The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/1998, 1 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 3053 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET (U-63-98). ROBERT TAKKEN, APPLICANT; CHUCK CROTSER, REPRESENTATIVE. council j acEnaa Repout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Al- FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a use permit to allow a mixed-use project at 3053 South Higuera Street (U-63-98). Robert Takken, applicant; Chuck Crotser,representative. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt Draft Resolution"A" denying the appeal,and upholding the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. DISCUSSION Situation On June 10, 1998, the City Planning Commission approved a use permit to allow a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square feet of commercial building on the subject property. The Planning Commission's approval also included a master list of allowed uses for the mixed-use project. Attachment 3 is a copy of the Planning Commission staffreport. The project site is developed with 10 older apartments,in need of repair,which will be demolished resulting in the displacement of the tenants currently residing on the property. On June 19, 1998, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed by two residents, representing the tenants at 1053 South Higuera. The appellants do not feel that the Planning Commission action fully considers the project's consequences on the tenants, and they are asking the City Council to condition the project to provide relocation assistance for the tenants. Background Project Description Request for a use permit to allow a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square feet of commercial building. Uses permitted at the project would include a variety of service and neighborhood-commercial uses,professional offices, and residential apartments. The project site is a 0.67-acre rectangular-shaped lot located on the east side of South Higuera between Chumash Street and Margarita Lane. The property carries a land use designation of "Services and Manufacturing" and is zoned C-S-MU (Service Commercial-Mixed Use). Generally flat,the site has a less than 2% slope. No significant vegetation exists on the property. A mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact was granted by the Community Development Director in June of 1993. Because there have been no significant changes in the surrounding area, staff determined that the previously approved negative declaration is still valid. Moreover, since the proposed project is smaller than the project reviewed under the initial environmental study/negative declaration (ER 72-93), it will not generate impacts beyond those N U 63-98 appeal(Takke. 3053 South Higuera Page 2 identified and evaluated in the previous environmental document. Therefore, the findings and mitigation measures contained in ER 72-93,.are incorporated as part of U-63-98 by reference. Proiect History The subject property was originally part of a use permit (R/`U 72-93) for a larger mixed-use project, including an adjacent parcel owned by Mr. McBride, with 13,461 sq. 8. of commercial uses, 14 residential units and a mixed-use parking reduction. In August, 1993, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a rezone of the property from C-S to C-S-MU, and approved Use Permit R/U 72-93 allowing a mixed-use project with 14 apartments and 13,461 sq. ft. of commercial and office uses. In September, 1993, the City Council approved a rezone of the property and adopted a negative declaration of environmental impact for the project(ER 72-93). In May of 1993, the City's Architectural Review Commission granted schematic approval of the mixed-used project No other actions have been taken on the original mixed use project. In May of 1994,the approved use permit expired. The applicant is now requesting approval of a new use permit, on his property only,with some modifications to the original design. In April of 1998,the owner filed an application for a use permit with the City. Plannine Commission Action On June 10, 1998, the City Planning Commission, on a 4-1-1 vote (Comr. Ewan refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest and Comr. Ready opposed), approved use permit, U-63-98, with findings and conditions. Following is a summary of the issues discussed at the Planning Commission meeting as well as the Commission's final action. At the June 10 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed several issues including: the differences between the previously approved project (Use Permit (R/U-72-93) and the proposed project; the intent of the Mixed-Use (MU) zone and establishing a balanced mix of commercial to residential development on the site; the inclusion of affordable housing in accordance with the City standards;and land use compatibility between the allowed uses for the mixed-use project. After substantial discussion, the Planning Commission approved the use permit with several conditions which included: 1) the project shall have a development mix of 70% residential and 30% commercial; 2)the project shall have a maximum lot coverage of 60%; 3) the project shall make 20% of the residential units available be for affordable housing per City standards (this condition was agreed to by the owner's representative); and 4) all applicable conditions and mitigation measures under U 72-93 and ER 72-93 be incorporated into the project. In addition, the Planning Commission approved a master list of allowed uses for the project. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment 3. Attachment 4 is a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval (Res. No. 5227-98). Attachment 5 is a copy of the minutes from the June 10 meeting. /-Z U 63-98 appeal(Takken) 3053 South Higuera Page 3 Evaluation The appellants state that the Planning Commission action does not address the project's impacts on the tenants living on the property. This issue was addressed in the previous environmental report and in the approval of use permit,U 63-98. The initial environmental study (ER 72-93) finds that the project will have an impact on affordable housing. Specifically, the project will result in the loss of 10 units of housing affordable to low-income renters, and the displacement of the existing renters with the demolition of the apartments. The initial study concludes that this aspect of the project appears to conflict with the City's housing goals and policies relating to the conservation of affordable housing and minimizing displacement. However, these rental units are in substandard physical condition and would not necessarily be ideal candidates for preservation. The initial study and use permit approval contain specific measures to mitigate impacts on affordable housing. Those measures include following: a) the property owner shall give the residents written notice of eviction at least 90 days prior to the start of demolition(PC Res. 5123-93-Condition 5); b) the owner submit a draft eviction notice for review and approval by the Director of Community Development(PC Res. 5123-98-Condition 6); and c) a minimum of 20% of the units (about 4) shall be provided as affordable housing to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. As outlined in the appellants' letters, the tenants do not feel that the Commission's decision adequately addresses the project's consequences on the residents currently living on the site. They do not object to the project, but are asking the Council to give consideration to assisting the tenants with the costs for relocation. Specifically, they are requesting that the following items be incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. 