tracts owing park-in- lieu fees have sold,we have decreased projected park-in-lieu fee revenues by$45,000. Other Revenues The revised projection for other revenues during 1992-93 reflects an increase of'$136,800. The majority of this projected increase ($99,800), is due to a credit for a PERS surplus and other insurance refunds. Other increases in the revised projection result from unanticipated assigned FAU funds and non-governmental contributions totalling $30,000. A-3 Operating Program Expenditures Section C also includes an overview of changes to the operating program budgets. Organized by function and program, the schedule includes the original budget, encumbrances/carry-overs, and reductions approved by Council on November 10, 1992. These summaries also reflect the mid-year requests which are being submitted to Council for consideration as discussed later in this report. Projected Fund Balances Based on the revised revenue projections and expenditures summaries, this part of Section C includes a summary of projected changes in fund balance for each of the City's operating funds. Overall, it is projected that the General Fund will retain a strong financial position at the end of 1992-93. However, it should be noted that the ending General Fund balance for 1991-92 was $1 million less than at the beginning of that fiscal year and significant on- going deficits are projected into the future if current trends continue. Retaining our strong financial position, even with declining fund balances, has been accomplished through operating reductions in 1992-93 of$800,000 which have come on top of$1.7 million reductions in operating and capital expenditures in 1991-92. The projections for 1992-93 underscore the need for our continued concern about our economic base and to continue to develop and implement appropriate strategies to ensure our continued long- term financial health. The following is a summary of highlights and concerns regarding the City's projected financial position for key funds at the end of 1992-93: Genual/Capital Outlay Funds The total projected fund balance at the end of 1992-93 for these funds is $6,543,100, which is approximately $100,000 less than anticipated in the November 10, 1992 projections. Adjusting for the funding request of$98,600 annually for additional water needs in the Parks and Landscape Program, this indicates that overall we are on target with the mid-range projections, and should continue to position ourselves accordingly. Bus&=Improvement Area Fund It was originally anticipated that the BIA would receive an increase in surcharge fees in proportion to the General Fund increase from the revised business tax ordinance. Unfortunately, this assumption was not correct. As previously agreed, it is recommended that the General Fund transfer $15,900 to make-up this short-fall for 1992-93. Consistent with Council Policy to make the BIA self-supporting, no further General Fund subsidies are anticipated after 1992-93. Parkland Development Fund The Parkland Development Fund has favorable variances in its projected fund balance of $360,000 at the end of 1992-93. These variances are due to a larger than anticipated beginning fund balance from 1991-92 and a $60,000 grant for playground improvements. A-4 Water and sewer Funds As we discussed in the Overview Section, a comprehensive evaluation of the enterprise funds will be presented in May 1993. Other than the expenditure reductions approved by Council, there are no significant operating changes in the assumptions originally used in preparing the 1992-93 Budget. For capital projects,we have included the final costs for the plant upgrades and the proceeds from debt financing and state loan to cover these project costs. Pairing Fund The Parking Fund unreserved ending fund balance at the end of 1992-93 is projected to be $2.7 million. This is a favorable variance of $865,000, which reflects cancellation of land acquisition and close-out of construction project balances from the Marsh Street structure. Transit Fund The fund balance projected for the Transit Fund is $381,300 which is $46,600 less than originally estimated. The revised projection includes expenditure reductions and an increase in capital projects as previously proposed by the Council. MID-YEAR BUDGET REQUESTS The City has made significant efforts to reduce expenditures during 1991-93. As such, only four mid-year budget requests have been submitted by the operating departments and the BIA which are recommended for Council approval. Supporting documentation which fully justifies the need for these adjustments is provided in Section D and summarized below: Public Works - Parks and Landscape The existing water service budget is based on consumption and prices from fiscal year 1988- 89. During the drought the Parks and Landscape program reduced consumption 20%below pre-drought levels but have added 16 new locations plus water rates have increased. Accordingly, additional funding in the amount of$98,600 is needed to keep the turf green most of the year while retaining consumption at an 80% level of pre-drought usage. City Clerk - Elections The prior City Clerk was retained to conduct the General Municipal Election held on November 2, 1992. Due to the salary costs of$16,700 being charged to this program there is now a shortfall which requires an additional $8,800 allocation in order to pay the County for their services. Recreation - Child Care In September 1992, a fifth child care program was added at the request of the parents at Sinsheimer Elementary school. Current revenue trends indicate that 90% of the program cost is recovered from the fees collected. However, an additional $2,500, which is net of revenues, is required to retain this fifth program. A-5 Business Improvement Association - Revenue Shortfall As noted above, it was originally anticipated that the BIA would receive a proportionate increase to the General Fund from the revised business tax ordinance. Unfortunately, this has not occured. There was an agreement between the City and the BIA at the time the revenue projection was made that any shortfall (through 1992-93 only) would be made-up by the City. The BIA is now requesting $15,900 as a transfer-in to cover the revenue shortfall. SUMMARY The Mid-Year Budget Review document for 1992-93 has been prepared in order to present the Council with a formal review of the City's financial condition six months into the second year of our two year budget process. The Department of Finance will be prepared to respond to any questions the Council may have regarding this report at their March 2, 1993 meeting. If you have any questions in the interim, or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact us. A-6 SECTION B EXCERPT FROM THE DECEMBER QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT MEMORANDUM January 11, 1993 TO: All Financial Report Users .FROM: William C. Statler, Director of FinanceL12:_s n Prepared by: Carolyn Dominguez, Accounting Manager ( SUBJECT: DECEMBER 1992 * QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT OVERVIEW The accompanying financial statements reflect the City's overall financial position for the fiscal year through December of 1992. With 50% of the fiscal year conplete, revenues are at 48. 5% of projections, expenditures and encumbrances are at . 46.7%. Expenditures alone are at. 41 . 9% of budgeted amounts. Except as noted below, budget variances for revenues and operating expenditures are distributed relatively evenly by source, function, and type. The City's overall revenue and expenditure picture will be discussed in greater detail during the Mid-Year Budget Review currently scheduled for Council consideration February 23 , 1993 . REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS Tax Revenues Receipts from tax revenues halfway through the fiscal year are at 51. 1% of projected, with sales tax- revenues at 49. 5% of original estimates. The City has just experienced its first quarter of improved sales tax revenues, after eight consecutive quarters of decline. Further implications of this trend will be evaluated in greater detail during the mid-year budget review process. Licenses and Permits At 78% of projections, this revenue source reflects new activity primarily related to. three major projects underway, and is not considered to be indicative of any long-term changes in local construction trends. B-1 Other Revenues This category includes the receipt of unprojected FAU assignments PERS refunds, and PG&E energy rebates of approximately $20, 000, to reflect a favorable variance. EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS Expenditures and encumbrances are relatively evenly distributed between the six major functions of Public Safety, Public Utilities, Transportation, Leisure & Cultural Services, Community Development, and General Government, and are generally on target with budget projections. As noted above, a detailed analysis will be forthcoming with the mid-year budget review process. ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING CHANGES On November 10, 1992, Council approved departmental expenditure reductions and a revision to the capital appropriation policy. This report reflects $800, 400 in departmental expenditure reductions, and the effect on fund balances of the new capital appropriation policy which eliminates the capital control account as a funding mechanism. S UPSN.ARY As noted in the Table of Contents, all of the schedules provided in the Quarterly Financial Report are generated from more detailed transaction reports produced by the City's Financial Management Information System (FN,IS) . As such, additional supporting or detail information is available from the Department of Finance upon request. If you have any question concerning the Quarterly Financial Report for December 1992, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. B-2 .t. Revenue Status • 7/92 - 12/92 OPERATING REVENUES Tax Revenues Licenses & Permits Fines & Penalties Investments Subventions & Grants Service Charges Enterprise Revenues Trust & Agency Other Revenues TOTAL REVENUES ACTUAL Ci REMAINING Fiscal Year 50% Complete REVENUE SUMMARY July 1, 1992 December 31, 1992 Year-to-Date Estimated Revenue Source Revenues Revenues Variance Realized Taxes 8,809,842 17,243,300 (8,433,458) 51.09% Licenses & Permits 87,863 111,000 (23,137) 79.16% Fines & Forfeitures 311,530 780,000 (468,470) 39.94% Investment Revenues 929,721 1,625,100 (695,379) 57.21% Subventions & Grants 1,274,769 4,044,800 (2,770,031) 31.52% Service Charges 856,667 1,780,083 (923,416) 48.33% Enterprise Revenues 5,786,483 11,545,240 (5,758,757) 50.12% Trust&Agency Revenue 276,293 800,800 (524,507) 34.50% Other Revenues_ _ _ 162,859 162,600 259 100.16% Total Revenues 18,496,027 38,092,923 (19,596,896) 48.56% B-3 Program Expenditures • 7/92- 12/92 OPERATING PROGRAMS Public Safety Public Utilities Transpor{ation . Leisure 3-Cultural Community Developmnt General Government TOTAL EXPENSES ACTUAL O REMAINING Fiscal Year 50% Complete ' OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY -July 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992 Eaeumbrances Operating Programs & Expeaditures Appropriation Variance Expended Public Safety 4,532,202 9,986,170 5,453,968 45.38% Public Utilities 2,542,109 6,975,263 4,433,154 36.44% Transportation 1,830,330 3,136,129 1,305,799 58.36% Leisure & Cultural Services 1,936,169 3,452,793 1,516,624 56.0890 Community Development 1,367,728 3,070,257 1,702,529 44.55% General Government _ _ _. 2,512,613 4,900,751 2,388,138 51.27% Total Operating Expenditures . 