HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/1998, 2 - R 38-97 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM R-3-H TO R-3-MU-H, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BOARD AND PLAM STREETS (963 & 967 BROAD STREET). council 2-1:7-98
j acEnaa nEpoin ".Aa
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director�iO
Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner{
SUBJECT: R 38-97 - Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request to
amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H, for property located on the southwest corner
of Broad and Palm Streets(963 & 967 Broad Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying the appeal, referring the matter back to the Planning Commission to
consider new information submitted by the applicants/appellants.
DISCUSSION
Background
The structure located at 963 Broad Street, known as the Manderscheid House, is included on the
City's Master List of Historic Resources. On Saturday, November 16, 1996, the historic house
sustained major fire damage. Shortly thereafter, the house's owners, Kathy Freeman Godfrey
and Keith Godfrey, submitted plans to the City showing the restoration and remodel of the house.
These plans were ultimately approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee on January 27, 1997,
and the Architectural Review Commission on February 3, 1997. On March 14, 1997, the
applicants filed applications for a general plan amendment, rezoning and environmental review,
to enable the establishment of office uses at the site.
Planning Commission's Review/Action on Rezoning
On August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a request to modify
the land use designation and zoning for the property from Medium-High Density Residential to
categories that would allow offices on a 5-0-2 vote (Commr. Ready refrained from participating
due to a potential conflict of interest), and Commr. Ashbaugh was absent). The specifics of the
original application were to amend the zoning of the site from R-3-H, Medium-High Density
Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay zoning, to C-C-H, Central Commercial with
the Historical Preservation overlay zoning. The general plan amendment request was to modify
the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-High Density Residential to Office.
The Commission continued the requests with direction to consider use of a"mixed use"zone for
the property that would allow both residential and office use in the dwelling once restored. The
t
Freeman-Godfrey Appy(;.-,j8-97)
Page 2
applicants were directed to submit specific information on proposed site development, including
solutions to meeting project parking requirements, and provision of a complete residential unit
along with offices in the main house at 963 Broad Street. Although concerned with the change in
land use in terms of general plan policies that encourage the retention of downtown housing, the
Commission was generally receptive to exploring an innovative mixed use project at the site with
restoration of the historic fire-damaged house.
The fact that the proposed zoning category and land use designation included in the original
application were inconsistent with one another raised some issues in evaluating the requests. The
inconsistencies created more issues for staff to evaluate in its reports and more discussions at the
public hearings as to the most appropriate land use and zoning categories for the site. Part of this
was a positive exercise, as it allowed staff and the Commission to consider a full range of options
for the site. On the other side though, the lack of a clear and concise vision for the future use of
the property delayed a final decision regarding the most appropriate zoning category to effectuate
the applicants' desire to add an office use component to the site.
On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission denied the proposed rezoning on a 4-1-2 vote
(Commr. Senn voting no; Commr. Jeffrey was absent and Commr. Ready refrained from
participating due to a potential conflict of interest). The Commission based their action for
denial on findings that the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with the general plan, was out of
character with the neighborhood, and did not demonstrate how the project was consistent with
the MU overlay zoning. The Commission was anxious to find a solution that would preserve the
fire-damaged historical house and had indicated support for the concept of mixed use. However,
the Commission did not feel that the applicant had demonstrated how a viable residential unit
would be maintained in the house along with proposed offices and how parking requirements
could be met.
Several members of the public provided testimony, some in favor of the request, and some
against. Ralph Peters, a nearby property owner, stated that a full-time residential presence
should be maintained at the site. Brett Cross expressed concerns with the inappropriate
application of the mixed use zoning, "spot zoning" issues, and the proposal's inconsistency with
general plan policies. Charles Tilly, employee at Mission Prep and also a neighbor, indicated
that the Godfreys would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Ken Schwartz cautioned
the Commission to not tailor a zoning for a particular applicant, but look at the long-range
implications of the change. Doris Serpa and Mary Serpa Bachino, members of the family that
previously owned the house supported the Godfreys efforts to rezone the site and restore the
house.
Appeal Filed
On January 21, 1998, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny
their rezoning request. Their appeal letter reinforces their desire to reconstruct the fire-damaged
house, but mentions that the value of the property as a residential only use does not justify the
repair costs. In addition,the letter cites the need to accommodate employees for their business at
.2-2
Freeman-Godfrey Appeal ka.j8-97)
Page 3
this site as one of the main motivations for needing the rezoning.
New Information Received
The appeal letter also states that information regarding a separation between residential and
office uses in the house at 963 Broad, plus potential parking configurations, would be submitted
after the appeal's filing, but before the Council hearing. After the filing of the appeal, Keith
Godfrey did submit the promised information. Staff believes that this information has merit and
potentially addresses some of the Planning Commission's previous concerns.
In staff s opinion, the best course of action would be for the Planning Commission to reconsider
the mixed use zoning request with the new information submitted by the appellants. The
Commission would be best equipped to consider necessary changes to the floor plan to
accommodate mixed uses in the same building, the most appropriate on-site parking layout and
the appropriateness of any needed exceptions to standards in terms of both the number and layout
of parking spaces. As was pointed out in the Planning Commission's last report, staff would also
need to prepare a revised initial study which responds to project changes since staff prepared the
original initial study based on a different amendment request.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 2, denying the appeal and upholding the
Planning Commission's action to deny the requested rezoning based on inconsistency with
the City's General Plan and the purposes of the mixed use zoning category.
2. Continue with direction to the staff to modify the prepared initial study to reflect the
modified request which is R-3-MU zoning, separated residential and office uses in the same
building at 963 Broad Street, and on-site parking beyond the existing on-site garage. The
applicants/appellants would also need to sign the modified mitigation agreement prior to the
matter being scheduled for City Council review.
This would be the alternative that the Council would select if a majority wished to uphold the
appeal, but did not support the CAD's recommendation to refer the matter back to the
Planning Commission. The Council cannot approve the W rezoning without having a
legally valid initial study on which to base their conclusions that the project will not result in
significant impacts on the environment.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution referring the rezoning back to the Planning Commission.
Attachment 2: Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the MU rezoning.
Attachment 3: Applicants' appeal form&letter received 1-21-98
Freeman-Godfrey Appeala;z. -97)
Page 4
Attachment 4 Revised site plan
Attachment 5`.. Planning Commission follow-up letter
Attachment 6: Draft 1-14-98 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 7' Planning Gomtnission Staff Report
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM R-3-11 TO R-
3-MU-H FOR PROPERTY AT 963 & 967 BROAD STREETS,
AND REFERRING THE REZONING REQUEST
BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF NEW INFORMATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August 13, 1997,
and January 14, 1998, and denied the amendment to change the zoning map from Medium-High
Density Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (R-3-H) to Medium-High
Density Residential with the Mixed Use and Historical Preservation overlay zones (R-3-MU-H)
for property located at 963 & 967 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
January 21, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties including the appellants, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. That this Council, after consideration of the revised project (R
38-97) including new project information, the appellants' statement and site plan, staff
recommendations and reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. New information received by the City since the appeal was filed warrants the review and
reconsideration of the Planning Commission prior to the City Council taking a final action on
the rezoning request.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied, and the rezoning request is referred
back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.
-s
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17'day of February, 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED:
ty o y Je ey . Jorgensen
Z-6
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FROM MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE HISTORICAL
PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONING (R-3-H)TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL WITH THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND MIXED USE
OVERLAY ZONINGS (R-3-MU-H),FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 963 & 967 BROAD STREET (R 38-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August 13, 1997,
and January 14, 1998, and denied the amendment to change the zoning map from Medium-High
Density Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay zone (R-3-H) to Medium-High
Density Residential with the Mixed Use and Historical Preservation overlay zones (R-3-MU-H)
for property located at 963 & 967 Broad Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on
January 21, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of the applicants/appellants, interested parties, the records of the Planning
Commission hearings nand action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the property should remain zoned Medium-High
Density Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay zone(R-3-H).
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Housing Element Program 3.3.2 which calls for no net housing loss in the
downtown area.
2. The proposed development of the site will not be compatible with surrounding land uses
because of parking concerns and adverse changes to neighborhood character.
z-7
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
3. There are sites available in existing office zones, or other zones that allow office uses,
where the applicants could establish their office use.
4. The applicants have not demonstrated how the goals of the Mixed Use overlay zone will
be successfully carried out with their project.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request to rezone the property located at 963 & 967 Broad
Street from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of . 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST: ,
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/Iy*
teLy�-
Jorgensen
N ••
s-
orsAnlu OBISPOlIII City
APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedures as authorized by.Title, 1, Chapter 1.20 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of
`� I Ginr1IL2, C din We-j. Jan . ILI L 1c1��
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting.the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.)
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
on
Name/Department (Date) f
Appellant: 9 13 load Ma r s h C���T
Name Itle 1 Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for .x/3/98 Date &Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s): ' RECEIVED
!l 7� JAN 2 1 1998
SLO CITY CLERK
Original in City Clerk's Office
4A77ACHMT
Monday, January 19, 1998
Pamela Ricci. A U T o Q U E 5 T
City of San Luis Obispo INFORMATION SERVICES. INC.
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: File No. R & ER 38-97
Dear Pamela,
You have requested that we write a letter to accompany our appeal of the City Planning Commission's
denial of our request to change the zoning at 963 Broad street to Mixed use.
As you know our intent was to reconstruct the destroyed house. We had planned on working there using
a home occupation permit, but during the planning process it was specifically identified that any
employees working on site would not be allowed by the City, and no variance to this would be granted to
us without a zoning change. Regardless of our personal living situation or work habits, the employee
issue is the primary reason for us to justify the reconstruction of this property. Additionally and equally as
important is the fact that this location is no longer suitable as a single family residence. The zoning on
the property is antiquated and needs to be revised due to constant traffic, noise, street closures, etc.
To justify the reconstruction costs,we need the ability for employees to work at this location, whether part-
time or full time. The value of a residential only use does not justify these costs and it is not what we
want. The current zoning makes multiple units the only feasible alternative for this property. We
committed to a Mills Act contract with the specific understanding that we would comply with its terms and
conditions if the city approved our zoning change. We were told verbally that"your Mills Act contract
would not be enforceable if your plans are not approved." We are still committed to this project if this
Mixed Use application is approved. If Mixed Use is not approved,we will regrettably will be unable to
proceed with this reconstruction. This would be another unfortunate loss for us and the people of San
Luis Obispo.
I did not believe in the concept or feasibility of a permanent wall to separate office use from residential
use for us in our own house. However, in light of the Planning Commission's input,the issues they must
resolve, and our continued desire to see this house be reconstructed,we will modify our plans to provide
this separation and delineation of the space to be used for office use. We will also submit our plans to
provide the maximum amount of parking on site that is possible given the historical and regulatory
considerations. These plans will be submitted immediately and prior to the City Councils meeting on this
application.
We respect and thank the efforts of the city staff on this project. We have now learned a great deal
about the regulations and the process required. We are unhappy with the process, its duration and the
countless regulations and conflicting policies that threaten to kill this project. We hope to take part in any
changes in the process or regulations to help future property owners who want to rebuild, restore or
develop their property in a positive way.
We therefore appeal the Planning Commissions denial of our request. Mixed Use and the reconstructed
house is the best alternative for the owners, the historical downtown, and the city in general.
Since ly,
eith o rey
Kathy Freeman Godfrey
PHONE 714/252.9710
FAX 714/252-9711
2495 DA VINCI
IRVINE. CA
9271 4 �_ /O
.v-.i o-R l .O-.G
.Qi'Ll l i19Ci
6 � -
o
e
u
� � o
u - • may" rc
�� ;
0 'a-
8
v �
0
E VN Lit%7
a
l✓l o—.it
diy
p — Y
.Qi'D l l 2096
Z
IS
W =
N �
ATTACHMENT 4 z _��
�►Il�llllll 111111 I�III�����;I���I Ill�lplllll I►►II III
city of sAn luis omspo
finiftm ids
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 16, 1998
Kathy Freeman r
Autoquest Info.
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
SUBJECT: R 38-97: 963 Broad Street
Dear Ms. Freeman:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 14, 1998, denied your request to allow a
zoning change from medium-high density residential (R-3-H)to add a mixed use combining district
(R-3-MU-H) that would allow residential and office use on this site. The decision is based on
findings listed in the attached resolution#5210-98.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a
decision of the Commission. The appeal period will expire on Monday, January 26, 1998 at 5:00
p.m.
If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. Whisenand
Development Review Manager
Attachment: Resolution 5210-98
cc: Autoquest Information Services Inc.
ATTACHMENT 5
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. a /7
�� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5210-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a
public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on January 14, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application R 38-97, Kathy
Freeman, Autoquest Info., applicant.
REZONING REQUEST REVIEWED:
R 38-97: Request to allow a zoning change from medium high density residential (R-3-H) to add
a mixed use combining district (R-3-MU-H) that would allow residential and office use on this
site.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
963 Broad Street
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium-High Density Residential with a Historical Overlay
PRESENT ZONING:
R-3-H
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies
made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has established existence of
the following circumstances:
I. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Housing Element Program 3.3.2 which calls for no net housing loss in the
downtown area.
Z—/3
Resolution No. 5210-97
R 38-97
Page 2
2. The proposed development of the site will not be compatible with surrounding land uses
because of parking concerns and adverse changes to neighborhood character.
3. There are sites available in existing office zones, or other zones that allow office uses,
where the applicants could establish their office use.
4. The applicants have not demonstrated how the goals of the Mixed Use overlay zone will
be successfully carried out with theirproject.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that R 38-97 be denied by the Planning Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ewan, Kourakis, Whittlesey and Ashbaugh
NOES: Commissioner Senn
REFRAIN: Commissioner Ready
ABSENT: Commissioner Jeffrey
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
M K\PCl52I0-9R
2-�y
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page I 1
4. Commission:
Chairman Senn distributed copies of a Letter he sent to Council as requested at the Jan. 14
hearing regarding the Commission's concerns relative to fraternities/sororities.
Assist. City Atty. Clemens described changes in the Brown Act and distributed copies of
a relative article.
Development Review Manager Whisenand reported the League of California Cities
conference has been set for March 5-7 in Long Beach. Interested Commissioners may
contact Mary Kopecky.
Commissioner Whittlesey notified staff of 7 ad in the New Times for a business/retail
establishment operating in a residential neighborhood.
2. 963 Broad Street: R 38-97: Request to allow a zoning change from medium-high
density residential (R-3-H) to add a mixed use combining district (R-3-MU-H) that would
allow residential and office use on this site; Kathy Freeman, Autoquest Info., applicants.
Commissioner Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denying the request
to rezone the property from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H,based on findings.
