Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1990, 4 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A GLASSWORKING BUSINESS MEETING DATE: CM of San tuts osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonasommunity Development Director; BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's action to deny a home occupation permit for a glassworking business at 1075 Capistrano Court. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution upholding the Planning Commission's action denying the home occupation permit based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation/Previous Review The applicants, Ron and Leslie Bearce applied for a home occupation permit on April 27 , 1990. The permit was denied by the. Hearing Officer at an administrative hearing held on May 11, 1990. On May 21, 1990? the Bearces filed an appeal. The Planning Commission first considered the Bearces' appeal on August 8, 1990. The commission continued consideration with direction to the Community Development Department staff to work with the neighbors, Fire Department staff and applicants to see if acceptable permit conditions could be established to address concerns. On October 10, 1990, the commission denied the appeal based on findings that cited fire safety and land use issues. Gary Kunkel filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on October 19 , 1990. The appeal discussed concerns with city processing of the permit and attested to the safety of the Bearces' home operation. Approximately 60 appeal forms were submitted by a variety of supporters of the Bearces that same week and are on file in the Clerk's office. The city's zoning regulations allow the conduct of home enterprises " which are incidental to and compatible with the surrounding residential uses (Section 17 . 08. 040) . " The conduct of home occupations are regulated by a series of conditions contained in the zoning regulations. These conditions are designed to keep home businesses from affecting the residential character of neighborhoods and to protect the health and safety of residents. Common concerns of home businesses are traffic generated by customers and deliveries, noise and parking. Consequences of Not Taking the Recommended Action If the Council does not uphold the Planning Commission's action, then the appeals will prevail, and the home occupation permit would be approved. Additional conditions to assure that specific concerns with the business were addressed would be appropriate. -� city of San lues OBISpo NMMP COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Data Summary Appellants: Gary Kunkel Applicants: Ron and Leslie Bearce Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental. Status: Categorically Exempt (CEQA Section .15303) Site Description The rectangular-shaped residential lot consists of about 7,500 square feet and is developed with a single family house and attached two-car garage. Surrounding land uses are other single family houses. Proiect Description The Bearces have been using a portion of their garage to conduct their glassworking business. When staff last visited the site in October, two work stations were set up with tables and small torches. A large oxygen regulator and two smaller oxygen canisters were stored in a nearby corner. DISCUSSION The Bearces have been operating their glassworking business out of their garage since 1988. They had their city business license transferred from a downtown location to their home at that time. This matter was first brought to the attention of the Community Development Department by the Fire Department who responded to a complaint by a neighbor regarding the delivery of gas canisters to the. house. The Bearces were then informed that they would need to obtain both a home occupation and compressed gas permit in order to continue operating their business from their home after inspections by both Fire and Planning Department staff. The following paragraphs discuss major issues with the home business and briefly summarize the positions of staff, the neighbors, and the applicants and appellants: 1. Consistency with Zoning-Regulations Planning staff 's position has been that the glassworking business is not an appropriate use in a residential neighborhood for three main reasons: * Parking - Since a portion of the garage is being used for the business, required parking for the home is not being provided. The parking requirement for a house in the R-1 zone is two off-street ('- parking spaces, one of which must be covered. Both spaces are to be provided beyond the required 20-foot street yard setback. u "r City of San Luis jWftQ@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 The applicants could comply with Fire Department requirement for separation of uses in the garage by installing a one-hour fire wall between parking and shop areas. In terms of parking requirements, a division of the garage in such a manner would need to be accompanied by a request to allow the second required space in the setback. The applicants have not submitted a request to allow tandem parking or plans to show how their garage might be modified to separate uses. * Fire safety - The fact that gas canisters are being used and stored in a residence raises the risk of fire and explosion to surrounding residents. Gas canisters are dangerous because they can be flammable and are stored at high pressures. The Fire Department has had several meetings with the Bearces. A memo submitted by the Fire Marshal to planning staff in September, outlined additional restrictions on the operation they felt were necessary to assure safety. These included limitations on the number and type of canisters stored, the requirement for separation between the shop and parking previously mentioned, routine fire inspections and submittal of detailed plans for approval by the Fire and Community Development Departments outlining how the garage would be modified. * Deliveries - Frequent truck deliveries to and pick-ups at the house are not consistent with the rules for home occupations that attempt to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. Concerns have been raised over the increased risk from fire and explosion resulting from the delivery of gas canisters to the home. Neighbors have indicated that frequent deliveries by private freight carriers are made to the home to accommodate the business. Specifically, the issues outlined above violate three of the requirements for conducting a home occupation contained in the zoning regulations and also listed on the home occupation permit application which are: S. The home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space. 