HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1990, 4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY SETBACK REDUCTIONS FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE B ORIGINAL ADEN. REPORT �5 / V
I1�M�� ��ullllllll�l III h/ (� FROM 4/17/90 SETING TM MEgfl G OATS:
city of san Luis os�spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I �NUMBER
0
FROM: Arnold JonasCommunity Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission action to deny setback reductions for a
detached garage and storage building to be built behind an existing house
on the east side of Bushnell Street, south of Bishop Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution upholding the Planning Commission's decision to
deny.use permit application A 20-90, a request for reduced rear yard setback from
seven feet to 5.5 feet, and reduced side yards from 8.5 feet to five feet (south
property line) and from 8.5 feet to seven feet (north property line), for a garage
to be located behind a house on the east side of Bushnell Street south of Bishop
Street.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a hearing on this application on February
16, 1990. The application was denied, based on findings that solar access would be
blocked, and that the exceptions were not appropriate at this site. The applicant
appealed that action to the Planning Commission, which denied the use permit
application on March 14, 1990. Minutes from those hearings, and the letter of appeal,
are attached.
Data Summary
Address: 2374 Bushnell Street
Applicant: John and Jeannie Spencer
Zoning: R-1-S
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental Review Status: Categorically exempt from review requirements.
Site Description
The site is a 125' x 48' lot which slopes up slightly from the street frontage. The lot is
developed with a small wood frame house. The site is surrounded by houses and
apartments, with the railroad right-of-way across Bushnell Street.
I
A 20-90
Page 2
EVALUATION
The applicant proposes to build a two-story garage and storage building behind the
existing house. The building would be 36 feet by 21 feet, with a total floor area of
1500square feet, and would have wood siding and trim to match the existing house. The
structure would be 1.5 to 3.5 feet closer to the side and rear lot lines than normally
allowed by Zoning Regulations, as noted above.
Staff suggests the council evaluate the following issues in connection with this project:
1. Necessity for Setback Reduction
At the previous hearings, the applicant indicated that the structure is needed to provide
parking, a utility room, storage, and a study area.
The Hearing Officer and Planning Commission noted that a structure which complied
with the normal setback requirements could accommodate the proposed uses, and staff
concurs.
Staff is not aware of any unusual site characteristics which would necessitate the
exception requested.
2. Building Swaration
One of the reasons for requiring side yard setbacks is to provide separation between
buildings for safety and aesthetic reasons, and to provide light and air. Current
regulations establish a minimum separation of ten feet (five feet on each lot) for typical
one-story buildings in the R-1 zone, and greater setbacks are required for taller buildings.
The new structure and the nonconforming house next door to the south would be nine
feet apart if the exceptions are granted, rather than the sixteen-foot separation normally
required if both buildings met current standards.
3. Prior Actions
Staff recommended that the Hearing Officer deny the requested exceptions, based in part
on a judgement that such a large accessory building at the rear of the lot would be out
of scale and character for an R-1 zone.
The Hearing Officer and Planning Commission denied the application based on findings
that the exceptions would result in significant solar shading, were not appropriate at the
proposed location, and would adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons
living at the site or in the vicinity.
The proposed structure would not block solar access of existing structures, but would
shade developable areas of adjacent lots to the north and east.
J
A 20-90
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
The council may uphold or deny the appeal, utilizing the draft resolutions attached, or
may continue the application with direction to the applicant and staff regarding additional
information or modifications desired. If the appeal is denied, the design will have to be
modified to comply with all setback requirements. A two-story, 32-foot by 21-foot
structure with a hip roof could be built without setback exceptions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the council adopt the attached draft resolution upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the use permit application, based on the findings cited by
the Planning Commission and Hearing Officer.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions: Denial, Approval of Use Permit
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Applicant's Letter
Administrative Hearing Minutes
Letter in Opposition to Use Permit
gtsd:a2090ccwp
�!3
f
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY USE PERMIT APPLICATION A 20-90, A REQUEST TO ALLOW
REDUCED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR A GARAGE AT
2374 BUSHNELL STREET
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing
on Use Permit Application No. A 20-90, on February 16, 1990, and denied the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the decision of the Hearing Officer was appealed to the
Planning Commission, which conducted a public hearing on Match 14, 1990, and
determined to deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council;
and
j WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimo and statements of
the applicant, appellant, and other interested parties, and the records of the
Administrative and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Planning
Commission was appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and affirm
the action of the Planning Commission, thereby denying Use Permit Application A 20-
90 subject to the following findings adopted by Planning Commission:
1. The proposed exceptions would allow a project that would block a significant
portion of adjacent lots' solar exposure.
