HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, - ATTACHMENT C DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA/CORE '1
1
1
1
t
1
ATTACIP*Wr*T C
1 o Downtown Planning Area/Core
1
1
1
' Land Use
' Element
1
yY � 5x.�✓ O
•ii -r
xc..,��y.
fia7. 4 p'3"S �h5 �u Yank
R G}?
v
�� 5 � "�� Y 4Jy<p •'b59
Q
Y ARD
k F/
01
M
D �
oD " D
sr r x�
s �00D �
rl
1
' FIGURE 4
City Or DOWNTOWN PLANNING AREA
1 Sail LUIS omsp0 CORE
' w
1
' City of San Luis Obispo -General Plan Digest LU-43
t
1
ATTACHMENT D
' Residential Occupancy Standards
1
Chapter 17.20:
' RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY
STANDARDS
1 ,
Sections:
' 17.20.010 Group housing-Permitted upon
approval of use permit.
' 17.20.020 Group housing-Occupancy limits.
17.20.010 Group housing - Permitted upon
' approval of use permit.
Group housing (such as dormitory, rest home,
boardinghouse or fraternity)which is occupied by six or
t more individuals may be.permitted upon approval of
whatever type of use permit is required by the zone district
provisions. (Ori. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code -
9202.7(A))
17.20.020 Group housing -Occupancy
' limits.
Use permits for group housing shall stipulate a maximum
occupancy. For purposes of this section, residential care
' facilities will not be considered "group housing". The
occupancy limits shall reflect habitable space within
buildings and available parking and shall not exceed the
tfollowing standards based on the general plan:
TABLES: MAXIMUM POPULATION
' DENSITY FOR EACH ZONE
' Maximum Population Density
Zone
(persons per net acre)
1 R-1 21
R-2, 0, C-N, C-T 25
' R-3 40
R-4, C-R, C-C 55
' (Ord. 941 - 1(part), 1982: prior code- 9202.7(8))
1
tcrty of san lues oarspo 54 zonmG aequWtions
1
1
t
ATI,ACYP*ff 'T E
' Planning Staff Contradictions/Ambiguities
' 1994 Hostel applica& for 1292 Foothill
U 43-94
' 1292 Foothill Blvd.
Page 2
' * The third bedroom would be used for the manager;
* Six parking spaces would be provided at the rear;
' * The garage would be used for bicycle storage.
' phase 2: * An additional eight beds would be distributed between bedrooms 3 and 1;
* The garage would be converted to a manager's apartment;
' * The kitchen eating area would be expanded toward the rear;
' * Handicapped access would be provided at the new rear entry;
* Two additional parking spaces would be added;
' * A storage building for bicycles would be built in the rear.
EVALUATION
' 1. This is a first. The City Council added "hostels" to the use list (Table 9) in the zoning regulations
in June 1993, allowing them in the Medium-high-density (R-3) and High-density (R-4) residential
zones with approval of a Planning Commission use permit, as well as allowing them by right in the
' Central Commercial (C-C), Retail Commercial (C-R), and Tourist Commercial (C-T) zones. This
is the first application for a hostel since that change took effect.
' 2. Hostels are not motels. Hostels provide dormitory-style lodging at low cost, usually to foreign and
youthful travellers. Kitchens and bathrooms are shared. Typically, guests are required to follow
certain rules, including a prohibition of alcohol use and limited check-in and check-out times. There
' is usually (always in the case of hostels associated with Hostelling International) a supervising
manager on the premises, who assures that the rules are enforced. The attached "Hostel Customs",
developed by Hostelling International and submitted by the applicant, describes the operation in
tgreater detail.
To limit neighborhood conflicts, staff is recommending that the use permit include conditions
' prohibiting the use of alcohol, setting limits on hours, and requiring on-site supervision for all hours
the hostel is open.
' 3. Hostels are consistent with the general plan and zoning, and exempt from CEQA requirements.
The use is similar to a residential use, but less intense because of the restrictions on the use. The
Land Use Element says that "residential areas should be protected from encroachment by detrimental
' commercial, industrial or agricultural activities." Hostels are technically a commercial activity, but
are not considered "detrimental". The Planning Commission Draft Land Use Element says
"residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential activities which generally have been
' compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools, churches, and home businesses meeting
established criteria." Hostels appear to be consistent with these policies.
1
' 19954&el application for PhaSIO
at Foothill location
1
U 125-95
' 1292 Foothill Blvd.
Page 6
' * Alcohol and tobacco use is not permitted at the site.
* Bus schedules must be available for review by guests at all times.
' * Recycling containers, appropriately labelled, must be available to guests.
' 3. A manager must be on-site at all times the hostel is open, to supervise the guests and
' enforce the rules.
4. Secure parking for at least six bicycles shall be provided.
' 5. This approval allows a maximum occupancy of 20. Any increase in occupancy levels will
require approval of a new use permit.
' 6. At any time the Planning Commission may review the use permit if written complaints
from citizens or the Police Department are received by the Community Development
Department. At such review hearing, the Planning Commission may add, delete or
' modify conditions of approval or may revoke the use permit.
' 7. The site must be cleared of construction materials and debris prior to occupancy of the
moved building.
' Attached:
vicinity map
' site plan
staff sketch of alternative parking design
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM 11 2 '
BY: Judith Lautner,Wsociate Planner MEETING DATE: October 11, 1995
FROM: Ron Whisenan , Development Review Manage '
FILE NUMBER: U 125-95
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1292 Foothill Blvd. '
SUBJECT: Addition of a house to a site that contains a hostel, for the purpose of adding ten
additional beds to the hostel use. '
RECONINIENDATION
Approve the use permit, based on findings. ,
BACKGROUND '
Situation
On May 11, 1994, the Planning Commission approved a use permit to allow operation of a hostel '
at this address. The hostel opened for business on May 23, 1994. The hostel was approved as
a two-phase plan: phase 1 to contain eight beds, and phase 2 to increase to 16 beds. An '
increase to 16 beds would require certain additional code requirements be met, including
provision.of a stove hood and fire sprinklers. At this time, the occupancy is at ten, and these
additional requirements do not apply. '
The applicant now wants to move a house to the site and use it for 10 more beds, increasing the
total on the site to 20. Moving a house within the city requires approval of an Administrative '
Use Permit, and a change to the hostel use requires approval of an amendment to the original
Planning Commission Use Permit. Both of these requests can be considered as parts of one t
Planning Commission Use Permit.