14,721,151 31,521,363 16,800,212 46.70% B-4 Operating Expenditure Status 7/92 - 12/92 OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries & %,Vages_ Utilities Liability Insurance - Travel & Dues Rents & Leases Contract Services Office Expenses Materials Minor Equipment TOTAL EXPENSES ACTUAL REMAINING Fiscal Year 50% Complete OPERATING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY July 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992 Encumbrances Expenditure Type & Expenditures Appropriation Variance Expended Salaries &Wages 8,889,435 20,149,624 11,260,189 44.12% Utilities &Communications 910,588 2,279,644 1,369,056 39.94% Liability Insurance 515,186 582,313 67,127 98.47% Travel, Meetings & Dues 83,390 297,251 213,861 28.05% Renu &-Leases 33,926 57,451 23,525 59.05% Contract Services 3,216,111 5,950,176 2,734,065 54.05% Office Expenses. 186,248 468.318 282,070 39.77% Operating Materials 813,430 1,590,400 776,970 51.1550 Minor Equipment 72,837 146,186 73,349 49.92% Total Operating Expenditures 14,721,151 31,521,363 16,900,212 46.70% B-5 SECTION C FINANCIAL CONDITION SUMMARIES REVENUE PROJEG IONS ALL FUNDS COMBINED .....r...,..:....a..a...........r.............::::.:.a.::::.:::.......,a..r..r..rf...::::.....a....... .r..... ,[f. ra:i.}:a}:;f.a:.a::ik:f£a:::f:;::,,;.:'::.:a+::v..;. ,;f}o;:;:•]:.a:•.::r.rr.. ... ........... .. ............:........ ...::.n:+..:::::::p..,..a.:N?•:.r.%:S.v'+.::S:::O.V.:f].... ..........f.rn',i'.G.{. ..:::::::...... a :.C:fy: :x:.isi'i.nhWjnr.}ff.W'.is:::::..........................+.::.....v.n........ .. .... .....::::::.:::::::::::::::::::..n..............x}.w:�n..C:yi:::nv:::., :v1.,.:%f.:Kkf i:�:ti..::.. {:Y••:.iy:..::nn.::::v:.::.:.. ::..�::::::::#nFy+•i..::::i:::n..n'vin:Yi a.}}%.. .,. y,,.: ....... ......:::.:.:.,,.,.:.}:fo;:.;:•:rr}:afr]]:`:}:}....r.::;i.>:.aa;:.r:.]:..:.xw,,;.}:::.a:.'r..'r. �::.,. .... d TAX REVENUES Property Tax 4,314,800 4,516,500 3,950,000 (566,500) Sales&Use Tax 5,850,902 6,283,000 5,900,000 (383,000) Transient Occupancy Tax 1,940,440 2,480,000 2,350,000 (130,000) Franchise Tax 663,544 614,700 700,000 85,300 Business Tax 606,000 715,700 715,700 0 Utility Users Tax 2,605,600 2,467,500 2,700,000 232,500 . Real Property Transfer Tax 68,404 75,000 75,000 0 Total Tax Revenues 16,049,690 17,152,400 16,390,700 (761,700) LICENSES AND PERMITS Bicycle Licenses 1,732 1,500 1,500 0 Construction Permits 111,132 100,000 130,000 30,000 Street& Curb Permits 10,897 4,500 12,000 7,500 Other Licenses & Permits 589 5,000 1,000 (4,000) Total Licenses and Permits 124,350 111,000 144,500 33,500 FINES AND FORFEITURES Vehicle Code Fines 68,735 125,000 70,000 (55,000) Panting Fines 553,130 555,000 555,000 0 Other Fines and Forfeitures 64,835 100,000 100,000 0 Total Fines and Forfeitures 686,700 780,000 725,000 (55,000) INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY REVENUES Investment Earnings 2,001,124 1,625,100 1,625,100 0 Rents&Concessions 17,564 0 17,500 17,500 Total Investment and Property Revenues 2,018,688 1,625,100 1,642,600 17,500 SUBVENTIONS AND GRANTS Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 1,465,885 1,476,000 1,520,000 44,000 Homeowners &Other Property Tax In-Lieu 79,140 69,300 69,300 0 Trailer Coach In-Lieu 8,400 16,000 16,000 0 Cigarette Taxes 46,238 0 4,500 4,500 Other In-Lieu Taxes 10,000 0 0 0 SB 90 Reimbursements 103,669 42,000 20,000 (22,000) Police Training 42,391 52,500 52,500 0 Gasoline Tax Subventions 747,924 757,300 757,300 0 Transportation Development Act 656,999 558,600 558,600 0 Transit Capital Grants 42,084 1,035,000 1,035,000 0 Nipomo Street Bridge 0 0 400,000 400,000 State Transportation Partnership Program 0 0 240,300 240,300 Recreation/Senior Center Grants 333,300 0 29,600 29,600 Recreation- Playground Improvements 0 0 60,000 60,000 Community Development Block Grant 24,000 0 2,400 2,400 Other Grants 46,415 38,100 20,000 (18,100) Total Subventions and Grants 3,606,445 4,044,800 4,785,500 740,700 C-1 REVENUE PROJEG t IONS ALL FUNDS COMBINED (Continued) ,.:.,,,.:.::.>:i':•>:i'ai::.:�.i:.:i>.i:::iii::::,.::.�::.,..,..+.::.,.:..::::,.r.::.::.:::::::::.�:.,.::::.::...::.:..,.:: ....,,.:...s::.....:.:i:::. ... i'•i".•:'.': ..r..:............ ..............:::::::::::::::::::::::::. .1 � ... .. ............,..............>....................>:;;;.:..,.....::.......,........:........:: :>.:.. .:;:::::.:..,..::..... ] 9^�...:. .�. ..fi `•�.;>:.>:::iii:.;:.ii:.;i';.i:;.<.i>,:,::::::......v:::::. `�..:.a.::::::.,,.:..::,.:: :k. ...:...... .....nx::.::.::....Y....::::::::.:::::..:..:.::.n...::n..:.::::..:..... ... .. .,,.�.a.......:..,............:::i:.i:.::.,:.i:.::.�::...:...............,:,:.:,......::::.::............. ..�.. ::............................ii.:wiii':;:::�::: :..i:.i::,,::i.:{i.i:;«ii..<..;,:;::>i;:i.>:,;:r.,.. ,.•}:;y;i: . .::....:........... .::.....:::::..:.:.::.:......................:.:.........:.... ...:.. : .:... ..:.:�.{� eC.. ....... .�IC eCQO SERVICE CHARGES-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Planning& Zoning Fees 106,587 110,000 110,000 0 Sales of Publications 11,604 13,500 13,500 0 Police Department Services 91,821 52,500 52,500 0 Fire Department Services 89,560 62,500 62,500 0 Engineering Fees 116,885 87,000 190,000 103,000 Streets, Sidewalks &Curbs 22,351 25,000 25,000 0 Development Impact Fees 0 1501000 0 (150,000) Maintenance of State Highways 29,757 22,000 22,000 0 Weed&Lot Cleaning 2,554 2,100 2,100 0 Zone 9 Reimbursements 52,175 0 190,300 190,300 Swimming Pool Revenues 106,738 104,700 104,700 0 Golf Course Revenues 321,859 323,000 339,100 16,100 Park In-Lieu Fees 33,867 80,000 35,000 (45,000) Other Parks & Recreation Fees 487,923 453,600 593,800 140,200 BIA Surcharge Assessments 68,820 90,900 75,000 (15,900) BIA Service Charges 83,593 45,500 58,100 12,600 CCCJPA Reimbursements 34,300 36,400 36,400 0 Other Service Charges 40,620 20,000 20,000 0 Total Service Charges-Governmental 1,701,014 1,678,700 1,930,000 251,300 SERVICE CHARGES-ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water Operating Revenues 5,310,271 6,101,200 6,101,200 0 Sewer Operating Revenues 3,346,156 3,992,500 3,992,500 0 Parking Operating Revenues 1,155,213 1,251,500 1,251,500 0 Transit Operating Revenues 209,965 200,000 200,000 0 Total Service Charges -Enterprise 10,021,605 11,545,200 11,545,200 0 TRUST AND AGENCY REVENUES Whale Rock Operating Revenue 526,518 800,800 800,800 0 Total Trust and Agency Revenues 526,518 800,800 800,800 0 OTHER REVENUES Sales of Property& Equipment 97,095 70,000 77,000 7,000 Non-Governmental Contributions 46,463 20,000 40,000 20,000 Assigned FAU Funds 171,191 0 10,000 10,000 PERS Surplus 1,489,958 0 71,300 71,300 Insurance Refunds 252,620 0 28,500 28,500 Other Miscellaneous Revenues 213,220 28,000 28,000 0 Total Other Revenues 2,270,547 118,000 ' 254,800 136,800 TOTAL REVENUES 37,005,557 37,856,000 38,219,100 363,100 C-2 i COMBINED STATEMENT OF OPERATING PROGRAM EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS .r...t......�,.............,.......................................,...............199Z;:9.3.::.r.. .. :... L'ban ..: :. i;','<�:>.;:.;.>:.»�;::�.:::.:;:•. ::.).992::>: ....t}...... ...a:::..;;:}s:»:}:.}JJ>J>:.:...........:.............r,i..r........,,..,,.,..,...g.,... . ..:::::.:.....�.............i.x..... ��.:::::..:,.;.:;t: ,<.. eai=' .:..:.. .........n.............�.::.:......C::v..«...:::::. h ..::.. ,:... v..:Vin. : Public Safety 10,005,700 91,200 (110,800) 0 9,986,100 Public Utilities 7,000,100 225,000 (250,000) 0 6,975,100 Transportation 3,146,000 44,600 (54,600) . 0 3,136,000 Leisure, Cultural&Social Services 3,252,100 46,400 (87,000) 101,100 3,312,600 Community Development 3,161,300 298,800 (148,600) 0 3,311,500 General Government 4,955,000 91,800 (146,200) 8,800 4,909,400 Total Combined Statement of Operating Program Expenditures 31,520,200 797,800 (797,200) 109,900 31,630,700 SPRY'OF OARR'fCt�YER�AI�TD OTSEiZ "I,., Budget Amendments . Operating New Revenue Encumbrance Carryovers Appropriations Offsets Total GENERAL FUND Public Safety 84,000 84,000 Solid Waste 14,000 14,000 Transportation 21,800 21,800 Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 24,100 8,300 23,400 55,800 Community Development 190,300 84,500 9,800 284,600 General Government 84,100 1,000 85,100 Total General Fund 404,300 92,800 1,000 47,200 545,300 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION FUND 2,900 2,900 ENTERPRISE FUNDS Water 14,200 14,200 Sewer 25,400 100,000 125,400 Parking 10,400 2,200 5,000 17,600 Transit 5,000 5,000 Whale Rock 37,000 34,400 71,400 Golf 16,000 16,000 Total Enterprise Funds 92,000 102,200 5,000 50,400 249,600 TOTAL 496,300 195,000 6,000 100,500 797,800 .:.v i. .. ........ ..::':.:...w....i}:••i:.ny::::.:.r:....nv4}`:,y:nv:ny::::..tii :Y.y'!!;i�:isisl:istii::isy::..::i::'`isY..i`i::i'!:y,�:':j:ii:;QJ':t:i<:itii�5i:i SUHIIvIARY OF BUDGE « ;;,..,,•; ....... 1�14�I�IDMEIVTS;' ... New Revenue Purpose Appropriation Offsets Total Healthy Cities Project 10,000 10,000 Reforestation Project 10,000 10,000 Trees for Tract 1376 3,200 3,200 Wildflowers 200 200 Carl's Jr. Traffic Study 9,800 9,800 Orange Trash Bags 5,000 5,000 Recycling Promotion 9,000 9,000 Golf Pro Shop Items/Other Services 16,000 16,000 Funding for Landscaping by CCC 5,000 5,000 Project Mangmt. for Whale Rock Pipeline Project 34,400 34,400 City Council 1,000 1,000 Business.Improvement Association 2,900 2,900 Total 6,000 100,500 106,500 C-3 OPERATING PROGRAMS PUBLIC SAFETY X.::�.,. .t'b x,N: ..}l::w}Fi:a.}aro..;.ppu..,....tf.....v.:.. :. :.u;:,:.;".rri:sw:::�+k:',.Y$;+.sn:,s3„ :.KQ;f%'S:?;}�{?k;.':>.'!:tm•;w:.o.r..m��;'K"t�$::.fakf;k:.: :Yt a k' ..... ..:.;:Y:a:v.v.,..t,,,.;:':<... ':,.:.,.iS{.::.:,:.,y.,.:. ¢.k::.:x...,11:.1;.1;..},., Y;:rkk.:ik,'Y:t;.�::::::. .n$l;'..a:::.Y.'i}f:S{:::::<;:.:.,;vk•;.:,•.:};>;.?<:§:.1X,.}v, 1.%i %.�ti S`g�tii�:6�s�'R�`:;?�. ;.t}yk x.�`�:v�:i�::;i�`� � w$ a/?yy*,r�J�k��..;�;iL:. t., ��'j♦ v,< ��}� aY�t} < .{..N:a:�'F{G�`C�v v.:�:;,^,:r.Nk: ?h }• `)�.0�:'5�.:;iiT x+u<} 3 w _fi—Ir 6 �'' kY' t :o;..�jt ll�i i1GL{+, L}.x„r>.` '6:.✓k}`�. fi'3 i; t a,..,.'{.';{' :,{i o T n„>.,vt�.G#:.e: R Y{ �G;¢:.v M}G t.. {.t: »».. v.,\ti;�; ";$:.}9x`. .:.:<^ :,�' ✓•3..t,:: :y::.;�.:ks::.,Q.�cs.}::.}':�..>•>:^::.1..::11>Yv::. }' :;.:?:.>:': ,..t%1'.: x.i,u... >:wM':? '.i: ,1 x. C+n f•' m,..,.:::::,:. ::::. :�«�.�::>'••�•'• B el,., .Other::; � �::ii,vReiluciloios}. .,Buily�:p�� }`.� ,, y`��y� POLICE PROTECTION Administration 1,839,800 71,700 (30,600) 1,880,900 Operations 4,005,000 4,000 (47,500) 3,961,500 Total Police Protection 5,844,800 75,700 (78,100) 0 5,842,400 FIRE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY Administration 266,900 (1,000) (7,900) 258,000 Emergency Response 3,120,700 7,700 (9,200) 3,119,200 Hazard Prevention 360,600 (1,100) 359,500 Training Services 158,800 (3,000) (5,000) 150,800 Technical Services 246,100 11,000 (9,500) 247,600 Disaster Preparedness 7,800 800 8,600 Total Fire and Environmental Safet 4,160,900 15,500 (32,700) 0 4,143,700 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 10,005,700 91,200 (110,800) 0 9,986,100 C-4 .r i OPERATING PROGRAMS PUBLIC UTIMMS : ^:o{?:#ci:#{iii;;:?:�'J4kk:x?e;^'C:'4?:.�t::�y:>Y:?v\}xx.yy}:�:.�.M }.tk.;: jr,.r....: ':ti '�}':}4, .xr.:4r;' ::'?,.. ':.w. •:.ka,. .4:.,r»;ity.::.ur:...vuk v:....ro:.r.:..,.:}:.}:tttv,x�..t: .. ,. t ......,.... 5,\.......:,:,;,..+..:.:•.;;..f}.L... :..h... ..C.. .......... r...y}...:"'�•:::.: ........�...... ....l. r]xY,.}u:5.?}:i;.rv':}:,v?4yt,::::�::'....... .:..:::..: ....r. vxurao ...4,.. .n: +.w,mn;c �:.:x,•:+,..v� w......::.....:::};;'�:.:;;:... n.tn�:>,:`:3�E:•�::.L.4C#:jfan#'k.;.tx.;}:nr,t4}:4:.: }...;..,�. �. ... �< :<:>,Q1�C+�'" �%>:1�?!Id'�'CAK>t;,:n;�a�s#:�;:;.:.:. ..... ..: �cr.. .'r;•t�}s�s:r... ....x:.3.v:}..:......,..�tt. �v :�:..... .?.::.::..:.4<.}xy.; 'tr4:.:3'�.#. Y.'t��:4y.:::.r '':.k.;..\!:iki:Y.. t S.- �Yi .v:..u::�#':#': fiR.... J. ..,.c, r;,.}}:?.?�'t4:::.k. ., .r.�;:}'.<c;v..�a�nV�i�4 Y.i"' 'x28:i't4•a?.'� :s:..... �.....:.iL....:x1t4}. wi::}::i;:','4�;' M .2. .}.}r. QR.x�.w:.�F x:...r.r...} WATER SERVICE Water Source of Supply 1,208,500 (80,000) 1,128,500 Well Operations 286,900 (40,000) . 246,900 Water Conservation 423,900 (51,000) 372,900 Water Treatment 656,600 (1,200) (5,000) 650,400 Power Generation 16,400 . 