2. The proposed setback reductions are not appropriate at the proposed location.
CP
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
A 20-90
Page 2
3. The proposed exceptions would adversely affect the health, safety or welfare
of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
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
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST: O
City Clerk
APPROVED:
A trative Officer
or
Community Devetqjment Director
C"a RESOLUTION NO. (1990 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY USE PERMIT APPLICATION A 20-90, A REQUEST TO ALLOW
REDUCED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR A GARAGE AT
2374 BUSHNELL STREET
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing
on Use Permit Application No. A 20-90, on February 16, 1990, and denied the
application; and
WHEREAS, the decision of the Hearing Officer was appealed to the
Planning Commission, which conducted a public hearing on March 14, 1990, and
determined to deny the appeal; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed'that decision to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
.,' the applicant, appellant, and other interested parties, and the records of the
Administrative and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Planning
Commission was not appropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and
approve Use Permit Application A 20-90 subject to the following findings and conditions:
Section 1, Findings:
1. The proposed exceptions would not block a significant portion of adjoining
properties' solar exposure.
2. The proposed setback reductions are appropriate at the proposed location,
and will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
l
, r
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
A 20-90
Page 2
3. The proposed exceptions will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare
of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity.
Section 2, Conditions:
1. The following setback exceptions are hereby approved for the proposed garage
and storage building:
5.5 foot rear yard setback where 7 foot setback normally required.
5 foot sideyard 'setback where 8.5 foot setback normally required (south
property line).
7-foot sideyard setback where 8.5-foot setback normally required (north
property line).
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
1989.
Mayor
7
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
A 20-90
Page 3
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
to. y
-y
Community Develo nt Director
C
�-1S
I _J39� rear.�ae•�.a r .;..
C ; .o.n .Y.Y. •a
1_ SO •••«NN
La
R SSI aJ — ' w IYYM
,.•� . A t71f w
tlF,
Z .11 V �,1,1... O
0; 1 .-'R-1 " L iV �
� L�•in.') �I'� � � '� Vii, — Tt X
• •»•;•:•�••�•»�»••�Y••q�;•:»S4••r°•����• •= SAM CARLOS DRIVE
•••'•••••
1011 IOzf lljfd Gqa ;09c
Ell
r +J~ K
S S D
g I 5..
C/OS-5
a ,, ,
4L J Y' .F�� ♦ � � � `� dpldL wf � \'�; ' ,♦f•,h I•w'•,fi
E• Ma :
J-15-R J_1/� - Q
'� go VAS 1 TAI-9
N ^ 1 L t t CZ l V%-& -v�.v ) 3 O+I Tlo -T'1^8
� .,
(Pi4 I S E--ll
4 6.6
1
I _
• I TJ _
i PROPOSED 1
GARAG—GE-UTILITY Rhl
J -
1 1
V
1
rrsoµ -25 1
1 I A"CowE. Yl G,G 1
loco w.W.M 1
i451CITY SPPCS.)
Q I
1 of
w
a T 34u 1
N =_I 7 s-r-a riy
a
-O W
N 1
1 F_XtST. DFr.v. i
IW
V
fl
� V I
1 W
I I•r l
1 FXI<�. 12ESi1,rI�Ct io
la
of 4'•
IW Wit G•Ir]
1 ..
r Ja:-.
1 li 1
1 .�. ITS �'�.' -•-:
rROro SED
I
Cyr.