ATTACHMENT 6
z-�s
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page 12
Commissioner Ewan asked to see a drawing of the footprint of the existing structure as
opposed to the proposed expanded structure.
There were no further questions/comments and the public comment period was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Keith Godfrey, applicant, stated their intention is to rebuild the house. He noted that they
would like the ability to have an employee work on site and take issue with the
recommendation to require a separation between the residential and office uses in the
same building. They emphasized that a permanent separation between uses is not feasible
or desired. He indicated that they have submitted seven different parking alternatives, but
don't want to build a parking lot. He added that their entire business will not be located
here and that this would be similar to a home occupation situation. He explained tht they
travel frequently for business.
Kathy Godfrey, explained that requiring a separation between residential and office uses
in the building could affect the historical structure. She noted that the house was
originally built by a doctor who lived in the house and used the front room for his
practice.
Commissioner Ashbaugh felt that the City's request for office/residence delineation is
reasonable.
Mr. Godfrey stated there would be Uniform Building Code requirements to separate the
office and living areas and that parking was also an issue. He explained the layout of the
house on an overhead to the Commission.
Commissioner Kourakis asked the Godfreys if their goals could be accomplished under
the home occupation ordinance. She felt that the City needed to be reassured that a
residential use would remain if a mixed use was supported here.
Mr. Godfrey stated that they would like to have an employee on site and that their office
activities are minor and no signage is necessary.
Commissioner Kourakis stated there seems to be a concern regarding the long-term use of
this house as a residential use.
Development Review Manager Whisenand explained the prohibition against employees
in Home Occupation section of the Zoning Regulations(Section 17.08.090, C, 11).
12
?-16
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page 13
Commissioner Kourakis suggested retaining the current R-3 zoning with a home
occupation. She remembered a situation years back on San Luis Dr. where a contractor
was allowed to have employees come to pick up work orders. She explained that the City
needed to be assured the residential use will be firmly in place in the future.
Mr. Godfrey stated that they're trying to be straight forward regarding their use of the
location as an office. He noted that their office use doesn't create foot traffic and doesn't
require a sign.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that under the City's Home Occupation
Regulations no employees, other than residents of the home are allowed. He emphasized
that there are no exception provisions and a use variance would be contrary to state law.
For these reasons, a home occupation would not be appropriate for what the Godfreys
want to do.
Commissioner Whittlesey recalled the previous situation Commissioner Kourakis
refereed to and stated it involved a part-time employee showing up to distribute
paychecks. She noted that this other case differed in that the employee wasn't a
permanent employee that worked at the site all the time.
Mr. Godfrey noted that he did not believe that they would be able to meet the
requirements for the physical separation between the office and living areas.
Kathy Godfrey added they have two homes in San Luis and could not commit to 50%
split between the two homes.
Commissioner Whittlesey requested that the Godfreys describe the layout of the house
when it was used as a doctors office.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the Godfreys if there was an objection to having a
separation between the office and the residential uses in the house.
Mr. Godfrey replied yes. He indicated there was a problem structurally defining the areas
and that they were trying to be straight forward with their desires regarding their
proposed use of the house.
Chairman Senn asked Mr. Godfrey to describe the parking situation.
Ralph Peters, 730 Evans Rd., noted that he owns property in the Godfrey's neighborhood
and feels this should be kept as a residence. He thought that a full-time residential
presence was needed in the neighborhood.
13
2-/7
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page 14
Brett Cross, 1271 Mariners Cove, stated land use impacts and General Plan conformity
should be considered. He noted that zoning designations run with the property and not
with particular applicants. He cautioned against spot zoning. He cautioned that the
purpose and original intent of the mixed use ordinance was to allow a residential
component in commercial projects.
Charles Tilley, Mission Prep Principal, representing Mission Nativity School, is a
resident at 776 Palm St. He welcomed the Godfreys as a neighbor, but was concerned
with future uses if the property was sold. He stated that there are many school children in
the area and the neighborhood is impacted at nights by downtown activities and college
students.
Ken Schwartz, 201 Buena Vista, reviewed his letter included in the staff report. He
emphasized that this kind of application cannot be tailored for a specific applicant and
characterized the request as a spot zoning. He noted concerns for this property in the
future and hoped that the home could be restored for residential use.
Dorris Serpa, 391 Woodbridge, spoke in support of the Godfreys noting that they are
acting in good faith trying to restore the residence. She explained that her family
previously owned the house for 65 years and that the historical aspects will be met by the
Godfreys. She felt that they are sensitive to restoration of the house in keeping with its
historical style and character. She stated that the site was a difficult street for real uses
since it's so close to downtown.
Mary Serpa Bachino, 747 Mill St., also spoke in support of the Godfreys. She felt that
the project would not result in impacts to the City and expressed concern that the
Godfreys had been put on hold. She added that there are impacts on this neighborhood
already because it's so close to downtown and that the City should work with the
Godfreys to restore the home.
Commissioner Ashbaugh noted the City has been cooperative and responsive in working
with the Godfreys on their application.
Commissioner Whittlesey concurred and stated the City hasn't caused delays. She
emphasized that the Godfreys have had approvals since January 1997 and have chosen to
change their plans. She added that it has been the City's task to respond appropriately to
their changing request. She noted that the signage displayed during November and
December at the site asking for support and complaining of delays was offensive.
Chairman Senn had Ms. Bachino describe the history of the home and the doctor's
operations. She described some of the businesses that had historically operated in the
neighborhood.
14
Draft Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page 15
The public comment period was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ewan moved to recommend denial of the request to amend the zoning
map as ver staffs recommended findings on Page 7. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Ewan stated that the application before the Commission doesn't work and
did not respond to previous direction.
Commissioner Kourakis was concerned that the house would turn into an office use and
the residential use would not be preserved.
Commissioner Ashbaugh stated that he would support the motion. He commended the
Godfreys for being up front with the city on their proposal. He hoped that the
property/home would be rehabilitated quickly, but felt that the project as presented was
notconsistent with the goals of the mixed use zone.
Commissioner Whittlesey was concerned about future uses of the home and ntoed that
she could support the motion.
Chairman Senn stated that he cannot support the motion because he did not feel it was in
the best situation for the City. He believed that the Godfreys were making a commitment
to the property and the City will have a better project if their request was supported. He
noted that the character of the neighborhood has changed enough that it is no longer a
true residential location for a single-family home. He supported the mixed zoning at the
site and believed it gave the Commission broad discretion.
AYES: Commissioner Ewan, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and Ashbaugh
NOES: Chairman Senn
ABSTAIN: None
The motion passed 4-1-2. Commissioner Ready refrained from participation due to a
potential conflict of interest and Commissioner Jeffrey was absent.
Development Review Manager Whisenand explained the appeal process and options
available to the Godfreys.
ADJOURNMENT-j
15 42 -/f
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a 2
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PR MEETING DATE: January 14, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag4l�D
FILE NUMBER: R& ER 38-97
PROJECT ADDRESS: 963 & 967 Broad Street
SUBJECT: Request to amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H, for property
located on the southwest corner of Broad and Palm Streets.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to rezone the property from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H, based on findings.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
The structure located at 963 Broad Street, known as the Manderscheid House, is included
on the City's Master List of Historic Resources. On Saturday, November 16, 1996, the
historic house sustained major fire damage. Shortly thereafter, the house's owners, Kathy
Freeman Godfrey and Keith Godfrey, submitted plans to the City showing the restoration
and remodel of the house. These plans were ultimately approved by the Cultural Heritage
Committee on January 27, 1997, and the Architectural Review Commission on February
3, 1997.
On March 14, 1997, the applicants filed applications for a general plan amendment,
rezoning and environmental review, to enable the establishment of office uses at the site.
Based on input provided by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 13, 1997,
the original application request has been modified to ask for a mixed use overlay zoning
(MU) with the site's current R-3-H zoning. The Planning Commission reviews zoning
amendments and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action
on such requests. The evolution of the modified request is discussed further in the
Previous Review section of this report.
Data Summary
Applicants: Keith Godfrey &Kathy Freeman Godfrey
Existing Zoning: Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay zone (R-3-H)
ATTACHMENT 7
s-s o
Freeman-Godfrey l .ping (R 38-97)
Page 2
Proposed Zoning: Medium-High Density Residential with the Mixed Use and Historical
Preservation overlay zones (R-3-MU-H)
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was
recommended by the Development Review Manager on August 3, 1997. Final action on
the initial study will be taken by the City Council.
Project Action Deadline: Legislative actions not subject to processing deadlines.
Site Description
The level site contains 11,258 square feet and is developed with two dwellings: 967
Broad; a small, 2-bedr6om unit, and 963 Broad; the 3-bedroom main house. A one-car
garage is located just behind the property line along the Palm Street frontage. The main
house is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and has a historic ranking of"4",
indicating that it is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The site is located across Palm Street from the Mission College Preparatory School, and
across Broad Street from the Old Mission. In addition to the Mission, there are a number
of other historic buildings within a block of the site including: the Hays/Latimer Adobe
(642 Monterey); the Nichols House (664 Monterey); the County Museum (696
Monterey); and the Murray Adobe (747 Monterey). Mission Plaza and the retail core of
the downtown are in the near vicinity.
Previous Review
On August 13, 1997, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a request to
modify the land use designation and zoning for the property from Medium-High Density
Residential to categories that would allow offices on a 5-0-2 vote (Commr. Ready
refrained from participating because he owned property adjacent to this location, and
Commr. Ashbaugh was absent). The Commission continued the requests with direction
to submit specific information on proposed site development, including solutions to
meeting project parking requirements, and provision of a complete residential unit along
with offices in the main house at 963 Broad Street. Although concerned with the change
in land use in terns of general plan policies that encourage the retention of downtown
housing, the Commission was generally receptive to exploring an innovative mixed use
project at the site with restoration of the historic fire-damaged house.
Several neighbors spoke in favor of the request. One nearby property owner spoke
against the request categorizing the proposal as a spot zoning that would be detrimental to
the residential character of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission continued consideration of the current request from the
agendas of September 25, 1997, and October 8, 1997. The applicants had indicated that a
Freeman-Godfrey Rt- jing(R 38-97)
Page 3
revised project description, site plan and floor plans would be submitted to staff in time
for these agendas. However, the applicants' new information packet was not received
until November 25, 1997.
EVALUATION
Since the August 13, 1997 meeting where the project was discussed at length, Planning
staff has met with the applicants on several occasions. The purpose of the meetings was
for staff to provide direction to the applicants on ways that their proposal might be
modified to address the concerns of staff and the Commission. In response, the request
has been simplified to be a rezoning from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H and no longer involves a
general plan amendment. The subject site now involves only the corner property with the
fire-damaged house (963 Broad Street) and rental unit (967 Broad Street), and does not
include Mrs. Mello's property next door at 975 & 975 '/�Broad Street.
On November 5, 1997, staff sent the applicants' former representative a letter inquiring
about the status of the project and requesting specific information. The letter was
prepared after review of a preliminary development plan (attached) which showed how
some on-site parking might be developed. The letter suggested that the plan needed to
show how an independent residential unit would be maintained in the main house, and to
propose a more functional parking arrangement. Direction was provided to consider
eliminating the garage and to include landscaping and alternative paving materials to
create a functional and attractive driveway and parking area. Consistent with the
Planning Commission's previous direction, staff believed that options existed that would
allow restoration of the main house, along with mixed uses within it, and a reasonable
amount of functional on-site parking.
On November 25, 1997, the applicants submitted a packet of information describing the
range of alternatives they view as existing for the restoration of the house and further
development of the site. Staff does not view the options that the applicants can support as
being consistent with relevant City plans and policies, or the Commission's prior
direction. The following paragraphs react to the applicant's latest packet of information:
1. ARolicant's Option 1: Zone R-3-MU; Reconstruct Historic Residence with
Mixed Use with Variances (Parking, Setbacks)
Staff agrees with:
• the idea of utilizing the Mixed Use (MU) overlay zoning to accomplish the
applicant's goal of an office with residential use in the main house;
• development of some on-site parking;
• retention of the other residential unit on the site (967 Broad); and
• restoration of the historic house as previously approved by the ARC & CHC.
Freeman-Godfrey 1. _.ring(R 38-97)
Page 4
However, staff also has concerns with this alternative. The site plan attached to the
applicants' packet for this option is the same plan that staff had reviewed earlier and
made recommendations regarding changes in its 11-5-97 letter. Again staffs two main
objections to this option are:
• No real effort to create a viable residential unit in the main house;
Staff has repeatedly asked the applicants to provide a floor plan which clearly shows
areas that will be allocated for offices and the residential component within the main
house. This .is important to determining an appropriate project parking
requirement, and to evaluating whether general plan policies that call for no net loss
in housing are achieved with the proposed rezoning. Staff'feels that there are
available alternatives with the floor plan to create a small, but complete living unit,
consistent with previous Commission direction, and to provide the offices that the
applicant desires.
Based on information that has been provided to staff, it is not the applicants'
intention with this rezoning to make the house their primary residence. However, it
was staffs impression that the Commission was looking for a full-time residential
component to be provided along with the offices. Again staff believes that
Commission goals can be achieved at the site through the mixed use overlay zoning,
but the applicant's written statements and plans have not demonstrated how this will
be accomplished
• The parking layout is awkward and not functionaL
With a creative and functional parking plan, staff supports the idea of a possible
reduction in the required number of spaces and some minor relaxation of typical
standards. However, while creative, the proposed parking layout does not appear to
be feasible. The provision of a turnaround is a good solution to allow cars to exit
the site in a forward direction. The problem is that the layout, showing parallel
spaces with a narrow driveway in between, cannot work functionally with the
proximity to the southerly wall of the house, and parking spaces that have width and
length dimensions that are significantly less than City standards. The idea of the
garage drive-through is not only odd, but also provides further obstacles to
designing a reasonable parking layout.
A final comment on this option relates to the following statement made by the applicants
in their discussion:
"The existing legal, non-conforming variances for setbacks and parking must be
2'2 3
Freeman-Godfrey k. _,ting(R 38-97)
Page 5
retained to reconstruct the old house. "
Staff is confused as to what this statement is referring to. In conjunction with the plans
approved by the ARC for the house to be rebuilt, the Community Development Director
approved exceptions to allow the porch to be rebuilt with a 6-foot setback along Broad
Street, and the existing one-car garage to satisfy project parking requirements (see
attached letter dated January 28, 1997). Staff is not aware of any other variances that
were approved in the past at the site.
It is true that the existing buildings on the site are legally non-conforming in terms of
current setback and parking requirements-The approvals mentioned above were to restore
the fire-damaged house'and did not anticipate commercial uses or enhanced development.