7. Activities conducted and equipment or materials used shall not change the fire safety or occupancy classification of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. 8 . No use shall create noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. �'-3 I 'I{II19i�l�lll'I!f;l'4 city it I O(' LJV F San tins OBISPO NOMMo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 When the applicant signs the application, he/she agrees to comply with these restrictions. In addition, the restrictions listed on the application are the minimum criteria for approval and other conditions may be placed on a home occupation permit through the administrative review process, or upon appeal, by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Neighborhood Concerns Planning staff met with neighbors of the Bearces to discuss their concerns with the home occupation. The neighbors indicated that they felt that the proposed home occupation was in violation of several of the home occupation requirements, specifically #2 (no retail sales at the premises) , #5 (garage not used for parking) and #7 (change in the fire safety of the house) . They feel that the home occupation permit should be denied because it does not meet the outlined requirements, and they continue to have concerns with the safety of the operation and the frequency of deliveries to the house in conjunction with the business. 3. Applicants' Position The applicants have stated that their business will not be economically viable if they are forced to move it to a commercial zone. They feel that their record of glassworking for many years without an accident attests to the safety of their operation. In an attached letter from the applicants, they describe their efforts to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and neighbors. The letter indicates that the Bearces are investigating different ways of modifying the work area in the garage to accommodate their glassworking equipment and also allow for vehicle parking. They have also switched to a different supplier who delivers oxygen supplies to the house in a smaller vehicle. Over the past few weeks, the applicants have met with the. Fire Marshal to discuss possible changes to their work area including a different type of oxygen generator. conclusion In staff ' s opinion, the proposed glassworking business, because of the equipment and gas canisters used in the operation and the need for frequent deliveries to the house, is a more intensive type of commercial enterprise than the zoning regulations envisioned as an appropriate home occupation. While glassworking is not specifically listed in the regulations as a prohibited home occupation, it has similar characteristics to those that are listed in terms of safety and traffic issues. I y- city of san lugs oBIspo NNIGa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 Staff sympathizes with the applicant's financial concerns, but cannot support the business from a land use standpoint and feels that the proposed home occupation is not consistent with the requirements of the zoning regulations. The neighbors that have the greatest potential to be affected by the business are not supportive of it and have voiced legitimate safety and land use concerns. Discussions with the Fire Department related to equipment are an effort to make changes to address safety issues. However, plans showing how the work area would be modified and specifications for new equipment have not been submitted. Even with changes to the work area, other issues such as parking and deliveries remain. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and approving the home occupation with findings and additional conditions. 2 . Continue the item with direction to staff and the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the draft resolution denying the appeals, upholding the Planning Commission' s decision to deny the home occupation based on findings. Attachments: Draft Resolutions vicinity Map Home Occupation Permit Application Appeal to City Council/Continuance Requests Planning Commission Resolution No. 5035-90 Planning Commission Minutes (10-10-90, 8-8-90) Memo from Barry Karleskint (8-12-90) Administrative Hearing Action/Minutes (5-11-90) Fire Department Letters/Memos Letters from Neighbors Letters from Supporters of the Bearces Letters from the Bearces (Additional support letters available in the City Clerk 's Office) d:a74-90-2.wp I RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A GLASSWORKING BUSINESS AT 1075 CAPISTRANO COURT (A74-90) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant' s home occupation request A74-90, the appellants ' statements, and the Planning Commission 's and Hearing' s actions, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the need to utilize and stored on- site significant quantities of highly flammable compressed gases. 2 . The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses because of the safety hazard generated by the compressed gases used in the manufacturing operation and the volume of business travel introduced into the neighborhood. 3 . Activities conducted, and equipment or materials used in the home occupation, will change_ the fire safety characteristics of the house. 