1
2-16 GaL• --�,-
(�� 5T.T$'EFl ay/nr•r Sor:S_ _ r -
I 1 !PIPMIC rot o¢
,cl—/11
ZND SYJeV t
:24::>' To
W ST
— Nvoon slvl >„
1--
El —
E 3T
- -- - =77 -
s-T-" NORTH
E L E VAT 1 0 NS
I
� I
�. IT
n
1 -1
GARAGE
x
$LOPE TO DO )R
'1• /).'I ,. DOOR
.N
_ o
T;
z
V/ �
J
VE tlT�
Mx IJ.t
P V t- L
Ci
GA4 o O
Y
JUTILITLr
V
L
- _ _ --- - -
:1 w t2 t.ttw.
r
��►� �H ��III�IIIN�����N�u�� ��
city cf sAnluis oBispo
WSW 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I . Chapter
1 . 20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of M 5541E; rendered
on W44 M' 1419 qO . which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
�EE �ITTACK�A .
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Oil
Appellant:
Name/Title
r
-C � Representative
1,10 7 7 1900 237 - OL4SYJ VW 1
Address
;I?Y CLC•^.!(
AN :_WS OBISPO.C.A
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Ca1 r d or: L _ Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy tp the following department(s) :
City er
/ P90
Ikc�-,�
cCc. c-c��,.� a� � z� / s�, � 9 9 o G�C.c�vr•-�n^f
w�e .�a�e �W-n f�,,%`'"j c�-cy �Gr✓ .,�u�.� :moo
1/�'LCd rnoLL� C.C. A ✓QA�Z'C.t'[. .o�"-i' `�•�LtL� `�" -'��
LvxiZ7- -u , tb .bac-c, rc ate-'
�l-ice
John and Jeanne Spencer
2374 Bushnell St.
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
February 19, 1990
Zoning Hearin! Officer HECEIVrz .
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA FEB 23 Mo
Dear Mr. Ken Bruce: Cdr m� pTa
The purpose of this letter is to appeal the zoning hearing offi-
cer 's decision of February 16, denying our request in setback
allowances. Here is our thinking: because our home is located in
the front half of our lot, the only area available for a garage
and storage area is in the back. However, without the setback
reduction, we cannot construct a garage without sacrificing the
yard. With two children (one 4 years old, one 6 weeks from
birth) and a very small house (850 sq. ft. ) , we need a place for
storage and an area for the children to play.
At the zoning hearing last week (Friday, February 16) , our re-
quest was denied. There are no neighbors opposed to the setback
reduction, so this cannot be a problem. Furthermore, as shown on
the drawings submitted, all other neighboring structure setbacks
in relation to our yard, are as follows:
1) The 2-story structure on the south side is set back 15"
(for 17 feet) and 4 feet (for 8 feet) .
2) The raised hot tub-spa gazebo is also between 15 inches
from our property line and less than 1 foot from the
neighbor's.
3 . The new (unoccupied) structure is 53 inches away from
our fence, with the chimney about 29 inches away.
We want our garage 5 feet from the si�'.e property line and 5. 5
feet from the rear property line. In c.6te of the above, we are
puzzled as to the problem with our request.
We understand the reason for denial was fire access. However,
even with the reduction, there is plenty of access in our opin-
ion. Perhaps it would be possible for the governing authority in
this regard to reevaluate our request. There is access from our
lot on both sides, and especially in front or back. The garage
is detached, one could drive right up the driveway to the garage.
The setback reductions (8 . 5 feet to 5. 5 feet and 7 feet to 5
feet) would mean a great deal to us in terms of available yard
space.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
John a cate encer
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES
GY FRIDAY FEBRUARY 16, 1990
2374 Bushnell Street. Use Permit Appl. A 2.0-90; Request to allow
reduced rear yard setback from 7 feet to
5.5 feet and reduced side yard setbacks
from 8.5 feet to 5 feet and from 8. 5 feet
to 7 feet; R-1-S zone; John and Jeannie
Spencer, applicant.
Greg Smith presented the staff report. He explained that he has
reviewed the proposed site plan, but felt the size of the structure
would be out of scale and out of character with the R-1 zone. He
recommend the setback reductions be denied since it would increase
the negative impact on the neighborhood character.
Ken Bruce noted, as a matter of character, that most of the
buildings in that area are two-story. He clarified that the
setback reduction is to allow a two-car garage with a shop, and a
full second-story above that.
Greg Smith explained that staff's concern is that an accessory
structure of that magnitude (1500 square feet on two floors) in the
middle of the block is not appropriate.
The public hearing was opened.
