HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1998, 3 - R 38-97 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE 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). council "' `°=
�°° 4-2,_98
j acenaa Report
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director A73-
Prepared
TPrepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner PK
SUBJECT: R 38-97 - Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a request to
amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H, for property located on the southwest comer
of Broad and Palm Streets(963 & 967 Broad Street).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an ordinance to print denying the appeal, approving a negative declaration with
mitigation measures and amending the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H for property
located at 963 &967 Broad Street,based on findings.
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.
The Planning Commission discussed zoning options to accommodate the desired mix of land
uses for the site at two public hearings (8-13-97 & 1-14-98). On January 14, 1998, the Planning
Commission denied the proposed rezoning on a 4-1-2 vote. On January 21, 1998, the applicants
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. Based on new information submitted by
the applicants prior to the City Council's consideration of the appeal, but after the Planning
Commission hearing, the Council denied the appeal on February 17, 1998, and referred the
rezoning back to the Planning Commission.
Planning_Commission's Review/Action on Rezonine
On March 25, 1998, the Commission on a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner Ready refrained from
participating due to a potential conflict of interest)recommended approval of the proposed mixed
Freeman-Godfrey Appea, 38-97) •
Page 2
use zoning, as well as approved the required use permit, based on findings, and with conditions.
The Commission felt comfortable with the proposal with the floor areas of office areas being
specified and a complete living unit being retained in the main house. The Commission praised
project changes and encouraged the property owners in their rehabilitation efforts. The report
prepared for the Commission's review of the rezoning and use permit is attached.
Appeal Filed
On April 2, 1998, Brett Cross filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve
the rezoning request. Technically, it was not necessary for the appeal to be filed since the
positive recommendation of the Planning Commission would have automatically been forwarded
to the Council. However, Mr. Cross wanted his concerns to be documented. His letter,
Attachment A to the submitted appeal form, outlines the specific issues he has with the action.
The following paragraphs respond to his points and are numbered in the same sequence:
1. Inconsistency with Housing Element Goal 1.23 (H 3.1.1 in General Plan Digest): Housing
Conservation - conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement of current
occupants.
The project as designed conserves a viable residential unit in the same building as the
proposed offices. Therefore, there is not a net reduction in the number of residential units at
the site. No residents will be displaced since there has not been anyone living there since the
fire. At the time of the fire, the applicants were living in the house.
2. Inconsistency with Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.6.2 in the Residential Land Protection
section. This is the LUE policy which discourages amendments to reduce the amount of
residentially-designated properties unless there is a significant public benefit to be achieved,
and there is no comparable alternative site available to accomplish project goals.
As discussed in Section 1. of the Evaluation portion of the attached Commission report, the
applicants were encouraged to pursue the Mixed Use (ME9 overlay zoning to eliminate the
need for a general plan amendment. With the applicant's modified request which retains the
residential zoning of the site, there is no longer a conflict with this policy. Therefore, staff
disagrees with Mr. Cross that those findings are required with this request.
3. Inconsistency with Housing Element Goal 1.31 (H 11.1 in General Plan Digest): Suitability -
develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose.
Two housing.units exist and will be retained with the reconstruction of the fire-damaged
house. Therefore, there is not an argument that the site is no longer suitable for housing.
4. The proposed MU zoning is not consistent with the intent of the mixed use zone in that the
office use would result in a reduction in the amount of residentially designated property.
3-z
R
Freeman-Godfrey Appear , _38-97)
Page 3
The proposed zoning is R-3-MU-H, Medium-High Density Residential with the Mixed Use
and Historical Preservation overlay zones. Therefore, there will not be a reduction in the
amount of residentially designated property.
5. The initial study and addendum prepared for the project did not adequately evaluate the
proposed environmental impacts associated with the proposed combination of office uses
with residential uses in residentially zoned areas.
The proposed MU overlay is a zoning map amendment that applies only to the project site.
Therefore, the initial study did not evaluate the potential of every residentially-zoned
property in the City applying for a mixed use zoning. The environmental evaluation of this
zoning map amendment differs from that of a text amendment. With a text amendment, the
proposed change would have the potential to affect all similarly designated sites citywide.
Approval of the proposed zoning change may be viewed as setting a precedent for the
approval of other similar requests. However, staff feels comfortable that the findings are
explicit enough to document the uniqueness of the application of the mixed use zone at this
site. To insure consistency with the purposes of the mixed use zoning overlay, the
requirement for a use permit addresses the concerns with development-related impacts and
allows site development to be specifically conditioned.
6. The project is not consistent with the intent of the mixed use zoning which is to allow
residential uses in commercial zones.
Although the focus of discussion at the time of review of the MU zoning may have been the
addition of residential uses to commercial zones, there is nothing explicit in the text of the
zoning regulations which prohibits the opposite situation- some limited commercial use on a
residentially-designated site. The idea of the mixed use zoning is to foster a creative mix of
land uses to achieve planning goals such as preserving opportunities for housing,
maintaining a compact city and limiting dependency on the automobile. Staff ff and the
Planning Commission have found that the project is consistent with these goals.
7. Housing Element Program 1.23.8 (H 3.3.2 in General Plan Digest), which calls for no net
loss of housing in a defined geographical area of downtown which includes the project site,
does not apply to this project since the City has not adopted this policy.
The City has adopted the Housing Element along with its programs. The fact that an
ordinance has not yet been adopted prescribing specific program implementation does not
lessen its validity as a long-term City goal. Until an ordinance is adopted it is the
responsibility of staff and the decision-makers to insure that program consistency is met with
the review of each pertinent project.
8. Section 17.55.020 C. of the Mixed Use Zone contained in the zoning regulations states that a
Planning Commission use permit is required prior to establishing any use within the MU
3-3
Freeman-Godfrey Appeal. 38-97)
Page 4
zone, except that "the use permit provision does not apply to changes of use within an
existing building." Therefore,the Commission's approval of the use permit is invalid.
Staff admits that the language here is a bit confusing. However,from its perusal of the mixed
use ordinance file, it was the intention of the clause that the use permit requirement would
apply with redevelopment of a site, but not to mere changes of tenancy, presumably changes
of tenancy that were otherwise consistent with the zoning. The use permit would assure that
redevelopment was consistent with the intent of the MU zoning. Obviously, this project
constitutes redevelopment of the site because of the circumstances of the fire. It is in the
City's interest to have an approved use permit which clearly calls out the limitations of office
use at the site and within the main house.
9. There are no conditions that prohibit current or future owners from converting a greater
percentage of the main house to office uses.
Staff disagrees. Condition No. 4 of the approved use permit reads:
Offices shall be limited to the 600 square feet of floor area as depicted on the floor plan
submitted with the use permit. Two parking spaces are required for the offices.
10. The proposed parking configuration is awkward. There is not a requirement for the property
owners to make available the required parking to residents of the residential unit. The
parking spaces may not be available to either the office users or residents.