1. Once the 90 day eviction notice is posted, a rent moratorium be granted. 2. All security deposits be returned to the tenants. 3. Assistance in finding comparable affordable housing. 4. A relocation allowance of$1,000 be paid to the tenants. 1. Rent Moratorium: Under current law, the City is not obligated to require a rent moratorium as requested by the appellants. State law allows jurisdictions to impose rent moratoriums on mobile homes parks, but not privately owned apartments. As such, the City does not have the authority to impose a rent moratorium on the landlord. Any rent reductions or subsidies would have to be negotiated between the landlord and tenants. 2. Security Deposits: City Council does not have the authority to dictate if and when a landlord returns a security deposit to a renter. The California Civil Code establishes the basic rules governing security deposits. Although a security deposit cannot be labeled "nonrefundable", the law allows the landlord to keep part or all of the security deposit under certain circumstances. For example, a tenant moving out and still owing rent, or leaving the rental unit in a damaged condition. Under state law, the tenants are already entitled to a refund of their security deposits based on the conditions of the rental agreement between the landlord and renter. The appellants /-3 U 63-98 appeal(Takkeh, 3053 South Higuera Page 4 and tenants should consult the California Tenants" A Guide to Residential Tenants' and Landlords' Rights and Responsibilities prepared by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs. This publication is available at the Community Development Department. 3. Comparable Housing: The City does not have the authority to require the developer to assist the tenants in finding comparable housing. As part of the Planning Commission approval of the use permit, the project is required make 20 percent of the units available as affordable housing (approximately 4 apartments) in accordance with the City's Housing Affordability Standards. The City could encourage the owner to give the existing tenants the first opportunity to rent the new units. The property owner and his representative have been provided information on affordability and the Section 8 housing assistance program. It is staff's understanding that the property owner is researching this issue so that he can make a decision on this matter. 4. Relocation Allowance: The California Government Code requires a public entity to provide housing assistance and grant a relocation allowance when that agency is acquiring the land for public purpose and benefit. For example, if the City were purchasing the land to construct a parking garage, state law would require the City to give the displaced tenants a relocation allowance. Relocation assistance also applies to mobilehome parks which are converted to a different use. In this case, the project is a private apartment development and any relocation assistance would have to be negotiated between the developer and the tenants. Additional Project Requirements Although the list of allowed uses approved by the Planning Commission are not part of this appeal, the Council may want to consider modifying the list to add language requiring any use proposing to operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to obtain an administrative use permit. This requirement was added to the master list of uses for the Crossroads mixed-use project which was recently modified by the City Council. Given City Council's recent decision, staff is recommending that the City Council add the same requirement for this project. The revised master list of allowed uses is attached to draft City Council resolution "A" (Attachment 1). The recommended changes to the master list of uses allowed for the proposed project are as follows: Uses Allowed by Right Retail sales-convenience stores (4,500 sq.ft. maximum) Uses Which Require Administrative Use Permit Any use operating between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.* Any uses similar to those listed above which are consistent with the General Plan Restaurants, sandwich shops,takeout food, etc. *Includes those uses Allowed by Right. U 63-98 appeal(Takken) 3053 South Higuera Page 5 FISCAL IMPACTS None ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council could adopt draft Resolution`B"upholding the appeal and denying the use permit. This action would require the Council to adopt the appropriate findings for denial; or 2. The City Council may continue action with specific direction to the applicant and staff; or Attachments: Attachment 1 - Draft Resolution"A" (Deny Appeal) Attachment 2 - Draft Resolution`B" (Uphold Appeal) Attachment 3 - Planning Commission staff report of June 10, 1998 Attachment 4- Planning Commission Resolution Approving U 63-98 Attachment 5 - Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1998 Attachment 6 - Letters of Appeal �'J City Council Report - Attachment 1 Draft Resolution"A" RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 3053 SOUTH HIGUERA,U-63-98. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 10, 1998, and approved use permit(U-63-98) to allow the development of a mixed use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square foot commercial building at 3053 South Higuem Street; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission's action was appealed on June 19, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 21, 1998, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the applicant, the records of the Planning Commission hearings and recommendation, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1.Action: The appeal is hereby denied. SECTION 2. Use Permit Modification. The master list of allowed uses under use permit,U-63- 98, is modified as shown in Exhibit"A"(attached). On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of July, 1998. ATTEST: Mayor Allen Settle Acting City Clerk Kim Condon APPROVED: y Je G orgensen Exhibit"A" — MASTER LIST OF ALLOWED USES FOR MILD USE PROJECT 3053 South Higuera Street File Number: U 63-98 Uses Allowed by Right Automatic bank teller machines (no associated office) Barbers,hair stylists and manicurists Bicycle sales and repair Broadcast studios Catering Services Christmas tree sales Credit reporting and collection Day care homes and centers Delivery and private postal services Dry cleaners-pick up point only Florists Laundromat-self service laundry Offices-professional engineers, architects, interior and industrial design advertising and related services general and special building contractor's offices (no medical, dental or government agency offices) Photocopy service; quick printers Photo-finishing-retail Photo-finishing-wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming services Photographic studios Retail sales-appliances, furniture and furnishing,musical instruments,computers,office and medical equipment, catalogue stores,sporting goods Retail sales-auto parts and accessories,except tires and batteries as a principle use Retail sales-convenience stores(4,500 square foot maximum) Ticket/havel agencies Vending machines Wholesale and mail order houses /'7 Uses Which Require an Administrative Use Permit Any of the uses similar to those listed above allowed by the General Plan Any use operating between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 am.