While the City will honor the reduced Broad Street setback that was approved with ARC
plans if offices are eventually established within the house, there has not been a parking
variance approved for any other use at the site other than the residential use which existed
prior to the fire.
2. Applicant's Option 2: Reconstruct Historic Residence 4 Feet Closer to Palm;
Two Phases
This option differs from Option 1 in that it proposes to move the footprint for the historic
house four feet closer to Palm Street, and proposes redevelopment of the rear residential
unit(967 Broad) in a later phase. Staff would continue to have the same major concerns
that were outlined above with the discussion of Option 1. In addition, the relocation of
the main house would require the review and input by City staff,the ARC and the CHC.
Staff also questions how the added costs of moving the house makes restoration more
financially feasible for the applicants. Based on more recent telephone conversations
between the applicants and staff, it appears that it is the applicants intention with this
option to demolish and rebuild the structure using salvaged siding with a new footprint,
rather than actually restoring the existing structure at the new location. The information
provided on the proposal to demolish the rear house at 967 Broad is sketchy at best and
would require additional planning entitlements, including architectural and
environmental review.
3. Applicant's Options 3, 4 & 5: Demolish Existing Buildings; Construct New
Buildings
Throughout the review of various requests with the property since the fire, the
preservation of the existing historic house at 963 Broad has always emerged as the
neighborhood's, the ARC'S, the CHC's and the Planning Commission's principal goal.
Options 3, 4, & 5 all involve the demolition of the house and the redevelopment of the
site under various zoning categories. Staff does not support these options because of
2-2 V
Freeman-Godfrey R ping(R 38-97)
Page 6
their inherent inconsistencies with general plan policies, as well as the City historic
preservation programs.
Another important factor here is the applicants' commitment through the execution of a
Mills Act contract with the City to restore, maintain and preserve the house as shown on
plans previously approved by the ARC. Briefly the purpose of the Mills Act is to enable
cities to enter into contracts with property owners to restore and maintain important
historic resources. By entering into a contract, the property owner benefits through
reduced property taxes. The attached contract was signed by the owners and the Mayor
and was officially recorded with the County on October 9, 1997. Options 3-5 are not
possible without the cancellation of the Mills Act Contract. Cancellation of the contract
would be costly. There is a cancellation penalty of 12.5% of the full property value that
would be paid to the State Controller.
3. Applicant's Option 6: Rebuild House with Existing Zoning
About a year ago, the reconstruction of the fire-damaged house as a residence was
reviewed and approved by the ARC and CHC. At that time, staff was under the
impression that it was the desire of the applicants to restore the house and then move into
it themselves. Therefore, the delays that the applicants mention experiencing in
reconstructing the house were not imposed by the City, but rather are the result of
pursuing further changes to the house and zoning beyond those original approvals. While
the applicants indicate in their current statements that this option is no longer financially
feasible for them, there may be other potential property owners that are interested in
pursuing plans to restore and live in the main house. The attached letter from Sue Ellen
Davis supports this option.
4. Conclusion
Staff has attempted to work with the applicants to come up with a creative, mixed use
project consistent with Planning Commission direction. However, an impasse of sorts
has been reached since the applicants are now willing to only consider limited options.
Even the more limited Option 1., carried out in accordance with staffs recommendations,
may require some modifications to the recorded Mills Act contract by the City Council
given the limitations on site changes that may be construed to not being in keeping with
the site's historic character.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the request with findings that the
amendments can be found consistent with the General Plan.
Given the range of options that the applicants provided, staff was unclear what, if
Freeman-Godfrey R. sing(R 38-97)
Page 7
any, options would be found acceptable to the Commission. If the Commission is
inclined to support the requestfor MU zoning, then staffshould be directed to modem
the prepared initial study to reflect the Commission's preference. As previously
mentioned, the City Council makes the final environmental determination on the
project. The applicants will also need to sign the modified mitigation agreement
prior to the matter being scheduled for City Council review.
2. Continue review of the amendments with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Support for the MU overlay zoning will necessitate the processing of a future Planning
Commission use permit. Specific requirements from other departments would be
incorporated as conditions of use permit approval or architectural review with submittal
of project development plans if the rezoning is supported
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the denial of the request to amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-MU-
H,based on the following findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan, specifically Housing Element Program 3.3.2 which calls for no net housing
loss in the downtown area.
2. The proposed development of the site will not be compatible with surrounding
land uses because of parking concerns and adverse changes to neighborhood
character.
3. There are sites available in existing office zones, or other zones that allow office
uses, where the applicants could establish their office use.
.4. The applicants have not demonstrated how the goals of the Mixed Use overlay
zone will be successfully carried out with their project.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Mixed Use (MU)Zone, Chapter 17.55 of Zoning Regulations
Follow-up letter& 8-13-97 Planning Commission minutes
Letter from staff to applicants' representative requesting information dated 11-5-97
Parking Lot Plan
.7 6
Freeman-Godfrey ....ling(R 38-97)
Page 8
Applicants' revised statement received 11-25-97 including 6 options
Letters from various members of the public regarding project
ARC 4-97 action letter for 2-3-97 meeting
Letter from Arnold Jonas to Keith Godfrey regarding zoning exceptions dated 1-28-97
CHC action letter for 1-27-97 meeting
Mills Act contract
Mitigation Measures/Initial Study ER 38-97
1:lz=ing\R 38-97(Godfrey)
2��7
s ti
t Ay 1�
6VLifKAO
4/me7 O ��� - gyp,• ��ta
I.1Giffi � O°� ci�'o
1't
��♦, P9�o-` �gc �� �' ,�4G
tie
4
O ^ p
_������ � 3� H ��es
Ar
49y ,5rj\OTjlDfi
dv
^Foy
y�a'
~ tilrt � n 0.p
°• °li
4Ah
O 3
rm
O0 .r•� � "gw�rgr5� Y�� t�S
.yl•• �1S T prg5t�' � O
Am H
r 4 V�e ♦.�I�'�
Lo
PF
v o- TT�Yyy
A l�_G1SI1� 4�j0 Q
c�� � +1�' C�5�.S5t< . ��f' Or ob � c d4`•Sp
\�t• � r,�fi �!'" ° O apo yo b, �?
VICINITY MAP GP/R 38-97 NORTH
963 BROAD
z-�Q
C. Use permit approval by the Planning Commission
Chapter 17.55 is required prior to establishing any use within the
MU zone, except that this provision does not applyio
MIXED USE (MU) ZONE changes of use within an existing building. The uSe
permit requirement allows the Planning Commission
Sections: to determine proposed uses compliance with the MU
zone, compatibility with each other and their
17.55.010 Purpose surroundings, and consistency with the general plan.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
17.55.030 Property development standards 17.55.030 Property development standards
17.55.040 Mandatory findings
Property development standards shall be those of the
17.55.010 Purpose underlying zone. However, use-permit approval may
include. more provisions and standards to assure
The MU zone, in combination with any other zone, compatibility of uses and surroundings, or less
permits combining uses on a site which otherwise restrictive standards, to the extent allowed by
would not be allowed or required. use-permit approval in other sections of these
regulations, to make particular use combinations more
The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit feasible.
combining residential uses and commercial uses on a
single parcel, although any combination of uses may 17.55.040 Mandatory findings
be approved by the City. The MU zone is intended to
promote a compact city, to provide additional housing A. In granting a use permit pursuant to this chapter,
opportunities (including affordable housing the Planning Commission must make the following
opportunities), which is the first priority, and to findings:
reduce auto travel by providing services, jobs, and
housing in proximity. The City desires the safety (1) The projects mixed uses are consistent with the
provided by having residential components in general plan and are compatible with their
commercial areas. surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with ea
other.
17.55.020 Application and procedure
(2) The projects design protects the public health,
A. Application of the MU zone may be initiated by: safety, and welfare.
(1) The City Council or Planning Commission, to (3) The mixed uses provide greater public benefits
ensure that mixed residential and commercial uses than single-use development of the site. This finding
will be included when certain parcels are developed or must enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of
redeveloped; or workplaces and housing, automobile trip reduction,
provision of affordable housing, or other benefits
(2) An applicant, to obtain permission for a mix of consistent with the purpose of this chapter.
uses not otherwise allowed.
B. To require property development standards more
B. Each ordinance adopting an MU zone shall specify: restrictive than those of the underlying zone, the
Planning Commission must make one of the following
(1) The types of uses which are required or allowed findings:
to be combined;
(1) Site-specific property development standards are
(2) Any standards for the uses locations or their needed to protect all proposed uses of the site, in
relationships to each other; particular residential uses.
(3) Any issues specific to the site or the intended (2) Site-specific property development standards are
combination of uses which must be resolved by the needed to make the project consistent with the intent
design of the project. of these regulations.
74 z-�9
(3) The preponderance of the development proposed Chapter 17.56
for the site is of a type not normally permitted in the
underlying zone, so property development standards SPECIAL CONSIDERATION (S) ZONE
' for the zone where such development is normally
found are appropriate. Sections:
17.56.010 Purpose and application.
17.56.020 Allowed uses.
17.56.030 Property development standards.
17.56.040 Procedure - Subdivisions - Waiver of
use permit requirement when property
subject to subdivision map
application.
17.56.010 Purpose and application.
The S zone has two purposes:
A. In combination with any zone, to require approval
of an administrative use permit before any use may
be established. The use permit requirement is
intended to assure compatibility of the use with its
surroundings or conformance with the general plan,
or to determine if a proposed development solves
problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard,
airport hazard, or slope instability which are
particularly severe on a given site. Such developr►
review may also be used to protect areas of scen
ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland tire
hazard.
The ordinance adopting the S zone will specify the
considerations to be addressed, and the ordinance
number will be incorporated in the official zone map
designation:
B. In combination with any other zone, to require a
larger minimum parcel size than required by the
underlying zone. In such cases it will be designated
on the zone map as, for example, R-1-S-3, which
indicates a minimum parcel size of three acres. (Ord.
941 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(A))
17.56.020 Allowed uses.
Subject to approval of an administrative use permit,
any allowed or conditionally allowed use in the
underlying zone may be established. (Ord. 941 - 1
(part), 1982: prior code - 9203.17(B))
J
75 ?-3D
�Illli�ll�lllllll��lll���;��� �IIIIIIIIIIII
city ® sem l�,S OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.3249
August 19, 1997
Kathy Freeman
Autoquest Info
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: GP/R and E 38-97: 963 Broad Street
Ms. Freeman:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 13, 1997 continued your request to amend
the Land Use Element (LUE)map designation from Medium-High Density Residential to Office,
and amend the zoning map from R-3-H to C-C-H, for property located on the southwest comer of
Broad and Palm Streets, with direction to submit specific information on proposed site
development including solutions to meet project parking requirements and provision of a
complete residential unit along with offices in the main house at 963 Broad Street.
If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Ronald G. Whise d
Development Review Manager
cc: Dan Lloyd, EDA
Autoquest Information Services
/O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. ?/
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
Planning Commission iti.,nutes
August 13, 1997
Page 7
REFRAIN: Commissioner Jeffrey
ABSENT: Commissioner Ashbaugh
The motion carried 5-0.
3�
5. 963 Broad Street: GP/R and ER X97: Request to amend the General Plan Land
Use Element Map and zoning change from medium-density residential (R-3-H) to general
retail (C-C-H) and review of the environmental determination for the general plan
amendment and rezoning; Kathy Freeman, applicant.
Commissioner Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denial of the based
on findings.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if staff had any contact with Ms. Mellow.
Associate Planner Ricci stated Ms. Mellow had concerns about being able to continue to
rent her back unit and about the value of her property.
Chairman Senn asked staff to comment on the approach of using a P-D or M-U.
Associate Planner Ricci stated the C-C and O Zones are in a sense are mixed-use zones.
Staff has met with the applicants to discuss different strategies. There doesn't seem to be
one clear cut alternative that accomplishes everyone's goals.
Development Review Manager Whisenand noted staff's recommendation is based on GP
policies.
Associate Planner Ricci stated the staff report attempts to look beyond Policy 2.62 and
the commitment to preserving residential neighborhoods near downtown.
Commissioner Ewan asked if this area would be included in the downtown parking area if
it were converted to an office zone.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated that with office zoning, it would not be
able to take advantage of the C-C district parking regulations and in-lieu fees. They
would have to provide parking on site or apply for an exception.
There were no further questions/comments and the public hearing was opened.
�•3s
Plannin, CommissioL, Minutes
August 13, 1997
Page 8
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Lloyd, 1320 Nipomo Street, owners' representative, stated they intend to maintain
some residential use on the site. There's a two-bedroom apartment in the rear. They
wish to change the zoning to allow the continued residential use and allow an office use
in the front part of the site. The dilemma is the which zoning to use. This site has
physical constraints and a historic structure.
Mr. Lloyd displayed slides of the site/neighborhood and described the different zones in
the neighborhood. They could provide on-site parking for an office use but the historic
structure would have to be removed. They're not looking for a retail use. This section of
Broad is heavily trafficked. Everybody agrees it would desirable to maintain the historic
quality and to rebuild. The office space is intended for the owners. This isn't an island of
unlike zoning. They can help meet the goals of the GP by trying to provide some
residential use. Mr. Lloyd stated there are solutions. They want to maintain the
residential use and the historic aspect of the property.
Commissioner Ewan asked about parking and handicapped accessibility.
Mr. Lloyd stated handicapped access will be off the Broad Street frontage and is easily
provided. Regarding parking, there are two spaces in the garage, they could raze the two-
bedroom unit in back and build parking on site, they could buy in-lieu parking, or they
could ask for a variance.
Commissioner Kourakis stated the GP discusses no net loss in terms of residential.
Mr. Lloyd stated there are special circumstances surrounding this property. We've got to
look at all the goals.
Commissioner Ewan asked the square footage of the proposed building.
Mr.Lloyd replied 1,872 sq. ft. There would be two offices and a reception area.
Chairman Senn asked what kinds of businesses will be operated.
Mr. Lloyd replied two single-person businesses.
Commissioner Ewan asked if a use permit is needed in a home that's presently zoned
office.
Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. An office requires a use permit
and therefor triggers the requirement of use consistency with the GP.
Planning Commission i1k„mites
August 13, 1997
Page 9
Mr. Lloyd would like Commission input and would look for a continuance for more
study.
Keith Godfrey, property owner, wishes to rebuild the house as planned, work there, and
employ an assistant. He would like to preserve the residential quality of the house. Both
he and his wife operate businesses that mostly use computers/phones. There won't be
any foot traffic.
Commissioner Ewan asked Mr. Godfrey if he would live in the home.
Mr. Godfrey stated..it would be used for their overseas visitors. They purchased the
property with the intention of having a home occupation, but found out they couldn't
have an employee. He noted the back apartment is in poor condition.