Staff agrees that the parking situation is not optimal. As discussed in Section 3. of the
Evaluation portion of the attached Commission report, the parking situation is a "creative
and appropriate given the unique circumstances associated with this site including the
historical significance of the house. " The Commission was persuaded that given the scale of
the project and the affected number of people that the logistics of the parking could be
worked out among those living and working at the site.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 2, upholding the appeal, and denying the
requested zoning map amendment based on inconsistency with the City's General Plan.
2. Continue with direction to the staff.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Ordinance approving the rezoning
Attachment 2: Resolution denying the rezoning
Attachment 3: Appellant's appeal form & letter received 4-2-98 & article distributed to
the Planning Commission by the appellant
• 1
Freeman-Godfrey Appeal k. 38=9'n -..
Page 5
Attachment 4: Pl'a_nning Commission follow-up letter & Resolution No. 5219-98
approving use permit
Attachfnent 5: Letter from Ken..Schwartz dated 3-22-98
Attachment 6: Draft 3-25-98 Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 7: 3-25-98 Planning.Commission Staff Report
3=5�
ORDINANCE NO. (1998 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION,THEREBY AMENDING 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 (R 38-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on August, 13, 1997,
January 14, 1998,and March 25, 1998,and ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning (R
38-97) to change the designation on the City's 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, Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on April 2, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on, February 17, 1998, and
April 21, 1998, and has considered testimony of the applicants, the appellant, interested parties,
the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact with addendum as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
3- G
Ordinance No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the projects Negative Declaration with addendum adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed general plan map amendment and rezoning, and reflects
the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed rezoning
to change the City's zoning map designation from Medium-High Density Residential with the
Mixed Use and Historical Preservation overlay zones (R-3-MU-H), makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent 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 be compatible with sur ounding land uses
because additional parking to meet ordinance requirements will be provided.
3. The project is consistent with the goals of the Mixed Use overlay zone which is to
combine residential with commercial uses to provide services,jobs and housing in close
proximity to one another.
4. A Negative Declaration with mitigation measures was prepared by the Community
Development Department on August 3, 1997, which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with the project. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation
measures shown in the attached initial study ER 38-97 being incorporated into the
project. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
attached addendum in its consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 38-97,
Rezoning R 38-97, and Use Permit U 38-97, and finds that the preparation of a
subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary because:
• the proposed project's scale and complexity has been minimized from original plans;
• a commitment has been made to retain a separate and functional residential unit in the
main house;
• the changes are consistent with City goals to encourage mixed uses and preserve
3 -7
Ordinance No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
housing downtown; and
• the proposal will help to rehabilitate a historical house that was badly damaged by a
fire.
SECTION 3. Action. The appeal is denied, and the request to change the City's zoning
map designation 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, is
hereby approved.
SECTION 4. Adoption.
1. The zoning map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit A.
2. The MU overlay zoning enables the combination of office and residential uses in the
main structure at 963 Broad Street. The floor area of the offices in the main structure is
restricted to 600 square feet consistent with the Planning Commission's approval of Use
Permit U 38-97 through Planning Commission Resolution No. 5219-98.
3. The property development standards of the R-3 zoning category apply to the site.
Required parking was set at two spaces with the Planning Commission's approval of Use
Permit U 38-97 through Planning Commission Resolution No. 5219-98.
4. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use.
SECTION 5. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go
into effect at the expiration of thirty(30)days after its final passage.
3—,
Ordinance No. (1998 Series)
Page 4
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1998, on a 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:
GNL�'4
&xoyy J &YO. Jorgensen
3- 5
EXHIBIT A
e
s ^,
� 4
L•
roveti� o
�.
110 rrevu ��,P
a �L
PO07
R
® 1
to REZONE SITE FROM
R-3-H TO R-3-MU-H q-PAP 6
ms
%op 64
\� e
J
L
Y .iN ys
lop
id��g..
fj
f Q
Ott
S+ 4 d<c {.
P f ydrtl l "I PF
ulctV a°-Pop a _
OtL
REZONING MAP R 38-97 NORTH
963 & 967 BROAD -3-1 o
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING 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-3-11)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,
January 14, 1998,and March 25, 1998, and ultimately recommended approval of the rezoning (R
38-97) to change the designation on the City's 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, Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action on April 2, 1998;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on, February 17, 1998, and
April 21, 1998, and has considered testimony of the applicants, the appellant, interested parties,
the records of the Planning Commission hearings and actions, 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. Findin s.
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.
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
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 their project.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is upheld, and 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:
U
C' AMA Je#ey 6. Jorgensen
3-/Z
�Ill�ll�lllll���jj�i��lll� �IIIIIIIIIII�j ''
d
I� CRty � S�1 S OBISPO
-� 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
PI rendered on1Je�[�xsrlav MPRL1. �,5. lctct.b
which consisted of the following (i.e., explain what you are appealing and the grounds
for submitting the appeal. Use additional sheets as needed.) See
A�+Adnmciv 4- A
The undersigned discussed the dedision being appealed with:
R,3 ,-F cc; _c,(]D on
Name/Department D (Date)
Appellant: R9,EJ �QoSS �./-'� ��.1� MA2i&3P-9 i�fov 6 `13qS
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
54y - '737el tyA
Home Phone Work Phone
Representative:
Name/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code)
For Official Use Only:
Calendared for %1-09— ?Jr Date & Time Received:
c: City Attorney
City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following d artment(s):
RECEIVED
;D APR n 9 1998
Original in City Clerk's Office
sLO CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT 3 3- �3
Attachment A:
Appeal of a Planning Commission approval to amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-
MU-H, File Number U, R&ER 38-97, as approved March 25, 1998 by the City of San
Luis Obispo Planning Commission based on the following circumstances:
1. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with goals and policies of the General Plan,
specifically Housing Element Goal 1.23: Housing Conservation which requires the
conservation of existing housing supply and prevention of the displacement of current
occupants.
2. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.6.2 in the Residential Land Protection
section which prohibits adjusting land-use boundaries in a way that would reduce land
designated as residential, only if a significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide need,
which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity, will be met, and;the need is
best met at the proposed location and no comparable alternative exists.
A change in the zoning at this site from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H to allow office uses at this
site is in effect an adjustment of the land-use boundary that will reduce land designated as
residential as it will allow conversion of a residential portion of the property to non-
residential uses. The are no findings of a significant, long-term neighborhood or citywide
need, which outweighs the preference to retain residential capacity and there are no
findings that the need is best met at the proposed location and there are sites available in
existing office zones, or other zones that allow office uses, which the applicants could
establish their office use.
3. The change in zoning is inconsistent with Housing Element Goal 1.31: Suitability.
The City's adopted policy is to retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose.
There is no substantiated evidence that this site is no longer suitable for housing.
4. The zoning change to allow offices in residentially zoned property by means of the
Mixed Use zone does not meet the intent of the Mixed Use zone to provide additional
housing opportunities (including affordable housing opportunities) given the office use
would result in a reduction in the amount of residentially designated property.