* Banks and savings and loans(branch only,no headquarters) Conversion of dwelling units for any other allowed use Equipment rental(no outdoor sales,storage or display) Organization(professional,religious,political labor,fraternal,trade,youth)offices and meeting rooms Repair services-household appliances,computers,locksmith, saw sharpening, shoe repair(no outdoor sales,storage or display)must demonstrate compatibility in terms of noise and safety Restaurants, sandwich shops,takeout food,etc. Temporary sales Temporary uses-not other wise listed *Includes Uses Allowed by Right ��o City Council Report - Attachment 2 — Draft Resolution "B" RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING CONBHSSION'S DECISION AND DENYING A USE PERNIIT TO ALLOW A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 3053 SOUTH HIGUERA,U-63-98 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 10, 1998, and approved use permit U-63-98 to allow the development of a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square foot commercial building at 3053 South Higuera Street;and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 21, 1998 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the previously adopted Negative Declaration of environmental impact for R/U 72-93 and determined that the project{U-63-98) will not generate impacts beyond those evaluated in the previous environmental document. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the findings and mitigation measures of the environmental document into the project by reference. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration.of U 63-98 and the Planning Commission's hearing and action, staff recommendations,public testimony,and reports thereof,makes the following findings: (Council specifies findings to be used) SECTION 3. Denial. The request for approval of U 63-98 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 . 199-. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Acting City Clerk Kim Condon APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen City Council Report- Attachment 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ------ — _ PLANNING CONEVIISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 5 BY: John Shoals, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: June 10, 1998 FROM:-Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager ' "V FILE NUMBER U-63-98 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3053 South Higuera SUBJECT: Request to allow a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square foot (sq.fL)commercial building. RECOMMENDATION Approve the use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report. BACKGROUND Data Summary Address: 3053 South Higuera Applicant: Robert Takken - Property owner. Robert Takken Representative: Charles Crotzer Zoning: CS-MU Service Commercial/Mixed Use General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental status: A mitigate negative declaration was granted by the Director on June 17, 1993. Project action deadline: July 3, 1998. Project Description Request for a use permit to allow a mixed use project with 18 apartments*and 4,200 square feet. of commercial building. Uses permitted at the project would include a variety of service and neighborhood-commercial uses,professional offices,and residential apartments. Site Description The project site is a 0.67-acre rectangular-shaped lot located on the east side of South Higuera between Chumash Street and Margarita Lane. It is generally flat with a less than 2% slope. There is no significant vegetation on the site. The property is designated as Services and Manufacturing in the General Plan and is zoned C-S- MU (Service Commercial-Mixed Use). Existing development includes an older one-story apartment complex(the Palm Court)that was once a small motel,but is now10 rental units. The project proposes to demolish the existing structure. The surrounding area is a combination of commercial and residential uses. The Chumash /,(� Use Permit U 63-98 — 3053 South Iliguera Page 2 Village Mobilehome Park is located to the north and east. To the south is a series of service- commercial buildings and a small retail/service center. Office buildings are located across the street to the west Backexound and History The subject property was originally part of a use permit (R/LT 72-93) for a larger mixed use project with 25,120 sq.ft. of commercial uses, 14 residential units and a mixed use parking reduction. In August, 1993,the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approved a rezone of the property from C-S to C-S-MU, and approved Use Permit R/U 72-93 allowing a mixed use project with 14 apartment and 13,461 sq.ft, of commercial and office use. In September, 1993,the City Council approved a rezone of the property and adopted a negative declaration of environmental impact for the project(ER 72-93). In May of 1993,the City's Architectural Review Commission granted schematic approval of the of the mixed used project No other actions have been taken on the original mixed use project. In May of 1994,the approved use permit expired. The applicant is now requesting approval of a new use permit with some modifications to the original design. EVALUATION In reviewing the proposed project,staff identified two issues: 1)percent mix and balance of uses; and 2) consistency with the City General Plan and Zoning Regulations; and 3) types of uses proposed . In addition, a comparison of the.proposed mixed use project and the previously approved project was done to determine where the two projects differ, and if the proposed mixed project still meets the intent of the MU zone. Comparison of Proposed Proiect and Previously Approved Proiect. Table 1 is a comparison of the proposed mixed use project and the previously approved mixed use project(U 72-93). As shown in the table,the original project involved the construction of a 25,120 sq. R mixed use project consisting of 13,461 sq. ft. of commercial/office use and 11,660 sq. ft. of residential use. By comparison, the proposed project involves the construction of a 15,000 sq.ft.mixed use project consisting of 4,200 sq. ft.of commercial use and 10,800 sq.ft. of residential uses. The original project allowed for the construction of 14 residential units (10 1- bedroom units and 4 2-bedroom units) compared to 18 one-bedroom units for the proposed project The original project had a