Mrs. Godfrey concurred with her husband. The proposal will not negatively impact the
City.
Cathy Vargas, 642 Monterey Street, neighbor, has been watching this property since the
fire. She would like the house rebuilt. She feels the proposed use would not be harmful
in any way.
Victor Montgomery, 772 Mill Street, supports the proposed use. He would like the same
character to remain. He would like the required parking waived.
Mary Pagel, 669 Palm, supports the Godfreys, who have put a lot of time and resources
into preserving the structure. The fire occurred Nov. `96 and it's already Aug. The
residential characteristics should be preserved. The plans are complimentary to the
neighborhood.
Mary Pachino, former owner, supports the proposal. This project will be a
city/neighborhood enhancement. She commented there are plans for a structure nearby.
Ralph Peters, 756 Palm, stated spot rezoning breeds spot rezoning. The entire
neighborhood should be viewed. This neighborhood is a harmonious mix with many
features.
Ted Pagel, 669 Palm, encourages support for the Godfreys. He doesn't want to live with
the burned structure any longer.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, Chairman Senn closed the public comment
period.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Planning Commission Minutes
August 13, 1997
Page 10
Commissioner Ewan asked if the applicant would be amenable to maintaining the house
as their residence with an office component. He wants to create a situation that works for
the City and the Godfreys.
Mr. Godfrey stated this would not be their primary residence.
Chairman Senn stated some component of the structure could be maintained as
residential. An efficiency apartment could be maintained as one of the Godfrey's
residences.
Commissioner Ewan suggested a variance to the home occupation permit that would
allow secretarial help.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this would be contrary to State law.
Commissioner Ewan asked if an "S" Zone could be specified to have two residential
components; one in the smaller house in the back and a residential component in the
house that will be rebuilt.
Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this could be done with the Office
Zone, not the C-C Zone.
Commissioner Ewan would like to have no net residential loss with an office component
that would allow secretarial help. He would like a majority of the existing structure to be
rebuilt in residential.
Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned with no net loss. He couldn't support a
recommendation that simply retained the house in back as a residential component. He
cited Housing Element 1.31.1.
Mr. Godfrey noted their intention is to have a place to stay along with the office. There
will be a residential component.
Commissioner Jeffrey would be supportive of an O designation allowing maintaining
housing with no net loss with an S Overlay.
Commissioner Kourakis supports the no net loss policy. She has no problem with office
and residential on this lot. It is impossible to support C-C-H. There is potential in the O-
H.
Commissioner Whittlesey is concerned about this house being preserved. It has potential
for national historic registry and it is a significant structure. She doesn't have a problem
with office at the site as a home occupation, but is concerned about the activity level that
could be generated. She could not support any retail component.
� - 3�
Planning Commission i,..autes
August 13, 1997
Page 1 I
Chairman Senn would support an office use. He would want some type of
residential/efficiency unit component. He feels an M-U zoning designation would work.
He noted Commission comments are provided solely as input with no guarantees
whatsoever. Action will be taken if detailed plans are needed for further
comment/decision.
Mr. Godfrey stated a floor plan has been submitted and approved by Architectural
Review for a residence.
Mrs. Godfrey stated they don't want to orange anything. They just want the opportunity
to work at the location.
Mr. Lloyd summarized they would like to maintain a residential use in the white historic
structure that allows the future transition of ownership, maintains residential use and
allows an opportunity for an office. They will bring back floor plans and will discuss
with staff parking issues.
There was no Commission taken.
Mr. Godfrey thanked staff for all their help.
6. 1533 Phillips Land: GP/R and M4 Request to amend the General Plan Land
Use Element Map from low-density r sidential to offices, rezone from R-I to Office with
special considerations combining zo a (0-S), and review of environmental analysis for
plan amendment and rezone; Carolyn =1
applicant.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff re ort and recommended reviewing the initial
study of environmental impact, and if re ired findings can be made, recommend
continuance of the amendments with direct' n to submit a development plan and rezone
the property to Office with the Planned De elopment overlay Zone.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there are oncems with traffic entering the site on Phillips
as opposed to California.
Associate Planner Ricci said the disadvan ge of having access on Phillips is that there
are General Plan policies discouraging introduction of commercial traffic into
residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Ewan noted California is scheduled to be widened.
�-36
�Illlf II
. ® city of sAn tuiS'
OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
November 5, 1997
Dan Lloyd
Engineering Development Associates
1320 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
SUBJECT: Freeman Zone Change(GP/R 38-97); 963 Broad Street
Dear Dan:
Prior to the October 8' Planning Commission meeting that this item was last scheduled for, I
spoke to you about what additional information I needed to complete my assessment of the
project. Since the project has been inactive since that time, I am sending this letter to document
the following informational needs:
1. A revised project description that indicates the scope of the current proposal. This description
should confirm changes such as the elimination of the adjacent lot owned by Lucille Mello
from the request and the revised proposal for R-3-MU zoning.
2. A floor plan showing where the offices will be located and how a separated residential unit will
be maintained in the main house.
3. A revised parking arrangement that functions more reasonably. Staff would suggest that the
drive-through garage be eliminated.
4. A site plan at a larger scale so that the parking lot configuration can be adequately evaluated.
Once the requested information is received, the revised description and plans will be routed to
relevant departments. A hearing date will be established based on adequate time to re-route the
project and prepare necessary staff reports.
If you have any questions, please call me at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Toz /CC/
Pam Ricci,
Associate Planner
CC: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager
ItrVloyd(freeman rezoning)
FThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. 7- 37
I\ i�l TolognmmnniroKnne r)..;'n fn. fk� r).'f iuncI X04 �..n
MSS■C fOODO
NOTZ: too t•-e•
FOR EXISTRi6 PLATAOICK,LAN066APE, ♦e'-�• I,
PENC4".SIO!WALKS,CAMBS ANA bVTTERS b
RLfER TO 9MEET G7 C
a i � xAw'eeterO
b_ i �Tuaw.sO.+O
r
■
n
e
ri � A.A4y6 ri
u - -
u
f O• I ' I
7j,
•Y O
'J
o -
j REGONSETRYGTION -2, I I TC• 10-11-
--0•
6•o STRHLTVRC 2T-t:•
m .■ ■ e
tt•-s• I 0 tom• t-6 n
CIiD b
L
NOTE: F-VSTIN&
ALL ENISTINS LANOSGAPM6 SMALL GARAGE
o REMAIN OR REESTABIJSMEO TO MATC.N os+ve TMP:I
e x
1, Y
•• NSS■E tOODO •
PALM STREET
�IDA ENGINEERING MANDERSCHEID HOUSE
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES PARKING LOT PLAN
ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 NIPOMO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 JOB NO. 2-2072-000
November 20, 1997
Ronald G. Whisenand
City of San Luis Obispo Recc;ved ►►- 2 5-97
Development Review Manager
990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Subject: R and ER 38-97: 963 Broad Street
This letter is meant to summarize the status of our project, present our views as owners,
and to request your recommendation and the planning commission's approval for the
zoning amendment from R-3 to R-3MU (Medium-High-Density Residential Zone with
Mixed Use). The attachments will address the following in detail;
Summary Of Options For The Property -
1. Zone R-3MU, Reconstruct Historic Residence with Mixed Use, with existing
variances continued (Parking, Setbacks).
2. Zone R-3MU, Reconstruct Historic Residence, and add new rental units, two phases,
move residence 4' toward Palm St. to accommodate parking.
3. Zone R-3MU, New structures built in two phase project, eliminates historic residence.
4. Zone Office, Identical to Option#3 if R-3MU zoning is not possible
5. Zone R-3, Remove historic residence, construct new large apartment, no use for
owners.
6. Zone R-3, Reconstruct Single Family Residence only, not feasible for owners.
Attached Background Information
The owners objectives for this property,
Owners activities and proposed use description,
Project history to date,
Economic factors of reconstruction of historical structure and,
Site plan for options.
Our personal desire is to rebuild the charming old house that was destroyed by last year's
fire. City staff we have dealt with seem to share the same goal but have imposed criteria
that results in a project that does not meet our goals and goes beyond the flexibility of the
MU zone. We submit the enclosed proposal and site plans as our best attempt to achieve
our goals and comply with the conflicting city regulations and policies.
In conclusion, we are requesting approval of option #1 or #2 which will allow us to
reconstruct the fire-damaged house at 963 Broad Street as approved by the ARC and
Historical Society, with a mixed-use zoning that allows us live there and our employees
to work there with us. To accomplish this the city will need to continue to allow the
existing setback, parking and other variances to maintain the historical and architectural
look of the property.
Sincerely,
Ke' Go v
Kathy Freeman Godfrey
Page 1 of 9
-.3
1. Zone R 3MU, Reconstruct Historic Residence, existing variances continued.
Although not ideal for either the city or the owners, this is the quickest and most feasible
option for the property while maintaining most historical elements. The property would
be zoned R-3MU, and have 4 new parking spaces on site. The 963 house would be 1872
sq ft (approx). The 967 house would remain 675 sq ft. (approx). Having been
constructed in the 1800's the layout, location and use were substantially different than
today. To maintain all the historical features, look and feel of the original property and
comply with the current policies and regulations, has been very difficult to say the least.
The existing legal, non-conforming variances for setbacks and parking must be retained
to reconstruct the old house. The plans and drawings for this option have already been
approved by ARC and the Historical Society as a residence. Under this option the house
at 963 Broad St. will continue to be a residence, but the MU zone will allow a few
employees to work there. The 967 house will continue to be a residence.
The city regulations state that, "The NIU zone, in combination with any other zone,
permits combining uses on a site which otherwise would not be allowed or permitted."
And that "The primary purpose of the MU zone is to permit combining residential uses
and commercial uses on a single parcel, although any combination of uses may be
approved by the city." We believe that this project is precisely what the MU zoning was
established for, that is, to allow work and living areas to be in close proximity to
minimize auto travel and parking requirements.
As for permanent physical separation of uses, the entire building proposed has been
designed for Mixed Use as both a residence and office use. Flexibility and innovation
have been prominent in the design. No internal, permanent separation of spaces or uses
is possible, planned or considered. In the zoning regulation, the Mixed Use zone has no
provision for permanent physical separation of each use. The enforcement and or
maintenance of permanent separate spaces for separate uses over time in a Mixed Use
zone would also not be feasible for the city to police. There would be "no net loss" of
downtown residences under this option. However, staff is insisting that the spaces be
physically segregated and we feel this goes beyond city ordinance requirements.
We have undertaken quite a project to attempt to reconstruct the historical building that
was destroyed by fire in November 1996. The city staff and the Planning Commission
have talked about sharing this goal. We would like to actually complete this mission.
However, this option is not without compromises; by reconstructing the house in the
exact same location, parking options are severely limited. The anticipated construction'of
a garage under the 967 residence in the future to provide the additional parking would not
be possible. The space available after setbacks and back-up distance are not considered
sufficient. We have, therefore, proposed 4 spaces in the rear yard of the 963 house for
parking. Without relocation of the structures no other parking is possible on the site.
With this option we have proposed the existing garage to remain. It will be used during
the day as a drive through to the additional spaces, and at night as secure parking for the
residents. It also provides a separation from the street traffic and closure to the
parking/yard area.
Page 2 of 9 _�{d
2. Zone R-31AU, Reconstruct Historic Residence, two phase, move structure 4' for
parking.
This option is nearly identical to option #1 except that the 963 house will be relocated
approximately 4' closer to Palm Street. . The property would be zoned R-3MU and have
4 new parking spaces in phase I, 6 additional spaces in Phase H. The 963 house would be
1872 sq ft (approx). The reconstructed 967 house in Phase II would be 900 sq ft.
(approx) and have parking below the residences. The new 963 house setback to Palm
Street would be 20'. The Broad Street setback would remain the same as existing (6' to
the porch edge).
This move would provide enough space for the parking when the 967 house is
reconstructed and/or additional parking is required. This would be a two-phase project.
Phase 1 is to reconstruct the 963 house as planned and phase H to reconstruct the 967
house and provide additional parking below. Under this option, we can provide up to 4
parallel parking places now as shown in option#1, with the plans to provide up to 6 more
parking spaces when the 967 house is replaced with garage space provided. With both
phases completed this option solves the parking issues. This option may require the re-
approval of the Historical Society and ARC for the move of the structure, and
continuance of the existing 6' Broad Street porch setback
Option #2 is the best solution for the property if approved. It addresses the main issues
raised by the city and the owners thus far:
a. It will still have the Historical Society and ARC approved historical structure
reconstructed on site, subject to approval of the 4' relocation.
b. A minimum of site work, landscaping changes and archeology required.
c. The best short and long term parking solutions that increase parking on site.
d. Addresses the issues of the 967 residence in the future.
e. Gets the project back on a productive schedule in the most timely manner.
f. Satisfaction of the owner's objectives, short and long term.
g. Minimizes the variances and special considerations for approval of project.
3. Zone R 3MU,New structures built in two phase project, eliminates historical.
If options#1 and#2 to reconstruct the historical house and property are not possible, then
this option plans for new structures to be built on the property in two phases. The
property would be zoned R-3MU, and have 2 new residential units constructed with 4
parking spaces in Phase I and 6 more in Phase 11. Phase I is the new 963 structure and
would be similar in design to the original house but larger in square footage (2000+) and
with 2-3 parking spaces provided under the house. Phase II would be the 967 house and
it would also be similar in design but slightly larger in square footage and a 5 car garage
for parking below. Substantial site work, larger buildings and increased expenses would
be involved with this option. However, being all new construction without historical
factors, this option would comply with nearly all regulations, setbacks, parking and
policies etc.
4.Zone Office,Identical to Option#3 if R-3MU zoning is not possible
This option is identical to option #3 but would be zoned Office. This option would be
used if Mixed Use zoning is not possible for some reason (there have been no MU zones
utilized in this city to date). Since the new structures of Option #3 provide for enough
parking and other factors, the office zone would now be more feasible. This is the best
solution without MU, but requires a general plan amendment. If the Mixed Use is not
available then this is the only option that satisfies the owner's objectives.
Page 3 of 9 Z �!
5. Zone R-3,New large apartment structure, no use for owners.
A new large structure, with 4 - 6 units are allowable for the current R-3 zoning. There
would most likely be 4 units, probably 2+ bedrooms each, requiring 8-10 parking spaces.
This does not satisfy the objectives of the owners and would be implemented with the
intent of liquidating the property to a developer or investor so that we could find another
suitable location for our residence/business.