Data Summary '
Address: 1492 Foothill Blvd.
Applicant/property owner: Elaine Simer '
Representative: Richard Schmidt
Zoning: Medium-High-Density Residential (R-3)
General Plan: Medium-High-Density Residential '
Environmental status: Categorically exempt: CEQA Section 15303, Class 3 (conversion
of small structure)
Project action deadline: January 18, 1996 '
Y '
1
' 1997 GW1 application for 1617&a Rosa `
' U 178-97
1617 Santa Rosa Street
' Page 2
Site description
' The flat site contains 7,300 square feet and is developed with a two-story residential structure and a
parking area in the rear. The house has been used for student housing since the late 1970s.The site
' is located in the Old Town area of the City and is near a small unnamed creek and the railroad
station.
' EVALUATION
' 1. General Plan&Zoning Consistency
The Land Use Element (UM) says "Residential areas should be separated or screened from
' incompatible, nonresidential activities, including most commercial and manufacturing
businesses..." (Section 22.2) and "Residential areas may accommodate limited nonresidential
activities which generally have been compatible, such as child day care, elementary schools,
' churches, and home businesses meeting established criteria". The hostel use is residential in
nature,especially as conditioned,and is therefore consistent with this policy.
' The City Council added hostels to the list of allowed uses in June 1993, allowing them with
approval of a Planning Commission Use Permit in the Medium-High-Density(R-3) and High-
Density(R-4)zones,and by right in the.Central Commercial(C-C),Retail Commercial(C-R),and
Tourist Commercial(C-T) zones. The first and only use permit for a hostel was granted to Ms.
Simer for the 1292 Foothill site in May 1994.
' The project site is zoned R-3-H,Medium-High-DensityResidential with the Historical Preservation
overlay. A hostel is an allowable use with the approval of a Planning Commission use permit
' There are no density standards for hostels,just as there are none for motels or hotels. The request
for 20 beds would thus be consistent with the zoning regulations. However, staff is proposing
conditions,as were imposed with the previous use permit approval, that limit occupancy of the
' hostel to 20 persons.
A neighbor has raised the concern that 20 beds may not relate to 20 persons,depending on the sizes
' of beds and preferred sleeping arrangements. Therefore,conditions of approval relate to occupancy
in persons to address this concern.
' 2. Hostels differ from hotels and motels.
' Some neighbors have called staff with concerns regarding the type of patrons that a hostel would
attract. Hostels cater to a low-budget clientele by providing dormitory-style lodging,where kitchen
and baths are shared. Most hostels have rules of conduct,including a prohibition of alcohol use and
' limited check-in and check-out times. A manager is always on the premises to enforce the rules.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO '
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT nEM a 2
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner Q{Z, MEETING DATE: February 11, 1998 1
FROM:Ron Whisenand,DevelopmentReview Manage
FILE NUMBER:U 178-97 '
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1617 Santa Rosa Street
SUBJECT: U 178-97-Planning Commission Use Permit to allow a hostel to be established in the '
R-3 zone on property located on the west side of Santa Rosa Street,between Islay and Leff Streets
(1617 Santa Rosa Street). '
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the use permit,based on findings,and subject to conditions. '
BACKGROUND '
Situation '
On May 11, 1994,the Planning Commission approved a use permit(U4. 3-94)to allow a hostel to
be operated at 1292 Foothill Boulevard. The hostel opened for business on May 23, 1994. The
hostel was originally approved with a two-phase plan that allowed an increase from eight beds to 16 '
beds. On October 11, 1995, a new use permit, U 125-95, was approved for the hostel which
allowed the addition of a second residential building at the site and an increase in the number of '
beds to 20.
Elaine Simer has now applied for a new Planning Commission use permit to allow the relocation of '
her hostel to 1617 Santa Rosa Street This is the current address of the Lamda Chi Alpha
Fraternity. The fraternity and the hostel have each applied for use permits to effectuate a"swap"of '
locations. Ms. Simer feels that the Santa Rosa Street location is a better one for her operation as it
is close to public transportation,the railroad station is one block away,and is within easy walking
distance to downtown. '
Data Summary
Address: 1617 Santa Rosa Street '
Applicant/Representative:Elaine Simer
Property Owner: Phi Sigma Zeta House Corporation '
Zoning. Medium-High-DensityResidential with the Historical Preservationoverlay(R 3-H)
General Plan: Medium-High-DensityResidential
Environmentalstatus: Categoricallyexempt:CEQA Section 15301,Class 1 (Existing Facilities). '
Project action deadline: March 19, 1998
191&aternity application folo92 Foothill
' U 174-97
' 1292 Foothill Blvd.
Page 3
' Fraternities and sororities should be located on the Cal Poly University campus.
Until that is possible, they should be concentrated on high-density residential
zones adjacent to campus rather than dispersed throughout the City.
' The site is in a R-3 zone. Typically, density, parking and traffic problems are greater in higher
density residential zones than in lower density residential areas. By the nature of the zone then,
' the potential for a fraternity to affect its neighbors is high. The benefit of locating the fraternity
at this site on Foothill Boulevard is that the surrounding neighborhood contains other fraternities
and sororities and is predominantly college-oriented (see attached map/index of fraternities and
' sororities).
' However, staff has received two letters from Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) and
Residents of the Alta Vista Area in opposition to the use permit. The Alta Vista letter cites a
concern for the creation of a Greek row in the area with some buildings and sites that are
' unsuitable for higher density uses. The letter goes on to highlight existing fraternities and the
issues related to their operations. The RQN letter states that the use permit should be denied
because: the site is not suitable for larger events; there is not adequate parking for a fraternity
' use; and the proximity of the site to established R-1 neighborhoods.