5. The initial and subsequently adopted environmental study for the Mixed Use Zoning
ordinance did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of combining commercial
uses with residential uses in residentially zoned areas including: Land Use and Planning,
Population and Housing, Water, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation,Noise,
Public Services, Aesthetics, etc.
6. The initial environmental study ER 38-97 and subsequent addendum does not address
potentially significant impacts to neighborhood quality as described in Housing Element
Goal 1.27 if Mixed Use zoning is applied to residentially zoned properties to allow
commercial activities within those zones. The intent of the Mixed Use zone, although not
clearly stated in the purpose of the (MU)zone is to develop "projects which incorporate
residences with commercial uses in a commercially zone area(mixed use)." Housing
Element September 1994 page 57.
7. Finding# "1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals and polices of the
General Plan, specifically Housing Element Program 3.3.2 which calls for no net housing
loss in the downtown area." is not a valid finding as the City has not adopted this policy.
8. The findings in part B of the recommendation "Approve the use permit, based on the
following findings and subject to following conditions:" are invalid because the use permit
provision does not apply to changes of use within an existing building prior to establishing
any use within the Mixed Use zone.
9. The conditions of approval do not limit the footprint of the office use only that a
separate and functional residential unit be retained in the main house. There are no
conditions that would prohibit current or future owners from converting a greater
percentage of the main house to office uses.
10. The parking on the site is not appropriate for the proposed uses because the parking
layout is awkward, not functional, and inadequate. Although the number of spaces meet
City standards for office uses the number of spaces may be inadequate for proposed and
future uses. Additionally there are no provisions requiring the property owners to make
available the required parking to the residents of the residential unit. With the current
configuration it is very probable that parking will not available to one of the uses.
3 - �s�
The Open Door... Aon = f3Tum �aSS
Property Rights ... More or Less
by Holly Ziegler
drilled h the middle retown. Even if there is first Place. We owe it to ourselves as well as
.y �h 3 an oil shortage,the greater good of the corn- futuregenerations to thehi act level
inanity is protected b tonin .
,r y g 8h
€x m The issue of tonin and property of stewardship.
"-µ be a sensitive one especially ear rights develop,an
Ile job of our elected representatives is to
ment questions arise.POne mi t as P concern themselves with what is the best use
can't I build a hotel on m k'"may of land for the community
ise to make it beautiful. Y urll love my hotel ]mow t the Public cera s is vital in a
democracy.. It is important that we let them
It will be an asset to the area and just think of coastal land,is aot a commodity n�maaul-
"Under all is the Land..." 'We hear a lot the lobs ie pro provide." .The only•catch here facture more of when we rum short. Sensitive
about property rights involving land these da is that the Property Owner already knows he areas des
and it is true that ownership of real does not have the appropriate zoning to make deserve special consideration
carries with it certain rights regarding usage this happen. He has known all along. We do not have to give up what:=already
In real estate, optimum usage refers to the Ifa ZO�g change.is contemplated, on the zoning books. Is it asking too much
"highest and best" that inherently speaks to ba that with property rights coes remem- a landowner,even the Hearst Corporation,to
the issue ofzoning. Zoning designations are bili ties of the owner to the P°nsi_ consider the highest good" ofProperty'
o
put in place at a not
governmental level for the �""e might call it"the greater As owwholn- ��t�e"highest return?" To whom m h has
greatest long-term benefit of the community ers,our property rights must not be exercised been gl�' much is expected Remember
at large whether at a county or a city level. at the expense of our rethe genie. We will not ask for an
Once in place,a zoning designation ards of the land we own and responsibilities as stew- but we should not settle for anything more,
easyto - purchases
not once in place, should be changed only Zoning .. less.
�Y oracquires it through bwer arc prop- the greatest of caveats...once changed,u will �stewardship and service...
m of an ge inheritance,the tori- never revert back. A
8 y Particular piece of land is "irilrer- precedent is set We can- Namaste
ent,"already in place. An owner knows what not put the genie back in the bottle.
is allowed with his or her property. Zoning is The public has a right to expect that land,
clear and of public record. There is nothing no matter who owns it will be treated in such • o
hidden about it away that the
_ "highest good"will be upheld. B-8. Kinq
Zoning is designed for different Zoning,
once in place, need not change be_ SAT, MARCH 28Th \�
residential co gri Purposes particular owner feels they have the
mmefew a culture, and in- right to demand it for whatever reason. There
dustnal ton;;--a few of the more common *PERFORMINg ARTS CE R
designations. Areas, or blocks of land, are will be extreme pressure from power-
zoned a particular way to insure that comma- special interest groups to sway decision
ision TOM JONES
Nty morale is upheld. Moreover,itis or our makers away from their course ofacttn '
Y public's best interest. The highest and best LIVE IN CONCERT
neighbor does not build a toy store or an auto use does not necessarily mean highest dollar
•epairshopnextdoortoyouinthemiddleofa SuN, ApRil 26TH p
'esidential district, or that an oil well isnot . The greater good of the entire commu- �' *PERFORMINq ARTS
nity is why zoning became neces a R
. sary in.the BELA FLEck :;
For a New Career, or to Expand.Your Present one ANd ThE'FLEckTONES '
HYPNOSIS TAT1SUN, MAY 7 OTIC 7:30
NG s"I TTT TF CUESTA COLLEgE p C
of SANTA BARBARA l 1L:
STN ANNUAL AVMA BEACL
/<< BLUES FESTIVAL
1998 Summer Institute (week day classes) •�� SUN, May 24Th, 2pM
r starts June 22, 1998 :�, NEVILLE BROThFRS,
<; New Series Of Weekend Classes �r�" Roots Full of BLUES
begins September, 1998 i~���
* Private HypnotherapyPLUS SPECiAI G,U T
Sessions Available �,� T
• HypnoBirthing Classes for.Parents-to-be COMiNq iN Jul ' r
• Call today for Special Tuition Discounts KOTR 8t KC
BX Pgt �
and to receive our catalog and application GoRdoN LighTFOOT t
Jennifer Jennin ucertsed b Gln Bo 'T
CHT, DtrectOf gsr Y Yne State&AC H.E. approved. *PERFORMINq ARTS CENTER
684-8448 Outside of S.B. call
1-800-574-9766 wst.: KOTR rdmTs PtE.EE
805-927-5021
*PERFORMiXQ ARTS CEvrrk TC{FT till[:736-2787
INFORMATION PRESS VOL.7 ISSUE 4 PAGE 11
��Ill�dl��llllllNIIII���;�������,N plllllllll►� � luiscity ® 1 S oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
March 30, 1998
Kathy Freeman
Autoquest Info
1368 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
SUBJECT: U, R 38-97: 963 Broad Street
Dear Ms. Ms. Freeman:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 25, 1998 recommended approval for the proposed
mixed use zoning. This is a recommendation to the City Council and therefore is not final. This project is
tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on Tuesday,April 21, 1998 at 7:00 p.m.in the Council
Chambers. This date is tentative,and should be confirmed with the City Clerk at 781-7103.