Jeannie Spencer, applicant, spoke in support of her request. She
said they really need the room, since they will be a four-person
family, and currently have only 860 square feet in the house. - She
explained she wanted the addition set back further in the yard so
they could maintain a yard for the children, including a swing set.
Ken Bruce asked what the intended use of the second story would be.
Ms. Spencer responded it would be used for storage, and possibly
a place for her husband to study, since he is a Cal Poly student.
She further explained . that for they past year they have been
renting a storage unit because they do not have the room for it in
their home.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce denied the use permit. He explained that the applicants
can still do what they want to do; the two-story structure and two-
stall garage meeting city requirements. He felt that in this
particular- case, the setbacks should remain as normally required.
He further explained that the reason the setback is required is to
allow for more light, air, ventilation, fire protection, and all
� ., the normal. reasons why side yard setbacks are required. He said
he felt that the proposal was in character with the neighborhood.
He denied the setback reduction based on the following findings:
Page 2
Findings
1. The proposed exception would allow a project that would block
a significant portion of adjacent lots solar exposure.
2 . The proposed exception is not appropriate at the proposed
location.
3 . The proposed exception would adversely affect the health,
safety or. welfare of persons living or working at the site or
in the vicinity.
Ken Bruce explained that this decision is final unless appealed to
the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. An appeal
may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision.
1
PMinutes
Maw 14, 1990
Page 8 .
VOTING: AYES - Co mrs. Kourakis, Hoffman, Hoffman, Schmidt and Duerk .
NOES - C mmr. Karleskint .
ABSENT None.
The motion passe .
Remaining appl cants agreed to handle Item 6 before Item 5.
--------------------------------- -------- -
Item 6. Public Hearing: Use Permit A 20-90.. Appeal of Hearin r Offices
action denying a request -to allow reduced rear. yard setback from 7
feet to 5.5 feet and reduced side yard setbacks from 8.5 feet to 5
feet and from 8.5 feet to 7 feet ; 2314 Bushnell Street ; R-1-S
zone; John and Jeanne Spencer, applicants and appellants.
-------------------------------------------;---------- ----------_----------
Greg Smith presented the staff report and noted letter of opposition
received on the item. He recommended denial of the appeal .
Ch�.-rperson Duerk opened the public hearing.
Rick Spencer, 2374 Bushnell, felt the requested setback was consistent with
the neighborhood. He stated only one corner of the lot would be solar-
impacted and agreed to reduce the width area from 12.' to 10 ' and bring the
garage forward 1 1/2' .
Wayne Masten, 1041 Bishop, discussed the compatibility of the request with
the neighborhood characteristics and setbacks.
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commr. Crotser felt the design was so close to being functional within the
ordinance that staff could help rework it so it would conform.
Commr. Crotser moved to deny the appeal .
Commr. Kourakis seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Crotser, Kourakis, Hoffman, Karleskint and
Schmidt.
NOES - Commr. Duerk.
ABSENT - None.
Tho motion passes.
Commr. Crotser had to leave the meeting.
Planning Commission March 13, 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 1tCfaYE�
MAR 13 No
Dear Sirs, C+2�e+����„0pi
My wife, our two children, and I live at 2371 Florence Ave.; our
rear yard backs to 2374 Bushnell St.. We support Mr. Bruce's denial of
the variance requested by our Bushnell neighbors for the following
reasons:
-The size and location of the proposed apartment/garage would
overwhelm our rear yard and the surrounding yards. The height of
the proposed structure and its proximity to the side and rear fences
would create a shadowfall that would make It difficult to grow any
sheilding shrubbery.
-The location of the apartment makes it a very likely candidate for
a bootleg rental unit. The noise and intrusion of such an unit so )
close to our back fence would significantly degrade the quality of
' our existence on our property.
-Seven mature trees planted along our common border would be
severely injured or killed by constuction so close to the , )perty
line they are planted along.
Again, we feel that the planning staff has made the correct
judgement in their denial of this variance. A structure such as the one
proposed for 2374 Bushnell St. has no place in a neighborhood like this.