2. Occupancy Limits
' The zoning regulations set forth the limits for the number of people that may live in group
housing. In the R-3 zone, up to 40 persons per acre are allowed. For this site, the maximum
' occupancy is:
' 15,750/43,560 =0.36 acre; 0.36 x 40= 14.4
Therefore, a maximum of 14 persons may be permitted to live at this site. The request to allow
' 13 persons is consistent with this standard.
3. Parking
' The parking requirement for a fraternity is one space per 1.5 occupants or 1.5 space per bedroom,
whichever is greater. The requirement for this proposal is:
' 13 occupants/1.5 = 8.7 or 9 parking spaces
or
' 8 bedrooms x 1.5 = 12 parking spaces
The parking requirement for this project then would be 12 parking spaces. Plans show that 12
parking spaces are provided. However, the proposed layout does not fully comply with the
City's Parking & Driveway Standards. Doreen Case, a member of RQN and resident of the Alta
Vista neighborhood, correctly pointed out to staff' that the proposed spaces at the end of the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO '
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a 1 '
BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FK MEETING DATE: February 11, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review ManageO)
FILE NUMBER: U 174-97 `�� '
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1292 Foothill Boulevard
1
SUBJECT: U 174-97 - Planning Commission Use Permit.to establish a fraternity, and allow a
reduced street yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to accommodate on-site parking, for property '
located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Carpenter Street and Crandall Way, near
Cal Poly (1292 Foothill Blvd.).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the use permit,based on findings, and with conditions and code requirements. '
BACKGROUND
Situation. t
Fraternities and sororities are allowed uses in the R-3 and R-4 zones with the approval of a '
Planning Commission use permit. The Fraternity was originally granted a use permit by the
Planning Commission in 1980 to operate at 1617 Santa Rosa Street. The use permit was later '
amended and the updated conditions are in included in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1815-82.
The fraternity has now applied for a Planning Commission use permit to relocate its house to 1
1292 Foothill Boulevard. This site is currently used as a hostel. The applicant is proposing to
"swap" locations with the hostel which would move to the fraternity's current location at 1617 '
Santa Rosa Street. The request to relocate the hostel is on the same meeting agenda as Use
Permit U 178-97.
Data Summary '
Address: 1292 Foothill Boulevard '
Applicant: Lamda Chi Alpha
Property owner: Elaine Simer '
Representative: Kevin Hauber
Zoning: Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential '
Environmental status: Categorically exempt:CEQA Section 15301,Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
Project action deadline: March 16, 1998
t
1
1
1
1
1
t
ATTACIVMFM F
tPast Public Record of E. Simer, 1677 McCollum Street
1
1
���������i►�►►���II�II 11111 q���ii����iii
II
� city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
10/01/96
1
SIMER ELAINE
' 1292 FOOTHILL ST
SLO,CA 93405
' SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation
1677 MCCOLLUM
Dear Ms. Simer:
' On 10/01/96, Community Development Department staff visited
property you own at 1677 MCCOLLUM. Per our telephone conversation,
' you stated that a microwave had been added to the lower floor wet
bar.
Please be aware that the situation described above does not meet
' building/zoning ordinance regulations, and appears to violate San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections(s) :
' M.C. 17. 16. 010 Density
We request that you take action to comply with these ordinance
' requirement(s) by removing the cooking equipment from other than
the approved kitchen. Any appliance that is used for cooking is
prohibited in this area, unless or until, second dwelling unit
conditions are met and a permit is obtained.
1 Your property will be reinspected on or about 10/16/96 to determine
if further enforcement action is necessary.
' If you have questions, please call me at (805) 781-7186.
' since ,
' Rob Bry
Neighborhood Services Manager
1
y
1
1/S I The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
' # Ready for inspection: _
Date: M T �_ j Th F AM PM
' ISI►ll�lupllll��������ll►Ilul�lllll INSPECTION REQUEST
j m of on lies ompo
BUILDING&SAFETY DIVISION
Job Address 11-4/0 Suite
' Contact Phone G>�
T.Pole.......................El T-Bar Coiling............. Water Heater............El
' Foundations.............❑ Roof Diaph.Nail.......❑ Grading/Drainage....❑
Slab Pre-saturation..❑ Sheer Wall Nall......... Parking Lot...............❑
Slab Steel .................[I DWVTest.................. Water Service...........❑
' Wall Steel/Block....._❑ E,d.Lath/Stucco ......❑ Sewerlateral...........❑
Floor Framing........... Insulation..................C1 Elect.Meter..............
Rough Mechanical ..❑ Dry Wall Nail.............C3 Bluecard....................
' Rough Plumbing...... Shower Pan/L.ath.....❑ Pre-final.....................❑
Rough Electric..........❑ Gas Line Test...........❑ Final Approval..........C1
' Framing....................❑ Fireplace/Stove........C1 Reinspection ............El
COMMENTS: i :.'1 1 `r- C. .f-ii Xr1j1. y�
1 se-o,
1
1
1
t
' NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 McCollum Page 1
' 07-13-92 1640 Complainant 12 came to the CDD to report "improper
accomodations" at a "hostel" located at 1677 McCollum. R. Bryn
interviewed the complainant and obtained the following information.
tThe complainant stated that they checked into the "hostel" on 06-
18-92 and stayed until 06-23-92, after making reservations from a
' guide book. The complainant stated the operators name was "Elaine
Simer" . At the time, the complainant thought that there were
inappropriate conditions on site because the "hostel" was not run
in a "normal" manner, citing an example of guests sleeping on the
' floor in the downstairs cooking area.
The complainant produced a copy of a hostel guide, called
' "Hostelling . in North America, published by American Youth Hostels,
and turned to page 148 . Under San Luis Obispo, two Home Hostels
were noted, one being the Simer Family Home Hostel at 1677 McCollum
t St. . The complainant also produced a one page handout identifying
the same location as "The Wildflower Hostel" with Simer Family
Hostel in parenthesis, using the McCollum address. Copies of the
guide and handout are attached.