6. Zone R-3,Reconstruct Single Family Residence, not feasible for owners.
This option would have no new parking spaces. Use of the 963 as a single-family
residence for us is no longer viable due the high expenses and delays of rebuilding this
property and the fire causing us to commit to alternate housing. We are now unable to
sell the property as is, or fund the reconstruction to completion only to then have to sell
and find an alternate office/residence location. This property must be allowed to be
Mixed Use for the owners to finance any structure.
We had lived on the'property full time for five months prior to the fire. All parties
interested in acquiring the property thus far have been interested in redevelopment of
some kind. The Real Estate value for the property as a single family home is the lowest
of all options considered. The historical and new construction costs here now far exceed
the value of a downtown single family home. This option is not financially feasible or
desirable for the owners.
Page 4 of 9
;Z—y2
The owners objectives for this property-
The owner of this property is AutoQuest Information Services, Inc. Keith Godfrey
and Kathy Freeman Godfrey presently own 100% of the stock of the Corporation.
The corporation's original purpose in acquiring the property was for residential and home
office work space for Keith and Kathy, potential rental income, and real estate investment
for the corporation. This is still the primary objective. Keith and Kathy were utilizing
the building as a residence/home office at the time of the fire (11/16/96). There were no
long-term plans for employees working in the San Luis Obispo location at that time. The
corporation's headquarter offices were in Irvine, California, with locations in Century
City and Sebastopol, California. The present zoning of R-3 does not allow employees to
work on site. After the fire the corporation has leased office space and hired two
employees to work in that office. The corporation cannot now justify the expense of
reconstructing the building without the ability to use the premises as office space with
employees on site;'as well as residential use for Keith, Kathy, visitors, and tenants. An
R3-MLT or Office zoning would allow such use and justify the expense of rebuilding the
historical structure.
Page 5 of 9
Owners activities and.proposed use of the property-
AutoQuest Information Services, Inc. is a California corporation incorporated in June of
1992. Its primary business is organized into two divisions.
The first division is AutoQuest, a consulting, investment and data information services
company. Keith Godfrey is the President of AutoQuest and his primary activities are
business consulting and the executive management of the corporation and its investments.
His physical activities are phone, fax and computers used to conduct and transact this
business. Due to the high travel time and international nature of Keith's activities, his
hours of working vary 24-hours a day/ seven-days week. Some examples of Keith's
activities: He performs the duties of Chief Financial Officer for Critical Clean Solutions a
high technology parts cleaning business located in San Jose, California. He manages an
AutoQuest Joint Venture located in Sebastopol, California, that performs document data
extraction and information database development services. Keith is also the Managing
Director and a primary Stockholder -of Pacific Cleanroom Services, a Cleanroom
consumables distribution company located in Penang, Malaysia and Singapore. Keith
has little, if any, business conducted in San Luis Obispo.
The second division is The Kathy Freeman Company, which is an executive search
business focused on the Financial Markets. This business is done on a national scope
with no current or forecasted business from SLO. Kathy Freeman Godfrey is the
President of this company. Her activities are conducted via the telephone, computer and
fax.
Keith and Kathy's desire is to live and work in a downtown location in San Luis Obispo.
As a corporation, AutoQuest's primary interest is to provide them with the environment
they need to be successful. With the growth of the business in the past year it is now
clear that Keith and Kathy will require employees in their primary location to assist in
their personal and business matters. They would like to live at this primary location
during peak business times and then "get away" when the business permits it. They will
most likely have another home away from this primary location. We believe many
successful people in the business, technical and creative fields have similar
working/living styles, and that these types of people would be good citizens for San Luis
Obispo.
Page 6 of 9
s -y�
Project history to date-
05/30/96: Escrow closes on property, both units are occupied.
06/30/96: Tenant vacates 967 house
0711/96: Keith and Kathy move into 967 house.
08/30/96: Tenant vacates 963 house
09/01/96: Keith and Kathy move into 963 house
09/01/96: Tenant occupies 967 house
11/16/96: Fire destroys 963 house and damages 967 house
11/18/97: Met insurance person at site
11/19/97; KJG met Jeff Hook, discuss historical society agenda
11/30/96: First plans for reconstruction shown to city planning & building departments,
regulations discussed. Mixed Use zone discussed, city staff said it exists but
that none have ever been issued in the city. Office zoning would be required to
accomplish•all objectives. -
12/09/96: Met Jeff Hook with plans and again on 12/16/96
01/02/97: Met Archaeologist at site, letter drafted 01/08/97
01/28/97: Historical Society Meeting
02/03/97: The Architectural Review Committee and Historical Society approved plans
for the exterior look and construction that we intended to replace the residence
destroyed in the fire.
3/20/97: Full working drawings and engineering completed. Cost estimates are high
and exceed insurance coverage. Some use as office will be required.
March 97:Application/report prepared for a general plan amendment to allow office use
May-August '97: Waiting for city planning agenda One meeting cancelled.
08/18/97: City Planning Meeting Held, Planning commission supports idea, returned to
staff to work out details, direction for possible MU zoning.
Sept '97: Work with staff for solution, discuss and draft two site plan revisions, staff
cannot recommend support either. Staff site issues of Office/ Residence
separation and Parking.
October '97: Review of project, design best feasible alternative, and draft this letter.
Page 7 of 9 2 �'.�
Economics of reconstruction-
Economic factors involved in reconstruction of main house;
Cost factors: New foundation required
Historical requirements, architectural and matching existing
Archeology costs and time requirements
Parking requirements and relocation of structures
967 residence condition
City approval, costs and time required
Insurance proceeds won't cover all these costs
The original 963 Broad St. house was built in the 1800's and had no foundation.
Although structurally sound before the fire, both new construction code and bank
financing guidelines require all new concrete foundation.
Saving what remains of the structure is more expensive than total replacement due to
special demolition and removal/replacement of porch and fascia brickwork to comply
with foundation requirements. Total costs will be significantly more expensive than new
construction of a comparable residential unit. Costs of reconstruction to match existing
historical architectural elements and requirements of architectural and historical review
are also higher in comparison to new or remodel construction for comparable non historic
properties. With current and forecasted residential real estate values and bank financing
guidelines, these additional costs would not be economically feasible. Historical
designated structures carry little if any increase in market value over non-historically
designated structures.
Excavation for new foundation requires an archaeology phase I assessment. The initial
assessment has been completed. Further archaeological investigation is required as the
city has not accepted the initial Phase I as final. The ARC recommended a thorough
Archaeological Resources Inventory(ARI). In addition, they recommended a Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE). These recommendations are also not final
and, if required, are estimated to exceed $15,000. The exact cost and time requirements
are vague, and unpredictable based on the city's inability to give precise direction, time
or cost limits at this time.
If full compliance with parking regulations is required, both structures will need to be
relocated on the property. The main 963 house may require relocation of approximately
four feet to allow for legal turnaround space for parking requirements. Much of the
desirable landscaping and yard area that was so much a part of the original property
would be lost to parking. We believe our plans achieve the balance required for parking
and maintenance of the original property look and feel. Our use will require little if any
additional parking than fully occupied R-3 use of the original houses.
The 967 house, due to its age and condition, will ultimately need to be replaced.
Originally constructed as a barn or carriage house, the structure has no foundation and
has been altered numerous times in the past to its current configuration. Although in safe
and habitable condition at present, repair and maintenance costs are escalating. Some
remodel work is currently needed but any remodel is not feasible due to the structural
conditions. Replacement will also be difficult if set back, parking and related issues are
Page 8 of 9 Z��`
not dealt with, and permitted, prior to reconstruction of the 963 residence. The city's
policy of no net downtown residence loss has been sited as a driving policy in this
project. The future of both the 963 and 967 houses must be considered in evaluation of
the property. In February we prepared and discussed with the city staff a proposed site
plan with a proposed second project, at a later date. This plan would replace the 967
house with a similar looking structure that would provide residential units and parking
below.
Delays to date due to the difficulty in working out a solution with city regulations have
now cost, additional downtime and loss of use of the property ($2000 x 6 = $12,000),
numerous designs and planning costs (+$5000), consulting services required to guide
through process ($5000), and City fees for rezoning alternative (+$1800). This has also
required the owners to consider its long-term use of the property and its specific
considerations discussed here. Due to the many often-conflicting regulations, we cannot
now just replace the.house as is. We are now required by the city to solve and get
resolution on all issues now brought to our attention.
Total insurance proceeds will not cover the reconstruction costs. Our policy's total
insured value was $140,000. All estimates to build the ARC approved structure exceed
$220,000 not including site work, provision of additional parking, or the 967 house.
Insurance coverage was limited at purchase due to the age and condition of the house.
These are the main economic factors associated with this project. There are many other
details and costs associated with other options for the property. Our intention is to
rebuild the original house at a minimum cost for the quality of construction we wish to
achieve. Having completed and approved the design to replace the house, we would like
the maximum value of the project to be in the construction of the house not in delays,
fees and other unrelated expenses.
Page 9 of 9
ill::,�; 177a1G�nw Cos iaa..a mN •+.a� i.. '
�u,¢ 7 I 35(10N GI3N'X713G 1, aauraa 7vr 90 oa.ww� mw mvw3116 V
lu
lu
Q V W 11 2 rX S! y6 !e E� �1 Y ee� pgI f •3 °~ e° E. S t 6 3 p eB k
a t
W DC o zs IfEg?d � s Ali
sly
O �
ODD zY4FYYWE
c aS�F ak2
3 i
111 In OAC ■'M�■ , t '� t_t $ ° s' !
Ire 4J a a _ 33 6 [ ee{[[{ ■ 4�3 ff k
31ii L
Z O n r !!
�_� ejt
y 4q1a A eni Sp g e ; �p ; .
c mFSC �.I B9 net {551 E 1i x 3 � eft
W W 1 03 d {p ` it- Ym3l ti t
4 i i 3 i
i
�� �!� j
+����2�
Y/ C_ n .nmtlmc E f 0.rn. e a a e c I'j- im7AN :YF;m
aas..{rYI I I
:.Gig::.:• fl I i � � � m � ji
x
3
B
rJ y
bl
St� mf
Rat; .,...
OL
J
�§ O~e
�44 1 Boom am"V"a'; I ,'�Gui
ji
Kv id azlo
u�arnu ... ...
w �
Z
'p rj m
— � a
Q
w
W
�,
W m :2g EcE: e
V 11) OD FL N� Q V m�4 Him* = aE ���
Ace :7474* 1827 6.
W 0 z 1 3i 1
i l b
O � s ;
Z o � 11'
if
Full
N 3H
y � fill
Igo
!? yFli3YF� } 3 �a
IUM E
�L. g ff
"o d����la{�7€�2��tk`7_F�35g � � �� 3i;����F
a p ! t/ f 6i
6Eyi ESni i�tnj�.
bl ICE
0 A I ❑•
ij
o �
p \ 9 io
L
n D
$ n-
o i 2I
Hit
..ry1L
:v: 9 nl
D
a � ..
$�f
�
t L
z..i aaa.c avo,a d flu—
a.a
O
�-Y+p
iaanlc a.oaG ao. m..c m.� -
NOIIIMX1SNO^ r-
g[ m.,eowyaoa `,
35fION QI3N7a^M3QM 9iuilv=oM 'w'v+vwm NYU 7LS v
— N
O
OO }vim• _.
W ISMS
W IL v m Z ca "sill
h f i 4
Q a0 x74I4f o xraS ae&
N �- ofL ffj pj�
W itB ! , 7f� fl� i
O _ R flit ll a
V f3 $: SFg3ne� 5i$Ii 39 � jE3 i
W z o s,f �$ Z (t3'k a€a i� Jill 1i lj! `
t , if �t
: ; E
d k %c a 5 dF.t �L � {{ 5F, int } Fil�si {
•+• ��158 ° c i11 If$eF#tf�Ea�1��F8�E iiafill
Vill aillnF�i�n?��
I
.xu .wu
6
i
8
..
i:
II 3 aas
id
06
�.._ CO
`
J�
CL
0
r
o
tl
■
a¢ O
w
i
Q�=
2��O
is8lLafOtlG C9Y bgfKl�) 1e.0
d � �7 35nON OmFY76�131 aauvioM .„..+�..omm w N'V"W 3115
°Lm'oaw r..rwv
W
O
orj m
V W
2 1. j � � 1 S F D d Cq�p2� EeC
_ G $ (�
V In O m lJ
> ® z
N > m atl aII?tYf c a:RF n6&
Sk
Si { °8
3;.:S, In
�f;$���8sa�a€� ::
w Wr13
t y i
6Fa
N § $ ..I i. L all
<�tF� FwI
O_ :ww9eN o w o Y t wi iw <}w_w
=1
8
F
J
L
f
_I
7
POI L
POC
.. 0.21 ...C. O
.. 1mYlO O'/OIG
y O
Y
�S�
1G7iLLG GVOtl6^'� m+.a lural _� s—
d 1 N0119fILLL5N� m� AOS »ea.
e 6': 35fIOM m3N9Sa'12QN ORI"xa mv+wcwm ca .. NV•Id 2115 f
'+m'raru dmv
r o
QV
n�w
Ills
d n2w ! 4Cc 7yC
IU V m Z� Ill - E : Lie
1.0
a0 i74I44 = 79.71 aSS
EL
W
in O o ° a �€ E e a yak@ [ a �;gditI
¢ g r Z i ;a •
F�6 f; �sIa �j ;a ` ' � �a F txa Ir
C R dl
Fi It S Y.=g f1t�44 � � m� 1
W l!.' z i 1$4 z+9CPE U1 fill ' 3a
ael�5i
�- nmGmn o i • 'm_yw. n m e • ° Y� ��F�a�!°���9m;e�
.msu •.mw
I
1
-al j
a z 'pp• a
r� U i��
Js2 �
S( r
y
FBI
4
Cel 2g CD
p . �
m 2rImJC
laMLCTOYQ Z
m.
L3C11 . ' � 7 /i-
; I
'Sot.
11✓ct „ Svc �'��✓ .
"i_tair,this coa'tnent for
v, inure council meeting
L ��� a -,bops CA G13401j - Z3'-�� c;,7-1 7-g1?