The Planning Commission also approved the required use permit based on the findings, and subject to the
conditions listed in the attached Resolution No. 5219-98.
The Commission's decision regarding the use permit is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten
working days of the action. The appeal period will expire at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, April 6, 1998. An
appeal may be tiled with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission.
Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning 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 renewals for successive periods of not more than one year
each.
If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at 781-7168.
Sincerely,
onald/Whisen d
Development Re. iew Manager
ATTACHMENT: Resolution No.5129-98
cc: Autoquest Information Services
Ralph A.Peters
Kenneth Schwartz
L: 38-97 (I)-letter
ATTACHMENT 4
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 2-17
Telerommunieatinnc rluviru fnr the neZ ianai gat-7e,n
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 5219-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 25, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application U 38-97, Kathy Freeman,
Autoquest Info., applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT REVIEWED:
U 38-97: Request to establish mixed uses at the site.
DESCRIPTION:
On file in the office of Community Development Department, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION:
963 and 967 Broad Street
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Medium-High Density Residential.
PRESENT ZONING:
R-3-H, Medium-High Density Residential with a Historical Preservation overlay.
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:
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with the
surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other.
2. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare.
Resolution No. 5219-98
U 38-97
Page 2
3. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site
including:
• the proposed offices provide the property owners with the financial flexibility that they need
to rehabilitate the fire-damaged house consistent with plans already approved by the Cultural
Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission;
• the proposed offices and residential uses on the same site provide the opportunity to have
jobs and housing on the same site; and
• the site is within walking distance of downtown and close to public transportation which
supports mixed use goal to limit automobile use.
4. Mitigation measures provided in the adopted initial study ER 38-97 adequately address
potential environmental impacts of the project. The Planning Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in the attached addendum in its consideration of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 38-97, Rezoning R 38-97, and Use Permit U 38-97, and
finds that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration is not necessary because:
• the proposed project's scale and complexity has been minimized from original plans;
• a commitment has been made to retain a separate and functional residential unit in the
main house;
• the changes are consistent with City goals to encourage mixed uses and preserve housing
downtown; and
• the proposal will help to rehabilitate a historical house that was badly damaged by a fire.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Use Permit 38-97 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to change
the site's zoning to R-3-MU-H.
2. The applicants shall obtain a building permit for the rehabilitation of the house and the
provision of two additional on-site parking spaces. Proposed construction shall comply with
all the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code including: a one-hour occupancy
and noise separation wall between the residential and office components of the main house;
handicapped accessibility to the offices; and automatic fire sprinklers.
3. Construction documents shall be in substantial conformance with plans previously approved
by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission.
4. Offices shall be limited to the 600 square feet of floor area as depicted on the floor plan
submitted with the use permit. Two parking spaces are required for the offices.
Resolution No. 5219-98
U 38-97
Page 3
5. Use of the total floor area of the main building at 963 Broad Street as a single-family
residence is consistent with the intent of the site's mixed use zoning and would be allowed
without any additional planning approvals.
6. Consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (often referred to as the
"Downtown Plan"), there shall be no vehicular access to the site from Broad Street.
The foregoing resolution was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Ewan, Jeffrey, Kourakis, Senn and Whittlesey
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commissioner Ready
ABSENT: None
Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary
Planning Commission
M K\PC\5219-99
3-ZO
San Luis Obispo,March 22, 1998
San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners Re: Zone change request
John Ashbaugh,David Jeffrey, John Ewan, Janet 963 Broad Street
Kourakis,Paul Ready, Charles Senn, and Mary Whittlesey
Dear Commissioners:
You may recall that I spoke against this zone change request at your January 14 hearing. I shall
be out of town when you rehear this application on March 25 and I wish you to know that I am
now in accord with the requested mixed use zone change.
I have studied the applicants'new proposal and they have satisfied my concerns that the structure
will now be used for residential and office purposes. However, I do believe that the conditions of
approval should be expanded so that access to and egress from this property by vehicles shall be
strictly limited to Palm Street. In other words,no curb cuts shall be allowed on Broad Street.
I make this request so that the future closure of Broad Street to vehicular traffic as shown in the
A Conceptual Physical Plan for the Cit} s Center will in no way be compromised by permitting a
mixed use of this property.
Please review recommendations listed on page 2 of my October 8, 1997 letter to you;that letter is
included in your packet as background for this hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I join you in these efforts to return this historical
Victorian cottage to its former condition.
Sincerely,
r
RECEIVED
MAR 2 0 1998
K eth E. c wartz, FAIR-e
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
20 Buena Vista COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
c: Pam Ricci, Planner
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 5 Zr
4. 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,
applicant.
Commissioner Ready refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended the Commission (1)
recommend to Council approval of the request to rezone the property form R-3-H to R-3-
MU-H, based on findings and (2) approve the use permit, based on findings and with
conditions.
There were no comments/questions and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Keith Godfrey, applicant, 639 Olive Hill Dr., came forward to answer any questions.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if there are any concerns over the revised conditions.
Mr. Godfrey stated they are willing to compromise to achieve their goal.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, expressed a concern over a statement previously made
by the applicant regarding what would happen if mixed use isn't allowed and feels this
statement was a threat. He quoted a newspaper article regarding zoning and owners'
rights. He cited the definition of the Mixed Use Zone, noting that affordable housing
hasn't been discussed. The intent of the ordinance is to allow residential in commercial,
not commercial in residential. He cited Pages 57 and 58 of the Housing Element He
questions the Mills Act and allowing the applicants to change the interior. He doesn't
believe Land Use Policy 2.6.2 applies. Financial flexibility isn't an appropriate finding to
make land use designation changes. The initial study doesn't address the cumulative
impacts on the neighborhood character.
Astrid Gallagher, 1611 La Vita Ct., Arroyo Grande, stated this is the most historic
building in San Luis Obispo. It dates back to 1869 and is the oldest residential wooden
building in town. This is a precious resource and needs to be preserved.
Commissioner Whittlesey requested further staff comment on the historic nature of the
building.
ATTACHMENT 6
3 -ZG
Associate Planner Ricci stated this building is on the City's master list and is eligible for
the National Historic List.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if this request/proposal could jeopardize historic
registry.
Associate Planner Ricci referred to Condition 3 and stated the plans are consistent with
Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Commission approvals.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to (1) recommend to the City Council approval of the
request to rezone the property from R-3-H to R-3-MU-H, based on findings and (2)
anorove the use permit, based on findings and with revised Conditions 1-6 as presented
by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels the redwood tree should be preserved.
Commissioner Ewan supports the motion and is glad to see this project come to fruition.
AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Jeffrey, Ewan, Kourakis, Whittlesey, and
Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commissioner Ready
The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Ready refrained from participation due to a
potential conflict of interest.