' 07-14-92 0830 Karen Adler, 1676 Fredericks, 543-7213 called in
regards to the posting of 1677 McCollum. The posting was a standard
' Notice of Public Hearing on a varience request by E. Simer, related
to the original garage conversion complaint. K. Adler's home backs
up to the rear yard of 1677 McCollum.
' K. Adler was concerned about a "rat" she saw coming from the
direction of her back fence and believed it may have been feeding
on food for five chickens kept at the McCollum address. K. Adler
t was referred to the Co. Health Dept. for direction. The number of
chickens is within ordinance requirements.
' 07-31-92 1545 A telephone call was placed to the Simer Family Home
Hostel at 543-0599 by CDD employee Barbara Ehrbar. The call was
made on a speaker cellular telephone and was monitored by R. Bryn.
The following is a summary of the conversation;
tAnswer: Hello (Female, age approx. 18-30)
' CDD: Is this the Simer's Youth Hostel?
Answer: Yes it is.
' CDD: May I make a reservation?
Answer: Sure, and the name?
' CDD: Anthony, it would be for two people, husband and wife, on
Monday the third (08-03-92) in the afternoon.
' NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 McCollum Page 2
07-31-92 1545 Cont'd:
' Answer: OK.
CDD: Can you tell me how to get there?
Answer: Yes, where are you coming from?
' CDD: Ventura.
Answer: It's off Grand near Cal Poly. You go left on Grand four
' blocks, left on McCollum, and we are at 1677, the
second house on the left.
' CDD: Is there a separate kitchen or do we have to eat with
the family?
Answer: Uhhh. . I don't understand.
' CDD: Is there a separate kitchen?
' Answer: We have ours, it's separate.
CDD: OIC, we will see you on Monday.
' Answer: Thank you, good-bye.
The call was terminated with investigation pending.
' 08-03-92 1530 Contact attempted at 1677 McCollum. There was no
answer at the front door of the residence, however a sign was
' sitting on the concrete porch which read " The Hostel is on the
left side of the house. Please come in and be at home. Someone will
be here soon to check you in. Elaine Simer".
' The house is a conventional ranch style two story residence that
faces McCollum St. . To the left of the two door garage is a path
of bricks, that leads to a back fence and a side door to the lower
' portion of the house. A bench has been constructed outside the door
across the brick path.
' There was no answer at the side door. The blinds on the window
next to the door were open, revealing a room with two beds and a
kitchen, with refrigerator, sink and an unknown type of appliance
on the drain board. Several hand lettered signs were visible, that
' advertised soft drinks and instructed travelers to use their own
pillow case and cover sheets.
Photographs of the sign and pathway were taken.
' 08-03-92 1700 Contact was again attempted at 1677 McCollum, with
no answer at the front or "Hostel" side door. At approx. 1707 hrs
a WFA approx. 35-40, 5-7, 130, bind shoulder length hair, arrived
on a bicycle from the direction of Grand Ave. . A short conversation
NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 McCollum Page 3
t08-03-92 1700 Cont'd.
about a newspaper began, with the WFA identifying herself as
' "Elaine". R. Bryn stated he was the "Anthony" that had called for
a reservation. "Elaine" opened the unlocked side door and entered
with R. Bryn, to complete the registration. R. Bryn was instructed
to fill in the "Hostel book", and gave "Elaine" a ten dollar bill
' (US G41554857A) for advance payment. R. Bryn used the name "Wm.
Anthony" and a fictitious address in San Francisco. R. Bryn asked
' for and was given a receipt that "Elaine" wrote on a piece of
binder paper kept on a clipboard on the kitchen table. "Elaine"
also gave a brief tour of the lower portion of the residence
revealing additional sleeping space, with bunk beds and a larger
' room with a bed on the floor with a door leading to the rear yard.
R. Bryn recognized the smaller corner room behind the garage door
as the room marked "den" on the code correction plans submitted by
' E. Simer. The den contained at least one set of bunk beds. The den
was not cleared for occupancy and was specifically restricted from
use in a letter to E. Simer on 06-08-92 . "Elaine" stated "you can
' use any room you like".
The tour concluded at approx. 1715. R. Bryn left the residence,
returning to the office at 1720.
t08-06-92 1540 Telephone contact was made with Elaine Simer, 543-
0599 and an appointment made for 08-11-92 1215 at CDD to discuss
' occupancy issues.
SEE PAGE 4
1
1
' NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 MCCOLLUM Page 4
08-11-92 1226 E. Simer arrived at the Community Development Dept.
' and was escorted to R. Bryn's office by Chief Building Official T.
Baasch, who remained during the meeting.
R. Bryn introduced himself and recognized E. Simer as the same
"Elaine" that completed the check-in procedures for lodging,
accepted money and issued a receipt for temporary accommodations
at 1677 McCollum on 08-03-92.
1 R. Bryn started the meeting by asking E. Simer if she recognized
him. After a pause, E. Simer said "you came in the other night"
referring to the events of 08-03-92 . E. Simer was advised that the
' operation of the "Hostel" was a misdemeanor and that prosecution
was possible. E. Simer then stated "Let me save you some time and
' 00 60
t your questions. " and .freely admitted to operating the hostel in the
converted garage. E. Simer further stated she was aware the
operation was against the law but that "Some regulations are
followed and some aren't. "
' E. Simer said the hostel had been operating since approx. July 1991
and averaged 3 guests a week. The main house above the garage is
' not usually available to guests, however on occasion E. Simer
allows guests to use the main kitchen. E. Simer did confirm there
were separate cooking facilities in the converted garage (hot
' plate, sink, refrigerator) and that soft drinks and granola bars
are sold. During part of the conversation, E. Simer stated the
hostel operation "supplemented" her income and later "I justify the
legality because it's (hostel) non-profit" . When confronted with
' the contradiction, E. Simer said she only made $. 02 on the food
items to make up her handling costs.
' E. Simer defined a hostel as "Temporary lodging, primarily for
foreign travelers. " E. Simer went on to confirm she was a member
of the American Youth Hostels organization and was aware of the
listings in the various publications advertising the "Simer Family
' Hostel" or "The Wildflower Hostel" . The Wildflower Hostel name
refers to the 1677 McCollum location and was described as a "theme"
name for the business.