parking requirement of 70 spaces (with the 20% mixed use parking reduction)where the proposed project would have a parking demand of 33 spaces. /—/J� Use Permit U 63-98 3053 South lEguera Page 3 It should,however,be noted that these figures do not take into account the potential development of the McBride property which was part of the previously approved mixed use.project To maintain the overall mix approved with the original proposal, this property would have to be developed with 10,000 SF of commercial use and no residential. This could potentially lead to problems with the future development of this property. Table 1: Comparison of Mixed Use Projects PROPOSED PROJECT PREVIOUSLY U 63-98 , APPROVED U 72-93 SIZE OF SITE(acres) 0.67 acres 1.61 acres LAND USE DESIGN. Services and Services and Manufacturing Manufacturing ZONING CS-MU CS-MU TOTAL FLOOR AREA 15,000 SF 25,121 SF USE SUMMARY COMMERCIAIJOFFICE 4,200 SF 13,461 SF RESIDENTIAL 1 10,800 SF 11,660 SF COMJRES. DEVL.RATIO 280/o/72% 550/a/45% RESIDENTIAL (DU) 18 - 1 bedroom Units 14 Total Units 10- 1 bedrooms 4-2 bedrooms PARKING REQUIRED 33 88 COMMERCIAL 14 61 RESIDENTIAL 27 23 OFFICE 0 4 Percent Mix and Balance of Uses Staff is concerned that the balance between commercial use and residential use is more weighted towards residential. As shown in Table 1, the previously approved mixed use project had a balanced mix of uses with commercial use at 55%and residential use at 45%of the project By comparison, this proposed mixed use project has of 28% commercial and 72% residential. The issue is whether the proposed mixed use project has an acceptable combination of commercial and residential uses to satisfy the intent and purpose of the MU zone. The primary purpose of the MU zone is to promote a compact city,to provide additional housing opportunities(including affordable housing opportunities), and to reduce auto travel by providing services, jobs and housing in close proximity. /-!3 Use Permit U 63-98 3053 South Higuera Page 4 In considering whether to approve this proposed mixed use project, the Commission needs to determine: what is an acceptable ratio of commercial and residential uses for the project, and if the proposed project meets the intent of the MU zone. Staff recommends that the previously approved 55% commercial, 45% residential ratio be maintained to meet the intent of the MU zone. General Plan Consistency The Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings in granting a use permit within the MU zone. One of those criteria is that the project's mixed uses are consistent with the General.Plan and compatible with surrounding neighborhood uses, and each other. Given that Use Permit U 72-93 was approved in 1993 and the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations were recently updated, the project's master use list contains some uses that are no longer consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends that those uses considered to be inconsistent with the General Plan be deleted. In addition, staff recommends that the list of uses be brought into compliance with the City Zoning Regulations. Staff s recommended revisions are contained in Attachment 1. Types of Proposed Uses The applicant did not submit a new list of uses as he would like to retain the list of allowed uses approved as part of the previously approved multi-use project. Attachment 1 is a list of the allowed uses approved under the original use permit. Staff s recommendations are outlined below and show in Attachment 1. Allowed Uses-.-Staff recommends the following uses be deleted because they are inconsistent with the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. • Christmas tree sales(see Section 17.08.0101)of Zoning Regulations) • Retail sales-groceries,liquor,and specialized foods(bakery,meats,dairy items, etc.) Uses Allowed by Director's or Plammnz Commission Use Permit: Staff recommends the following uses be deleted because they are inconsistent with the City's General Plan or Zoning . Ordinance. • Retail sales-general merchandise(drug,hardware,discount,department and variety stores) • Retail sales and rental specialities(shoe stores,clothing stores,book/record/video tape stores, toy stores,stationery stores,gift shops) With the above revisions, the list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses proposed for the mixed use project will be consistent with the General Plan and City Zoning Ordinance. Use Permit U 63-98 — 3053 South Higuera Page 5 ALTERNATIVES As an alternative to the staff recommendation,the Planning Commission may: 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the use permit for the mixed use project without modification;or 2. Continue action with specific direction to the applicants and staff;.or 3. Deny the project . STAFF RECONEMMMATION Approve the mixed use project based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval. Findings: 1. The proposed mixed use project, with modifications, is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. The proposed uses are appropriate for the C-S zone, and meet the intent and purpose of the Service and.Manufacturing designation. 2. The proposed mixed use project, with modifications, will comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements,Chapter 17.22:Use Regulations. 3. The proposed project design and mix of uses is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible internally and with surrounding land uses. 4. The proposed project design and mix of uses will not adversely affect the health,safety and welfare of person living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 5. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single use development of the site because of the proximity of workplaces to housing and incentives for automobile trip reduction. Conditions: 1. At buildout, the mixed use project shall achieve a balance between uses and provide a percent mix of 55% commercial to 45% residential use. 2. All applicable conditions established under Use Permit R/U 72-93 shall remain in effect and apply to Use Permit U 63-98. Those conditions are incorporated herein,by reference. Use Permit U 63-98 3053 South Higuera Page 6 3. Allowed uses shall be revised to comply with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in Attachment 1. 4. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. Attachments: Attachment 1 - List of Allowed Uses approved for Use Permit R/U 72-93 Attachment 2- Vicinity Map Attachment 3 - Project Site/Building Plan Attachment 4- Resolution Approving Use Permit R/U 72-93 /46 MASTER USE PERMIT LISTING FOR MIXED-USE PROJECT 3053, 3071, 3085 South Higuera Street File Number: R/U 72-93 The following uses are allowed without any requirement for use permit approval: Automatic bank teller machines (no associated office use) Barbers, hair stylists, and manicurists Bicycle sales and repair Broadcast studios Catering services Christmas tree sales Credit reporting and collection Day care homes and centers Deliverynand private postal services Detective and security services Dry cleaners - pick up point only Florists Laundromat - self service laundry Offices - professional engineers, architects, interior and industrial design - advertising and related services - general and special building contractors' offices Organization (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms . Photocopy service; quick printers Photofinishing - retail Photofinishing - wholesale; and blueprinting and microfilming services Photographic studios Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, etc. Retail sales- appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments, computers, office and medical equipment, catalogue stores, sporting goods Retail sales- auto parts and accessories, except tires and batteries as a principle use Ticket/travel agencies Vending machines Wholesale and mail order-houses 6 (Cont'd.) The following uses are allowed by.Director's approval of an administrative use permit: notes in italics describe reasons for requiring use permit approval Banks and savings and loans - only branches of banks are allowed - no headquarters - should not consume so much square footage that a good selection of other resident-serving businesses is precluded Equipment rental - no outdoor sales, storage or display Repair services - household appliances, computers, locksmith, saw sharpening, shoe repair - must demonstrate compatibility in.term of noise and safety - no outdoor.sales, 'storag4 or display e . toy, 0 vir�e��z:arez�►sS�era nsa� of-e :�se�r�rgb�ar��e3oGa Temporary sales Temporary uses - not otherwise listed 7 I fY�rG �lEll . • Y , ' R4D 17 + 24 A71-a: 57 u u•s• 1 as .mac a4-so es-,a • '7s,aa-cae N M r • ! .♦ Lo Sq 58 A .j L s _• ..1t5 � ii. 6( LL 63 Lk• ' O 1 vour. i W►.-.at5 i jr3i5: ' «<cc<tir�ut.0', a:3!•s: 14: QV.s 15 1G 47 4 LS D ��:eo ❑ K cw:i ER 7v-.Os64 �..�� GA Arb s.0 oho i r c ``°X=" A-c I R A = m R,, �3 .. . 1 iRs..••7 4i O; f�ea�� ei e:ha j RlJ� biivt 5,0 .41! a•pini 6.4s• ARs-,za�= ��. "( ::eo} 'ese� .�`�•,v.�s �CPl a 6 V w VICINITY MAP NORTH 3071 South StreetHi uera 9 Pf f vv 01 cap mm I t z 0 o j m= M_ � 1 t I s , t I , t , . s Is , riS ' I { , t t 'to=t ••-• ; Q ; t t � � �di�<ix;aan3ixs� t t � , I a t , t $ - I z , t ----------------- t I t _ I ' — t ' z a t t mvte YlLif M N1MON r ._r I --r t -_r r 8, 8h 8I I MQ MO m' I I mQD � 1 � , ° t ! ! � 1 1 S i ' 8 - a F. 1 in m; m t m t O i ! 8 •• ! I I —m1__�— I• t 1 IY I• 1 m.1 O _ _ � _. O � ! s Ia t , : W 1 I ' 1 I W1 oNZ Is I A op t 1 t i. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5123-93 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chamber of the San Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California, on August 11, 1993, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. U 72-93 by Robert Takken and Dan McBride, applicants. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: To allow a maxed-use (residential and commercial) center; fence height exceptions to allow 5-foot and 7-foot high fences where 3-foot and 6-foot high fences are allowed; and a 20 percent mixed-use parking reduction. PROPERTY DESCRIP'T'ION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 3053, 3071, and 3085 South Higuera Street. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Service.-Commercial/Light Industrial. PRESENT ZONING: C S. WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and studies made by itself; and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: 1. The proposed project design and mix of uses will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed project design and mix of uses is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible internally and with surrounding land uses. Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 2 . 3. As amended by the recommended mitigations in the initial environmental study, the mixed-use project will not have any significant negative impacts on the environment. 4. Because of the mix of uses proposed, the hours of peak parking demand for each use will not coincide, and therefore a 20% reduction in required parking is justified. 5. The mixed uses provide greater public benefit than single-use development of the site because of the proximity of workplaces to housing and incentives for automobile trip reduction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. U 72-93 be approved subject to the following conditions: . 1. A use permit to allow a 20% mixed-use parking reduction is hereby approved. A minimuIn of 70 parking spaces shall be provided on-site at all times. 2. A use permit to allow maximum wall heights of 8 feet along the rear property line and 6 feet along the northern property line is hereby approved. 3. A use permit to allow the mix of uses outlined on Exhibit A is hereby approved. 4. Use permit approval for the parking reduction, wall height exceptions, and mix of uses is contingent upon approval of rezoning the project site from C-S to C-S MU, and effective on the same date as the approved rezoning. Affordable housing 5. The property owner(s) shall give residents of the existing units written notice of eviction at least 90 days (3 calendar months) prior to the start of any demolition activity. 6. The applicant shall submit a draft eviction notice, which clearly describes the recommended mitigation, for review and approval by the Community Development Director within 14 days of project approval. 7. Two dwellings shall be made available to participants in the.Section 8 housing assistance program or its successor for not less than 15 years, with monitoring and /-�3 Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page .3 administration assistance.provided by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. the City Airport compatibility 8. The project must incorporate design measures that will limit the interior noise level of all residential units to 45 dbA, in accordance with FAA standards, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 9. The use of materials - especially in the roof- shall be nonreflective to reduce glare. The use of mirrored or reflective glass shall be prohibited. 10. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the developer must record an avigation easement to the satisfaction of the AirportArea Land Use Commission. Traffic, circulation, and alternative transportation 11. The property owner(s) shall dedicate a portion of property frontage adjacent to South Higuera Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit. 12. Street improvements shall be installed per City Standards (code requirement). 13. The developer shall pay a pro rata share of reimbursement for the existing traffic signal at South Higuera Street and Margarita Avenue, not to exceed $500.00. 