The Commission thanked the Godfreys for their perseverance.
3-.23
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#4
BY: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner M MEETING DATE: March 25, 1998
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review ManagV
FILE NUMBER: U, 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 comer of Broad and Palm Streets, and approve a Planning
Commission Use Permit to establish mixed uses at the site.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
A. Recommend to the City Council approval of the request to rezone the property from
R-3-H to R-3-MU-H,based on findings.
B. Approve the use permit,based on findings and with conditions.
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.
The Planning Commission discussed zoning options to accommodate the desired mix of
land uses for the site at two public hearings (8-13-97 & 1-14-98). On January 14, 1998,
the Planning Commission denied the proposed rezoning on a 4-1-2 vote. On January 21,
1998, the applicants filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial. Based on new
information submitted by the applicants prior to the City Council's consideration of the
appeal, but after the Planning Commission hearing, the Council denied the appeal, and
referred the rezoning back to the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENT 7
.3-2�
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 2
The applicants are now requesting Planning Commission support for the mixed use
zoning,as well as approval of a use permit.
Data Summary
Applicants: Keith Godfrey& Kathy Freeman Godfrey
Existing Zoning: Medium-High Density Residential with the Historical Preservation
overlay zone(R-3-H)
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. Staff has
prepared an addendum to the initial study to update the earlier study. 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-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 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.
EVALUATION
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
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 3
house along with proposed offices and how parking requirements could be met.
After the Commission's denial of the MU rezoning request,the applicants filed an appeal
and submitted revised plans showing the locations and sizes of proposed offices, a
conforming separation between land uses in the main house, and a parking layout. From
staff s viewpoint, this new information seemed to address the concerns that the Planning
Commission had previously raised. For this reason, staff had recommended to the
Council that the appeal be denied, but that the rezoning return to the Commission for
consideration. This is the action that the Council took (see attached Resolution No. 8763
(1998 Series). The following paragraphs discuss the revised project and evaluate its
merits:
1. Consistency with the General Plan
The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission's original consideration of the
project on August 13, 1997, focused on the proposal's consistency with the Land Use
Element (LUE) Policy 2.6.2 in the Residential Land Protection section. This is the LUE
policy which discourages amendments to reduce the amount of residentially-designated
properties unless there is a significant public benefit to be achieved, and there is no
comparable alternative site available to accomplish project goals. After that hearing, the
Commission encouraged the applicants to pursue the Mixed Use (MU) overlay zoning to
eliminate the need for a general plan amendment. With the applicant's modified request
which retains the residential zoning of the site, there is no longer a conflict with this
policy.
Another general plan program that was referenced in earlier reports further reinforces the
City's commitment to retaining sites designated for housing (Housing Element Program
3.3.2: "No Net Housing Loss"/Downtown). This program says:
To maintain housing in residentiaUoffice 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.
The attached initial study concludes that the project could be found to be consistent with
this program only with a long-term commitment to preserve on-site housing. The
applicant's modified proposal, which shows an independent and distinct living unit in the
main house, is consistent with the intent of this program.
2. Mixed Use Concept
From the two previous Planning Commission hearings and the City Council hearing on
3��
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 4
the appeal, staff has heard that the following components of the project can be supported:
• 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.
However,the two main objections to earlier plans were:
• It was not demonstrated how a viable residential unit could be created in the
main house;
Staff and the Commission had directed that a floor plan which clearly shows areas
that will be allocated for offices and the residential component within the main
house be submitted This was important for determining an appropriate project
parking requirement, and in evaluating whether general plan policies that call for
no net loss in housing are achieved with the proposed rezoning. Staff feels that new
plans respond to previous direction and show how a small, but complete living unit
can be created along with the offices that the applicant desires.
• The parking layout is awkward and not functional.
With a creative and functional parking plan, staff had supported the idea of a
possible reduction in the required number of spaces and some minor relaxation of
typical standards. However, earlier versions of parking layouts all raised a
multitude of issues. Staff evaluates proposed parking in the next section of this
report.
3. Parking
Currently a garage exists on the northwest portion of site with access off of Palm Street.
The garage which the applicants use to park two cars (18.5' x 21') is slightly smaller in
width than what the City typically requires for a two-car garage (19.2' using average car
dimensions). However, since the garage is existing and will be retained with
rehabilitation of the house, staff recognizes the garage as providing two qualifying
spaces.
Originally, staff viewed retention of the garage as an odd idea which further complicates
efforts to add conforming parking to the site. However, because of the garage's historic
significance and its function as a.screening device for other on-site parking, staff feels
that its retention is probably the best solution and is workable with a project of this
limited scale.
3-z�
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 5
Section 17.16.060 L. of the zoning regulations outlines the process for evaluating the
parking requirements for projects where existing parking is non-conforming and additions
to buildings or changes in use are proposed that increase the site parking requirement.
Current site parking is considered legal nonconforming since the two residential buildings
would have a total parking requirement of 4 spaces and only two on-site spaces are
provided. Staff relied on this section of the code to determine the project parking
requirement.
The code says that with this type of situation that "the parking spaces required for the
addition need to provided in conformance with this chapter, in addition to all parking
spaces already provided for the existing use or structure." Plans show that the proposed
offices will occupy 599 square feet of the floor area of the main house. This would
increase the project parking by two spaces (599 sq. ft./300 sq. ft =2 spaces).
Plans show that the two spaces will be provided beyond the drive-through garage on the
west side of the main house. Staff has evaluated a variety of different schemes to provide
additional parking on the site,some of which showed up to four additional spaces. While
the total quantity of parking was greater with some of the other schemes, there were also
issues with those layouts in terms of compliance with City standards, functionality and
aesthetics. Staff feels that the proposed scheme showing two conforming spaces beyond
the garage can be viewed to meet the increased parking requirement for the project.
In conclusion, the parking solution with this project is a creative one and appropriate
given the unique circumstances associated with this site including the historical
significance of the house. It is not an optimal situation and clearly not an advisable
layout for most projects. However,this project is small in scale and the number of people
that can be expected to be living and working at this site should be able to manage the
logistics of using automatic garage door openers to access parking and work with each,
other on the limitations of their use.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the City Council approve the request with findings that the
amendments can be found consistent with the General Plan.
2. Continue review of the amendments with specific direction to the applicant and staff.
RECOMMENDATION
A. Recommend approval of the request to amend the zoning map from R-3-H to R-3-
MU-H, based on the following findings:
_?_2F
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 6
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent 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 be compatible with surrounding land uses
because additional parking to meet ordinance requirements will be provided.
3. The project is consistent with the goals of the Mixed Use overlay zone which is to
combine residential with commercial uses to provide services, jobs and housing in
close proximity to one another.