' R. Bryn asked E. Simer if the term "Hostel" would also fit the
definition; "Provide accomodations with or without kitchens,
' primarily for the traveling public" . E. Simer replied "Right" .
The wording used is the same as appears in the definition section
under MC 17.04 .240 Hotel/Motel.
' R. Bryn produced the written receipt for "one nights lodging"
received from E. Simer on 08-03-92 and asked if she recognized the
handwriting on the torn slip. E. Simer then inquired about possible
' criminal charges and was again told that operating a hotel/motel
in a residential zone, altering the garage without permit and
continuing to occupy a room marked den on Building Permit App.
' NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 McCollum Page 5
08-11-92 1226 Cont'd.
' 20414, were misdemeanor charges. E. Simer then began to state that
the house would no longer be used as a hostel, the bunk beds would
be taken out of the den and that, "Maybe the plans were not
' accurate in the past, but they will be now".
The meeting was concluded at 1255.
' INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
This case began on 04-08-92 with a citizen complaint and request
for field investigation, of what appeared to be a garage conversion
' being built in a residential area (R-1 Zone) . The district building
inspector was dispatched by radio, determined a conversion was in
progress and issued a Stop Work notice, instructing the
' construction personnel to obtain permits prior to continuing.
After no permit activity, a follow-up site visit was conducted on
05-05-92 by the district inspector, who determined that dry walling
' of the interior of the garage had continued in violation of the
Stop Work notice. It also appeared the area was being occupied for
1
' sleeping purposes. The inspector issued a five item Correction
Notice (See Notice item#5) stating that the "new sleeping room" was
hazardous due to egress problems. The case was returned to the
zoning investigations coordinator for further enforcement action.
' A Notice of Code Violation letter was sent to the owner/occupant
at her address of record on 05-06-92, advising of the violation and
requesting compliance with state law and local ordinace, by ceasing
to occupy areas altered without permit and obtain a demolition
permit to remove the conversion. The Correction Notice was included
' in the letter.
A letter was received from the owner on.05-18-92 admitting to the
alteration of the structure without permits and claiming that an
' existing room in the basement had been used as a conventional
rental unit in the past. The letter went on to claim that no work
had been done after the Stop Work notice was issued. The owner
' requested to be allowed to occupy the area while the permit process
was in progress, claiming permanent tenants occupied some of the
space. A habitability inspection was done by the district inspector
on 06-01-92 . The owner submitted plans on 06-04-92 to comply with
t ordinace requirements by converting the garage to living space and
adding a carport. The plans were reviewed by the district inspector
along with the habitability data and a determination was made to
' allow occupancy, with the exception of a room not open for
inspection and a room marked den. A letter was sent to the owner
on 06-08-92 advising of the restrictions.
' On 07-13-92 another request for field investigation from a second
complainant was received, indicating a "Hostel" was being operated
at the same location.
' NARRATIVE CONTINUATION-1677 McCollum Page 6
INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
' Advertising brochures were submitted, as well as information
received, about guests sleeping in the "kitchen" area of the
hostel. The complainant had stayed in the converted garage, was
' familiar with hostel operations and found the conditions to be
unacceptable. It is unkown if the complainant stayed in one of the
rooms that did not meet code requirements.
' A third complaint was received on 07-14-92 in regards to chickens
on the property, however it was determined that the number of
poultry on site were within ordinance requirements.
On 07-31-92 a reservation was made by telephone at the number
listed in the brochures. The zoning investigations coordinator
' subsequently checked into the hostel on 08-03-92, paid for the
room, received a hand written receipt from the owner and was given
a tour of the garage conversion. With the exception of the
bathroom, all rooms on the bottom floor of the residence, including
' the rooms restricted from occupancy, had beds and no mention of an
occupancy restriction was made.
' After review of the information collected, the owner was requested
to attend a meeting at the CDD to discuss occupancy issues at the
residence. The meeting took place on 08-11-92 with the owner, chief
building official and zoning investigations coordinator present.
t The owner was advised of the investigation and possibility of
criminal charges being filed. The owner freely admitted altering
1
' the structure, sunmitting plans for a residence when in fact a
commercial use was required, operating in an area not zoned for
business, and ignoring the occupancy restrictions.
' RECOMMENDATIONS
This report be reviewed by the City Attorney for filing the
' following charges against the owner of record:
UAC 301 Altered Structure-permit required
UHC 1001(n) Improper Occupancy
' MC 17.24.020 Two dwellings on single parcel (R-1 Zone)
MC 17.22. 010 Motel/Hotel in residential..district
MC 3 .01. 102 Tax Certificate Required (Business License)
' MC 3 .04.060 Failure to register-Transient Occupancy
MC 3 . 04 . 090 Failure to collect and report tax
' R. Bryn
Zoning Investigations Coordinator
' 08-18-92 1620 Case forwarded City Attorney, copies of A134-92 and
Bldg. Permit App. #20414 .-+
10-02-92 See bldg. permit 8194.
1
1
1
1
1
1
' IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1
' People of the State of California
VS. case No. M 19 �a S �8
' ELAINE SIMER,
Defendant.
' TERMS OF PROBATION
1. $200.00 fine: $100. 00 due in 30 days; $100. 00 suspended;
t2 . Two years summary probation on the following conditions;
1) Obey all laws;
' 2) Do not operate a hostel/hotel/motel at 1677 McCollum St. ;
' 3) No advertising for hostel/hotel/motel guests at 1677
McCollum St. ;
4) No signage at 1677 McCollum indicating the premise is a
' hostel/motel/hotel, except for signage indicating the
hostel is closed;
' 5) No use of the premises at 1677 McCollum St. for temporary
lodging or other transient occupancy for monetary
compensation or other consideration. Temporary. lodging
' means a period of 30 days or less;
6) Elimination of any cooking facility in the downstairs
area; and
' 7) Payment of any and all applicable City Business taxes
from this date forward.