14. To encourage bicycle travel, enclosed, secured bicycle storage and a shower facility shall be available for users of the commercial tenant spaces. Residential storage facilities shall be designed to easily accommodate bicycles. Noise 15. To minimize noise conflicts between adjoining residential and commercial uses, deliveries, trash collection, parldng lot sweeping and cleaning activities, and site maintenance, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 16. Commercial tenant hours shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 4 17. Noise insulation shall be provided in the floors and walls separating commercial tenant spaces and proposed dwellings,,to the satisfaction of the Chief Building OfficiaL 18. Commercial trash collection and delivery areas shall be located away from residential uses to the satisfaction of the ARC. 19. Mitigation measures recommended in the Noise Analysis prepared for this project by David Lord (February 1993) shall be incorporated into the project design. Plant life 20. All trees to be retained shall be protected with chain link fencing during grading and construction, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 21. The developer shall submit a tree preservation agreement to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. Energy and resource conservation 22. To protect solar exposure for Mcely locations of future collectors, any.trees planted along the southern side of proposed buildings shall be deciduous. 23. The project shall incorporate energy efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. 24. . The project shall include facilities for on-site recycling, for both residential and commercial tenants. 25. Final project design shall ma ' Tie the use of natural daylighting and ventilation to the approval of the ARC. 26. The project shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling of discarded concrete, sheetrod5 wood, and metals from the construction site to the approval of the City's Solid Waste Coordinator or Community Development Director. Other required planning approvals and code requirements 27. All buildings within the proposed complex shall be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinklei system per NFPA=13. Resolution No. 5123-93 Use Permit U 72-93 Page 5 28. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed per City engineering standard number 6310. 29. To prevent run-off onto adjacent properties, the developer will have to grade the site and\or include drainage facilities designed to carry surface run-off to the street or another point of conveyance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lot line adjustment or combination must be approved and recorded to avoid construction over lot lines. 3L Building demolition.and final project design are subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. 32. On-site utilities shall be placed underground to the-satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, consistent with section 17.16.100 of the zoning regulations. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of. San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Whittlesey, seconded by Commr. Cross, and upon the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Cross, Sioeurdson, Karlesldnt NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Senn, Williams, and Hoffman Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: August 11, 1993 City Council Report-Attachment 3 City Council Report - Attachment 4 = SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.5227-98 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 June 10, 1998 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application U 63-98, Robert Takken., applicant. ; PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT REVIEWED: U 63-98: Review of a request to allow a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 square foot commercial building. DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development Department,City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 3053 South Higuera GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: Services and Manufacturing. PRESENT ZONING: CS-MU (Service CommerciaUMxed Use) WI•ffiREAS, 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 cimunsminces: 1. The mixed-use project, with modifications, is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. The proposed uses are appropriate for the C-S zone, and meet the intent and purpose of the Service and Manufacturing designation. ��7 Resolution No.5227-98 — U 63-98 Page 2 2. The mixed-use project, with modifications, will comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements,Chapter 17.22:Use Regulations. 3. The project design and mix of uses is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible internally and with surrounding land uses. 4. The project design and mix of uses will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of person living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 5. The mixed-uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because of the proximity of workplaces to housing and incentives for automobile trip reduction_ 6. The mixed use project is primarily residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Use Permit 63-98 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. At buildout, the mixed use project shall achieve a balance between uses and provide a percent mix of 30% commercial and 70% residential use. 2. All applicable conditions established under Use Permit R/U 72-93 and ER 72-93 shall remain in effect and apply to Use Permit U 63-98. Those conditions and mitigation measures are incorporated herein,by reference. 3. Allowed uses shall be revised to comply with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as described in Exhibit"A"(attached). 4. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County. 5. The project's maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 60% of the site because this is a predominately residential project 6. A minimum of 20%of the residential units shall be provided as affordable housing to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. ('Ibis condition replaces condition #7 of use permit R/U 72-93). �8 Resolution No. 5227-98 — U 63-98 Page 3 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, Marx, Senn and Whittlesey NOES: Commissioner Ready REFRAIN: Commissioner Ewan ABSENT: Commissioner Jeffrey Arnold B.Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission MPC M7-98 City Council Report-Attachment 4 /–.s ttachats City Council.Report - Attachment 5 Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of June 1091998 Chairman Senn asked if any complaints were r ived on the air conditioner. Ms.Leese replied no. The classrooms used en't served by the air conditioner. No other speakers came forward. The pu is comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ashbaugh questions if Condi n#5 is necessary. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to approve co inuation of the use with all the original findings and conditions. with the deletion of ondition #5 and the modification of Condition #2 that the a6Rlicant shall maintain tfiAaoDr6ved plan as vart of the original use permit The motion was seconded by Commissi ner Marx. AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh,Mar)*EwWhittlesey,Ready,and Chairman Senn NOES: None REFRAIN: None The motion carried 6-0. CommissionerJeffrbsent 4. 857 Mill Street: A 50-98: Appeal the Hearing Officer's decision approving a request to allow an addition to a nonco orming house with a reduced side yard five feet to three feet two inches; R-4 Zone; vie Vinal,.applicant; Michael Gould and Diane Patten-Gould,appellants. This, item has been continued to June 24, 1998, the request of staff, to allow the appellant time to submit a written letter formally ' drawing his appeal. 