4. Mitigation measures provided in the adopted initial study ER 38-97 adequately
address potential environmental impacts of the project. The Planning Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the attached addendum in its
consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 38-97, Rezoning R 38-97,
and Use Permit U 38-97, and finds that the preparation of a subsequent Negative
Declaration is not necessary because:
• the proposed project's scale and complexity has been minimized from original
plans;
• a commitment has been made to retain a separate and functional residential unit in
the main house;
• the changes are consistent with City goals to encourage mixed uses and preserve
housing downtown; and
• the proposal will help to rehabilitate a historical house that was badly damaged by
a fire.
B. Approve the use permit, based on the following findings and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings
1. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with
the surroundings,with neighboring uses, and with each other.
2. The project's design protects the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the
site including:
• the proposed offices provide the property owners with the financial flexibility that
they need to rehabilitate the fire-damaged house consistent with plans already
approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 7
Commission;
• the proposed offices and residential uses on the same site provide the opportunity to
have jobs and housing on the same site; and
• the site is within walking distance of downtown and close to public transportation
which supports mixed use goal to limit automobile use.
4. Mitigation measures provided in the adopted initial study ER 38-97 adequately
address potential environmental impacts of the project. The Planning Commission has
reviewed and considered the information contained in the attached addendum in its
consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 38-97, Rezoning R 38-97,
and Use Permit U 38-97, and finds that the preparation of a subsequent Negative
Declaration is not necessary because:
• the proposed project's scale and complexity has been minimized from original
plans;
• a commitment has been made to retain a separate and functional residential unit in
the main house;
• the changes are consistent with City goals to encourage mixed uses and preserve
housing downtown; and
• the proposal will help to rehabilitate a historical house that was badly damaged by
a fire.
Conditions
1. The use permit will become effective only if the City Council adopts an ordinance to
change the site's zoning to R-3-MU-H.
2. The applicants shall obtain a building permit for the rehabilitation of the house and
the provision of two additional on-site parking spaces. Proposed construction shall
comply with all the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code including: a
one-hour occupancy and noise separation wall between the residential and office
components of the main house; handicapped accessibility to the offices; and
automatic fire sprinklers.
3. Construction documents shall be in substantial conformance with plans previously
approved by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review
Commission.
4. Offices shall be limited to the 600 square feet of floor area as depicted on the floor
plan submitted with the use permit. Two parking spaces are required for the offices.
3�D
Freeman-Godfrey Rezoning(R 38-97)
Page 8
5. Use of the total floor area of the main building at 963 Broad Street as a single-family
residence is consistent with.the intent of the site's mixed use zoning and would be
allowed without any additional planning approvals.
6. Consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center (often referred to
as the "Downtown Plan"), there shall be no vehicular access to the site from Broad
Street.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Site plan/floor plan
Mixed Use (MU)Zone, Chapter 17.55 of Zoning Regulations
Resolution No. 8763 (1998 Series)referring project back to Planning Commission
City Council minutes of 2-17-98
Appeal letter from applicants dated 1-19-98
Follow-up letter,Resolution No. 5210-98 & 1-14-98 Planning Commission minutes
Follow-up letter&8-13-97 Planning Commission minutes
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
Mitigation Measures/Initial Study ER 38-97
Letters from various members of the public regarding project
1:lwning% 38.97.2(GodSey)
.3-3�
O J `
� 2 t/ 1�_y� 1 � •
t`
®
Rt
3 .
i+racw 1t� • �a°m ��Sa
XS O a
(L
Lti •G t�
A.tyd I 'w�'..
I R�
00e
� 3' H ywComS
0~ \
st
PF
\��1 J A� YhA � Z �� °i �A •
a f��Y� F�N`•� rL
r�'r
+ � Odz m"� � • S� '� .
gL ?'�2 An ° ►'� �,, tt/ *�1( VSA �� `att�' P�a� •
A_ fUln+t ym e ,eta
v 4
s�YY � � P¢�,� `ay �`•6y, .ppp�YYY�'�� sr OL✓C J, •'y 'pp'•
t1 t' dye.<'',y+y •y cr" !O'aoo Per y %�r
yA �v� i•� s+ 0-Ir-Ir °i a
VICINITY MAP GP/R 38-9!y NORTH
963 BROAD
rn
r BROAD STREET
z
aDe•e 11a.se�
n - s
� u
2D'-e 1/Y
4
P Cl
a � S
, >
STOW
u
0 s
a 0
❑ C�
a = i a
ti n � i I •
s
I! _
tl 0
I a
L, a
aDe•Q 11a.a D' I
a'-e-
�. r
I
3-33
BROAD STREET 536Q E 1 1 2.58'
m
X � '
� � u
Jn to
u
EXI5TIKG
rn m
4 �
D
Lc� u
rn ` u
5TOPAGE
i
CT
Tn
oEl
p z
r Z
rn
ur , r
FE 11
�o
L.T
o o -�
. 3�y
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 apply it)
MIXED USE IMU) 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
(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 --e
particularly severe on a given site. Such develop
review may also be used to protect areas of sceniL. ar
ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire
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 3-3G
RESOLUTION NO8763 (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-H TO R-
3-MU-11 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. Fes. 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.
R 8761
Resolution No.87601998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of Council Member Williams , seconded by
Council Member Smith ,and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:Council Members Williams, Smith, Roalman, Romero & Mayor Sett
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17"day of February, 1998.
l
ayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
ity Clerk Bowe Ga
APPROVED:
ty o y Je ey .Jorgensen
3 3P
City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday,February 17, 1998-7:00 p.m.
2. APPEAL-963&967 BROAD STREET (File No.407)
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by the applicants 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 comer of Broad and Palm Streets; Keith Godfrey
and Kathy Freeman Godfrey,applicants.
Community Development Director Jonas presented the staff report, explaining that remarks
made by the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing indicate that revisions that have
since been made by the appellants will likely be acceptable to the Commission.
Mayor Settle opened the public hearing.
Valerie Ratto, Principal of Mission School, near the subject property, stated that she and
parents of her students are concerned about the safety of children crossing the street She
asked Council to deny the appeal.
Keith and Kathy Godfrey, Owners of 963 & 967 Broad, stated that since the Planning
Commission hearing, they have redesigned the project and believe it meets the
requirements of the Planning Commission. They reviewed those changes with the Council
and noted that the Environmental Impact Study will be redone to address the new use. Mr.
Godfrey noted that the use would be compatible with the long-term plan to close Broad
Street to vehicles.
Brett Cross, 1215 Mariners' Cove, stated that he is concerned with changing the use from
residential to mixed use, and that the residential use should be protected, as stated in the
Housing Element He noted that he is fearful that it may set a precedent.
Brian Christianson, 818 Pismo, agreed with the previous speaker. He said the Housing
Element indicates that core residential uses be protected. He noted that the area is suitable
for a single family dwelling.
Mayor Settle closed the public hearing.
After discussion, moved by Williams/Smith to adopt Resolution No. 8763 denying the
appeal, referring the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider new information
submitted by the applicants; motion carried ('S-0).