1
t
4F - - 40
� �III�IIIII IIIIIIIINIIIIIIII�������II�II II IIIII II
city of sAn luisOB
spo
' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
' September 10, 1992
' Roger Picquet
Lyon & Picquet
' 1104 Palm St.
P.O. Box 922
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
1
Re: People v. Elaine Simer
' Dear Roger:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the criminal complaint which
' will be filed against Elaine Simer. Also enclosed is a copy of a
letter directing Ms. Simer to appear for her arraignment on
September 21, 1992. As we discussed, you will be appearing on her
' behalf.
You have asked for my position regarding disposition of this
' matter. My position is as follows:
Plea to one of the two misdemeanor zoning violations,
either SLOMC Section 17.22. 010 or 17.24 . 020. Upon entry
' of a guilty or no contest plea, I will move to dismiss
the remaining counts.
' - $200. 00 fine.
2 years summary probation with the standard condition of
' obey all laws, as well as the following conditions:
1) Do not operate a hostel/hotel/motel at 1677
McCollum St.
2) No advertising. for hostel/hotel/motel guests at
' 1677 McCollum St:
3) No signage at 1677 McCollum indicating the premise
is a hostel/motel/hotel, except for signage
' indicating the hostel is closed.
4) No use of the premises at 1677 McCollum St. for
temporary lodging or other transient occupancy for
t monetary compensation or other consideration.
Temporary lodging means a period of 30 days or
less.
5) Elimination of the kitchen facility in the
' downstairs area.
6) Payment of all applicable City Business taxes.
1
�►Ilill�lllllfljailI
aty of sAn luis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
' September 10, 1992
' Elaine Simer
1677 McCollum St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
' Re: Violation of Municipal Code
' Dear Ms. Simer:
This is to advise you that a complaint has been filed against
you in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Court, Criminal Division, for
violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code §§ 17. 22 . 010,
' 17. 24 . 020 and 3.04 . 090. (Copy enclosed. ) Your arraignment has
been scheduled for Monday, September 21, 1992, at 8: 30 a.m. in the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Court, 1050 Monterey St. , San Luis
Obispo.
Please call me (781-7140) if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
' City Attorney
'
By: UMdu 23- ca'w d�
Cindy B. Clemens
Assistant City Attorney
' CBC/sw
enc.
' cc: Roger Picquet
' 1 Office of the City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
2 Jeffrey G. Jorgensen (068576)
Cindy Clemens (121604)
' 3 990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
4 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403-8100
' Telephone: (805) 781-7140
5 Attorneys for City of San Luis Obispo
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
' 8 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) No.
10 CALIFORNIA, )
11 vs. ) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
12 ELAINE SIMER, )
' 13 Defendant. )
14 CINDY B. CLEMENS, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY of the City of San
' 15 Luis Obispo, complains and accuses defendant ELAINE SIMER, on
' 16 information and belief, of three Misdemeanors, to-wit:
17 COUNT I: A misdemeanor violation of Section 17.22. 010 of the
18 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, committed as follows: That said
19 Elaine Simer, from on or about the 6th day of June, 1992, through
' 20 on or about the 3rd day of August, 1992, at and in the City of San
' 21 Luis Obispo, State of California, did unlawfully operate a
22
hotel/motel at 1677 McCollum St. , in violation of the use permitted
23 in an R-1 (residential) Zone, by renting the premises to the public
24 for sleeping purposes when said premises were not commercially
25 zoned.
26
COUNT II: A misdemeanor violation of San Luis Obispo
27 Municipal Code Section 17.24 .020, committed as follows: That said
' 28
' 1 Elaine Simer, from on or about the 6th day of June, 1992, through
2 on or about the 3rd day of August, 1992, at and in the City of San
' 3 Luis Obispo, State of California, converted and used a garage
4 located at 1677 McCollum St. , for purposes of renting sleeping
' 5 areas to the public, in an R-1 Zone, which was zoned for a single
' 6 dwelling only.
7 COUNT III: An infraction violation of San Luis Obispo
t8 Municipal Code Section 3. 04. 090, committed as follows: That said
9 Elaine Simer, from on or about the 6th day of June, 1992, through
' 10 on or about the 3rd day of August, 1992, at and in the City of San
' 11 Luis Obispo, State of California, failed to collect, report and
12 remit the taxes for operating a hotel/motel at 1677 McCollum St.
t13 All of which is contrary to the statute in such cases made and
14 Provided, and against the peace and dignity of the People of the
15 State of California.
' 16 Dated: This 107 day of 6!?4feM6.12A , 1992 .
17 JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN
City Attorney
' 18 San Luis Obispo, CA
19 By: C 2� 6 c i nN941 0
' 20 Cindy B. Clemens
Assistant City Attorney
' 21
22
23
24
' 25
' 26
27
28
' 1 Office of the City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
2 Jeffrey G. Jorgensen (068576)
Cindy B. Clemens (121604)
' 3 990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
' Telephone: (805) 781-7140
5 Attorneys for City of San Luis Obispo
' 6
7 IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
' 8 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 SAN LUIS OBISPO BRANCH
' 10 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) NO.
11 CALIFORNIA, )
' DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
12 vs. ) OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
' 13 ELAINE SIMER, )
14 Defendant. )
15 THE UNDERSIGNED hereby declares:
' 16 That I am now employed as a Code Enforcement Officer for the
17 City of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
' 18 California.
19 That an investigation has been conducted to determine if
' 20
defendant, ELAINE SIMER, did commit the crimes of:
' 21 COUNT I: A misdemeanor violation of Section 17. 22. 010 of the
22 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code;
' 23 COUNT II: A misdemeanor violation of Section 17.24 . 020 of the
24 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
' 25 COUNT III: An infraction violation of Section 3. 04. 090 of the
26
' San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
27 1
' 1 YOUR DECLARANT has reviewed the report of this investigation
2 and declares upon information and belief that the facts herein show
' 3 probable cause that the aforementioned defendant did commit the
4 hereinbefore stated crimes.