16,400 Water Distribution 521,300 10,800 (7,000) 525,100 Water Customer Service 221,000 (5,000) 216,000 Water Administration/Engineering 635,400 4,700 (47,000) 593,100 Total Water Service 3,970,000 14,300 . (235,000) 0 3,749,300 WASTEWATER SERVICE Wastewater Collection 404,000 3,000 407,000 Wastewater Pre-Treatment 117,000 117,000 Wastewater Reclamation 1,562,800 104,300 (15,000) 1,652,100 Wastewater Admin/Engineering 272,100 18,100 290,200 Total Wastewater Service 2,355,900 125,400 (15,000) 0 2,466,300 WHALE ROCK RESERVOIR Reservoir Operations 594,200 71,300 665,500 Fishing Program 21,400 21,400 Total Whale Rock Reservoir ' 615,600 71,300 0 0 686,900 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Solid Waste Management 58,600 14,000 0 0 72,600 TOTAL PUBLIC UTILITIES 7,000,100 225,000 (150,000) 0 6,975,100 C-5 �w OPERATING PROGRAMS TRANSPORTATION ••.r/:J••:Y•:•••<'.:':+%:''i:<UIX'iiY'' .:YJ:' :3:Y;IXini%Y':.n:.• •::fn.:'v:CY':4:,;nY`• •r•. :{i:.Y:t4'if: ::}eds...::Y:;:' ,:>}':•}::}rn.: ..s x., a,xrx...Y .dc<., ..34R s'YtL'R}J>iRo;s;f;�:;J*'.'.tw:::: x`.:w.... ::::ti#::^::.,. vn.:. ...:�n .t..f.. ...,.,..f.. ...... ... .:.. .. t .;:v 4a •.n:i..�� :..C:Yti n:#:::}':j;#:>.�;j:j;:.v ,.: „;k,xa„ :,•.+• .x., .. �S,!{av:::. ,.YS.+.3p:�x.:�.�:�.:::s::nYvY:,,....,�,...n,..,unlfix�..�3t:.£„ns}::M.::..::::. .:::.::t:":::3ii"� ...::::.:.�:,.:;:; +:�:::.3aPny.....x:.::.x,,v:...vvxi>}`:.}rn.�. �..:vr::i.�:::n.,,q+G{'o?t4S.�s�'*t*<•a:{cv..>::x`.k....>::.;:::Y::Y ..... .. ..... ........ ................ ...:.o ...;s,,'n ...v,,:...w,A.s.,...,#+'�.'n'3v::.x .x..�M.f',c?:xY:;.,..;;.,E,n.}::n•...v..,.�J.. ....�.:s.YSY.: .:::.,n,..;; .:;.r:,�.,;:n.:n.s:<:. ,::.,.: ,n..::::. n�nt.:r:rocsNoc.'�:��"';':E�:t�`<,..':..�• a.:�:.;::n,•.,;.k+'{:c:A �4{;:•n%ua)fax wpYts.n.}.:..,�..\f 3:, n:: .::.: s:x J� ,...,,..Y.a,.... .. Y.tlY:::eY'%\s<:��.;�..:<.:NR.i\\,:i::J:[.'f�4,f{^.�:..$��.-0CC. � :.; •: Y1�• aN.:,sv.tl.vn.:: +f::'..Y•nrn.. .:.JY: ff. f:,n..:'vxY:a v:.:K v... .{..}y: :{Y:��. S� xt ......::... ....:.v.:.. .....}..atY;.+Yz�::.t. ... n. :.;. ..,.:. tom'. 3 }.:::x• J.::::,.:n..K�.Y.f+w:::,n.::f. p:.k .. ,F��{3.x:::..vn/.K'f�+,.. 3 .f n xn; ••.,•.+�+::::b•f4Y.;C.: +x1:\;. .:!� +tf};npt.}.P;%.y� Kyi.q.vY:::: £:#i#F`:f:.�n�;t};:r.J :�'"O:i:Y x:; •.+;L`i9;:+ '?'/:.',':�.<w ::F?!!V �;Y��:�::-:�!M!.MW7:Y..�.. :..�F �� W';i:#5.:::i� .............f:%{,.......\..a Y:%\::.Y....n.. :Y::if':n '\"..YY...... .....,4................ ,f. .....:4................................:................ �' V"�� STREETS AND FLOOD CONTROL Streets -Pavement 739,600 739,600 Streets - Signals And Lights 370,500 4,300 (1,800) 373,000 Streets -General 512,700 7,500 (28,700) 491,500 Flood Control 64,300 10,000 74,300 Total Streets and Flood Control 1,687,100 21,800 (30,500) 0 1,678,400 PARIQNG Operations, Maint&Enforcement 680,300 17,800 (3,100) 695,000 Total Parldng 680,300 17,800 (3,100) 0 695,000 MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM Operations and Maintenance 778,600 5,000 (21,000) 762,600 Total Transit 778,600 5,000 (21,000) 0 762,600 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION 3,146,000 44,600 (54,600) 0 .3,136,000 C-6 OPERATING PROGRAMS LEISURE, CULTURAL &SOCIAL SERVICES - ........:.... M40- ::. :.:..;.i}i.ni.:w!2:..........2.i::•,}}..ii}:::.i}::.i:. :i:i.i..:. ,i'2.}:.'R:::r}}:.}}:2:•.::.:v'..;.i: � .'A.i:.,,j�'i,.i .:%n...:.}:¢ x.\ii}';:.}r:..t'... .:.f....::.. :::f:':�,i}:{...:...... .}'{2�i ;'i >:.i32:•.i fi:f}":.0O. 7 h�^4n. .'ik :'.ti�2.i tf}'.:J.nv:.�`:}:`•n\.\.:r` :u'.#:....,Q:.: <yCi�::i:}v:;,' .).✓Yt:Y}: n6:N:w.., ..f}�k A.f�v .'f.}r. :.: ..:.}}:o.>}::::;;:::x s..:........r. .:�.�*""fi:2`::}:.;�:.}:.}'.:1 .., ::.:a:i•xs}'2f}::R2:: :} ..sy.}':..k.. r} r}:� "93:r+� ..:i..;::: 2[sa 'a{,:2f:H.}rf:f}}. :f}:'fx.}::<n...k.\. ,.;,,fi ,.:}y,,::.}.;.;:.:v r ...Y,{u'://nL}.. ......... QR.' .. .i!>•:::J: t:i:fii. ,v.J.2;M: �V'An ...�W%��.�.' :a�,k'2"ri.: .i:}.WAi.};:;^i_}:�2..n•:.xnly.,:::m.::n'. .n ':{•.4i{::}ili:.w.x.,x:.'.x.n.mx.::}.fn.::rv., xv:n:�.'•.}::::,2 ..,'�.}ni:' '}:'Cy. '.ai�.f_.4:.rv. Y.i:F.Y. ' .:...::..:. ...... ::-{n,\: .A:..:y n::::. v:::.. ...... v}.f{:p}•::w22..N.'.:..y 'f:M'v2W�f:'.: a:N.xn:... ,:Y.. LCn"Y.y ':f.. .R+s'iv'2fY.{Siy. a.:.a..r..:�':",i 's:Y:.;Y:..:.fn,:.,r.:oAn:f:;::::2;}::s::.•.i:;.:,::::..w..�a..k2n.�.:; .....::::.2.x;x::Y:i. .. ...rek:.�rfy`- `:::ki<w x>?', ,f,.} i.., ya$.. ........3,F..YC'Y e.W,;,:..,.£...n:.,..y:}}:::::::i,.::;.....::+..,:..,:,.::..,.:}:.:: ,.2i..:}::. ,.>.2•;:;;:?::` ::u:;2 ;2t.nrt .�;v;,o.2.,:2`::;YYK.f:}f.c�u.};:,}�.u,;.}}?:.;,a�,.}�•?:�}�?'}:f;fY:}.}'.}:;k}}�li[� et".},:f}:2.��1et': "BB:yii:n.J:��l3�tiO�:.i: i':�3�Nxet� ??wi�E�::: 2i:K.;; PARRS AND RECREATION l ._ Commissions &Committees 3,100 ... . 3,100 Recreation Programs Recreation Administration 408,000 _ 408,000 General Recreation 286,400 91300 (15,500) 280,200 Aquatics Program 150,900 (3,500) 147,400 Special Instruction 77,800 (81900) 68,900 Trips&Outings 37,800 (4,300) 33,500 Athletic Leagues 102,000 (1,700) 100,300 Special Events 48,800 48,800 Sun & Fun 228,500 2,500 231,000 Maintenance Services Landscape and Park Maintenance 921,900 6,400 (17,500) 98,600 1,009,400 Swim Center Maintenance 198,300 3,800 202,100 Tree Maintenance 179,800 20,400 (2,600) 197,600 Golf Course 289,300. 16,000 (17,000) 264,900 Total Parks and Recreation 2,932,600 55,900 (11,000) 101,100 3,018,600 CULTURAL SERVICES City/County Library 12,800 (12,800) 0 Cultural Activity Grants 92,600 (8,800) 83,800 Total Cultural Services 105,400 (12,800) (81800) 0 83,800 SOCIAL SERVICES Human Relations 214,100 3,300 (7,200) 0 210,200 TOTAL LEISURE, CULTURAL& SOCIAL SERVICES 3,252,100 46,400 (87,000) 101,100 3,312,600 C-7 OPERATING PROGRAMS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .rrn ,a. ..♦ sary ...a.. ..h........ .5.. ..h. ..:... .r ,: ..,�?'..,.5. ..:.r.. ..v.a:.wv...x.::::.:..:......,:..:..:..};:n:a;w%;aG,'a.v:.:.x,?..... ,:o::�.'.�!n,!!aw^::;`.::................�:...,.....................a.......<.............. ?M1:'i?:;iX':i':'�i�4:8:5zs::v:` ...N:t:}}:i .n.n..:.n...xanii:n:an r}h.d.T`5,?:vn:,:� � .v,.aC:�Yv�'a}}'n:di.r.......... i':.:::}::.x'd..........Ari`•tn%ty: .r r.. : ti'i.i}}•.:v,.}:<?.. :jiC'}:n::ii:�ii}}:?Mi•'?'....d ...{}ni . :?t`.».:.,}.. y:..,.�.. ,...:.... :�?r..,o. ,:}..�..».C}.,::}:�•r.x:. :..::... .. :::�....... ,r...,._............. PLANNING Commissions& Committees 33,600 33,600 Current/Advanced Planning 1,034,800 252,100 (108,600) 1,282,039 Total Planning 1,068,400 252,100 (108,600) 0 1,211,900 CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT Engineering 1,015,600 (2,000) 1,013,600 Building and Safety 516,300 5,100 (16,500) 504,900 Total Construction Development 1,531,900 5,100 (18,500) 0 1,518,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Business Improvement Area 169,300 3,600 172,900 Community Promotion Program 231,700 10,000 (500) 241,200 Economic Stability 160,000 28,000 (21,000) 167,000 Total Economic Development 561,000 41,600 (21,500) 0 581,100 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3,161,300 298,800 (148,600) 0 3,311,500 C-8 OPERATING PROGRAMS GENERAL GOVERNMENT �,.;.4h z:x.. :a>... »y>.:. , L.{.., :n{,. ;::i:;xx:v;:::v:ii'+.'c":ik'ii:;::<<:.Rh:;.;.:>:.;;.,.,v;:,,::z: �•:;:. a#::nj}} JIX.\YA.:.J..;}}:qi:+n}h.,f:.:.'::.v.•:n}h ::is...».;.:;.....:.. }}�� .. Jr'y. } ... ,rif.,...: � , rv:.,.Ka...,.}N�$ .i,{.,.,�.;..:r.,a::::.:::.h,.;h\,.,..,..+..:{:i'�::::>::x{<.n+:>.:3::�::r:c:{+::;..:.:::}::;..:+;:rn..:;.:r..,,..»..{•...�:...,:....,::..,..:.:.:.:;:.:,::.::. :::.::�^:::.. +:::hk'•.:}.....,.. ,o>o... : .:.w:n::.:.:{., ...::+��4{�...n.§�.v.,,._;{.;y.,.....,::.rvA�.v}: .:?.a.:,.n,:.,.:.:.r:::.o::::..,:.a..x.:..,..:..,v,..:::�:.:x^:M...... ............................ ........ '%.+6",k.::::..•. :.'}{; };....:. .>a. ,;:.�.;;n,.::;�k.... h..... ;.::.' rsf" :::veil`:;?€€:>:': .�:. :;:»�}:•:: s:::. .E4E, . :.: ..n,.n..,},Eac.,xd•.:n:a:v...;.;....:':::n�a.f..:n:n��:v, .: .... .....; ..fi.0... ;c :'k.h:�..:,•�..f..,.::::::.�.}::n.;:.}: ...... ,.::._.,.:::.::::.»;:; .::.,...� . '.{�.r..:'��lE�s�BD CSS':.:.} .:�C.f1ZICflba.4l.� >��11d..et> ::}YlE6tS"�..:,...>:��:::; ,{,;� rn..n_..nL..a�...a..L.i.__.............ae}:.:-:::::.:...............,.....n..a.;av:..a.v.a ..,.x».amYn.,_.....,.a......::...8::..,R6i.hxax.:.:.a_a_a.:,.a....._.aa::;.o.�.,.....8...»...�..:. ....... .y.rn .R..,.....:. ....n+ LEGISLATION AND POLICY City Council 140,900 1,000 (5,500) 136,400 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION City Administrative Officer 512,000 18,900 (18,600) 512,300 Public Works Administration 394,600 5,600 (6,200) 394,000 Total General Administration 906,600 24,500 (24,800) 0 906,300 LEGAL SERVICES City Attorney 254,500 0 (81000) 0 246,500 CITY CLERK SERVICES Administration And Records 3121700 4,400 (10,700) 306,400 Elections 37,800 (3,900) (1,900) 8,800 40,800 Total City Clerk Services 350,500 500 (12,600) 8,800 347,200 ORGANIZATIONAL SERVICES Personnel Administration 372,400 42,200 (21,000) 393,600 Risk Management/Wellness 719,700 23,500 (18,900) 724,300 Financial Administration 951,500 (26,000) (39,800) 885,700 Information Systems Management 78,000 33,200 (2,500) 108,700 Other Support Services 405,300 (28,800) 376,500 Total Organizational Services 2,526,900 44,100 (82,200) 0 21488,800 BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT Building Maintenance 424,400 17,200 441,600 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenanc 351,200 4,500 (13,100) 342,600 Total Buildings and Equipment 775,600 21,700 (13,100) 0 784,200 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 4,955,000 91,800 (146,200) 8,800 4,909,400 C-9 CHANGES IN FUND . .LANCE ALL FUNDS COMBINED ?Mon— .:.:.?`?}?? 'Cii:(•?:)i?"/: ?i?:::::.?J.•.v?):In::;:.i}^>:,•::..::::.•:n...:': p? ..... v: 'n•R..,..,(t Y' ..v:.,.:.::::.::v.;,•:a;:rv,.:id..vf+.J:?F.,y:L}:FAxtj$:�:':}:ifi.i':O. i........... 5 ...:..v. .r......::.r.......v....R..\r R.}:{v... ........n.».r;f^i`:?;v:{tIXi}:.}:i:ii;ivi$:i}'1.i'.' .... i�. ..!Yi:i#'�r'................v.........:.. +b k..¢`•�.r:$,ec.r..«.:::::x.n.n.:.rer,r.n.::.»m,.n.w.':<.::;:;::n.::.r:..,.n:.�::}..r.n.:::.,�..�:::::..n.:w.rw�..fv:..?.»:.•.r....,::.:::::.:+,...o:.rc.,y: i n,tv. xa :$.'x..o: .':%:r:':}:r:#:�:::;.. }}.t}:.}»:ni.:::;??::::•;. ' n...:... ,•fes n...:::::n..n ... ....:.........�.r.:::.::::............nti..».».....6:':R:;x.:::•':`:.....:.......�. .,r,,.:}:):��tiC.:u�.., r.:h�:.+.y;:k:i::.,r;:.?$$$i:<x..:.tS;rk;:;171! ...�.?J.:r.n.;:.:;::;'...,.... .. ..<:.:;:;.};:::�:.rrr.::.a.n.:�»»<�:+:•.• .-..:-:::: .R ,...n...r.:::.:.n...,.Ki.?:'..r>r"i.::.6"'•a�n::n:.:::..::.}.r.::.o:;:....�;.:;.:.»?:.:..;. n:.:o-:.?:.,....:...a»r r#,rr tr :nL::: '.:ti:x;;._•$';:}}:::::...:;.}:.n.:;}:;.;:._.r:. r.:r.:i.ro.,. ..: .':r:c:k ................:....i.....i...;. .n.,.r.............:... x�.k. n„ n.:.a..r;n ....::..mi ........ ..n':.,x:.x.:...$f. .} .�:» ..}.., r3/.' .3: �::.. k: }.:: ?Bud et........ ...Pio r:::::wr:.:;:c:,+:;a:o:.x?x<.??;..�.:r.:a..irrv.;;:;�;a:t;t:..: ................}$................n........:..............n»............ Revenues - -- Tax Revenues 16,049,690 179152,400 16,390,700 (761,700) Licenses and Permits 124,350 111,000 144,500 33,500 Fines and Forfeitures 686,700 780,000 725,000 (55,000) Investment and Property Revenues 2,018,688 1,625,100 1,642,600 17,500 Subventions and Grants .3,606,445 4,044,800 4,785,500 740,700 Service Charges Governmental Funds 1,701,014 1,678,700 1,930,000 251,300 Enterprise Funds 10,021,605 11,545,200 11,545,200 0 Trust and Agency Revenues 526,518 800,800 800,800 0 Other Revenues 2,270,547 118,000 254,800 136,800 Total Revenues 37,005,557 37,856,000 38,219,100 363,100 Expenditures Operating Programs Public Safety 9,342,052 10,005,700 9,986,100 (19,600) Public Utilities 6,461,562 8,461,000 8,436,000 (25,000) Transportation 3,002,900 3,361,900 3,351,900 (10,000) Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 3,560,273 3,252,100 3,553,800 301,700 Community Development 2,841,818 3,161,300 3,070,300 (91,000) General Government 3,176,004 3,278,200 3,232,600 (45,600) Total Operating Programs 28,384,609 31,520,200 31,630;700 110,500 Capital Projects 22,107,343 12,412,800 48,684,500 36,271,700 Debt Service 2,707,068 2,818,400 2,818,400 0 Total Expenditures 53,199,020 46,751,400 83,133,600 36,382,200 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 3,882,942 2,083,900 1,997,200 (86,700) Operating Transfers Out (3,882,942) (2,083,900) (1,997,200) 86,700 Expenditures Savings 0 443,000 443,000 0 Proceeds from Debt Financings 19,483,475 9,000,000 28,701,100 19,701,100 Total Other Sources (Uses) 19,483,475 9,443,000 29,144,100 19,701,100 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 3,290,012 547,600 (15,770,400) (16,318,000) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 31,168,032 16,417,900 34,458,044 18,040,144 Fund Balance, End of Year Reserved for Debt Service 2,364,281 2,416,800 2,416,800 0 Unreserved 32,093,763 14,548,700 16,270,844 1,722,144 Fund Balance, End of Year 34,458,044 16,965,500 18,687,644 1,722,144 C-10 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS CO MINED ..:i.:.v.. .:::................:.::}]]:a::»y3:?.::.. ^.... .}y..,j.•f:;;:yy.:;;:;:: ,,,a.•.':' :].t;;;.i ...n..... ..t............ ..............n,..v..n.. .... .. v: ,. r :... ..:. n ],�. ... ..:n....... n v. w K::ji:}%i'f:::):�i:j::i :Y.>:}.\r.i :.h,\h nij:}:..3:i.r.:.i .r 4...r yW'.%;�;}::i.:;��• i�Q:i:fi:4>}i}....n.. ;•;'.x...':?... ":;:v'.:;.;:??;%:.3::]:�i>:'ii::i}:�ii`i:i U;}i,.'.'::iA::.. .. :}:%. .. � .nn...... 3.... .A:i.......r...a.3..,....n....... yv:...tx.x,s.«.:•}r.a..♦<,:t 'Q..r,,,r.<.,•;3;v,.:a'R....................:::....:r.;x::::.x.:;3:.r:a. ]..,..:::::.v...:..:::...... �:}„i;. s{:.ik: .r.r.,::::...♦... .:.::....:.::...i;}rv.:.vF.;:?,:: :i3:.wx..s:�}.:b..«:.:.i:. ............. .:)f . .................... .::.: n::... ..:n..... ... /i}.r]{'y].�' ..w.vxRv::.:♦.:v''..:..':.; .n.n.....a.rkvx.:.v..::::,n,.r.a nr:YJQ3.3 {« y».:.,::Hi;:�:>., {A'.:x.:n�.}}':F.;:%::ii. , 3:3:�}:i::,�.k:ui a%3, ;!::I;CVISea.:>i;ii>u`3• r^z.k f'?&.......a'.......x.,.i43::;:. .if. O't]... ..>],... +,<.;r;ron.:v.9n�r�.i<L,,w�f.>.}. n»3 .,•;:�..,v.;,, :.3.....nk �<W:.}.::. •. rr, ••..n.•.... a.,�n :.v:n::n,a. v n..i .iY:`ri'.: 4:{„..i r �� Revenues Tax Revenues 16,049,690 17,152,400 16,390,700 (761,700) Licenses and Permits 124,350 111,000 144,500 33,500 Fines and Forfeitures 133,570 225,000 170,000 (55,000) Investment and Property Revenues 1,342,534 1,120,100 1,137,600 17,500 Subventions and Grants 2,921,608 2,466,200 3,206,900 740,700 Service Charges 1,701,014 1,678,700 1,930,000 251,300 Other Revenues 2,270,547 118,000 254,800 136,800 Total Revenues 24,543,313 22,871,400 23,234,500 363,100 Expenditures Operating Programs Public Safety 9,342,052 10,005,700 9,986,100 (19,600) Public Utilities 58,030 58,600 72,600 14,000 Transportation 1,592,581 1,687,100 1,678,400 (8,700) Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 3,560,273 3,252,100 3,553,800 301,700 Community Development 2,841,818 3,161,300 3,070,300 (91,000) General Government 4,820,032 4,955,000 4,909,400 (45,600) Reimbursed Expenditures (1,644,028) (1,676,800) (1,676,800) 0 Total Operating Programs 20,570,758 21,443,000 21,593,800 150,800 Capital Projects 3,764,653 4,041,300 14,061,100 10,019,800 Debt Service 945,548 955,400 955,400 0 Total Expenditures 25,280,959 26,439,700 36,610,300 10,170,600 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 3,882,942 2,083,900 1,997,200 (86,700) Operating Transfers Out (3,772,193) (2,016,300) (1,929,600) 86,700 Proceeds from Debt Financings 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 Expenditure Savings 0 275,000 275,000 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 110,749 3,342,600 3,342,600 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses (626,897) (225,700) (10,033,200) (9,807,500) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 22,009,194 11,631,700 21,382,297 9,750,597 Fund Balance, End of Year Reserved for Debt Service 980,307 900,300 900,300 0 Unreserved 20,401,990 10,505,700 10,448,797 (56,903) Fund Balance, End of Year 21,382,297 11,406,000 .11,349,097 (56,903) C-11 CHANGES IN FUND .,LANCE ALL ENTERPRISE AND AGENCY FUNDS COMBINED ..:Y>':::i:.i�+::::<:;.ii:isi':i::i::i::i:r:::::i:4:.:i:::ii�:Y::':i'Yi:;:;"',.i:.tii.:2:•.:2.%:.Y.:'.:2ii>:.Y'2.:' � 1'v<^:: :p:i.n.y:n:} •.,•nv. +........:n:.n.. :.n.:.........n...,:..w:..w.v::n..v..v0..n:::+:'�n.:. .»:.n.. ........i.:a, r: is Yi`:i::..............Y..v..... .w.n•.w:�:::».�.....,...yy '�:: n...n..n:::}::::.,v..::4.jii$n:::: :: :.:v::i::::' .....r..r:.::n:.:::::}::x:.::x::..::::ir::::::::.n:>:.,::x.::a.:::::<.�:.:>:.a::;377.i,7L.. .........r.:::.:::;:::177uG n:.::n..�:::n..,..�:::��:::.:..,rw�,.,,<....:.:,+..�:..r.:::.u.,.:.......:.:..::.__:::::n?;:<•cR2:7k"•»i:;.»:...i:::z:.;..:.::::......, ..::.:.9<i:'i,;aii.............:. " :.....:...::..i.Y...;.;....:.... ........:... ....n...r .W.Fi.......k. ............:...................:.......................t�.,.:::;n:}:.:.::: ....... ...::::v::i:o:::oYi;:::::::v:n:. .w. :::.....i........: v....... ....... ... .:C.........}........ .... .... ........ n...... .....:....x..: .....,:..ry:n,pn....r.......:..:........n.... .i:;n.YYY':iYi:.. j::}:Y::i ' a...nir. ..x..::.i.v ..x. ..x.3.a...., ,:.o:.<.:a.y,., .Y:i..r..:,.r.rv.Yoi;:;:i;;::i2'.':X::Y'•. ... .ar::}. .:.,:...n.............n.».........,,. ............r..r.::}:n.:::::..::.r:r.}}•.i,.Y>:ai:a:::::::.,.:.r n.,....::. :... .r.. .r.r.r r ,....r.S..,n .:.n:..r.nr............. .....n..i v. ::. r.. .. ...........: ,:::.:::::.�::.r.:. ,::. : .F. ..,.i{ � m..... ...nr...Y........i..........n.,x.. ..r,a .:n...an.:v.......... .:....... ::::::....n........ .. ::.}+..�. ...i . ... ,:nrx...:.:...inr........,........:......... .......,:.r..,5. .�.n....... ..r ....: ... . ..... ............n.... k.Y::.is:.: }n.:::. ..::,.:,..,}.»a......... •...n...�:,i.Y}•.r:.i:a:ii.},Y:a}}.:.. ....:.}}Y Y..}...... �n.}:.}}. ':.Y}:r.YYi:.}:..}.. Y .......n._,...........r::<.:::<.;::.i::::;;i::n.::,.:: :;,:<.Y:«:<;.;:n............................................................__..._ YBriaace Revenues Fines and Forfeitures 553,130 555,000 555,000 0 Investment and Property Revenues 676,154 505,000 505,000 0 Subventions and Grants 684,837 1,578,600 1,578,600 0 Service Charges 10,021,605 11,545,200 11,545,200 0 Trust and Agency Revenues 526,518 800,800 800,800 0 Total Revenues 12,462,244 14,984,600 14,984,600 0 Expenditures Operating Programs Public Utilities 5,031,832 6,941,500 6,902,500 (39,000) Transportation 1,202,016 1,458,900 1,457,600 (1,300) General Government 1,580,003 1,676,800 1,676,800 0 Total Operating Programs 7,813,851 10,077,200 10,036,900 (40,300) Capital Projects 18,342,690 8,371,500 34,623,400 26,251,900 Debt Service 1,761,520 1,863,000 1,863,000 0 Total Expenditures 27,918,061 20,311,700 46,523,300 26,211,600 Other Sources (uses) Operating Transfers In 0 0 Operating Transfers Out (110,749) (67,600) (67,600) 0 Expenditure Savings. 0 168,000 168,000 0 Proceeds from Debt Financings 19,483,475 6,000,000 25,701,100 19,701,100 Total Other Sources (Uses) 19,372,726 6,100,400 25,801,500 19,701,100 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 3,916,909 773,300 (5,737,200) (6,510,500) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 9,158,838 4,786,200 13,075,747 8,289,547 Fund 11-1-nee, End of Year Reserved for Debt Service 1,383,974 1,516,500 1,516,500 0 Unreserved 11,691,773 4,043,000 5,822,047 1,779,047 Fund Balance, End of Year 13,075,747 59559,500 7,338,547 1,779,047 C-12 CHANGES IN FUND b^, NCE GENERAL FUND Mae :Y...$w,,('. .vt n{.a..vf�:'?�....v».,,...,..P.rx.h...,..v ..ir.P... .aL.........:.. .r ...........n.,..... rn,.a..»........a ,nw.::........ .P.. rrr;iie$:;'� ::°LJ tcxc:: }� .. ..............r..::x:.:c:...r.:.i.::::��....P...............�...n i:.....,..........n.,.,: .utr..r:.: .: ....:,.:;..C.,::::::e.:.:::..:. �:. :....:rxPJJJ..:o.'ax::.:4i$::}:�::' :..:.:•:F�${$» h ,..n.:i.:r:.ii:tn..:::Ji: .................................P:4:': .......:Mvi Cr' .. .,... ...:yr..}...:.:.:::.::.. a .......:......:::..:.:rrrJ:.;�.r;:.,,J.:.:.,rJ:i<�r:�r}r:.r......•:�s:<�:�.� ;;.na.,.;-.f.;�.}Jr:P:P:$:. '�:�»f:>��;'.\►'.. Revenues Tax Revenues 14,607,450 15,887,800 16,390,700 502,900 Licenses and Permits 124,350 111,000 144,500 33,500. Fines and Forfeitures 133,570 225,000 170,000 (55,000) Investment and Property Revenues 427,304 546,600 447,600 (99,000) Subventions and Grants 1,802,138 1,693,900 1,974,600 280,700 Service Charges 1,492,383 1,287,300 1,496,600 209,300 Other Revenues 1,824,242 10,000 134,800 124,800 Total Revenues 20,411,437 19,761,600 20,758,800 997,200 Expenditures Public Safety 9,342,052 10,005,700 9,986,100 (19,600) Public Utilities 58,030 58,600 72,600 14,000 Transportation 1,592,581 1,687,100 1,678,400 (8,700) Leisure, Cultural, and Social Services 3,545,085 3,239,300 3,312,600 73,300 Community Development 2,647,094 2,992,000 3,138,600 146,600 General Government 4,820,032 4,955,000 4,909,400 (45,600) Total Program Expenditures 22,004,874 22,937,700 23,097,700 160,000 Reimbursed Expenditures (1,644,028) (1,676,800) (1,676,800) 0 Total Expenditures 20,360,846 21,260,900 21,420,900 160,000 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 868,264 874,900 772,300 (102,600) Operating Transfers Out (1,923,500) (186,000) (201,900) (15,900) Expenditure Savings 0 275,000 275,000 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) (1,055,236) 963,900 845,400 (118,500) Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses (1,004,645) (535,400) 183,300 718,700 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 6,397,189 4,929,500 5,392,544 463,044 Fund Balance, End of Year 5,392,544 4,394,100 5,575,844 1,181,744 C-13 CHANGES IN FUND . .LANCE LIBRARY FUND �:.r..... �x�.:x<;;';r.J., .. ., :;yr".C'.... .;c;:�'�.r:. }:ss•;Au?}}}.:.w.};.::::si?y:,�:,t<.:' +.. ... :� >+hwv. r,tJ'* .><,.`::2"�i� �'::k�:�?:. ...A?� }J:�'6;};..:w+::.:.}.w�:.:} _ `.>,<;'f•:��,a.oy+:�,:..Yi:"^`.,A. skY'::n...,;�;,.yJ.. ..R.':i7. :.1: :� °' n .,.5: n.i.. rk:I'tl..�.2-:93:...J�.,`.}:,,:. ,.2N + :<.e.}s;;w.y:ik:cy�r...:.'4. "':''�+.Si s�,x.:.Y;;::.::$C:?l:{ey;.:.C`:g,2�:,x„k ro.::..afi'oiiY: :.:.�::•... ... ..... n��... � .,, LP th'..k..fk..,, .. w,x •>+: +kik:i�i::r:;:�k•`.':li:;'?.a:YY:k"';<r::'::+.}}}k"'::k:::r'� .Y:.CJv.: .....,.. Y ,,'.>2}t;kr}rJ:riee YY:.::>?.}nso.::+",-:.�::pr: '+:.JYx' ;.{.,# yY;.Y:':.. ..:.}•, k.cSw,,::,} :f..: :xit:::::, �' :.'ii.�.;:.:::... :.... ...n C..�.Yp]'Y\.i:.n....:Y...: J .Jxnv.......... .:::n}: hhS. ..4 ......n.. :i+}:i.w'J..x...%isni:'.::•.i}:::iiin:i:::'vJ+•:wJ:i'i H:}':.}::N.}}}}i..n. :.,.:.�.h..n•;�...:..,�:�::<:.!:k+?}?. }y.x,s.,.......i.............Rs{hdc.........:.......w�.::::,::.::: ....,:.:... :..::...;i� e' iu:�, r......,...v,n.,w.J....,n.;::.},.....',�..:..:n�.++,.,.�n+s.::.v::::.rY:.::..r:,.v::.n„�,+.,n::H:n�,•::.v::;.:} , 3 4...«a,.....:. }}i'. Revenues Tax Revenues r 110,586 112,900 0 (112,900) Investment and Property Revenues (4,621) 2,500 0 (2,500) Other Revenues 50 0 0 0 Total Revenues 106,015 115,400 0 (115,400) Expenditures Current Leisure, cultural and social services 15,188 12,800 0 (12,800) Total Expenditures 15,188 12,800 0 (12,800) Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers Out (106,094) (102,600) 0 102,600 Total Other Sources (Uses) (106,094) (102,600) 0 102,600 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses (15,267) 0 0 0 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 15,267 0 0 0 Fund Balance, End of Year 0 0 0 0 C-14 r CHANGES IN FUND bALANCE BUSINESS DaROVEMIEM AREA FUND Yf.:nN:n..v:t.i:.,:.v.. .:C:t»::J':t.': ,L:::t':.;x:::•.'xn::.:;.:v.%:.v,;t ..ix;vni':.::.i. :'M'!•y• »'A:{':':._:.nn:':w\^\.,. y:xy'.i%:n:'{:O:{.i:n..x;^..YryJ}y .yCJ,'. »,�:{' ..\.f.:/ .Y'. :"2 ;•vJ.t.p:: �nC'.:n+'.U..i:':::i:..{.:::. ../.:..(..� ::.vF.,..h:; :.?G. ,..........,.:..,..:.:t;...::::... �3: �'.,.:... ..»::.da>s..c:i':.yt{a.. .:...