/ Thank You,
Robert La Vine
Lori La Vine
it —/Q
I
IIII IIII I II IIII�IIIIII IIII �IIIII IIIIIII
city of sAn OBI vu,sSPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 5, 1990
Mr. & Mrs. John Spencer
2374 Bushnell Street
San Luis. Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Appeal - Planning Commission —2374 Bushnell
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Spencer:
The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold. a public hearing to consider your
appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission to deny a request for rear and
side yard exceptions at 2374 Bushnell Street.
} The meeting is scheduled for April 17, 1990, beginning at 7:00 p.m. , in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other hearings may be held.
before or after this item.
For additional information or questions concerning your appeal, please contact
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department at 549-
7174. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff should be available
by the Wednesday before the meeting.
Sincerely,
voge8,V
City Clerk
PV:ljh
c: G. Smith, Associate Planner
I
4N.
a�li�dili�V1111dhIIIIIII�I����l�►��i'��I �� ilt of sAn x,115 OBIS Op3 �
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I.. Chapter
1 . 20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of �IG1AY1�Qe �W1Mr11 S��dY7 rendered
on W4XRLL1 411 Q which decision consisted of the following ( i .e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submittipg this appeal .
Use additional sheets as needed) :
�EE o6or-4&46Fi1b
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:.
Oil
Appellant:
un r m rs h n 5gt4j ,(-
Name/Title
-? Co" EI E Representative
i.iaa 7 7 '1490 llplt - IguSYl t 5�
Address
5q L4V7 .
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calr d for: _ Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
CityC er
�-2I
i
,
?7?j1L4ly o2&1 O 9 n
�� �� /,Ye , meq/ �,•t
�Le. c-co•c�,.� of � . -� % �, � 9 q o "L cTL.e.�i��^f
./�d�u c.c ,/ �� �/ ,,a�-�.c�c,lty . G✓_e �.� ,tieLt��/,�-r-,�l
/v-n h.•� c�Ca c,�y �G�✓ ..�uv� �Zo
gpL t7
C`
cJ-�2
city of sAn luis*
oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
April 5, 1990
CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION - 2374 BUSHNELL STREET
Our records indicate that your property is located near
the subject property. You are, therefore, being noticed that the
San Luis Obispo City Council has received an appeal of a Planning
Commission decision denying a request for rear and side yard
exceptions at 2374 Bushnell Street.
The agenda report, including recommendation by staff,
will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office (Room #1
of City Hall) on the Wednesday before the meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 17, 1990,
beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 - J
Palm Street. Other public hearings may be held before or after
this item. The public is welcome to attend and comment and written
comments are encouraged. For more information, please contact Greg
Smith, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department
at 549-7174. r
V
L-
am Voges, 'ty Clerk
PV: ljh
4-23
4 ao- 9
o r
2374/
LE No.__R: A 20-90 FILE NUMBER: A 2C-90
CUPANT OCCUPANT
56 BUSHNELL 2386 BUSHNELL
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
LE NUMBER: A 20-.90 FILE NUMBER: A 20-90
CUPANT OCCUPANT
B6 BUSHNELL # A 2386 BUSHNELL 0 B
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
LE NUMBER:. A 20-90 FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 FILE NUMBER: A 20-90
CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
65 FLORENCE 2370 FLORENCE 2371 FLORENCE
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
LE NUMBER: A 20-90 FILE NUMBER: A 20-90
CUPANT OCCUPANT
78 FLORENCE 2383 FLORENCE
i LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
C �
4-762-0018 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 0047762-0019 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 004-762-0017 / FUE NUMBER: A 20-
U
MU CASTLE M TRE ETAL SPENCER JOHN F 8 JEANNE R MADRUGA ANTHONY 8 ANGELINA C
BOR 984 2374 BUSHNELL 1254 BRIARNOCO DR
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406-0984 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5359 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5913
4-762-0021 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 004-764-0017 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 004-762-0020 / FILE NUMBER: A 20.90
WKINS RICHARD D 8 DL EHRBAR RICHARD 8 BE LAVINE ROBERT 8 LORI
65 FLORENCE AVE 2370 FLORENCE 2371 FLORENCE
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5323 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401.5316 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5323
4.764-0018 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90 004-762-0013 / FILE NUMBER: A 20-90
ERKS GARY R ETAL VASQUEZ RUBEN ETAL
78 FLORENCE AV 2383 FLORENCE
N LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5316 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5323
I �