Cati;it ag-erdzed
CovnwLP�QtvAi �nLi '
I a1 l� �2 t7�-� , w� ►'Y�Q�vw s +50Gi�v►t�c.�n� �J,�� i4.vuS �m,`�'� iLDmPlb
pl X10 P� Im S . =2 -5
CA q 31401 NOV 1
�U�- Cdw�u-�, �.y��� 5 �1� (.o0
cl ,vim c S4-
5
-5 j;IV'Azr 14— rh
s o
uji�Y1 A Zu�inG, c.l,u ✓�G 6�n �f�f `� T�1
vl� IO-S v�
4) vyr
Mk� r
r,,, 1 o.�•.r� l a��- NI r So��l� �e�( rb�-%. C ��.o �,� � L►
�2.�,ewe
_ o
Was
a, A.l�, boos
ll, V'�1 1Gli.lQ 4u C1�1(WL(Q�. h'1r��1e. In . Luke"
W6LS UY t SP� �►u�Ar'f s 6� � n� Ca4-A2 4v of t
I I I_ ,, ` � II � II 11 r
a 0 n o T J�l i-Qi�.- � J �Lkt n ` v, c Qn�r nu ays b�<-L
�-
at Ael< 01,E loc.. e°;- � 4,j
1 -r
i^��jt n tlGl;l C.�6�Gc G tC!T �'"f Tri Y1°, 04- `r" «j I� bck 6'i fV�, TV itfi-
0
ui�sty Cam, vvr �e Cu SQ �� Z o,-, �5 c
I;VI- ck. GZ �(PQ.l �Ou'�n `�iLU�� a v, [X pop(J—
C }�00 d 0 Sa V,-,fp, I,�. � ��n o�• Z
e
RECEIVED
OCT 08 1997
CITY Of SAN LUIS OBISPO San Luis Obispo, October 8, 1997
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners Re: Zone change request
John Ashbaugh, David JeSrey, John Ewan, 963 Broad Street
Janet Kourakis, Paul Ready, Charles Senn, and Mary Whittlesey
Dear Commissioners:
Pamela Ricci has just informed me that the hearing for the zone change request for 963 Broad
Street has been continued io a date uncertain because the applicants have faded to provide staff
with sufficient materials for your hearing originally scheduled for October 8. I had planned to be
present to present testimony. Pam has told me that the hearing will likely be held in early
November. Unfortunately, I shall be out of the country at that time,hence this letter.
My interest in this property is historical and dates back to my 1959 - 67 tenure on the Planning
Commission and my 1969 - 79 tenure as Mayor during which time the Mission Plaza was much
discussed and finally brought into being. Many citizens during those times visualized the
expansion of the "Plaza"to include the block from Broad to Nipomo from the creek to Monterey
and also portions of the block contained by Broad, Monterey,Nipomo and Palm this latter block
to contain an expanded Historical Museum and other cultural amenities including the preservation
of the Litcher Adobe and the Victorian Cottage which is the subject of the zone change request.
That expanded Plaza would necessitate the eventual closing of the internal streets; e.g. Broad
(both legs) and Monterey-these closings to be accomplished in phases.
As you know, one portion ofthe expanded Plaza was accomplished about ten years ago and land
has been purchased for a second expansion on the Monterey side of the creek between Broad and
Nipomo. I understand that plans are/or soon will be under way for the design and construction
phases of that portion of the Plaza expansion.
In preparation for your hearing, I respectfully ask you to review that portion of the "Downtown
Concept Plan" that details these expansion goals. As this plan has been adopted by the City
Council as a guide for development, it best represents community goals for an expanded Plaza. I
would call yourattention to: (1)the identification of the Victorian Cottage as a structure to be
preserved; and(2)the conversion of Monterey and the two Broad Street segments into pedestrian
ways(with permitted access by emergency and service vehicles), and(3)the expansion proposal
for the County Historical Museum Please review the recommended "City Projects and Related
Property Acquisitions"listed in the text on the reverse side of the document.
z- �s
Page 2: Planning Commission
These are my recommendations for your considered action:
1. Require the restoration of the structure to the satisfaction of the CHC and the ARC.
The original residence was a historical jewel;its partial destruction by fire was a real tragedy
not only for the owners but for the community.
2. Permit the zone change only if you are assured ofthe following:
a The primarly use of the property remains residential.
b. The zone change will not set a precedent for similar requests by adjacent properties.
The City in conjunction with the County Historical Society have an interest in the
acquisition of the property between this property and the Historical Museum -you should
not take an action which arbitrarily inflates the value of that adjacent property.
c. That access for parking required for residential and office uses must enter and exit the
property only from Palm Street.
No curb cuts presently exist on Broad Street and none should be permitted which
would defeat the planned closure of Broad Street at Palm. Recollect, if you will, that
Plaza Events presently close this section of Broad Street from Palm through to Broad
and Monterey- those types of uses should not be constrained by this rezoning.
d Match to the degree possible the landscape appearance of the rear yard-that facing Broad
Street.
e. Do not permit any subdivision of this parcel.
In conclusion, there is some merit in the idea of allowing an office use in a historical residence in
Pat it assures an income value that helps to sustain the residence in its historical character.
!Sincerely,
eth E. chwartz, FAIA-e
O1 Buena Vista
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
c: Pam Ricci, Planner
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Pierre Rademaker, Downtown Concept Plan Design Team Member
Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director
To: Planning Commission, City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Application GP/R & E.38-97
This project overreaches and asks too much. It wants to amend the General Plan and
it wants to modify the land use map. Also, this project is asking for a major change in
the zoning of the site.
The site of this project is the heart of the little neighborhood in back of the Mission. In
this neighborhood and within a few hundred feet of this site are located some very old
single family houses, a prep school with its modest athletic and playing fields, the
county historical museum, and the only direct entrance to the garden of the
Mission.This neighborhood is recognized and appreciated by almost everyone for its
longstanding balance, its quiet historical appeal, and charming mix of things. What is
important and special to this place is that it contains nn retail Within itse f yet it is at one
edge of downtown and a short walk to general retail.
The project does not fit the general plan and does not harmonize with the
neighborhood. If this site is developed under the current R3 zoning codes and giving
respect to the historical facts of the site, the neighborhood will remain essentially the
same. But if this site is rezoned to general retail it will surely bring about a series of
spot zoning applications, all with their own mitigating factors, and the neighborhood
will be no more.
Ralph A. Peters (1L,v C.i a)
643 "7&74
P.S. The mailed Notice of Planning Commission Hearing states "...zoning change
from med. density retail to gen. retail..." I believe the description "med. density retail" is
inaccurate. It is reasonable to conclude that other property owners may not properly
respond because of this inaccuracy.
Z-s7
DECEIVED
1FrANk AHb Doris Serpa AUG 2 S 1997
391 Woobbrlase CITY OF SAN LUIS 081SPo
SAN Luis Obispo.CA 9wi •OMMUNI YDEVELOPMEN'
August 21, 1997
SLO City Planning Commission
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Planning Commission:
I am writing regarding the little white house located at 963 Broad Street. I am a native of
San Luis Obispo and that residence was purchased by my parents in 1924. We originally
lived in the little red house and moved to the white house when I was about two years old.
My mother and father are deceased.
In June 1997,my sister, Mary Bachino,and I sold the property to Kathy and Keith
Godfrey. We were very pleased with the sale because the new owners were enchanted
with the charm of the old house and wanted to improve it for their needs, but also intended
to keep it looking essentially the same. Unfortunately, a fire destroyed most of the house
almost a year ago.
That house seems to be a favorite in town and people are always inquiring as to when it
will be rebuilt. Keith and Kathy have shown good faith in trying to restore it so that it
would meet the historical standards and be even more appealing on that corner. We would
appreciate anything the Planning Commission can do to allow reconstruction at the earliest
possible time.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Frank A. Serpa
cc: Kathy and Keith Godfrey
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
a- s0s
►►►�������u���i�i��►►IIIIIIIIIIIIIIID°°11'���ii I
II
city of sAn lues oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
February 7, 1997
Autoquest Information Systems
1368 March Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: ARC 4-97: 963 Broad Street
Dear Applicant:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of February 3, 1997, granted _
final approval to the project, with the following conditions:
1. A thorough Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed to
supplement the preliminary Phase I report prepared by Clay Singer dated 1-8-97
(primarily additional historical research). In addition, a Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) will be required for those areas of
the site where excavation is proposed.
2. The following building details shall be included in project working drawings to
return to staff for approval :
• All architectural details shall match existing details;
• The south porch supports shall be modified to match the front (Palm
Street) porch skirting;
• Porch railings shall match existing, as closely as possible (consistent
with code requirements; and
• The roof pitch of the new work shall match existing.
3. Building permit plans shall be forwarded to the CHC for "courtesy review"
prior to building permit.
4. If significant changes to site planting are proposed, then the applicant shall
submit a landscaping plan to Planning staff for review and approval.
n
INThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Talprnmmnnirptinne Ilnviro (nr rhn I�ro! rcnc+ 7a+.�.++n
ARC 4-97
Page 2
The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
days of the action. The appeal period will expire on February 13, 1997. An appeal may
be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission.
While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review
Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the
Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development
Director may grant a single one-year extension.
If you have questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely, -
Ronald senand
Development Review Manager
RW:mk
cc: Keith Godfrey
�Illl
II
city of sAn tuts omspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 28, 1997
Keith Godfrey
Auto Quest Information Services, Inc.
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Zoning Exception for Historic Structure(Manderscheid House);
963 Broad Street
Dear Mr. Godfrey:
I have reviewed your plans to rebuild a house that was recently severely damaged by a fire. The zoning
regulations would require that you provide a 10-foot street yard setback for the covered porch along
Broad Street and a total of two parking spaces for the main house. Therefore, you have requested
exceptions to allow the house to be built in its previous footprint as shown on plans (the porch has a 6-
foot setback), with the retention of the existing one-car garage to meet parking requirements.
Section 17.14.020 F.2. of the zoning regulations allows the Director to grant exceptions for proposed
improvements to structures that are included on the City's Master List of Historic Structures when the
Director detennines that the improvements promote the City's historic preservation goals. Based on
the circumstances, I hereby approve your requests, based on the following findings:
1. The exceptions are"reasonably necessary to further the City's historic preservation goals", as
listed in Council Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series) in the Historical Preservation Guidelines;
2. The proposed improvements will not pose hazards to public health, safety or general welfare of
persons working or residing in the vicinity; and
3. The design of the proposed improvements is consistent with the City's Historical Preservation
Guidelines.
S' cere ,
Arnold B. Jonas,
Community Development Director
I:\chctDhvaorc.,xvptiura -
Ltt The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 2_60/
` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
��������►�►►►i�►�i►�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIEh►►►�,��,���u� it
city of sAn tuis OBISPO
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 30, 1997
Auto Quest Information Systems
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -
SUBJECT: ARC 4-97: 963 Broad Street
Dear Applicant:
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of January 27, 1997, recommended that
the Architectural Review Commission approve the restoration of the fire-damaged
Manderscheid House, with the finding that the proposed restoration and building addition
will alter the historic architectural character of the existing house. The Committee
recommended that the following design changes be included to mitigate historic
preservation concerns:
1. All architectural details shall match existing details, to be approved by Cultural
Heritage Committee staff prior to building permit issuance..
2. The south porch supports shall be modified to match the front (Palm Street) porch
skirting.
3. Porch railings shall match existing, as closely as possible (consistent with code
requirements).
4. Building permit plans shall be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee for
"courtesy review" prior to building permit issuance.
5. The roof pitch of the new work shall match existing.
6. Landscaping and site features shall be restored to its historical character, to the extent
possible.
The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation and therefore is not
final. The matter has been scheduled for review by the Architectural Review
Commission on February 3, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room AB in the County
City Library.
(�/ The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 2-82
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf !8051 781-7410.
ARC 4-97
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact me at 781-7176 or Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
Je
ociate Planner
JH:mk
cc: Keith Godfrey
Z��3
Recirding Requested _
Doc No; 1991- 384 Rpt No: 00071772
City of San Luis Obispo Official Records ; RF -1 37 . 00
When recorded, mail to: San Luis Obispo Co.
Julie L. Rodewald ;
City Clerk Recorder ;
City of San Luis Obispo Oct 09, 1997 ;
990 Palm Street Time: 14:49 '
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ;
; TOTAL 37 .00
RESOLUTION NO. $721 (1997 Series)
APPROVING AN HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO)IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AND AUTOQUEST
INFORMATION SERVICES,INC.,A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,OWNER OF A
DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCE AT 963 BROAD STREET,
IN SAN LUIS OBISPO.
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code Section 50280 et seq.(Known as'the Mills Act")to enter into contracts with .
the owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics;and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 8589 (1996 Series),
establishing a pilot program to implement General Plan policies and to encourage the
preservation,restoration and maintenance of historic properties through the Mills Act Program;
and
WHEREAS, the owner possesses fee title in and to that certain qualified real property,
together with associated structures and improvements thereon, located-on Assessor's Parcel
Number 02-412-09, located at 963 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401, also
described as The Mandersheid House(Hereinafter referred to as the°historic property");and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this property
as an historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the City's
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines;and
WHEREAS, the City and owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this
agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that
character-defrnirig features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs
and/or improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California
Government Code,Chapter 1,Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5,Article 12,Sec.50280 et seq.,and
to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9,Sec.439 et.seg.of the Revenue
and Taxation Code.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City.of San suis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Historic Preservation Agreement approved. The City Council hereby approves
the attached historic preservation agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the owner.
SECTION 2. Mayor Authorized to Sign Agreement for City. The City Council hereby
authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Council Resolution No. 8721 (1997 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that this
historic preservation agreement is not a project,as defined by Section 15378 of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from environmental review.
SECTION 4. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty(20) days after the parties
execute and enter into said agreement,the City Clerk shall cause this agreement to be recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of Romero , seconded by. w; 11 iam.,; and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Council Members Romero, Williams, Roalman and Mayor Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Smith (not participating)
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 16th day of September , 1997.
"'�lew�
Mayor Allen K. Settle
A77EST.�;
onnig'Gaw. ity Jerk
+, OVED:
Jor ens Ci Attorney
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT
963 BROAD STREET, IN THE CITY,AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 10 day of 6e !1997,by.and
between the City of San Luis Obispo,a municipal corporation(hereinafter referred to as the
"City"),and Autoquest Information Services,Inc.,A California Corporation(hereinafter referred
to as "Owner"), and collectively referred to as the "parties."
Section 1. Description bf Preservation Measures. The Owner, his heirs or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at their expense, the preservation,maintenance and
improvement measures described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation, and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten(10)years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement's effective date, such initial term
will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280
through 50290 and in Section 3,below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
A. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement(hereinafter referred
to as "annual renewal date"), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this
agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as provided herein.
B. If the Owner or the City desires in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner or the
City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless
such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90)days prior to the annual
renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the
annual renewal date, one (1) year.shall automatically be added to the term of the
agreement as provided herein.
C. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior to
the annual renewal date,withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal.
D. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of nonrenewal in any year,
the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement,the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. Owner agrees to preserve,maintain, and, where necessary;restore or rehabilitate the
property and its character-defining features, including: the building's general
architectural form, style,materials, design, scale,proportions, organization of windows,
a,rc
Historic Property Agreement
Page 2
doors,and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral to the
building's historic character or significance; exterior materials,coatings, textures,details,
mass, roof line,porch and other aspects of the appearance of the building's exterior, as
described in Exhibit B,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his
designee.