+F,:,; t .!! .�y!.!:•:+fu' ,. ..x: ':'x�'ta:+.ai .+u;:w+:,+nY',e":•'v w i...e.. ...R.:s'o. ';?.: ..�e....�,. ,.N.:.�.+'{.{YF.'rv.F.. j]j��+`?:i:%.:'{R;: .:.A, ii;;:r;.:.J::v:s+x::wR..»,.:..::..:.:x..�. .:.0 :.o4v'•.,.. }.. ,,."�, 4tu+ ..?::>:. �� "i:;oi{::x�,: :iv,.�',`'^ {':a:::t':k::;.':'::'� ,.?.. :..�..v' ^":x.:,:..;':.:....`.C:.u.3.r !:.xi�.Qr>.w.:ia::.;`•,.•..u'.'.. ,;:.�'p. vi. !:C:v;..t,....::.;$:ani"v,Yk.. 'GR.f.......... .;c::::.,...... vx... .�.. ,.,;p.,:.:::..• ::x.. ::G.-:.:::. ,:..x.. .6r .:.ts..::;�iY;;.:;.?.::^..�.. Y�'#r d.�t{i`v'ri.;ii;,..;'�`:t{.".:i::y,.�:i:.: h: x r.;:i.:i:.. -•ix....f 3::*..:.�..{: f, 'vwf:f`c: a.K..tv:;5:%^{>:#: r. '. Q+".l.#,: &ka.:sc22xx;»:'•.e:::o..;..R{S;r:::ux,.»,.:f.,:::..e:.::.3.y�o»:.,+.f,..;,i:; �;, ao'xi R'IiLLi'?::::::iq'i:y:+fh:;%:.f.°G:Di{1i e�::i::{:S..�f:;:::`:��+ .t»t:C'::;.:Z; �.$ Y,'„ Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 3,619 6,000 2,000 (4,000) Service Charges _ Business Tax Surcharges 68,820 90,900 75,000 (15,900) Miscellaneous Fees 83,593 45,500 58,100 12,600 Other Revenues 0 18,000 0 (18,000) Total Revenues 156,032 160,400 135,100 (25,300) Operating Expenditures Community Development 194,724 169,300 172,900 3,600 Total Expenditures 194,724 169,300 172,900 3,600 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfer In 12,000 0 15,900 15,900 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses. (26,692) (8,900) (21,900) (13,000) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 49,064 20,500 22,372 1,872 Fund Balance, End of Year 22,372 11,600 472 (11,129) C-15 CHANGES IN FUND L)ALANCE _ GAS TAX - - - ii...... ,..nv.:v::.. .. ..:::.... ... :{.in'+`:C";4:v\"�+"i:. ;n � :n: ':\if:.�:. ':'adi:./'i'•iny.Wi•f:vi••xii ":J.i'.. f`;3x:p°•?Z `YNk ,.J.;k:,st` �,�,xkYS�,C:tv;vx,.f,�yn,•}..Ny;� �.tk'ck:wb?::),}wC.:£<ta'..,:��:1,..7L.:c+. � f � k x"s:�`:J::: y :rx u:S: ,.. ... .., ,o,n,. v.vn .ix�:.,. . .:t.;.. .,;t:; �,.:;..:F.,.::.::r.:.. :x@';¢:r:;.:pi;::::::. .....,.�::.:::::.o:::o?•:: t xfox>..:;.:,. ........qt off. r..,Y,. ,t..r r ..: :.f .,\ ... ...:. ..r;.>i'ni;a:v. .............. .f:,:.,,' ::.u'+ff.:'.if.;•i:o:':•ti<•r,i:o.rf+�� .:f•a�.. �. ....:+'.::''�L.:;.:::.:w�,:f,....:.:.;f.:.'.e, .,:.,�.�:1cf.:.. ;.(.,. ..;...ox':Ci•.:,,.,.::: �:.W^'.R.a;L::.�. �:.k,+..v.Y<. .:t: a:' a ,r�a�+go-.,}kf`.c...:.,. if:;«,f,un f.,..:.,.J.... ,..;.a.'„:5::�;s;+ ..�,n`.�c �..:.. .(� :�� :f;�::y:;•.....i.,..` ..a,§':i.:. .,.C4,;Xxiy,,,'.. ..�..:At;:•{;# h1Y.,r. t.. ,::Yfi... .�ti .,"YK.<'�+. vx. ,.'+(.}+�..�']�$� .:�.. ::+.�. ,,;: Y;w'f.:e:;;'..•.fof:.::,:.<: h.,. ,.,,.,,. .r �. kEi:%:s:.},:.v�.,;.xy.:';:.,.,..:.::. ,.>x.....+Sk"r..:.:g.::+.;:yi ?Ki.,;.::�:.: ,;k?:n: 'f..:.� Revenues - — — -- - - - - Subventions and Grants Gasoline Tax 747,924 757,300 4 757,300. - 0 Total Revenues- — - = — - — — 747,924- 757,300 757,300 0 Expenditures Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Other Sources(Uses) Operating Transfers Out (747,924) (757,300) (757,300) 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 0 0 0 0 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 0 0 0 0 Fund Balance, End of Year 0 0 0 0 C-16 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND . - - - ..<v:)(.::..wn.: }:{;::;:;:x;i::i;;>ry}. : .t .R.}:::.:.r.rvr>r',.}'.}:.v.....»nc...i<y,,<.t,..::.}}':.t::>. ......i•C........... ... :.*.s:t �}}r.;+ �+t�:'}n^Sx`+:{::i:):: up .f..w.. 'im•: rvv..::Cy..: v'Ci ..wm v9r YY"nv.: .• v ..i.n r0�:;�..v.T.. :::.. ... 2Q::0{C: 4v.,,��((; <� ..i \ ::1...v.,:{v:i<'ivCrv.C.}"n^•:{iO:.:.v.. :.iY+x,.A .;e�,.;..vf.,:a.}6n�:}.::::\.s.rv::w3.':ry:...:n,..'{s:r.y(Ku.w..*..rn:.ax+.t}t..0v.:,:.:x..�<i:�,+}a.::.i.M:J:.>.(?,r.++.:.,:'.•.,':�3^i.:xOW.::S;.:b�f...s^.o"w.:�f.tttcmo.«.4.i.;.6.•V".;^,}Y'.::n`x<x,^8.te`:':}'iyatu.tl;.N:�}>:',jiia.}�t.:y.,.s3>n.:>r:t;.:.{.,tr<>K.st..'3i�.i,...^}ii�o;?:T+.Y.,�Quan�,.�K�w;..w;vs,s.:b Mu:.{'„�Ki-�°:.S'iy.:�';.x;'�:v..c.:}�,'...r�w.x...:.a..:.:x'±,nn:N{:.{'.c.&:.uS...,u.s.,;?..c.u::.t.v'{..��:}v:.:rs<..:::.x:.;.;.^,:...a..:.,;.x{O.x:2�:a::};:..:,nyrv:.$...4W...',:..o.u;r:.rr:y.r.::;r:p:.o..•...:st:A::.,}s;.:s..:a.+v':r,r:......::::v,'f.:.::..:....:.:::s.:{.:.>:•rv::.<.:,.l:{:i..<:v.�^:..-,{:.:,u,.:.::ti,r:..+tt.'.;osi.J;:..{,:#v.+t.:k..;.:.,''y„>.,;::st.'}-C.*•:mik;,'A'ffC'c'.rio"ry;.;r.a o.nw,'t}i.o r:'},^.:?snE«�prio1.:•s,:te'..raY:'.i»:,:.;:<a}';i;;...F,:`.:.,.'(w;,+;Xl:c•,.>nr�vi.:.:W:�.r� K'.?k,3•:?. ..�.,.f.4..{;.. iiMM' t. { } g:... w. Revenues -- Investment and Property Revenues. 0 0 0 - 27 0 - Subventions -Subventions and Grants =- - 14,246- 15,000 15,000 0 Total Revenues 14,246 15,000 15,000 0 Expenditures Capital Projects 0 0 0 0 Total Expenditures 0 0 0 0 Other Sources (uses) Operating Transfers Out (14,246) (15,000) (15,000) 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 0 0 0 0 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 0 0 0 0 Fund Balance, End of Year 0 0 0 0 c-17 CHANGES IN FUND ..,,LANCE CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND {� :i v:Mv}:T\4r\{,V}'P:•S.J.:vn;.::.r•:::.:�:„:.eP::,:?x.�.::..r..r r•:L:::iSn,.::+.�.�.,.n•.n• ,lp.A'^f: .:iY KR•�+/.::?kvv nLPri„\{., ... .....y::.:..,...,•;:;:rynn.:::.2.3........ Lh •«..::r:....,.r.::is! J...:.v:::.h.id.?J,:J. ryyef:3 r r..:yJ'Py:.k:M.....M.....M:.}:n.......... (� .u •n r ..P:�. .i;t;y:. .'tt#::.;;r ::P.,� :;.:T"Irfi,3:n.;P:.:;..sr,.:.nw. .Ph,wr.r.:.: . ::.u.:;l'T7 �J.Px.r udkP.ai#::v,:.:nc:r'::::•.;• Pv:,,t,:.v:i•34...rv.:.J,:r..vv.:y..4',:P:}.y,.:.f,CJJ.;}:t :x.^`.isi .,}_i••L..�.Y`x 1„ ,.:b,.r.pr:..�,...:....:..........x.ny](x. Kr:..............s,.;y:.............................d......Ji.....::........ vih. P,ri...L...:` A..2yvi:k4i'"iiii�i:'k :�i}.i`� .PhP::M.+P P.Y.t+:::.i3%kr.%P}i:ib :•l::. 3n,�h'v� ...tw.a.•i`'.'J::.'::.v:..n. ..� .l'.::::::::::. ti3niLC\i,gtp,nn ..3..'' ...{<\L::i.i:i.i '-y�,� .y#.. 3nl..v... n:.:..].34:.,�k,Pis:i::J: :t:..,n:.:.v:n.^:::.. :�..::::::.;'::...:s+'c:.J.i`.:.?..: n:k.n..n ..;Ys.f>`k.. r:>,,:.:,lY:,^^.: :.� :.:�CV)SC.il:.v:J.;:•,�L.r ,::{:s: ...r.rr.....,................. ..........r.........,..r,3:n.h. •,::�r,r:.:::o.,::::.;.,.4nnR.:.:�....,h.xx�:'�#:......F.....�:::R::.::.?:.:' ''?#:?.;'^.,..r:.:..:.:s��s.r., :.S.k:;;t'%':?vkY'd #{:k::i;z:kk: ..n..n. ........:.......,,.Y'..,.........n..h...r....,:.......:hi::.:n,}.i....::r..,.,..:.:... n.;....,...5..............................hl...,...,,:.::s.y?:.,n.,..;,..h�..:a:<::;R:yk:3#^:wC. ..C:.:<..:.:.:.. GiJ3:�.. ...t P:sP:s:c:so.\...... .n.i. .'d,:?:.?::x:i<o:• � !::'+..:iii' ..<;.,,:::J: y C:C::.�...P.,:.:y.,:::.�:::•) v::�...0..; :J.f:i}i v'•x: v:i..}. A :Ci. Revenues Tax Revenues 1,331,654 1,151,700• 0 (1,151,700) Investment and Property Revenues 574,899 300,000 375,000 75,000 Subventions and Grants 24,000 0 400,000 400,000 Service Charges 22,351 175,000 265,300 90,300. Other Revenues 277,654 20,000 50,000 . 30,000 Total Revenues 2,230,558 1,646,700 1,090,300 (556,400) Expenditures Capital Projects 1,930,523 3,694,000 11,651,700 7,957,700 Total Expenditures 1,930,523 3,694,000 11,651,700 7,957,700 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 1,508,000 0 0 0 Operating Transfers Out (980,429) (955,400) (955,400) 0 Proceeds from Debt Financing 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 527,571 2,044,600 2,044,600 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 827,606 (2,700) (8,516,800) (8,514,100) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 8,839,385 2,861,600 9,666,991 6,805,391 Fund Balance, End of Year 9,666,991 2,859,900 1,150,191 (1,708,709) C-18 CHANGES IN FUND bALANCE PARKLAND-DEVELOPMENT FUND ,....5>i�:....:,.x3e. ...............vW:::'AY..:n:;+:.,...:..]:.:;.:;.}:;..:.i..f.�.::..,, ,. ..,.....:...,,.v.e4 :•� n..if:....Mit :ti{:?:{: Y^*yf:f:`+:v,,:::,i ,xpii:.n✓....xv>CO]..nn,,...J:>:.%v{Ai,n.R:.f,n..: :. ..n.::.»':{J..........:...:%...:..: f�Y{{ T ..:J..v..x,v.xiJ:M::»n...:::n :x{:?i:{j{Y....,.......}i.t:.+N:a�}^ n.... :::+f:�S •Q n.......:....... Y..........:.......,.h{(f.Ch.f.�i'v ... mr $$'#:iaA'a:'?:ia(�•.]k:�.¢., .. .::]?4Y.;%a]?{}v::,.u.:.:v.x.'3:::.i: .,nv:.:n..:n.::i::. v t:v.YY':" L'Iii}?:fy;:.... _ $n.:::. ........... �v-n:.i]:..,v.N,..:.v.u„ .. ..p.Jy:.}{..:iJ..vx.. i'.?>±:^t;}: \4i}:ri::'.ir aiMv{•..} .y,.+•.:.:•n:.n.:isx: ?F::Y.; ..::.:...:ay..}A{,i::ar.... ..n:..::.f.n:.::. .,....:}>:�}'.:;ha:a'2.r' Y/..i iA+Av'.s•:fF.;;.}:.,::f::.,.. ..:n;. f 'Me :::., .x,.x: :x,...,n...... :........t..: .... ... ........ %....C++:,;::...:.:A. :t .»....... ....:'FA .. ..]i.i:.i:. .f?.:i:.Qf' ....,....NCY.. .:\..n:..::;{. ..:.:.:...nv. : .x,. .....v......... .. ...v......... .. .. >.o<:,v{. '}:: : tuna::;A{o'. :ar.3...;..,:}.. rkJi]>; .. S �..��.: u7.:. •: x2k::.:.•. u. Yab+•a;ttn�a':3Y Y ::.0 5':x:xnt t+ .F':}„.,}¢::.� "'jdi'1 •On.'::::::'•rp:��.<ro Revenues. Investment and Property Revenues 171,592 125,000 150,000 25,000 Subventions and Grants 333,300 0 60,000 60,000 Service Charges (Park In-Lieu Fees) 33,867 80,000 35,000 (45,000) Other Revenue 87,000 0 0 0 Total Revenues 625,759 205,000 245,000 40,000 Expenditures Capital Projects 844,823 60,000 1,431,400 1,371,400 Total Expenditures 844,823 60,000 1,431,400 1,371,400 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 92,900 0 0 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses (126,164) 145,000 (1,186,400) (1,331,400) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,873,504 1,049,100 2,747,340 1,698,240 Fund Balance, End of Year 2,747,340 1,194,100 1,560,940 366,840 C-19 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ' EQUMN ENT REPLACEMENT FUND n.M...n r xx ..r......,{,.nC.\.. ..v s...,.:..r..x. v,'vv::f:::.::p;:i::riii;:::;..y'v'O`:. : ':.. ..✓.;•A;...ti.i:W:i.Y' vJ'9:{'vi;.:iiti.: i:G:u:: .v :.6•;�.rS+:;+.{.} Y.,Cx,.c.•J�::, ;.}�wr xw.::ka t^:>.on�., ♦s:: :#.:}xttt;hrr o:�:v'..:o>' ::<u+a.: :....... ......�5, ':. ....{R. .&..x:}:::. : ..:......r..':'.}. "...ti:+(....::'•':": r2�:.�' .k?� ..t 9 i'.';;A::{3.l' >:v.:v:J:JtSih� rc•+'t�t..,n...a,x..,t.>}}:kt..,.......r:.x.r{....ti.. ....... .. ...... � '�'.�,.x"E..rar:::ic.,..S�o:wRr. v.a:. .:..'8;'::':::::'r:::�; ..:::::.:.:f:. :. v .i ...f .....n♦.. .n..... ....n..r. ...v n:...�,.n..... ♦ .....................................y::.i:..:i...iv J}.:.L,1}'Jf.,vtn:On.}>:n::S:nv:`Rn}'$..n:: xn<.J}}Ynvn,.:n n ...,.fnr...t�...w_xr.:..n...:.}...:,..r:...i..:..:.:,:..o\_:...;i.,.:k.vi:..>:Y:So.�:.»:.../l.r..:�.:..t..orv,vMvrxc..:,...i..tv1+J:..rv..:::...,ri,r,:.te.....c.,n:.:...x:,v..f.:.w>..v::.<Yt.vJ>t.....t,....i...t>,...>x,..:W...x.,;:.,.v.v•nU.,e.,.:,.::.{i...n:.r:..i:.:.a..ur.i:.i..:::::.:.:.:.r.:_::..:ni..n.:..xiv...v:::.�:n.:;.:.";:p..v}..r.'n...'k..�.d.p:..v}tn.'C..;v.r...i....v,;{.{v#i.r.tt...:.......:.xi..,.n.:..•...+.:....::.::,..,t...:.v......r.::.....:M:»..::.J:vi,..:�..::,}i.::C:.:::i,...v.t.v..:r.i+;:...;.i;:fiJir:i..:..n;..r.a.:..:....'.C..:..r..::.....,:.:a:r.:x.....r.:....�.n:.....'>:Cn..y.:........r..::v........:..4:...:.,.kxv.....',#:.ee,...:xn:,v.::.,.:;:.,..n+nn....:x......:..vc::,.....C.::...:.'>:,}::.:.:..:t.....r:<...•...:.;:.r.:.}::..r:v....::;r..::i,.�..i.w.::.::.,,::..:.:.C..,:.».:.:.w.�.:'+,..fs.,.c,;v?.....::...•r......'......1.;............n....n..:.vx.::♦.L.,y.>',..E;.}.x).Frv:•.:.'.: .\.....s..vR.:n:f.•.}.bi.i.v.+:':i.„::.f.N:i...^,w.+,.G.:...r.i:i..;.:::c: .......t.....•........:..:$:.:,:::n::i.t;iiCi::`�i,xj•.?':,.._'.','i:fr..:.�:.r:$2....tMall .., , t>:3:. ;�..;;,M1 \ .�t:ir•J, }ick'^ci}::$:ki:3fSu�>.}#;°• ...r,.,. kk::.::}:,'Y. + A .,...h. ..: :,..r s,>rt•,C}7<C:oii:aJ+:a:.J,�:..:;t<:.:ta::t:'t:yk:k;,::;•`� •:^a '�}�' ..��.BSo� 'fl �d� ,iw♦..>.:.v...v�::}:::.:ac....... \..r...:..n.... ....R:{;�'};#. :::t'.n:..:..... ....:.. ..a.k...::... .................N'r.'k`♦'v Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 169,741 140,000 163,000 23,000 Other Revenues Sale of Surplus Property 81,601 70,000 70,000 0 Total Revenues 251,342 210,000 233,000 23,000 Expenditures Capital Acquisitions 989,307 287,300 . 