5. 3053 South Higaera Street: U 63-98: Review of a request to allow a mixed-use project with 18 apartments and a 4,200 s.£ commercial building, C-S-MU Zone; Robert Taken,applicant /-30 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting _ June 10, 1998 — Page 13 Commissioner Ewan refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended approving the use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions outline in the staff report. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked for comment on possible future commercial development of the McBride property. Associate Planner Shoals stated the staff report describes that the intent is to achieve the same commerciallresidential mix as the previously approved with the use permit (R/U 72-93) which has expired Although the use permit has expired, the mixed use zoning remains in place. Commissioner Ready asked if approval of Condition #1 would deny the subject application. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the proposed plan with the current mix would not be allowed, but the applicant could request a different mix that would not require subsequent Commission action. Associate Planner Shoals noted the Commission has the discretion to decide what is appropriate at this site. Chairman Senn asked if there's ever been staff interpretation of zoning standards for maximum residential density in the C-S Zone. He referred to Chapter 17.46 of the Zoning Code. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied no, because dwellings aren't allowed in the use matrix in the straight C-S Zone. The MU Zone gives the Commission leeway in determining appropriate density. Chairman Senn commented that each MU developed parcel is unique, and feels the Commission may be setting a precedent Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the MU Zone doesn't specify what the mix of commercial and residential should be. This is the second of two MU properties in the City,and there isn't a lot of history in terms of what is an appropriate mix. Staff feels this may be a little"top heavy"in terms of residential. Commissioner Marx asked what factors were taken into account in staffs determination that this development has too much residential in it /-31 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1998 Page 14 Development Review Manager Whisenand replied the site plan and Table 1 were considered. Staff would be more comfortable with something close to a 50/50 mix. The Commission will decide what is reasonable. There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened. PUBIC COMMENTS: Chuck Crotser, project architect, stated the owner purchased the property ten years ago and would like to upgrade the property. He described the previous combined project with the adjacent property and the expiration of the previous permit. Mr.McBride is unable to participate in a joint project at this time. He explained the changes in area-wide commercial uses and the details of the previous proposal. He feels the current proposed mix is appropriate. The owner has clients lined up and has done research which suggests this mix will make this project work at this site. He noted the previous proposal was 14 units with 18 bedrooms and this project also has 18 bedrooms. This residential component is more affordable then the previous proposaL He generally concurs with staffs findings and recommendations in terms of uses allowed on site. They would like to move more towards a larger residential component Commissioner Marx asked if there are plans for a daycare in this development Mr. Crotser replied currently that's not a proposed major use. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the upper floor commercial would be for office use. Mr. Crotser replied yes, and that it will most likely be attached to a lower use as office support space. ; Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if there are any problems with staffs recommended uses. Mr. Crotser replied no. Commissioner Ashbaugh questions if residential parking requirements can be met Mr. Crotser stated parking has been maximized without encroaching on the remaining open space Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if Mr. Crotser knows of any plans for the adjacent property- /-3� Minutes Planning Commission Meeting = June 10, 1998 Page 15 Mr. Crotser doesn't believe Mr.McBride has plans at this time. Mr. Crotser added the owner is interested moderate-cost rental units. A condition of the previous use permit talks about two units being made available for Section 8 housing. He suggests making four units available for affordable housing if a higher residential density component is approved. Commissioner Marx asked staff if the Commission can take into account nearby commercial use development when determining the residential/commercial mix. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. Carolyn Duntine(Inaudible), Chumash Mobile Home Park, Space 87, asked if the single- family residence between her home and this project will remain. She's concerned about her backyard privacy. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this proposal doesn't involve that single-family residence, but that doesn't mean the adjoining property owner who owns that residence won't come in with a plan of their own at a later date. Any project involving that residence will require ARC review and Ms. Duntine's concerns can be expressed at that time. Mr. Crotser reviewed the project site plan on the overhead. Jonathan Duntine(Inaudible), Chumash Mobile Home Park, Space 87,is concerned about the apartment setbacks from the property line. He asked if an EIR will be required for this project- Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this project went through an environmental process in 1993. The site plan shows the first floor will be a minimum of 10' from the property line and the second floor plan shows decking that will extent partially into the 10'. Overlook issues will be addressed by the ARC. . Mr.Duntine is concerned that a 32' high building will effect his sunlight and breeze. No other speakers came forward. The public comment session was closed COMMSSION COIVIlV ZNTS: Commissioner Ashbaugh suggested a lot line adjustment for the dogleg piece of property between Mr.Takken's property and the mobile home park. There was general consensus that this could not be mandated by the Planning Commission. 1-0 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting — June 10, 1998 Page 16 Commissioner Whittlesey would like to see a better balance of commercial. She questions replacing the existing ten low-income units with the proposed 18 moderate- income units. Chairman Senn asked if low-cost housing can be a condition of approval. Atty.Trujillo believes with the applicant's consent this condition could be imposed. Mr. Crotser will commit to four units of affordable housing in a fashion satisfactory to city staff if the project is approved as proposed , Development Review Manager Whisenand feels the number of affordable units should be increased if the residential component is increased. Mr. Crotser suggested using a reasonable percentage instead of four units. He agreed that a minimum of 20% of the fmal unit count will be provided as affordable l to the satisfaction of city staff. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to approve the mixed use project based on stags recommended findings and conditions with a modification to Condition #1 to reflect approximately 30% commercial and 70% residential and a modification to Condition #2 to reflect the inclusion of a minimum of 20% of the units to be made available for affordable housing as deemed appropriate by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Ready is concerned that this has become a C-S component to a residential development He would feel more comfortable if it were closer to 50"/o residential and 50%commercial. He cannot support the motion. Commissioner Marx suggested adding a Condition #5 that the maximum site coverage shall not exceed 600/a because this is a predominately residential project` Commissioner Whittlesey suggested adding a Finding #6 that the proposed mixed use project is primarily residential. Commissioners Ashbaugh and Marx amended the motion to including suggested Finding #6 and Condition#5. AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh,Marx,Whittlesey, and Chairman Senn NOES: Commissioner Ready Minutes Planning Commission Meeting June 10, 1998 — Page 17 REFRAIN: Commissioner Ewan The motion carried 41-1. Commissi er Jeffrey was absent Commissioner Whittlesey noted older uildings need to be documented before demolition. Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to continu e heallng past 11:00 R.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Marx and unanim"y annroved. 6. 3211, 3165, and 3173 Broad Street: PD 69-98: Request for review of an amendment to the list of allowed uses; C t-PD Zone; Jesse Norris and William Protzell,applicants. Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to a potential conflict of interest Commissioner Ready was designated acting chain=. Associate Planner Shoals presented the staff report and recommended Planning Commission support the proposed project with staffs proposed modifications based on the findings and subject to the conditions outline in the staff report. Development Review Manager Whisenand added that state law prohibits the addition of any use that is inconsistent with the General Plan. The options available would be modification of the General Plan or the zoning. There were-no questions/comments and the public comment session was opened. PUBIC COMMENTS: Rob Strong, owners' representative, stated the Crossroads has been previously cited as the best example of a mixed-use development The Crossroads has been relatively successful, but as in any new attempt, there are some glitches. The concept of a PD or MU is to enable a mix of uses not allowed in conventional zoning. An existing use,even . though it would not be allowed,can be expanded This is a convenience center and there are no service-commercial uses. There's a problem with deleting uses that are presently there and successful. There is a lack of convenience facilities on Broad St' He cited General Plan Policies LU-3.7 and 3.8. This project was described in its original 1985 approval as a C-N/officetresidential/service-commercial mix. He believes it's within the purview of the Commission to decide if this proposed amendment to the list of uses is appropriate for an established commercial center. There is not a parking deficiency. They have 2,800 s.f. vacant that will almost have to be filled with a furniture store or auto City Council Report-Attachment 5 /�3S %,ity Council Report - Attaclent 6 IIIIOBISPO ' i citysanLUtS U 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 The Planning Commission U-63-9�endered on June 10th, 1998 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 Attached Stieet The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: John Shoals - Planning on 6-17-98 . Name/Department (Date) Appellant: Plink-age A6 RPtirPd 3053- S. Higuera St. #12 Narffe/Title Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 547-9771 None Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Patrick Willson/friend P.O. Box 6055 Los Osos, Ca. 94412 NamelTitle Mailing Address '(& Zip Code) For Official use Only. Calendared for T 4l—fT Date & rime Received: a City Attorney City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s): DECEIVED . A��ce.S JUN 1 91997 �_� 6/18/98 . Attachment to Appeal to the City Council Neither the Staff .report, nor the Planning Commissions decision to approve the project, considers the consequences the project has on the tenants currently living at the site. The City of San Luis Obispo frequently verbalizes it' s desire to provide affordable -housing. The approval of this project by the Planning Commission, without consideration of it' s considerable negative impact on the people currently living at the site, is disgraceful. The appellant does .,not object to the projects devekopment, but does request reasonable considerations. The appellant requests that the following compensations be part of the approval requirements: 1) Once the 90 day eviction notice is posted, a rent moratorium be granted. 2) All security deposits be returned to 'the tenants.- 3) Assistance in finding comparable and affordable housing. 4) A relocation allowance of $1,000.00 be paid to the tenants. /3� !PAII City of SAn suis OBISPOGft;6 - 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 The Planning Commission-U-63-98 rendered on June 10th, 1998 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 Attached Sheet The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with: John Shoals - Planning on 6-24-98 Name/Department (Date) Appellant Patrick Misner0=& 3053 S. Higuera #1 Name/%tie Mailing Address (& Zip Code) 547-9771 541-3836 Home Phone Work Phone Representative: Patrick Willson/friend P.O. Box 6055 Los Osos, Ca. 93412 Namerride Mailing Address (& Zip Code) For Official Use Only: Calendared for Date &Time Received: c City Attomey City Administrative Officer Copy to the foiloMng department(s): rlrinirr i in r a, t Nt. Ww. nsas 6/18/98 Attachment to Appeal to the City Council Neither the Staff report, nor the Planning Commissions decision to approve the project, considers the consequences the project has on the tenants currently living at the site. The City of San Luis Obispo frequently verbalizes it' s desire to provide affordable housing. The approval of this project by the Planning Commission, without consideration of it' s considerable negative impact on the people currently living at the site, is disgraceful. The appellant does not object to the projects deve&opment, but does request reasonable considerations. The appellant requests that the following compensations be part of the approval requirements: 1) Once the 90 day eviction notice is posted, a rent moratorium be granted. 2) All Security deposits be returned to the tenants. 3) Assistance in finding comparable and affordable housing. 4) A relocation allowance of $1 ,000.00 be paid to the tenants. City Council Report-Attachment 6 1r31