Council Members noted for the record that they were denying the appeal to expedite the
process, not to deny the project
3. APPEAL-SIDEWALK INSTALLATION-88 BUENA VISTA (File No.407)
Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal by Alan Deckel to waive sidewalk
improvements at 88 Buena Vista; Ernie and Tawn Roid,owners.
Public Works Director McCluskey presented the staff report stating that staff recommends a
sidewalk on the Buena Vista side of the residence, but not the Santa Maria Side.
Mayor Settle opened the public hearing.
Ernie Roid, Appellant, asked that the Council concur with the staff recommendation,
outlining reasons that a sidewalk along Santa Mara is not practical.
Monday, January 19, 1998
Pamela Ricci. A U T O Q U E S 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
i 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 774/252.9710
FAX 714/252.9711
2495 DA VINCI
IRVINE. CA
9 2 714 3-x/0
II
All 11 city ® sem tuis oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
January 16, 1998
Kathy Freeman _
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,
�7�� F Gt.'lzC2 Pica n�. ,KIK
Ronald G. Whisenand
Development Review Manager
Attachment: Resolution 5210-98
cc: Autoquest Information Services Inc.
ATTACHMENT 5
I �I The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in nu of its services, programs and activities. 7�
v Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(8051 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 Strect
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 Gencral Plan,
specifically Housing Element Program 3.3.2 which calls for no net housing loss in the
downtown area.
3-�/z
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 officc 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 U'05210.93
3- y3
Draft•Minutes
Planning Commission Meeting
January 14, 1998
Page 11
4. Commission:
Chairman Senn distributed copies of a l/ttere sentto Council as requested at the Jan. 14
hearing regarding the Commission's concerns relative to fratemities/sororities.
Assist. City Atty. Clemens described changes in the Brown Act and distributed copies of
a relative article.
l
Development Review Manager Whisenand reported the League of Califomia Cities
conference has been set for March 5-7 ,in Long Beach. Interested Commissioners may
contact Mary Kopecky.
Commissioner Whittlesey notified staff of an ad in the New Times for a business/retail
i
establishment operating in a residential neighborhood.
C
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
tt
3-yy
)�rafl-ivlirrQtes
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 altematives, 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).
iz
3 -ifs'
Braft Minute&
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
referred 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 '!
13rd'ft'Mtttt}t8S
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 concems 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 concem 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 thedoctor's
operations. She described some of the businesses that had historically operated in the
neighborhood.
14
3-T f
Braft SAiriutes
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 per staff's 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 tum 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
abs+a1ned
The motion passed 41-2. Commissioner Ready rGfiakwd 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-
15
3-y�
X11111
city ® sem l�,s oaspo
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 Zd
Development Review Manager
cc: Dan Lloyd, EDA
Autoquest Information Services
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
3-yy
C Telxnmmiinir�}innc nZre fnr The rleef IRnSl 7R1.7d1n
Planning Commission iV,Lnutes
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 99-97: 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 staffs 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.
?
Planning CommiSSIOLL 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 J%,,,tutes
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:
3 —SZ
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 -S3
Planning Commission t...autes
August 13, 1997
Page I 1
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 change 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 E 46-97: Request to amend the General Plan Land
Use Element Map from low-density r sidential to offices, rezone from R-1 to Office with
special considerations combining zo a (O-S), and review of environmental analysis for
plan amendment and rezone; Carolyn OaQzr,applicant.
Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff r 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.
3��
��III�p�IIdIII�IIIIIIIII����I���Hill!!II II� I�
City Of SM WIS OBISPO
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.
FThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Talornmmuniratinns Device tnr the Deaf!6051 781-7410.
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
1111111 II
city of sAn tuffs oBispo
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 determines 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 ,
Amold B. Jonas,
Community Development Director
t:khd\Diiecw evxptia .
I�/ The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications novice fnr tho noaf lftnSt 701_7AIn
� 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. S O
n.�,;,e r, th. ne f Tann 701-7AIM
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
II
city ® sem tuis oBispo
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 9751/2 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
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Addendum to Initial Study ER 38-97
Based on direction given to applicants by City staff and the Planning Commission, the
applicants' proposal has been modified since the project was originally reviewed by the
Planning Commission on August 13, 1997. 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 comer 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 '/z Broad Street
Mitigation measure No. 1 in the attached Initial Study is no longer pertinent since the
request has been modified to delete the need for a general plan amendment. With the
applicant's modified project which retains the residential zoning of the site, there is no
longer a conflict with Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.6.2 in the Residential Land
Protection section.
Plans for site development are essentially consistent with those previously reviewed by
Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission with the
exception of two uncovered space being provided beyond the existing garage. Since the
proposed garage will be retained because of its historic significance and its function as a
screening device for other on-site parking, staff feels that this parking solution is
workable with a project of this limited scale and will not result in significant impacts to
the environment.
The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to Initial Study ER 38-
97 is necessary to document"minor technical changes or additions"that have occurred in
the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. The Planning
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in this addendum in
its consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 38-97,Rezoning R 38-97, and
Use Permit U 38-97, and finds that the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration
is not necessary because:
• the proposed project's scale and complexity has been minimized from original
plans;
• a commitment has been made to retain a separate and functional residential unit in
the main house;
• the changes are consistent with City goals to encourage mixed uses and preserve
housing downtown; and
• the proposal will help to rehabilitate a historical house that was badly damaged by
a fire.
5 -��
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 38-97
963, 9679 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-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 r
conditioned to require the retention of on-site housing. With the AS@ over)
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 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
Pro ram: 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 (SARE) 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 applicant to
agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released
3-6L
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
ter%38-97.mit
3_ G3
����������►�i►►�►1111�IIIIIIIIIn►►►��������i III
e city of sAn luis oBipos
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. 3 -4,141
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(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 all,
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 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.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
None
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 ?, ,, A ,.<'.
Transportation and Utilities and Service ; - Uffi
Circulation Systems
F
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, ther
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 impose
upon the proposed project.
3 —�o�G
August 3, 1997
Sig ure 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 information 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 CEO.A 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 3-��
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote,i:,ally Potentially Leu Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 38-97 Issues Impact
mitigation
Page 5 Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 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 wit
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 Oement
Section 2.6, Residential Land Protection, specifically Policy 2.6.2 says:
AV 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 sit
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-terry
guarantee that existing residential uses would be retained at the site with approval of the requestek
amendments. It appears that Criterion B. above,"no comparable alternative", could not be met since other
5 3-(0�
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potc..,.aily Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 38-97 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
properties exist in the O and C-C zones which allow mixed residential and office uses.
Mitigation Measure:
To find the requested amendments consistent with Land Use Policy 2.6.2, the Planning Commission an
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 Office
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 ne
modern structure at the site, would be consistent with this policy.
Housing Element •
• Goal H 3.1.1: Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing supply and prevent displacement o
current occupants.
• Porcy 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 Housin
Element policy consistency section.
• Policy H 3.2.3: Rehabilitation of Older DwelCngs. 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.