B. If the building's.interior closely relates to the property's eligibility as a qualified historic
property,the Owner agrees to allow pre-arranged tours on a limited basis, to the approval
of the Community Development Director or his designee.
C. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City regulations
and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic
Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,namely the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for
Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character-
defining architectural features such as oak and mahogany details,pillars and arches,
special tilework or architectural ornamentation, to the greatest extent possible.
D. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes to
character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major landscaping
projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting, remodeling,
or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit. The Owner agrees to secure all
necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to commencing work.
E. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used for
property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
F. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic building or
accessory buildings; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards
listed above; dilapidated,deteriorating or unrepaired structures such as fences,roofs,
doors,walls,windows;outdoor storage of junk,trash, debris, appliances, or furniture
visible from a public way; or any device,decoration, structure or vegetation which is
unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature adversely affects, or is
visually incompatible with,the property's recognized historic character, significance and
design, as determined by the Community Development Director.
G. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior
and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County Assessor,the State
Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City,as
may be necessary to determine the owners' compliance with the terms and provisions of
this agreement
al- 67
Historic Property Agreement
Page 3
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to famish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
A. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in
Government Code Section 50285,may cancel this agreement if it determines that the
Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed the property
to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic
property; or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to preserve,maintain or
rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a
contract is canceled because of failure of the Owner to preserve,maintain, and
rehabilitate the historic property as specified above,the Owner shall pay a cancellation
fee to the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states
that the fee shall be 12 1/2%of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation
without regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement.
B. If the historic property is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines
that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreemertt shall be
canceled and no fee imposed, as specified in Govemment Code Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
A. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced
herein,the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of,the terms of the
agreement. In the event of a default,the City shall give written notice of violation to the
Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If
such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee within thirty(30)days thereafter; or if not corrected
within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default of said
breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty(30) days (provided that acts to cure
the breach or default may be commenced within thirty(30) days and shall thereafter be
diligently pursued to completion by the Owner);then the City may,without further
notice, declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action
necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out-0f the terms of
this agreement, apply to any court, state or federal,for injunctive relief against any
violation by the Owner, or apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
• 1
Historic Property Agreement
Page 4
B. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or
cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise
provided for in this agreement or in the City's regulations governing historic properties
are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this
agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this agreement shall be
deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.
C. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to
resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section S. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic property
located at 963 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California,to the covenants, reservations, and
restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific
intent that the covenants,reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed
covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors
and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument
hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any portion thereof, shall
conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered,-and accepted subject to the covenants,
reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement regardless of whether such covenants,
restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the
address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later
specified by the parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owner: Autoquest Information Services,Inc.
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Keith Godfrey
Section 10. General Provisions.
A. None of the terms,provisions,or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to create a
partnership between the partieg hereto and any of their heirs,successors or assigns,nor
shall such terms,provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or
members of any joint enterprise.
2-69
Historic Property Agreement
Page 5
B. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents,
and employees harmless from liability for damage, or from claims for damage for
personal injuries,including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from
the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from those of their contractor,
subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on the Owner's behalf which relates
to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owner
hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials,officers,
agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused
by, or alleged to have been cause by, reason of the owners' activities in connection with
the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result
of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City,its officers, agents or employees.
C. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered,or
alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred,by reason of the operations
referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied,or
approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the historic property.
D. All of the agreements,rights,covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this
agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their
heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring-any part or
portion of the historic property,whether by operation of law or in any manner
whatsoever.
E. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a
violation of any of the covenants,reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to
determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such
proceeding.may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition
to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
F. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable or
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation,
the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof,shall not
be affected thereby.
G. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended,in whole or in part,only by a
written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
2- 70
Historic Property Agreement
Page 6
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty(20) days after the parties execute and
enter into this agreement,the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no
cost to the Owner;however the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct
costs of executing,recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the city and owners have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
,AI Ien K. Settle,Mayo Date
OWNER
./a-Z-yam
Aut ques anon ee ices, nc. I5ate
QJ
Au qt&A Inf rmatiCoservi (s, Date
State of California
County of
On �%3c X7.7 before personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me onthe basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person whose name X is aY4 subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me thaRho/
/thy executed the same in( t*/tXir authorized
capacity(i�) , and that bytYir s' a ure ) on the instrument the person) ) or
the entity upon behalf of which the perso to , e'Vk- ument.
C.TIDY PILG
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Ccirr slog#109[390
Notcay,Pubic—Cagomb
Signature n 2 - MY blspoComy
�TX�IfdS Mar)).?fY1f1
CINDY PAG STATE OF CALIFORNIA
_
Commlalon#1091390 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i ss.
-i Notary Pubic—CditrA3 'y
Son Luk°bhpoCMyy On this 2nd day of October, 1997, before
MyCOfrmBq*esMat7'2000 me, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared Keith Godfrey
and Kathy Freeman-Godfrey, known to me to be the persons whose
names subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
they executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by
their signatures on the instrument the persons or the entity upon
behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument: .
T?TTTTFCC r .,r l• ne A nr,A . rr._ __ _, 2 -7/
Exhibit A
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
963 BROAD STREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA.
1. Owner shall preserve,maintain, and repair the historic building,including its character-
defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee,pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the
City of San.Luis Obispo for property located at 963 Broad Street. Character-defining
features shall include,but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers,trim,porches,walls and
siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades
and railings,foundations, and surface treatments.
2. Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this
contract, but in no case later than ten years from the date of recording the contract with the
County Recorder. All changes or repairs shall be consistent with the City's Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
Preservation Projects. Owner further agrees to:
a. Restore,maintain and preserve the house at 963 Broad Street as shown in approved .
City plans (ARC MI 4-97)and to maintain records to verify costs of preservation
repairs and restoration work;
b. Match original architectural details in restoration and repair work to the fire-damaged
building;
c. Replace original porch railings to match existing;
d. Repair/replace roof to match existing;
e. Submit final building permit plans to the City's Cultural Heritage Committee for a
"courtesy review"prior to the start of construction; and
f. Submit significant changes to site landscaping to the Community Development
Director for review and approval.
3. Property shall be maintained in accordance with Zoning Regulations,and with the City's
Property Maintenance Standards.
OWNER
Auto uesto do Services,Inc. bate
ins
Auto uest ormation Sen es, 164 Date
J'h/L.:mi11s=t 14.con
Z-7a
Exmn' B Ser. No. 0003-04R
HAGS HAER NIR
�� SHL Loc_
UTM: A 10/712440 3906460 B
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D
IDENTIFICATION pedrotta House
1. Common name:
2. Historic name: Manderscheid House
3. Street or rural address: 963 Broad Street
Cit% San Luis ObispoZip 93401 County San Luis Obispo
4. Parcel number: 02-412-09
5. Present Owner: Pedrotta, J.A. , et all. Address: 963 Broad Street
City San Luis Obispo. Zip 93401 Ownership is: Public Private X
6. Present Use: Residential Original use: Residential
DESCRIPTION
7a. Architectural style: Italianate
7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its
original condition:
This T-plan house has an entry on each of two porches. The larger porch
on the Palm. Street side appears to have been the original main entrance.
The door is offset on the left with three double hung windows. To the left
of the porchis a gable facing the street containing the bay window. All
windows are 2/2 double hung. The house is sheathed with shiplap siding.
On the Broad Street side the door is centered with a 2/2 window on each
side. The open porch extends from the roof eaves. Shutters adorn the
windows and Classic Revival columns support the porch roof with ginger-
bread trim. To the rear there is a separate garage/shed structure of
the same style, on this large landscaped corner lot.
8. Construction date:
Estimated 1890 Factual
9. Architect Unknown
10. Builder Unknown
=.r
_ 11. Approx. property size (in feet)
- Frontage 125' Depth 185'
"• V or approx. acreage
����(II���lllll�`tllf 1!11111! Illillllllllllllllllilll' ;;j;�� I�IIII;�IIIII�IIIIII 12. Date(s) of enclosed photograph(s)
December 1982
� 1
13. Condition: Excellent X Good Fair_ Deteriorated No longer in existence
14. Alterations:
15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) . Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up
Residential X Industrial Commercial Other:
16. Threatsto site: None known---!Private development_ Zoning_ Vandalism
Public Works project Other:
17. Is the structure: On its original site? YeS Moved? Unknown?
18. Related features:
SIGNIFICANCE
19. Briefly state historical and/or'architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.)
Built between 1886 and 1891 the house at 963 Broad is a somewhat
vernacular interpretation of Neo—Colonial architecture in San Luis
Obispo. The building defies any precise style and seems in part to
imitate the Italianate Villa in plan and styling from the T—cross gable
plan. Many similar looking residences built in San Luis Obispo in the
1880's housed railroad workers and their families. These worker residences
reflected the unprofessionally trained carpenter-designed folk building
traditions that have been loosely termed "railroad houses", not a true '
architectural category but rather a vernacular. building rendition. Although
the original residents have not been identified, it is known that Mrs.
Catherine Ranson, a widow, lived here in 1904. In 1914, the house was
occupied by Richard and Florence Manderscheid. He was a conductor on the
Pacific Coast Railroad.
Locational sketch map (draw and label site and
surrounding streets,roads,and prominent landmarks):
20. Main theme of the historic resource: (If more than one is NORTH
checked,number in order of importance.)
Architecture Arts& Leisure
Economic/Industrial—Exploration/Settlement
Government Military
Religion Social/Education
21. Sources (List books,documents,surveys,personal interviews
and their dates).
City Directory (1914)
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
(1886, 1891)
22. Date form prepared JUN 2 0 1983
. By (name) ITS stark RPc_ Rn ryey .Staff
Organization r^itle of Can Tmi c Nni c_nn
Address: Q_n_ ar,x 121
City — San Luis Obispo Zip 93401
Phone: (805) 541-1000
.•74/
��►��o�h��►n�ll�llililll!IiIIII I���►�'°°��►�I
II
city ® sem �s oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
August 5, 1997
Kathy Freeman
Autoquest Information Services
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
975
SUBJECT: ER 38-97: 963, 967,hand 9751h Broad Street
Dear Ms.Freeman:
On August 3, 1997, I reviewed your project's potential effect on the environment. I found that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures either incorporated into the
project or developed during our environmental analysis of your project. A Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact with Mitigation Measures will be prepared. A copy of the initial study,
which was the basis for my determination is attached for your review.
State law requires that the applicant agree to project mitigation measures prior to your project
being scheduled for action by a City decision making body. I have enclosed an Applicant
Acceptance of Mitigation Measures Agreement for your review and signature. The agreement
lists the recommended mitigation measures as well as provides a signature block to indicate your
acceptance. It is recommended that you sign and return the attached agreement as soon as
possible in order to avoid project processing delays.
If you have any questions,please contact my office at 781-7170 as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Ronald senand
Development Review Manager
Enclosure: Initial Study
Mitigation Agreement
Return Envelope
cc: Dan Lloyd, EDA
?-7.4f
If 1 1 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
T
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 38-97
963, 967, 975, 9751/2 Broad Street
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Autoquest Information Services on
the day of ' 1997. The following measures are included in the project to
mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it to the Community
Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: To find the requested amendments consistent with Land Use Policy 2.6.2,the
Planning Commission and City Council must find that there is evidence that
the findings listed in the policy can be met.
Monitoring The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the proposed
Program: amendments are consistent with the LUE policy by finding:
A. A significant, long-tern neighborhood or citywide need, which
outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity,will be met, and;
B. The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable
alternative exists.
2. Mitigation Measure: The project shall be modified to rezone the site O-S-H. The existing zoning
regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit when a
residence is converted into an office. However, the rezoning cannot be
conditioned to require the retention of on-site housing. With the AS@ overl,--
zone, the special consideration for the site can be documented to provi
direction with the review of the use permit that on-site housing needs to be
retained with the conversion of the historic house into an office.
Monitoring The Planning Commission and the City Council will consider the appropriate
Program: zoning category to be applied to the site through the public hearing process
where the subject project is considered.
3. Mitigation Measure: Through the required environmental review and architectural review
processes, specific site development plans shall be reviewed to evaluate
parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering and screening
between the project site and adjoining lots.
Monitoring Parking lot development and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and
Program: monitored during architectural review and building permit plan check.
4. Mitigation Measure: With any site changes to accommodate offices, a thorough Archaeological
Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed to supplement the preliminary
Phase I report prepared by Clay Singer dated 1-8-97 (primarily additional
historical research). in addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource
Evaluation (SAKE) will be required for those areas of the site where extensive
site disturbance or excavation are proposed.
Monitoring The required ARI and SARE must accompany specific development plans
Program: submitted for any future site projects that involve excavation.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above mitigation measures
are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of
the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applican,
agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released
�•76
ER 38-97
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2
for public review. This project will not be scheduled for public review and hearing until this
signed original is returned to the Community Development Department.
Ronald Whisenand, Kathy Freeman
Development Review Manager Autoquest Information Services
cc: Dan Lloyd, EDA -
LeA38-97.mit
2-77
III�°°1"iii II
(I
1A cit o san luis oBispoe
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY ER 38-97
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Freeman General Plan Amendment & Rezoning
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pam Ricci
(805) 781-7168
4. Project Location:
963, 967, 975, 9751/2 Broad Street, southwest corner of Broad and Palm
Streets
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Kathy Freeman
Autoquest Information Services
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-High Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-3-H; Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay zoning
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 7tf
V Telecommunications Device for the Deal (805) 781-7410.
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant proposes to modify the land use designation and zoning for the
property from Medium-High Density Residential to categories that would
allow offices. The specific proposal mentions amending the zoning of the
site from R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical
Preservation overlay zoning, to C-C-H, Central Commercial with the Historical
Preservation overlay zoning. The general plan amendment request is to
modify the Land Use Element map designation from Medium-High Density
Residential to Office.
9. Project Entitlements Requested-
Applications for environmental review and a general plan amendment and
rezoning have been filed to modify the relevant maps as discussed above.
10. Site Description:
The proposed rezoning site is composed of two separate level properties.
The site closest to the street intersection contains 11,258 square feet and is
developed with two dwellings: 967 Broad; a small, 2-bedroom unit, and 963
Broad; the 3-bedroom main house. A one-car garage is located just behind
the property line along the Palm Street frontage. The main house is on the
City's Master List of Historic Resources and has a historic ranking of "4",
indicating that it is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
The interior site contains 5,000 square feet and is developed with: 975
Broad Street, a house built in 1960, and 9751/2 Broad Street, a detached
apartment.