4 . The business activity as conducted results in violation of automobile parking standards applicable to the R-1 zone. SECTION 2. The home occupation permit for the glassworking business at 1075 Capistrano Court, A74-90, is hereby denied. _ y 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 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City A ministrative Officer C' y to ne Community Dev pment Director y-� RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FORA GLASSWORKING BUSINESS AT 1075 CAPISTRANO COURT (A74-90) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: . SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the applicant's home occupation permit request A74-90, the appellants' statements, the Planning Commission ' s and Hearing Officer's actions, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1 . The proposed home occupation will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare, of persons residing or working in the vicinity because the applicants will be required to comply with a condition limiting the quantities of highly O flammable compressed gases stored on-site, and the use will not change the exterior appearance or use characteristics of the home. 2 . The proposed home occupation is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding residential uses because the safety hazard generated by the compressed gases used in the manufacturing operation and the volume of business travel introduced into the neighborhood are controlled by conditions of permit approval. 3 . Activities conducted, and equipment or materials used in the home occupation, will comply with the Fire and Building Codes through issuance of appropriate permits. 4 . The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 5. The proposed use is categorically exempt from environmental review under the City Environmental Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 . O 13 . The applicant will submit appropriate plans to the Community Development and Fire Departments for their review and approval indicating modifications to the garage to comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, and to allow for the parking of one vehicle in the garage. Plans would need to be accompanied by a letter to the Community Development Director requesting approval of one unenclosed parking space in the setback.' 14 . No more than 2 "H" oxygen bottles may be on site at any time with a limit of 12 bottles used during a year (verification from vendor will be required) . An "H" bottle is 250 cubic feet in size, about 5 feet tall. 15. The residence will be subject to a routine fire inspection yearly. 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 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk �-9 �1 APPROVED: ,-,�ity Ad 'nistrative Officer i Att ne Community Development Director n 7—/Q I. •7[•{� R-1- P " H'w Rw2=P a QO u O n_w CAPIS"MANO • 9ss ai 47 ♦M•r •�i. ri•re V �a a 0 IE:l 85B r Y 6 6 Fnq FUMO v`�/ T4p. C� o I Oti ,l 45 iF r1 t.ae SCALE: 11 o 133' VICINITY MAP A74-90 NOF" HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT city Of SALUIS OBISPO �IS k\� HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT Department of Community Development,990 Palm Street/P.O. Box 8100,San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100(805) 549-7171 Please print clearly or type only in the unshaded areae. Return this completed form with your 525.00 application f your Permit when approved In some cases,you may have to comply with additional condition.Amo,be vire to news license. Applicant R(.,. 1 7s :F 1 rN mem TcameJ ^ QSSSrodiarT Phone d-LIC�f Address STI Cap'sa�e C t , S"V Zone Do you own the home? 6--fes D No.(If you do not own the home, the owner must sign this forth consenting to your home Accurately describe your occupation- rr + 1A k • a I;c •A more detailed descripti n of your home occ patios and a site plan may be required Isitdr.in some cases a hearing may be required. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL My home occupation will Comply with the following: 1.This business will he conducted entirely inside without altering 9.No employees other.than residents of my home will be allowed. the appearance of the home, grounds or adjacent buildings 10.Clients or customers will not visit my home between 10:00 Pm 2.There will be no sales or displays on the premises and 7:00 arr 3.There will be no signs other than address and name of residents hose signs will meet the requirements for my zone. APPLICANT:I understand that,if a permit is issued.I must meet the —a.There will be no advertising which identifies the home occupation requirements listed above. If the requirements are not met, the occupation by street address or location. permit will bevoid and the home occupation must cease immedlatey. 5.My home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, Applicant's yard or open space.(Parking space in a garage is normally required signature ..1 P parking.) Date 6. No vehicle larger than a iG•ton truck will be used in connection with my home occupation. Parking for vehicles used in connection OWNER:As ownerof the prop".I give theapplicant permission to with my home occupation will be provided in addition to parking conduct business there subject to these conditions required for the residence. 7.Activities conducted and equipment or materials used will not Owners change the fire safety or occupancy classification of the premises name(print) Utilities will not.be used in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. f>,vner's 8.My home occupation will not create noise,dust,vibration,smelt signature smoke. glare, electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. Date C � `l -QO White•F11a Yellow•Applicant Pink.Firwroe 741 /f_17 '0111�1f110`1�11 � IIVI� city o� f san hugs oBis o "M����,, lW1+1ri1Ld� 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 San Luis ObISDo, CA 93103.8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title 1 . Chapter 1 .20 of Elie San Lula Obispo Mun.lcival Code. Elie undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of PLO r'1MI#f4 on+a"i -r/on rendered on O cJ,0O which decision consisted of Elie following ( i . e . Set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . Use additional(sheets as needed) : LS e /0« rj, 7 C co, / J r • ir1 L 7GiC' ��ciiJ/i+p ��q.isrlrli0� ��-f"lp� d�iJy�A� Ow �cMe CXCuPa er/77r f0 a Mo 31ostw00- 4./7 j ) SO tCs , QYkk rY,g �5 (2 1 (:!