978,000 690,700 Total Expenditures 989,307 287,300 978,000 690,700 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 376,200 253,600 253,600 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses (361,765) 176,300 (491,400) (667,700) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,934,508 1,870,700 2,572,743 702,043 Fund Balance, End of Year 2,572,743 2,047,000 2,081,343 34,343 C-20 CHANGES IN FUND bmLANCE - = DEBT SERVICE FUND .;:.:C.:.::.:;;.:+f:•.:,.:pn,.,.:.::...:c�. �.a:,.,. ..:+:.:.:.....a.:..::.:..: :.::..,...y::. asr..::,,aavaaaxa��a�.a:x.;aari:.:aar.a - �. ..s :k#:.al;si.� .:riL:.::NaH#r,CV:.S:;'.'2;:,.,.,;;,.:.. ..5•a;a .s.:.+.:,s n 3\9x':;,, #,`Y�u":y�:3;:k#kk :,r., .Rs.w..: . ,:.;k.w::,, :::iiv::..n,.. a:. ,:......:k .... k.:R.,..�...�:..::,..:.::.:.,:...;:.n t .a s ...:k::{:;:::s :i: .'r ra:t:k:a:":> '_^s, >.. r::..: .F.,n:.m. /„' :kY+:Ru:e)#no .Q?o- .n::. °c:j::#::#]*:£.w,#k+^•::`:..:q::` ;kkk.;aGfr.a:o:oa:?:C,:h.r. iO<,',...£ u,.; ' a::s�a#2:;::k,::: �:G4.::., ^,u_a.. .sx.,.: Y3;>'k",:;:uc�:`a:?,;;:' .3 •:.a:..:;t�.`. INN .�:!#�y :. ...�C �� ,, � �:...3r...o+�d...::a.3;..?.:,.n:R..... .+4... L<:.:.,..:..:.o.:.::3...: �K#�{i:! ..t>.:".::•,F:��CF:°:t�..vi:.'.:..s}:. ,,.tee::..�:,..x:..:.:: ;a.. s:::}s.:,.' Expenditures 1986 Lease Revenue Bonds 541,558 545,800 545,800 0 1990 Certificates of Participation 403,990 409,600 409,600 0 Total Expenditures 945,548 955,400 955,400 0. Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers In 1,025,578 955,400 955,400 0 Proceeds from Debt Financing 0 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 1,025,578 955,400 955,400 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 80,030 0 0 0 Fund Balance, Beginning of Year(Reserved) 900,277 900,300 980,307 80,007 Fund Balance, End of Year 980,307 900,300 980,307 80,007 C-21 CHANGES IN FUND LALANCE WATER FUND .•{:}(i Y.;iji}i:4ii:y:;iii:i'; vol f:i<::n v \vf,i}:�e ............:. .,y::n.: ......n.v...Y........... :.. ' ,P..}..... ..... .vf•.. :.n n:....:n,.}„v:":::•� ..f:}:}}i:'v...�, n...:...N:CY..}v,:ny•.::.. i%i�::: r , }�`..........n ....................................:,..C......n......... ......................:..:.F.A.n.:::::}::::P::i::.f:f..:n.....,..:.n.n..,......,.}{..}:v}:{iiK�i::::is is is4::i::::::wi}:n::x}:::i:4ii}:fnv:n}:.::i+,: Avnii':.v,n4.iY nr..........:.:::.�.....................v...........v v..v..� } :..:nn.... ../.f:� ..:...:.... �. ..... ... .............................v..v.,.n:..,... n...........v.....r •:..:nn..n», rv:nir. .:,:,::::.. ..... +..^ii':ii^• .. ..�.................. ........,.::.r.:::..a i7.:..::.::::::...r.....::......�::. :<:::... eL'l6ed::: }.o:.n.x..,...:.:.:v.:_..�.,ri............r.....:v.}n.:.:..:._::: :,::::: ::..;,:......ra.. .....:n..v»...a..:.:..:}y:..:...............v,,.. .. ......,................�... ice#.....::.: :.::�.......... ;u}�:+r: }...:.:::.. ....:.%:rX.,.: .,. Io �, ::.:: .v:. : . «r :: Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 264,195 250,000 250,000 0 Service Charges Water Sales Water Service Charges 5,072,645 5,638,200 5,638,200 0 Sales to Cal Poly 36,234 60,000 60,000 0 Sales to Cuesta 17,330 23,000 23,000 0 Capital Improvement Charges 49,231 40,000 40,000 0 Connection Charges and Meter Sales 40,576 30,000 30,000 0 Hydroplant Revenues 76,335 250,000 250,000 0 Other Service Charges 17,920 60,000 60,000 0 Total Revenues 5,574,466 6,351,200 6,351,200 0 Expenditures Operating Programs Public Utilities 3,184,286 3,970,000 3,749,300 (220,700) General Government 726,600 773,900 773,900 0 Total Operating Programs 3,910,886 4,743,900 4,523,200 (220,700) Capital Projects 686,106 6,600,000 18,991,100 12,391,100 Debt Service 695,292 681,200 6.81,200 0 Total Expenditures 5,292,284 12,025,100 24,195,50U 12,170,400 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers Out (23,800) (24,500) (24,500) 0 Proceeds from Debt Financing . 0 6,000,000 15,855,700 9,855,700 Total Other Sources (Uses) Revenues and Other Sources Over(under) Expenditures and Other Uses 258,382 301,600 (2,013,100) (2,314,700) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 4,609,476 1,852,300 4,867,858 3,015,558 Fund Balance, End of Year Reserved for Debt Service 488,800 488,800 488,800 0 Unreserved 4,379,058 1,665,100 2,365,958 700,858 Fund Balance, End of Year 4,867,858 2,153,900 2,854,758 700,858 c-22 CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE SEWER FUND h,..v 0...2 }..................... ..\.:. :'lf.} ..Cii;'.r'^' \.N.:nv.,. :: in;}:f .v:F. ta :, .: .,K a..f.:.:.. 0 nl ....n...n..;.... .. a,..C:»f J..4..:::.:....:,!.»:�.: ...{.. ..h. Y:.:. ;;;s.x'+;::.,.�,�s�y��.:t:.;a:.:.,;:>:+.;}:�:.;,.:, ��} ..r} : ,::%rk::;:a:x;tcf:ox•>nn.�� y Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 71,561 30,000 30,000 0 Service Charges Customer Sales Sewer Service Charges 3,220,381 3,830,800 3,830,800 0 Sales to Cal Poly 54,123 75,000 75,000 0 Industrial User Charges 34,296 35,900 35,900 0 Capital Improvement Charges 32,308 20,800 20,800 0 Other Service Charges 5_ ,048 30,000 30,000 0 Total Revenues4,022,500 Expenditures Operating Programs Public Utilities 1,477,005 2,355,900 2,466,300 110,400 General Government 548,400 584,000 584,000 0 Total Operating Programs 2,025,405 2,939,900 3,050,300 110,400 Capital Projects 17,296,900 505,000 13,415,800 12,910,800 Debt Service 106,513 251,500 251,500 0 Total Expenditures 19,428,818 3,696,400 16,717,600 13,021,200 Other Sources(Uses) Proceeds from State Loan 19,483,475 0 9,845,400 9,845,400 Operating Transfers Out (29,900) (30,800) (30,800) 0 Expenditure Savings 168,000 168,000 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) 9,845,400 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures.and Other Uses 3,442,474 463,300 (2,712,500) (3,175,800) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 492,614 502,300 3,935,088 3,432,788 Fund Balance, End of Year 3,935,088 965,600 1,222,588 256,988 C-23 CHANGES IN FUND LANCE PARK NG FUND i}:f.ii•U.ypv..}}:<ff.'+..:fn:{.;'.v:.v::ni::'r::..n}i'<.:f{:'4:v:{ '.:{J..:}Y•4• •,}••v4':iii}i:::.,v:.v..v::�.::::::::::. :..n...4...... �::. :v::: ,f::�i.:k%+.j.%f4}}Yf:.v..f: v:::::::.::{.... .. :nv:�' ...... ........ ...\:.}}?i}i}iii??'nv:::::.:?:.w:.v:::.yn:�:N:::::.. v„ 4}: .:� �i:4x: y:W..•.�. .}.:, .n{t:'?:M?4. +.Mx'.. �k::tn� ':f... � 4.,{•.p.::n..4v:: q?��ii:i.v:: �.... . ...,r,. .. .4..»..,}„r ..i??r::.r.::::::..........:.:}.:.v,r,,. vv+:.4:x':::.,.,n:v.. ........ .k.. ..... „«::.w:7<'• ...r.%:::"' M ..GQ+tc.,.,;`t4k::........::a% .............r.......,.......,: .4?..rn..............`SY'.r,..}}'. : < ..: Y. i: : :^:CjJi:<C::::.k:i!i:`:{i•i%K. fu:•• ......::.:.M^i%.%'v............ ..::v::::::,>...rc:::�v::?v:',v....yf{?b:.}?}}i}:Yv:::vnv:..;.,..n:::::.., r:.:�v'::.:::n».::::::.:■�'�` .r$.v RB ::+;:"iii v ':?%}Y.v' :} ..k:':v. v.xnii:n:,n::.i.::if{•:{..:...fY,.}i:i.?mr...v.................... .v^:i ....ivii:ni'�i ../..v R.. v....v::::. :�•,:r..r.:. :};.�. r ,.,•y,.n.:.;}:::.:.r..}„ ::C..:�, ?.A1:J..nr:•n�n' ::}:v::::.,�. ,....:.v::nv::�.:.. ..... ... ..nv:W'??.i:i... ..n,... .. .. ..:........ i, ... .,..%:.... ,....,.:::.{...r.....ti........r.................. .. ...r...,..: ......... r.:>:.,:a'`r.......,:{:.>}:�:.i::.:: ::'sfi. .a:: i.n.r.r,.?.........r...., ,..,r.....?....:....:.rr..r..r..:,:: } } .xeL}1.i.r.....:::.:::........x4. .:: ..........:.... ZarlanC�::i'i. :.:,:..... ....r.,r...............4:..;;;...x,.. k. ,..%..�..�<.Ac�t.rr4»....r.. Bud !?o.: iY ..r'N Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 230,607 175,000 175,000 0 Fines and Forfeitures 553,130 555,000 555,000 0 Service Charges Parking Meter Collections Lots 247,221 250,800 250,800 0 Streets 470,936 509,200 509,200 0 Parking Structure Collections 201,100 . 163,000 163,000 0 Long-Term Parking Revenues 65,425 90,000 909000 0 Lease Revenues 1021401 100,000 100,000 0 Parking In-Lieu Fees 44,641 50,000 50,000 0 Business Supplement Fee 0 73,500 73,500 0 Other Service Charges 23,489 15,000 15,000 0 Total Revenues 1,938,950 1,981,500 1,981,500 0 Expenditures Operating Programs Parking 638,904 680,300 695,000 14,700 General Government 147,700 157,300 157,300 0 Total Operating Programs 786,604 837,600 852,300 14,700 Capital Projects 28,539 25,000 16,000 (9,000) Debt Service 959,715 930,300 930,300 0 Total Expenditures 1,774,858 1,792,900 1,798,600 5,700 Other Sources (Uses) Operating Transfers Out (52,049) (7,100) (7,100) 0 Expenditure Savings 0 0 0 Total Other Sources (Uses) (7,100) U Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 112,043 181,500 175,800 (5,700) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 2,450,701 1,692,300 2,562,744 870,444 Fund Balance, End of Year. Reserved for Debt Service 895,174 1,027,700 1,027,700 0 Unreserved 1,667,570 846,100 1,710,844 864,744 Fund Balance, End of Year 2,562,744 1,873,800 2,738,544 864,744 C-24 CHANGES IN FUND L .LANCE TRANSrr FUND - -tn::a.i;;.;..r..:+:.oY.,r.Y:t.::..:::o;•.;:c;;:.Y:a;..xa;;:.;:.x;i.;:a:c:.::.:..:.. - - - - .,Y:.:,Y..,. r.x,.: ,..o.,.,.a:.:Y::. ,,,. : a:.w... •:{:G{:::':Y:`Y':YY2;;: R:t:::kx+.,{i::,+.a:{.?::. a:..:.+cr:2>;:{::�:::;��: ..:? ..a,:a:S... taaY a:,{Y3.Y:.:<a:...�.:;t•Y:a:,...+,.........sv:a:•w;;.{.n 3:;,t.,Y „S„' .:.cn.:t::,4::RL.Y:a.;o:,::.:v:::YY:::. . .T{:;; .,...:.., � ,' ta.'a'.y..,� '•an,..n.n,....x.:.,'.xa:tt a>•.Y:t.�ika:\A:hM.+x.r x...... ..:(xvS.t,.:ie;;..;::ttt:a;;Y•,aY.?:,:.,.Yx.:t:sa:a:,...................... .,.;,:.>:s ..,,.:t... „ .°rtk,.`1.ts,x. ...:: ... ..::.':.'....:xi:t:.,:.Y,,,...,:.,:.::.,:;.x.Yxa>.a.;::a:,:,.;2.Yx:6;Y.0 Ys:q':'': ,...tall,o.cx,w.to,::axRt::t;:t::ta?!4!.�,�. �}{, :;:?ca'us;:i:#Aif :i,:axv:.x::.ru.,,o'ra•;,:tt::o:c..., • ° \ : .. J�1rNi8Ei?'".. v'' { is .. <a; Y. rv. Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 20,439 0 0 0 Subventions and Grants TDA Revenues 642,753 543,600 543,600 0- UMTA Grants 42,084 900,000 9001000 0 Capital Grants 0 135,000 135,000 0 Service Charges 209,965 200,000 200,000 0 Total Revenues 915,241 1,778,600 1,778,600 0 Expenditures Operating Programs Transportation 563,112 778,600 762,600 (16,000) General Government 60,603 58,600 58,600 0 Total Operating Programs 623,715 837,200 821,200 (16,000) Capital Projects 270,079 667,000 890,500 223,500 Total Expenditures207,500 Other Sources(Uses) Operating Transfers In 0 0 0 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(Under) Expenditures and Other Uses 21,447 274,400 66,900 (207,500) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 292,941 153,500 314,388 160,888 Fund Balance, End of Year 314,388 427,900 381,288 (46,612) c-25 CHANGES IN FUND .LANCE WHALE ROCK CONMSSION - ?i:L}:.: :{n.n.:.??:v .$"fN.' ........:.. n.....: ..::: :.i.:::n :.y.i.y::n. r ................::... n.r.}.::. n. ... ....;:...n, ...:..::.:.:::.......r..u:...n,.....:...:....................J::::::,ft::.k:;•.:..t.r.r..:.w(rn..........i:..::.:::.r.:..»nd4.:...k...:.,t...,,:•:a..$uL:?.?:::::9.:{...>.::.i. ::•.::YYYYYYYL��YYiYYY}?• :ni• it}.:..v. ,...v/J:;.ii':'i:::i'.\vin?:?. ??i:ff?ki}ingi}}•t:. .,:..::..:::::.::::.::::::::.: :::n.....:.:. ..k..:...:.:%.; :n.::n.::::v:....v::.n...n.:f :v:.....:::::,9f;.:v::n.:.t.nw:U.x.nt .::.v ... ..t. .}.. .�: .x.. ... .. ..:.... ...:n .i.l.:i.n.?.y::...t..:A U:::..:n.:.r..:n:.}iii:i.i::.:�.. ... :.}?:.:::::.:., .. ::.:... n...:." ..:}}:::rii•k::;.. .............�.::.�:<.,:..::.....r......,.:�.i:.:.::::::n.:::::.::.:::.w.:::}::.>.:.,a....,.:::::......:.,....v.....�:..::.Y...F:`.:.:::v.................. .... », ..nif.r:.}:.:::..r. ::.knhi{.:.,t,:..,.:.[.,:.,:.:.: ..rk.,.... ..n.... ..k.:. xi.::?:>.:: ::.r::::.............:..3....r.... .S.::k•x.^:.?:f?. :i::�y:5::;:i:;.i:+i ...:k. ' » v.�k:'. J.:..:::x... .....v ' n...:.:..A....n 'iii::?.?i: ..A::::'e..::��^i. l 1 ............ .. .........n....r:.:::;:: tiy[ �Yy,(+, . $....n......».:...v.. ............... ..............n...}...}.....{..........:.:..n.:..:.... .r.1TTli.}:.}:::.i'.:.:'..i:i::ii:::'::YM$! �>.::i:,}% •i: y.,y:::::.... r,r:w:.y::n...:.�f.}:i.".v......,........:�:::.:......... r.r..J.�..............r..i,..:::.