' 5 THE INVESTIGATION REPORT is attached hereto in support of this
' 6 declaration and is incorporated by reference herein, your declarant
7 therefore requests the issuance of a warrant of arrest, if
' 8 defendant does not appear voluntarily pursuant to the attached
9 letter.
10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
11 and correct.
' 12 DATED: �� , 1992 .
' 13
14 Declarant Ro Bryn
' Code Enforcement Officer
15 City of San Luis Obispo
' 16
17
' 18
19
' 20
t 21
22
' 23
24
' 25
26
1 27
2
' 28
' RECEIVED
' AUG 14 1992
August 11, 1992 cm OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING DIVISION
' Jeff Jorgensen
City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
' P. 0. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
' Six years ago I began converting my garage to living space without
a permit because as a single mother with two dependent children I
' needed to supplement my income and I thought that by doing a simple
remodel job on the interior of the garage I could accomplish that.
I 've worked on the remodeling a little bit at a time as I could
afford to put more money into the project. My intention has always
' been to get a building permit for this conversion and carport when
I could afford it. In fact, in 1987 I had plans drawn which
included an enclosed garage and submitted them to the City with a
' permit application. The plans were returned to me calling for
minor modifications, but soon thereafter my ex-husband unexpectedly
stopped paying child support and I was not able to follow through
' on the application process and construction as the plans were
drawn; but because I was supporting two children on my salary as a
secretary, it was even more necessary for me to continue the
remodeling and rent out the rooms, with or without the permit.
' I am currently trying to "legalize" the remodel and meet whatever
requirements the City has in order to rectify my previous lack of
' a building permit. At a great expense I had plans drawn and
submitted to the City. The plans have been checked and approved at
several levels in the Building Department but are currently being
held because of a question the Zoning Department has as to how I
' intend to use the space.
For most of the past six years I have had the space rented out to
' one, and sometimes, two students. In between tenants I have also
used the space as a family living/recreation area. For the past
two years I have used the space during the summer as a hostel for
' young, mostly foreign, travelers through American Youth Hostels,
Intl. , a non-profit organization. This practice has recently come
to the attention of Rob Bryn, Zoning Inspector for the City of San
Luis Obispo, who called me last week to come to his office to
' discuss my permit application and the use of the living space. Tom
Baasch, Chief Building Inspector, was also present at this meeting.
t When I arrived at Rob Bryn's office, the first thing he said after
introducing himself was "Do you remember me?" I replied that I
did, since I recognized him as a someone who the week before had
' come to my house representing himself as a hostel guest. He had
arrived at my house with an overnight bag on Monday, August 3, and
introduced himself as William Anthony, a traveling businessman from
San Francisco. I asked him to sign our guest book, received the
' $10 which we generally, but not always, charge, and told him he
could take any bed that did not already have a backpack on it. (We
1
frequently give free lodging for a variety of reasons - to
t travelers who are running short of money, to musicians in town with
the Mozart Festival, and on the night when "Mr. Anthony" AKA Rob
Bryn was with us, we had four Native Americans who were staying
' with us free of charge while they were coming through San Luis
Obispo on the "Indigenous Peoples Run for Dignity. " We had no
paying guests that night, other than Rob Bryn, who didn't even get
' his money's worth since he did not actually spend the night.
At our meeting Mr. Bryn offered a recap of all the wrongs I had
committed against the City of San Luis Obispo - illegal
' construction without a permit, continuing to use a room in my house
that the City had declared unusable (because the window, of
regulation size, had been installed 3" too high) , and running a
' "motel, " as he referred to it, out of my home. I explained to him
how and why I had done the remodeling without a permit and that I
was making every effort to comply with the City requirements by now
getting a permit, bringing up to code any construction that doesn't
' meet current standards, and building a carport. During the course
of this construction, the window would be removed and reinstalled
to the proper height. I also told him that I would immediately
' cease to charge guests for nightly lodging in my home, since he had
just told me that what I had been doing was illegal.
' Mr. Bryn replied that although he realized I was attempting to
comply with the law at this point, I still had broken the law in
the past by running a motel out of my home and that he was
referring the case to the City Attorney's Office and that your
' office would determine whether criminal charges should be filed
against me. During the course of our interview, Mr. Bryn had asked
me to identify or describe several pieces of "evidence" including
t the signed receipt for $10 which I gave him when he checked into
our hostel. I began to get nervous when I noticed he was writing
down everything I said and marking the receipt and other items as
"Exhibits. " When he used the words "criminal charges" I began to
get alarmed and asked if I should perhaps have an attorney present
before I answered any more questions. Mr. Bryn replied that
although it was his duty to enforce the zoning laws of the City of
San Luis Obispo, he was not a law enforcement officer and so the
"Miranda Law" did not apply in this situation.
' I am writing to you because I am concerned about how this situation
has gotten so out of hand and I do not know what might happen in
the future. I am not a criminal, I am only a single mother trying
to make ends meet with whatever limited resources I have. I have
' told Mr. Bryn that I regret not getting a building permit before I
started construction, but I am now trying to rectify the situation.
t The remodeling that has been done on the inside of the garage is of
very good quality, and it would cause an extreme financial hardship
if I were to have to remove all that has been done to this point
' and start over from scratch. In fact, I could not afford to do so.
If I remove all the interior walls and reconvert it to a garage as
Mr. Bryn suggested, then I would lose the income that I receive
' -2-
1
from student boarders, which I depend on to help make the mortgage
' payment. Mr. Bryn explained to me that although I would be allowed
to have boarders renting the rooms from me on a monthly basis, it
is against the law to rent the rooms on a nightly basis, even if it
' involves the same number of people. I told him I am willing to
comply with the law, but he still insisted that my building permit
will be withheld until it can be determined whether or not I will
' be charged. He never did tell me what offense he thinks I should
be charged with.