6
� -G j
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenually Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 38-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
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
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on February 3, 1997. The plans approved by the ARC indicated
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 is 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, thel
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 near
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 the
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 constructed
7
3 -7o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteuually Potenuatly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues ess Impact
ER 38-97 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
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 mitigation
measure, suggested in Section 1 above to require retention of some long-term housing on-site, this impac
would be minimized.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
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, which
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:
a) 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 decreas
8
3-7/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 38-97 Issues Unless Impact
mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
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 QUALITY. 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
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 physical
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? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 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.
8. 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
9
3-7Z
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenuaiiy Potentially I ess Than lvo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 38-97 mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
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
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 i
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:
a) 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
10
3-73
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 38-97 mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
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 th
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:
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, E
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 nevy
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
11
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenually Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 38-97 Issues mitigation
less Impact
Page 12 Incorporated
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, rather
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,
12 r
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potennally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 38-97 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
21093, 321094, 21151; Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (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.
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 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 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
13
3 -70
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pota,uauy Potentially IessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 38-97 Issuesmitiess Impact
gation
Page 14 Incorporated
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
14
Frank and Doris Serpa
Retain this dccumertfor 391 Woodbridge
future Council rneetirg San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED
2-1 9- 4£3
Gatp, agsn+i zed January 29, 1998 FEB 4 1998
CITY of
[7[3�
GrCDD❑ FIN DIR
COMMUN�y nEVECO BI aO
Mayor Allen Settle ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Council ❑ PW DIR
City Hall ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Dear Council Members: ❑ PERS DIR
On January 14, Mary Bachino and I went to the Planning Commission meeting to support Keith
and Kathy Godfrey who purchased our family home at 963 Broad Street. As you are aware, that
home was destroyed by fire in November of 1996. Since then the Godfreys have been trying to
get it rebuilt. A year ago they submitted plans to the City which were approved and in keeping with
the historical requirements of the City.
Some of the people who own rental property in the area would have you believe it is an exclusive
residential neighborhood. It is not. While it is a lovely location, and was an attractive house,it is
important to face the facts:
1. The Broad Street front of the house is often closed by the City for street fairs
and vendors. That creates a lot of noise and litter right at the house.
2. It is a heavy traffic corner with both people and cars.
3. It is across the street from a school (no other houses in that block).
4 It is across the street from the Mission Church and Mission Plaza(no houses).
S. It is kitty-corner from an apartment complex.
6. There is an apartment house abutting the back fence.
7 There is one house separating them from a public Museum.
8. On the west comer of the block the City purchased property for a parking lot or garage.
Having a very personal interest in the home, we are delighted that the Godfreys want to rebuild it to
look as close as possible to the original keeping in mind that the house had no foundation and needs
a tremendous amount of work. The house the Godfreys want to build would be a definite asset to
that comer and would indeed be a home. The fact that they worked inside would not spoil that effect.
Their immediate neighbors agree with that. Since that house was built for a doctor's office(in about
1885) with a residence attached in the back, it is an awkward floor plan to repeat. The Godfreys are
trying to maintain that,adopting it for their own use. It would still have a white picket fence,roses,
and a garage. Everyone would be happy.
Designating houses as historical sites is a positive thing for the City but when it entirely ties the hands
of the people who own them then it doesn't seem reasonable. When the Godfreys bring their plan to
your Council for approval, we respectfully ask that you look at what would make the most sense
considering the very public location of the house. We understand that the Godfrey's only alternative
to this last appeal will be to tum the property over to developers to put up another apartment house.
We hope that won't happen.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
FEB 0 3 .1997
SLO CITY COUNCIL 7Y
I
/ + ,atsir,this dociment for
u Gl 1� iussure Cou:�cit meeting
CA G� 3 ��� - Z3� c;,7-1'7—9�
Data;#aoerdized
rJ��' ��3� '��3� ' �5�1 I �.13i7Z ( �' <<-� • C: co4unc14
• (P, Q�v{t�s�;�and
Wa,v'. ��,II�n�vus
9q U �� I S+ RECEIVES
Lv;o Ob oe CA C131-E01 NOV Z 5 1991
k�
SLO CIS' COUNCIL
C-Rlvn v-n f vvn S (,)o fN
GAc{,u.L
a C7Y1
q
t� J
n Miss/M
•
. � occq _
� 1 5 -{- tee.NV5 (� 3
r Ui•YL � ��'ae� �I ��i S •�e�iv��.P (X 1� rs�
over 5o
Was �s d �� dale-mss - ��( eJ aA s
Gttl.�c e,, t r tWvv, i� 1� . i,Jrr s e. m ov,n,
������ �a�1.Q.. � G�tu,�,� �-o h����e. t►n . (,J�'Lv� � ��'�
VAS vY S J e
p.pQ.n . �DuSP S . •. .
f J
a 0 l D J�I I'C/v r� �/} 1�,(bn E
GMs
I n c;-, 8 49t
r
`j'� 0 uJYt Cc1h. vYrGc Case
L4 4 .j � � ��y u� �teo� VZc 6C,e os I�✓ �5
U01- Cl-LQ CL rtj- Le
cw do s Vl ryp,
I f
V SIrC&r2 I
To: The Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
January 14, 1998
From: Ralph APeters / ��/ /� �2�
Property Owner, 756 Palm Street ��- /�
RECEIVED
Re: Application Number R 38-97, the Godfrey project. Q(Z•
JAN 1.1998
I wrote to you earlier about this project; that letter is attached. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Godfrey proposals appear to embrace everything in vague, non-revealing, non-
committal ways, and they skirt the real issues. There are two important areas to be
addressed for this site:
1. The final working plan should re-affirm the policy of the General Plan, that
there be no net loss of established residential use. The established residences
on this site should not be transformed into extensions of the applicants' offices.
Nor should they be used as an adjunct to their business as part-time dwellings.
2. The final working plan for this site should substantially incorporate the main
goals of the Housing Element. It is important to preserve the landmarks and
historic buildings of the city. And, it is equally important to conserve the
residential uses that provide identity and character to the city.
The site is in a neighborhood which is predominantly residential and has a 24-hour
presence. This neighborhood also has public spaces, such as the schools, the
Mission and its gardens, and the museum. These places are compatible with
residential use and they enhance the neighborhood. Any contemplated mixed use
should respect what is already there.
3-�/
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 no retail within itself, 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
�/
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.
3-�Z
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 Jeffrey, 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 to a date uncertain because the applicants have failed 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 ofthe "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
ofthe 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 of the 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 yourattentiou 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.
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
that it assures an income value that helps to sustain the residence in its historical character.
;Sincerely,
i --
eth E chwartz, FAIR-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
3 -v7
HECEIVED
fra"k mb Doris Serpa AUG 2 S 1997
391 WoobribSe Cm of SAN LUIS oeSPp
San Luis Obisv.CA 93<wt �OMMUNtrYpEyELople
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
3 -�s