>n:.........r.....•a. 2ink4... .. i.: i:i Revenues Investment and Property Revenues 89,352 50,000 50,000 0 Service Charges Member Agency Contributions 410,825 .491,300 491,300 0 Water Distribution Charges 112,102 308,500 308,500 0 - Other Revenues 3,591 1,000 1,000 0 Total Revenues 615,870 850,800 850,800 0 Expenditures - Operating Programs Public Utilities 370,541 615,600 686,900 71,300 General Government 96,700 103,000 103,000 0 Total Operating Programs 467,241 718,600 789,900 71,300 Capital Projects 61,066 574,500 1,310,000 735,500 Total Expenditures 528,307 1,293,100 2,099,900 806,800 Other Sources(Uses) Operating Transfers Out (5,000) (5,200) (5,200) 0 Revenues and Other Sources Over(under) Expenditures and Other Uses 82,563 (447,500) (1,254,300) (806,800) Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 1,313,106 585,800 1,395,669 809,869 Fund Balance, End of Year 1,395,669 138,300 141,369 3,069 C-26 SECTION D MID-YEAR BUDGET. REQUESTS 1992193 Mid-Year Budget Request SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE PROGRAM: Parks and Landscape (5020) REQUEST TITLE: Water Service Cost Increases Request Summary Increase the annual budget for water service from $93,400 to $192,000. Primary Objective ■ Cover substantial rate increases for water used in parks and other landscaped areas. Primary Factors Driving the Request for Change ■ The existing water service budget of$93,400 is based on consumption and prices in fiscal year 1988/89. During that fiscal year, the Parks and Landscape program had responded to drought conditions by reducing consumption 17 percent compared to the last pre-drought year of 1986/87. Since 1988/89, the City has added 16 new locations (including Laguna Hills Park) and the price per unit of water has doubled. ■ As the drought worsened from FY 1989/90 through FY 1991/92, the Parks and Landscape program further reduced consumption another 16 percent. Erratic consumption trends trade it difficult to budget accurately for water service during this period. ■ Now that the drought has eased, consumption has increased to a rate about 20 percent below pre- droughtlevels. ■ Maintaining current consumption (about 80 percent of pre-drought use) will cost about$192,000 per year. At this level, the turf will just stay green most of the time. It will look better than it did during the drought but will still appear thin and stressed from May to October, particularly if the City doesn't get rainfall late in the season. Alternatives ■ Return to pre-drought consumption at an annual cost of$237,000. The turf would look good, but not lush. ■ Return to minimum drought period consumption at an annual cost of$83,000. The turf would be brown most of the year, and some areas might die back permanently, depending on rainfall patterns. Cost Summary Current Additional Costs Costs Other Operating Expenditures $93,400 $98,600 Implementation This increase should be implemented immediately. The water service budget for 1992/93 is exhausted. Without additional money, the Parks and Landscape program would have to shut down irrigation systems until July 1993, and several turf and landscape areas would die back permanently. Line Item Detail City Water Service 100-5020-330-221 $192,000 D-1 1992-93 Mid-Year Budget Request SIGNIFICANT OPERATING PROGRAM CHANGE PROGRAM: City Clerk Elections REQUEST TITLE- Overage for Cost of November 1992 Election _ Request Summary Upon City Clerk Pam Voges resignation, the Council requested that she stay on through November 6, 1992, in order to conduct the General Municipal Election held on November 2. The agreement for professional services (A-87-92-CC)provided that Pam would work 20 hours per week from October 1 through November 6 to provide services for election and records management. The agreement afforded all compensation and benefits under the Appointed Officials Compensation Plan. From September 14 through October 1, Pam served concurrently with Diane Gladwell as City Clerk at full salary. In addition,Pam Voges'vacation buy-out were charged to the City Clerk Election Salaries account. The total amount budgeted for salaries in the 1992-93 City Clerk Elections is 53,000 and the total program budget is 531,970. At 11/30/92,the remaining balance in the program account was 513,740. In January,the City Clerk received the statement of costs for services of the County totalling$22,445. Therefore,we have a shortfall of approximately 58,800. Alternatives ♦ Pay the County only$14,500 for their services. Cost Summary The following is a breakdown of expenses paid from the City Clerk Elections Salaries account: Encumbered Account Title & Expended 93-93 Budget Remaining Balance Salaries:-Temp.Employees 14,81621 3,000.00 11,816.21- Retirement Contributions 1,18422 00 1,184.22- Health & Disability Ins. 671.98 00 671.98- Workers Compensation 5038 00 50.38- Unemployment Insurance 14.81 00 14.81- TOTAL EXPENSES: 16,737.60 This was a one-time only expense and was not anticipated at the time the Budget and Financial Plan were being prepared. D-2 1992-1993 Mid-Ye-ax Budget Request SIGNIFICANT OPE;' `-TING PROGRAM CHANGE PROGRAM: Sun & Fun Program REQUEST TITLE: Additional Schoolage Childcare Facility Request Summary The Sun & Fun Childcare Program provides before and after school childcare at San Luis Coastal Unified School sites within the San Luis Obispo city limits. School-age children of the residents of San Luis Obispo are the target audience for this program. At the request of the parents of the students at Sinsheimer Elementary a fifth program was added in September, 1992. This program, along with the other four school-age childcare programs operates as a licensed childcare facility. The State of California Childcare Licensing Legislation mandates specific staff/child ratios for childcare centers. In order to stay in compliance with this law and continue the operation of the Sinsheimer school site the cost will be $25,000. The incremental cost will be offset 90% by revenues generated from program participation. Primary Objectives Continue to operate the Sinsheimer School site program for school-age childcare. Providing continuity in programming at school sites located within the City limits of San Luis Obispo. Remain in compliance with staff/child ratios mandated by the State of California Title 22 Childcare Licensing Requirements. Provide certified staff that meet Title 22 requirements. Continue to generate revenues to offset program expenditures. Primary Factors Driving The Request For Change Acquisition of a fifth Sun & Fun site at Sinsheimer Elementary. Providing continuity in programming at school sites serving residents in the City of San Luis Obispo. A PTA operated program had been providing the childcare service at Sinsheimer. They were unable to meet the program demand and the search began to locate a suitable replacement program. In July of 1992 parents and staff from the Sinsheimer school contacted the Recreation Department about providing a program equal to that in place at the other four San Luis Coastal Unified School facilities located within the city limits of San Luis Obispo. The program was implemented in September, 1992. Since this program was implemented after the preparation of the Financial Plan for 1991-1993 a budget shortfall exists. As of December, 1992 with 50% of the fiscal year complete, revenues collected for the entire Sun & Fun program show a cost recovery of 92%. Revenues collected at the Sinsheimer she from September, 1992 through January, 1993 equal the staffing costs expended during the same dates. Conservative estimated revenue forecasts for Sinsheimer show the amount should be nearly equal to the staffing costs from February, 1993 to June, 1993. Alternatives Reduce staffing at all sites. Sun & Fun is already operating at the maximum staff/child ratios established in Title 22. To further reduce staff would require denying participation to children and already enrolled in the program. D-3 Limit program enrollment. Enrollment is only limited at this time by the total licensed capacity as stated in Title 22. Due ? iple available space, program participa has never been denied to. a child in need of the childcai,,.ervice provided by this program. This alte..native would require limiting the number of children and deny care to presently enrolled children. Cost Summary - Approval of the request would allow the continued operation of all five existing school-age childcare sites: The program would be able to meet existing demand. Using current revenue reports, approval of this request would generate sufficient return to provide for at least 90% of the requested adjustment. Staffing. 198,000 21,000 Buildings & Leases . 8,800 . 4.000 Contract Services 1,700. Materials & Suppries 20.000 . . Total Expenditures 228,500 25,000 Revenues 206,000 22,500 Net Cost Impact 22,500 2,500 D-4 1 WI ^J print, i I �► I" 1 ' 1, IYIII1 TO: John Dunn, CAO FROM: Lynn Block, Administrator DATE: January 13, 1993 RE: Mid-Year Budget Requests Evaluation of the January business license tax financial report reveals that only 79%. of the BIA' s projected revenue has been collected to date. During the business license tax revisions process in the Spring of 1992, City staff projected increased business license tax revenue for 1992-93. When the BIA Board expressed concern that this projection could not be meet, the City agreed to fund the short fall. As this shortfall has occurred, we respectfully request that this allocation be made to the BIA account so that we may meet our financial commitments. Due to the exclusive dependence of the BIA on the business license tax as the sole fund for the associations budget, the support of the City for this current years budget is crucial to the ability of the BIA to function. These funds have been allocated in full to specific promotional, beautification, and parking programs. Every effort was made in developing the current budget to implement new programs which were self supporting. Finally, the City's support of the downtown business community should be seen as a source of future revenue. Re- investing in the commercial core of the community will lead to increase revenues for the City. Your support in forwarding this request is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to contact me at 541-0286 should you have any questions. cc: Statler P.O.Bar 1402•Sm 1s&OUpo•V•93406.805/541-0286 IIIIIm D-5 MEETING DATE City of san ..as owp0 ' ITEM NUMBER: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FROM: Council Members Dave Romero and Allen Settle Council Liaison Subcommittee to the Architectural Review Commission PREPARED BY: Sherry Stendahl SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission RECOMMENDATION: By motion, reappoint Commissioner Curtis Illingworth to a four year term to expire 3/31/97, Ron Regier to a two year term to expire 3/31/95, and thank Madi Gates for her five years of service on the ARC. DISCUSSION: The terms of Madi Gates and Curtis Illingworth will expire on 3/31/93. The Subcommittee reviewed all current applications on file and interviewed eight applicants with ARC Chair Michael Underwood. The Subcommittee is pleased to recommend Curtis Illingworth and Ron Regier for the appointments. The length of terms will continue the policy of allowing two terms to expire each year. Copies of their respective applications are attached, all other applications are available for review in the Council Office. The Subcommittee wishes the Council to thank Madi Gates, who did not apply for reappointment, for her contributions to the ARC over the past five years. Attachments Curtis Illingworth application Ron Regier application Q APPOINTMENT , Q REAPPOINTMENT E C E a 9� ; APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENT TO A CITY ADVIS199 �. I CL K� � S Advisory Body AppliedSForI:�J08 a0.�ti Name of Applicant 1212 JOYce Cwt-. S.L�O . 