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The sites are located across Palm Street from the Mission College
Preparatory School, and across Broad Street from the Old Mission. In
addition to the Mission, there area number of other historic buildings within
a block of the site including: the Hays/Latimer Adobe (642 Monterey); the
Nichols House (664 Monterey); the County Museum (696 Monterey); and the
Murray Adobe (747 Monterey). Mission Plaza and the retail core of the
downtown are in the near vicinity.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
None
z
2-7f
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
X Population and Housing Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water X Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services
z;F�:•�-r':'r:a: =f„„'{=' :p N�k1�')`.��.3`y.4r�•='�:,-
.'..1;,i`tin.':��;_r-x;":'.;;i�!:1 ai.+j1��.F}Y�i.�T[:'rC•.
..:..- .UVJ...„ _ , �..< L_Sl:" •G:�.�:
Transportation and - f
Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an X
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
3 .��0
August 3, 1997
_§*_ig_rXfure Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the infotmation sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No
Impact" answer is.adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 112 X
b) .Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X
uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY
The applicant wants to modify the zoning and land use designation of the sites to allow the establishment o
commercial uses on the properties, specifically offices. The precise zoning category and land us
designation that are applied to the properties will be the result of a recommendation of the Plannin
Commission, and ultimately a decision of the City Council. The applicant has proposed amendments tha
would change the designations of the two subject properties from Medium-High Density Residential (Lan(
Use Element map) and R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation overlay
zoning (Zoning map), to Office (LUE map) and C-C-H, Central Commercial with the Historical Preservation
overlay zoning (Zoning map). However, the applicant's proposal will need to be modified to have a zonin
and land use designation that are consistent with one another. The C-C zoning would be appropriate witir
the General Retail land use designation and the O zoning with the Office land use designation. Either zonin
category selected would also have the "H", Historical Preservation overlay, zoning attached to it.
The following paragraphs discuss the consistency of the proposal to change the zoning and land use of the
site from the current residential categories to office categories with the General Plan:
Land Use Element
Section 2.6, Residential Land Protection, specifically Policy 2.6.2 says:
Policy 2.6.2 Boundary Adjustments The City may adjust land-use boundaries in a way that would
reduce land designated as residential, only if.
A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which outweighs the preference to
retain residential capacity, will be met, and;
B. The need is best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists.
Conclusion: In modifying the land use designation of the site from a residential category to office, the
proposal appears to be in conflict with this policy.
Analysis: This policy discourages amendments to reduce the amount of residentially-designated propertie
unless there is a significant public benefit to be achieved, and there is no comparable alternative site
available to accomplish project goals. The applicant's statement indicates that all of the buildings on the tw
sites will initially be retained for residential uses, except for a portion of the main house at 963 Broad
Street. While the proposed office zoning and land use allow residential uses, there is not a long-terrr
guarantee that existing residential uses would be retained at the site with approval of the requeste
amendments. It appears that Criterion B. above,"no comparable alternative", could not be met since othe-
properties existin the O and C-C zones which allow mixed residential and office uses.
5 244
Mitigation Measure:
To find the requested amendments consistent with Land Use Policy 2.6.2, the Planning Commission and
City Council must find that there is evidence that the findings listed in the policy can be met.
Section 3.3 Offices outlines the basic locational criteria for different types of office uses. Professional
office zones have generally been established on the periphery of the Central Business District. The rationale
behind this land use strategy is to locate offices near the governmental and retail center of downtown and
provide a transition between more intensive commercial development and residential neighborhoods.
Policy 3.3.2 B. specifically identifies the type of office appropriate on the periphery of downtown:
• All types of office activities are appropriate in the Office district which surrounds the downtown
commercial area, though offices needing very-large buildings or generating substantial traffic may not b
appropriate in the area which provides a transition to residential neighborhoods.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments can be found to be consistent with this policy, especially with the
retention of the fire-damaged historical building at 963 Broad. The size of the properties do not len
themselves to large-scale office development.
• Policy 3.3.4 Building Conservation Historic or architecturally significant buildings located in the Offic
districts should be conserved, not replaced.
Conclusion: The applicants have indicated that it is their intent to repair the existing house at 963 Broad
Street that was severely damaged by a fire so that it is restored faithfully to its historical context. If the
amendments are supported, then commitment to this restoration, rather than the construction of a navy
modern structure at the site, would be consistent with this policy.
Housing Element t
• Goal H 3.1.1: Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement o
current occupants.
• Policy H 3.2.2: Housing in Office, Commercial and Industrial Areas.The City shall discourage the
conversion or elimination of existing housing in office, commercial and industrial areas.
Conclusion: The proposed amendments to change the types of allowed uses at the site would be in conflict
with this policy. Although the Office zoning allows residential uses, there is no long-term commitment for
the retention of housing at the subject sites. See proposed mitigation measure at the end of this Housing
Element policy consistency section.
• Policy H 3.2.3. Rehabilitation of Older Dwellings. Since older dwellings can often be relocated and
refurbished for considerably less cost than for a comparable new dwelling, and since older dwelling
may offer spatial and material amenities unavailable in new dwellings, the City, in the interest of bot
economic and housing variety, will encourage rehabilitating such dwellings, rather than demolition.
• Policy H 3.2.6. Landmark and Historic Residential Buildings. The City shall preserve landmark and
historic residential buildings.
Conclusion: The house at 963 Broad Street is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources which
acknowledges its historical importance to the community. Historically known as the Manderscheid House
the structure sustained major fire damage on Saturday, November 16, 1996. Plans showing the
rehabilitation of the house along with a small addition to the front of the building were approved by the
6 Z-83
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on February 3, 1997. The plans approved by the ARC indicate
that the house would be retained for use as a residence.
The applicant indicates that the historic house will be rehabilitated in a manner consistent with the plan
approved by the ARC if permission is obtained to use it as offices. With faithful historic restoration of the
building, the proposed amendments would be partially consistent with the policy. However, the policies
seem to infer that the buildings would continue to be used residentially.
Program 3.3.2: No Net Housing Loss%Downtown. To maintain housing in residential/office portions of
Downtown, the City will consider adopting a "no net housing loss" policy, requiring that housing units
either be maintained, or, in the case of office conversion of existing housing, be replaced on site or nearby
"Downtown"means the area bounded by Highway 101, the railroad tracks, and High Street.
Conclusion: The project Js inconsistent with_this proposed program since there is not a long-term
commitment to preserve on-site housing.
Mitigation Measure:
The project shall be modified to rezone the site O-S-H. The existing zoning regulations require the
processing of an administrative use permit when a residence is converted into an office. However, the
rezoning cannot be conditioned to require the retention of on-site housing. With the"S" overlay zone, the
special consideration for the site can be documented to provide direction with the review of the use permi
that on-site housing needs to be retained with the conversion of the historic house into an office.
* Note: referenced goals and policies use the General Plan Digest numbering system and are different from
numbering in the individual element.
COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USES
The establishment of office uses at the site will change the character of the property because of the nee
for customer access and the requirement to provide on-site parking for both workers and customers. Give
the relatively small sizes of the properties, their proximity to existing residential uses, and their location neo
a busy street intersection, access and the layout of parking could be issues in terms of safety an
aesthetics.
Issues related to the physical changes that are necessary to convert the residential buildings on th
properties from residences to offices are discussed in the following sections of this initial study: Water, Ai
Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Noise, Aesthetics and Cultural Resources.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
Unless all existing buildings on both properties were demolished and a very large office building constructe
in their place, the project will not have a significant impact on local population projections.
The project will affect the amount of housing available in the City. With incorporation of the mitigatio
measure, suggested in Section 1 above to require retention of some long-term housing on-site, this impar
would be minimized.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
z-p4f
a) Fault rupture? 3 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 4 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 4 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 4 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? X
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? 5 X
There are no known faults on site or in the immediate vicinity. The site is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismical)
active region of California, and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of on-sit
structures. Any new or significantly remodeled structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code.
The site is shown on the Seismic Safety Element map as underlain with the Franciscan Formation, whit
has a very high potential for landslides. The site is fairly flat with no unique geologic or physical features.
soils engineering report specific to this site may be required with any application for future site
redevelopment.
Conclusion: Not significant. The project is amending City maps to change the allowed land uses at the site
no specific site development plans have been submitted. However, there are no known geological or soil
conditions that would make this site unsuitable for further development.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
aT Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
Development of required parking will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and decrease
the ability for surface drainage to percolate effectively into the soil. Through the review of the require
architectural review application, changes to drainage patterns can be adequately evaluated with the gradin
and landscaping plans.
5. AIR QUALFTY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 6 X
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
8 2 -9$
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? X
d) Create objectionable odors? X
The project size is below the minimum threshold for APCD's significance criteria. In concept, the projec
raises issues with the loss of housing on the fringe of downtown. However, if some on-site housing were
provided, the project could be found to be consistent with mixed use design strategies to reduce trips.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g.
compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. X
The project is amending City maps to change the allowed land uses at the site. No specific physica
changes to the site are proposed at this time. However, future site development as offices will likely raise
traffic issues with the development of on-site parking and the need to provide access to those spaces. Th
development of parking may require the removal of significant vegetation and the relocation or demolition o
existing buildings. The environmental review prepared for future development will need to evaluate thes
potential impacts.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, X
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? X
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? I X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? I X
The project is amending City maps to change the allowed land uses at the site. No specific physics
changes to the site are proposed at this time.
S. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region X
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, X
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? X
9 2 -9,46
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? X
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 7 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 7 X
Element?
The proposed land use change will not change ambient conditions, given the fact that offices and residentia
uses are considered equally in terms of noise level exposure standards. The development of required parkin
for offices on the site will result in increases in noise levels associated with cars using the site, mostly in
daytime hours. With appropriate attention to buffering any on-site parking lot from the adjacent residentia
property, this increase in noise levels could be insignificant.
Mitigation Measure:
Through the required environmental review and architectural review processes, specific site developmen
plans shall be reviewed to evaluate parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering an
screening between the project site and adjoining lots.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
aT Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
The project is amending City maps to change the allowed land uses at the site. No specific physics
changes to the site are proposed at this time. However, future site development as offices will likely raise
aesthetic issues with rehabilitation of the historically significant structure that was fire-damaged, an
demolitions of on-site buildings to accommodate further development and the need for the development o
on-site parking. The development of parking may require the removal of significant vegetation and the
relocation or demolition of existing buildings. The environmental review prepared for future developmen
will need to evaluate these potential impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
10 ?-97
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 8,9 X
c) Affect historical resources? 8,9 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
Given the project's location directly across from the Mission, there is the potential for any excavation at the
site to encounter historical or archaeological resources. For this reason, staff required the applicant t
submit a Phase 1 archaeological study with the architectural review of plans to rehabilitate the fire-damage
main house at 963 Broad Street (ARC 4-97). The referenced report by Clay Singer concludes that additiona
historical research should be done. Although specific site development is not currently proposed,
mitigation measure is recommended that the Phase 1 report be enhanced by this additional research and tha
a limited Phase 2 study also be conducted for-the area of the site where any site disturbance or new
footings would be necessary to accommodate future development plans.
Mitigation Measure:
With any site changes to accommodate offices, a thorough Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) shat
be completed to supplement the preliminary Phase I report prepared by Clay Singer dated 1-8-97 (primarily
additional historical research). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SAKE) will b
required for those areas of the site where extensive site disturbance or excavation are proposed.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory.
The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning and general plan amendment. Neither of these request
will result in any direct physical impact to the environment. As discussed above, the impacts of future
development of the project site were preliminarily assessed. Future development of the properties with
office uses is subject to California Environmental Quality Act requirements and will likely require further
environmental review.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
goals?
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
Policies contained in the City's General Plan favor retention of properties that are residentially zoned, rathe
than rezoning them for commercial uses. The Margaritaville Partners Rezoning approved by the City
Council in July of 1996 was a similar type of rezoning request from residential to office use. That request
was approved on the basis of retention of some residential uses on the converted property, the rehabilitatio
of an important historic resource, and the current location of the applicant's well-established law busines
on the adjacent property. The proposal was also able to expand an existing parking lot and utilize a
existing driveway access, rather than introducing additional traffic into a residential neighborhood.
The subject request, along with another similar land use change on the same review track (GP/R 46-97
1533 Phillips Lane) have the potential to set a precedent that will be viewed to be inconsistent with Genera
Plan goals and policies.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
The project is amending City maps to change the allowed land uses at the site. No specific physics
changes to the site are proposed at this time. However, future site development as offices will likely raise
various environmental issues as noted in this initial study. The environmental review prepared for futur
development will need to evaluate these potential impacts.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3
(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 295 (1988);Leonofff V.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element, April 1997.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element, September 1994.
3. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
4. Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Atlas.
6. County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August
1995.
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, Revised Hearing Draft, April 1996.
8. Preliminary Phase I report prepared by Clay Singer dated 1-8-97.
12 -y
9. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: To find the requested amendments consistent with Land Use Policy 2.6.2,
the Planning Commission and City Council must find that there is evidence
that the findings listed in the policy can be met.
Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission and City Council must determine that the
proposed amendments are consistent with the LUE policy by finding:
A. A significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need, which
outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met,
and;
B. The need.-is best met at the proposed location and no comparable
alternative exists.
2. Mitigation Measure: The project shall be modified to rezone the site O-S-H. The existing
zoning regulations require the processing of an administrative use permit
when a residence is converted into an office. However, the rezoning
cannot be conditioned to require the retention of on-site housing. With
the "S" overlay zone, the special consideration for the site can be
documented to provide direction with the review of the use permit that
on-site housing needs to be retained with the conversion of the historic
house into an office.
Monitoring Program: The Planning Commission and the City Council will consider the appropriate
zoning category to be applied to the site through the public hearing proces,
where the subject project is considered.
3. Mitigation Measure: Through the required environmental review and architectural review
processes, specific site development plans shall be reviewed to evaluate
parking lot development and landscaping plans for buffering and screening
between the project site and adjoining lots.
Monitoring Program: Parking lot development and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and
monitored during architectural review and building permit plan check.
4. Mitigation Measure: With any site changes to accommodate offices, a thorough Archaeological
Resources Inventory (ARI) shall be completed to supplement the
preliminary Phase I report prepared by Clay Singer dated 1-8-97 (primarily
additional historical research). In addition, a Subsurface Archaeological
Resource Evaluation (SAKE) will be required for those areas of the site
where extensive site disturbance or excavation are proposed.
Monitoring Program: The required ARI and SARE must accompany specific development plans
submitted for any future site projects that involve excavation.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the
above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review.
I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above.
Applicant Date
13 �+cO