I suspect the City is over-zealously enforcing some zoning and
' building ordinances because of the actions of a group called
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. I have been told by several
of my neighbors that they were approached by a representative of
' this group who lives on Albert Drive and were asked to join with
them in an effort to prevent me from getting a permit to add a
carport, because, as my neighbors were told, 111677 McCollum Street
has recently been sold to outsiders who intend to convert the
' garage and the rest of the house to student rentals, " and that the
neighborhood would soon be overrun by students. This group went
door to door on my block telling this lie about my house. I have
' been the sole owner of my home for six years and it is primarily a
family home. Only the garage area is used for renting out rooms,
and I think in the City of San Luis Obispo this is not illegal. I
' realize that the City is saying there is a difference between
renting rooms by the month to students and renting rooms by the
night to travelers, and I am willing to go along with whatever
determination is made in that regard. However, I do not feel that
' my building permit should be held up just because I was naive in
thinking I could charge by the night, nor do I think I should be
treated like a criminal .
' In addition to feeling very frustrated in my attempts to work with
the City in getting a building permit and losing sleep over whether
' or not I am going to be arrested, I am also wondering about the
propriety of Mr. Bryn coming into my house under false pretenses,
giving me a false name and address, to collect evidence without a
search warrant with the intention of having me charged with a
criminal offense.
This is not the first time an employee of the City of San Luis
t Obispo has come into my house without my permission to investigate
me. Last Spring a building inspector came to our front door while
I was at work and asked my 17-year-old son, Jeremy, if he could
make an inspection of our garage. Jeremy told him "No, " since he
' didn't know anything about it and he did not want to allow the
inspection without first clearing it with me. The inspector left
and Jeremy closed the front door. Instead of leaving, however, the
' inspector went around to the side of the house, opened the door to
our family room (the converted garage) and entered without
knocking. A friend of ours, Tom Peterson, who was a non-paying
guest in our home, had been taking a nap and awoke to find this
inspector walking through our house. The inspector asked Tom if he
could look around, and Tom, thinking this man was someone I had
' -3-
invited over, said "Sure, go ahead. " In other words, Tom gave him
permission to look around, but only after the inspector was already
15 feet into the house.
' These actions taken by City employees disturb me greatly, not only
because they are delaying the process of my permit application, but
also because their tactics are reminiscent of "Nazi" tactics -
' neighbors spying on each other and reporting suspected misbehaviors
to the authorities, city officials coming into my house without my
permission to make inspections and gather evidence, and an official
' threatening to have "criminal charges" filed against me just
because I failed to get a building permit for work done on the
inside of my own home or because I was running a business (what I
consider to be a public service) out of my home.
' Because my house is already listed in a youth hostel directory and
people come to my door almost daily expecting to find overnight
' lodging, it is impossible for me to bring the whole operation to an
immediate conclusion (I can't magically recall all the directories
that have been distributed internationally) ; but to demonstrate my
' willingness to comply with zoning regulations, I am no longer
charging for lodging when travelers stay with us. Keep in mind
that over the past six years I have shared my home with non-family
members in a variety of ways: As a licensed foster parent, I 've
' had foster children living with us; we've had foreign exchange
students stay with us for varying lengths of time; as a member of
SERVAS, an international organization of goodwill, I also have
foreign travelers stay in our home free of charge; and I 've made my
home available to numerous local groups to house people who come to
our community for special events, and I do so free of charge. The
next event of this type that is coming up is "Koger's Kamp" over
' Thanksgiving Week, at which time I will be sharing my home with up
to six inner-city kids from Los Angeles. And since my neighbors
and city officials have come out in force to protest the students
' who I've rented rooms to and the foreign travelers who I 've given
lodging to, I can only imagine how they are going to react when a
bunch of black teenagers moves in for a week.
' I apologize for the length of this letter and hope that after you
have had the time to read through it you will call me to let me
know if in fact I am going to be charged with something. My number
' at work is 756-2234 and I am there between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. I am
usually home for lunch from 12 : 10 to 12 :50.
' Thank you for whatever information or assistance you can offer.
Yourss truly,
Elaine simer
t 1677 McCollum Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
cc: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Inspector
Rob Bryn, Zoning Inspector
-4-
1
1
1
1
1
' cnroC7P. 0
ct
o�e
c 0 w
' !n O fn
k cn n
e 00
m oro
' — oa :r0
o r• N•
m m
C7 0 i
a w G "
r0 p 4, r)
W ap (D y
' = co H
I N o u.
o •o
0
n
1•�' r
7
1 � � �� .
1
1 _ -
_ .
1
1
1 i
::�.
1
1
4
�. ��i � �
ti y ` y.
�ro1r' � P
J?. J�.
1
1
1' _
1
1
1
1
I�
-�
r
' _ f
_i�.
s•
r � \ � i '.
1 � i
1
�,
J,
�'`,
1
1
- - -
__,
��
,. ; �.�
�� '
- - - �:
1
- - --- -
�III�►11I�1►lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��I�IIII► II �II
cityof sAntuisOB
Spo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
' AGENDA
' The City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Hearing Officer will hold a public hearing at
' 2:30 p.m. or later on Friday, July 24, 1992, in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9),
upstairs in City Hall, 990 Palm Street, to consider the following:
t9 1. 1677 McCollum Street. Use Permit Appl. A 134-92; Request to allow reduced
street yard from 20 feet to 18 feet for a new carport; R-1 zone; Elaine Simer, applicant.
' (Continued from July 10, 1992)
eff 2. 1339 Marsh Street. Use Permit Appl. A 87-92; Request to allow conversion
of a residence to an office with off-site parking at 1250 Pepper Street; O zone; Patrick
Perry, applicant.
y 3. 879 Higuera Street. Use Permit Appl. A 107-92; Request to allow 20%
parking reduction based on mixed use; C-C-H zone; Copelands Investments, applicant.
ry
4. 1270 Peach Street #1. Use Permit Appl. A 122-92; Request to allow reduced
street yard setback from 15 feet to 12 feet; O zone; Ross, Levin, Maclntyre and Varner,
applicant.
'itney 5. 557 Hathway Avenue. Use Permit Appl. A 131-92; Request to allow
redevelopment of a non-conforming lot; R-2 zone; Robert & Rosalyn McQuade,
' applicants.
PLEASE NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on these public hearing items
' may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
1