1• REVIEW CaMA Residence Street Address 6 City 2• 541 .6323 5"_ &T4,1,7 ( If a second choice is indicated, a second interview will be required. ) Day Phone Evening Phone 1. Are you a registered voter of the city? ES NO 2. How long have you lived in the city? 14 4 EArRd 3. Present occupation and employer: _ �}« _ Sf c oyt4 4. Education: S. w pp ) ArZt#1 �� , 5. Membership in organizations. 6. Please specify the reasons why you feel you should be appointed to this advisory body (use reverse side for additional information) : AS MNOVKr ! FAL li' IS TIPAE -to blv/E 6ACAc pow'i laay of wuq �1wtE ANQ irc -tyE B tT'E7crur:Wr'o� Tb}E COWAYLwnil7L) AS A D1-516N Af LA.. PbLw ► mA%e A4*N 4 YW"L6 Q= f&VM 5-W L RI -1 IV,kp& IgTzt+ (-TUR41l.PKo,I eL-TS f}NO Felau. ewwrX4 sowrIt� ACJ ol'.QUCI U Awb )chowL*DbC-A46Le wR�1 AS A p+ &C1"t7C 1 Fb Pio 3551 ON AL A& I &4-t ASL€ 1a rSose crn NO TtIE 12I�A1( k10Y+t. BDAvI>�d.S 5 7. Previous service on any SLO advisory bodies (names and dates) : I r4g PLEASE NOTE: If you are appointed to the Planning Commission. Architectural Review Commission. or the City Housing Authority, you are required by State law to file a Statement of Economic Interest disclosing all reportable interests held by you at the time of appointment. A copy of this form is available from the City Clerk. . Applications are accepted year round, however. if you are applying for a current vacancy. your application must be returned to the City Clerk by in order to be considered for the current round of interviews. ***TO BE FILLED OUT BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE*** 9oa*PK- Interview Date: Screening Committee ***TO BE FILLED OUT BY SCREENING COMMITTEE CHAIR*** Recommend for Appointment: Q'�ES Q NO Recommendation is for: [Z-,�nexpired term Q Full term Additional c ments: �� [��. �� 7-a AF>Le -tv poi Iillog A7�c *!Aja Ae }vt7c, e/A wATc�,S M+r f Wi LL hG I ti -N6 6 W'r 14" 0ONS I u✓p•✓�"b. LoL7 O -#/o O»pgmTvN I"l e $ air P. L.L-I(K b G• 131 (0 APPLICA.60N FOR®APPOINTMENT[I REAPPOINTMENT TOA CITY ADVISORY BODY IN REGIER Advisory Body Applied For. NAME OF APPLICANT ADORES$ P RALIA COURT SAN LUIS OBISPO 93401 t) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION SIDEN RECE STREETUrry oA7 PHO 756-65NE6 541-2616 2)5PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION EVENW(i P (INTERVIEiMS REOUIRED FOR EACH CHOICE) Registered voter of the curt YES NO 3) Joint Recreational Use of School ' District How long have you lived in the city? s YEARc_ Property Present OCCupatlon/Employer _nTRFr>TAR PAI DN Y ARTS, PAI TFnRNTA bAl'YTFPHNTC STATF IINTVFRSTTY Education: SEE ATTACHED Membership in Organizations: PRFSID NT ROTARY CLuB OF SAN Luis OBI POD TO OSA i Please explain why you would like to serve (use reverse side for.addklonal Information): F l 1; 1993 SEE ATTACHED C.Cf COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Previous service on SLO advisory bodies (names/dates): ArFv;cnry rommi = o h Tp formulate poli v re• art in p' blic places PLEASE NOTE: If appolmed to the Planning Commission,Architectural Review Commission or the C Ho you are required by State law to go a Statement of Economic Interest.disclosing all reportable interests held b Author he time of appotrtitment. A copy'of this form is avallable from the City Clerk Y You at the Applications are accepted year-round,however,E YOU are applying for a current Vacancy,your application must be returned to the City perk by to be considered for the currant round of Interviews. OFFICE USE ON74. LY INTERVIEW 0417E $�r ' SCREENING COMMITTEE RECOMMEND FOR APPOINTMENT_YES_NO INTERVIEW DATE SCREENING COMMITTEE RECOMMEND FOR APPOINTMENT:_YES_NO TERM BEGWS TERM ENDS: UNEXPIRED TERAk FULL TERM: A._..TONAL COMMENTS; dadvbod.app LTR SEN'(DW) /�3 Ron S. Regier 1302 Aralia Court Office (805)756-6556 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Home (805) 541-2616 EDUCATION Degrees: Master of Arts Degree in Arts Administration School of Business University of Wisconsin-Madison 1987 Master of Fine Arts Degree in Design and Technical Production Department of Theatre Michigan State University 1977 Bachelor of Arts Degree in Speech and Theatre University of Puget Sound 1973 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1987-Present Cal Poly Arts Director Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, California 1982-1987 The Commons Executive Director Columbus, Indiana 1980-1982 Madison Theatre Guild Executive Director Madison, Wisconsin 1977- 1980 Drama Program Instructor in Drama, Duke University Designer/Technical Durham, North Carolina Director Summer 1977 Dartmouth College Lighting Designer Hanover, New Hampshire - RECENTICU RENT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, President Indiana Presenters Network, Past President California Presenters, Inc., member Association of Performing Arts Presenters, member References available upon request Please explain why you would like to serve. To use my personal experience, professional expertise and organizational skills to serve the community. Currently, I am Director of Cal Poly Arts, a campus-based entity which brings outstanding professional artists to the community for performances, exhibitions and readings of their work. Cal Poly Arts will have an important role to play in bringing performances of touring artists into the new performing arts center. I am also currently President of the Rotary Club of San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. Prior to moving to San Luis Obispo in 1987, my wife and I were residents of Columbus, Indiana a city similar in size to San Luis Obispo, located about 45 minutes south of Indianapolis. For five years I was a city department head responsible for cultural affairs and was Executive Director of the Commons, a community cultural center. We were very closely affiliated with the Parks and Recreation Department. Columbus is a community renowned for good design. For nearly forty years, Cummins Engine Company, the world's largest manufacturer of diesel engines, has sponsored a program which brought the world's most famous architects to Columbus to design buildings. The result is the largest concentration of contemporary buildings designed by renowned architects in the country, next to Chicago. Over fifty buildings have now been designed under this program in a town no bigger than San Luis Obispo. Both on a personal and professional level, I was deeply affected by the effect that good design has on a community's general health and well-being. My four years in leadership of the Rotary Club in San Luis Obispo and especially my year as president, has inspired me to seek other ways to serve the community. My ability to organize and motivate a large group of business people and civic leaders has given me confidence that, in getting involved, I can make a difference. I believe that I will be able to bring a strong personal commitment, an expectation.of quality and strong interpersonal skills to any of the commissions for which I have asked to be considered. Thank you. Ron S. Regier -J ' ZIN AGENDA IJnif REM# 0 AF.CrzIVP. 0 TO: Mayor Pinard NEAR . 2 1993 FROM: Betsey Lyon, President Ciro CLERK SAN LUIS 0818M,CA DATE: March 2, 1993 RE: Continuance on the TNA/Farmers' Market Fee Agenda Item As previously discussed, the fee schedule for the BIA Thursday Night Activities/Farmers' Market fee schedule is on the City Council agenda for the March 16, 1993 meeting. I would like to respectfully request that this discussion -topic be re-scheduled to the first meeting in April (April 6, 1993) for the following reasons: 1) The re-scheduling would allow the BIA time to collect and collate information pertaining to the first quarter of 1993 performance of the event. This information would be helpful in the City Council's decision making process on the fee schedule. 2) Several BIA Board of Directors members will be unable to be at the March 16, 1993 meeting due to prior commitments. I would ask for the continuance to allow all interested parties to be present to provide input into the City Council' s decision making process. 3) It is the understanding of the BIA that the City Council agenda for the March 16th meeting has several agenda items which could be lengthy. By re-scheduling the fees to the April meeting, the City Council would have more time for those important issues. Thank you for your consideration of this request and please advise either the BIA office or myself as to when we should expect the see this agenda item scheduled. COPIESTO: ❑•DmwW Aeticm ❑ FYI �Caulal dCDDDIR Ao ❑ FIN.DI& ACP:O ❑ FIREClDEF �nrro[t<vEY ❑ FW DIR. CL RK/OpmC. ❑ POUCECI-L ❑ MCIAT TEAM Cl r.FC DIR. _/C/FILE Q UnLDUL P.D.Bax 1402•San LA&&Obupa•CA•93406.805/541-0286 In The Superior Court of The State of California In and for the County of San Luis Obispo AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION No. - n, / olllllllaani�� cRy� r'�•I d San 1ws osfspo o CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS �J On Tuesday, March 2, .1993, the San Luis Obispo STATE OF CALIFORNIA, City Council will hold public hearings beginning at 7:00 ss. p.m,in the Council Chambers Coun+,of San Luis Obispo 'of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, `1' p on the items listed below. The reports will be available for review in the City Clerk's I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Department on the Wednes- day before the meeting. For more information,please call County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not 761.7103. The Council may also dis- cuss other hearings or busi- interested in the above-entitled _I�Lkc ness items before or after those listed. If you challenge any one of the proposed I am now, and at all times embraced actions described below in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you in the publication herein mention was, the or someone else raised a the p principal clerk public hearings described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to of the printers and publishers of the SAN LUIS OBISPO the City Council at,or prior to, the public hearing. GERERAL PLAN AMEND- COUNTY TELEGRAM-TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general MENT - GP/R 14x4 - to consider a Planning Commis- sion recommendation to circulation, printed and published daily, Sundays ex- deny amendments to the Land Use Element Map and Zoning Map for GP/R 1454 cepted, at the City of San Luis Obispo in the above located at 761 Orcutt Road. (20 min.) named county and state; that L\iA .2 *OR at which the annexed clipping is a true printed copy, was MGP/R 1454 published in the above-named newspaper and not in any WATER/WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ELEMENT supplement thereof — on the following dates, to-wit: AMENDMENT to consider amending the General Pain Water-and Wastewater Man. h ,agement Element to add a 2,000 acre-foot reliability re- serve.(20 min.) TENTATIVE MAP TRACT 2112-to conseder a tentative map for Tract 2112,a 10-unit residential condominium project at 680 Foothill Boule- that said newspaper was duly and regularly ascertained vard.(20 min.) and established a newspaper of general circulation by C Z211L2MONA1 Decree entered in the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on lune 9, 1952, Case #19139under the provisions of Chapter 1, Division 7, Title of the Government Code of the State of California.I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT- to consider the Draft Housing . Element.(30 min.) }", �U APPEAL - PALM STREET l`NA PI�A/.ldVl BUILDING DEMOLITION -to consider an appeal of ARC (S ature of Principal Clerk) approval of a request to demolish four structures and approval of two new office /1. buildings on the north side of �''� Palm Street between Santa Date 19 v Rosa and Osos Streets(1026, 7028, 1038 and 1042 Palm Street).(20 min.) Diane R.Gladwell City Clerk — Feb.20,1993 dv55942 I Q C oN D I µ A I C i I i m o r T " I " i A a OPVI