-Qf'S f r CA COv r +- RC.ClS 1S appecir . Ro ( CSjie Bea•ee 1E OC`LwCr� iS Q 54 e C, v�t` (- ©pe .-a fi,r:i'P7 /,sof e07 .,C UU 1 / 1 / CO�n, c,.f � 14 y O/' fL�'v� Ae Ge J o J O��Pr //1C��Q1•ecl 4;r +4Q pre 4 6o�lio oo(_ redCCd v� 11; , q►+c�l � QrCl/�� 1G�1'rGrC 'f4aciUf1G_ The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: U KC/7 B/ uC eo on /O / 0 DATE & TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: S. tin cl ame/Tltle RECEIVED Representative OCT 1 9 1990 s-7 ( CUeS7SL �c A Address CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA SO S _ 5 "3 _ 154 '48 Phone Original for City Clerk _ ! Copy to City Attorney T n r,� Copy to City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s) : - r-�-,� d: A. r�C.IJ4 c ,SCI t Clerk.. f-13 To : City Clerk November 6.1990 -' City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA From: Gary S. Kunkel, j93 .5,1 SO 571 Cuesta St. San Luis Obispo, CA Subj. Request for a continuance on Appeal on Home Occupation Permit fA74-90 The Bearces are currently working out arrangements with the fire department relative to use of a new oxygen machine. The new equipment should be received by the end of November. A continuance is requested in order to complete arrangements with the fire department and in order to allow time to receive the new equipment. The new equipment will address the fire safety requirements as per Fire Department specifications. The Fire Department has given the Bearces approval for their basic setup several months ago after two inspections by two different fire marshal Is. In order to meet all fire department changes the Bearces need to get approval from the San Luis Obispo City Building Department. Those of us appealing, feel it is important to have all the information completed and available for the City Council before they make thier decision. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincere) 000002 20 8575 11-06-90 Sincerely, PERMITS 1 40.O0 0010011019010 2G CASH 2 TOTAL 1 40.0-0 Gary S. unkel \ 11/18/90 Dear Pon, The person doing the appeal of our hose occupation permit, Gary Kunkel , has more than adequately represented us. The time that was given us and the City staff to go over several of the options available to help us maintain our livelihood was very worthwhile. It looks like we ■ay be able to eliminate most of the oxygen tanks we use and such of the propane. Ue are investing over $2,000 in new equipment (not to mention a nes workshop) to try to meet the city's permit requirements os well os address the concerns of some of our neighbors. Because Bob Hewson, the Fire Marshall, and other building and Planning staff have indicated or told us directly that ■ore time is needed for their work, we have talked to Gary and other oppeolonts about requesting more time before this comes up before the Council and we understand that a written request has been sent in. For the benefit of everyone involved we strongly support this request . Sincerely, Ron and Leslie Bearce _u I ' To : City Clerk November 18,1990 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street ro:Actimi San Luis Obispo, CAp� ro Ud DtR 000004- <0 905 11-t9-90 D R4.DilaA 6.. 1 40.00 From: Ga S. Kunkel ° O �a� 00100100070 Gary TTOR Y C FW DIX 20 CASH 2 TOTAL 1 40.00 571 Cuesta St. aMK/0 a:. Cl FoLiaOL O MCtirr.TEiL%f C_7 REC.bfX San Luis Obispo, CA 0 W. 0 UnLDIR (805) 543=5480 ll_ 7 T ,� _ Subj. Request for extending the current continuance of Appeal for Home Occupation Permit 19A74-90. The current continuance of the appeal for Home Occupation Permit aA74-90 has been advantageous for the Fire Department to work out arrangements with the Bearces. As you are aware, Ron and Leslie Bearce are attempting to meet Fire Department requirements concerning use of a new oxygen machine and other related equipment. Although some of the new equipment has arrived, some other important components are still in I shipment as of I 1/19/90. During a meeting last Thursday on November ISth with the Fire Marshall, the Bearces were told by the Fire Marshall, that he would need a week to investigate the equipment before he can make a final recommendation on its installation. The Fire Marshall has also indicated that he will recommend installation of the equipment in a workshop space requiring fire walls, etc. within the existing garage or in a sepilrate workshop to be built in the Bearce's backyard. The Fire.Marshall has referred the Bearces to Hal of the Planning Department to work out building permits for the new workshop. A three-way meeting is being scheduled to include the Fire Marshall, Hal of the Planning Department, and the Bearces. The Bearces havesecured the i professional services of an architect to draw up plans for a backyard workshop in order to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. Representatives of the Southern California Gas Company are scheduled to come out and meet with the Bearces this coming Wednesday or Thursday with the purpose of making arrangements.to supply adequate natural gas to the workshop in order to reduce the volume of other gases such as propane. At the last Planning Commission Meeting addressing the Bearce Appeal, several Planning Commissioners stated that an appeal to the City Council would give the Bearces time to work out their permit problems. Some of the .neighbors have gone on record in support of changing the Bearce's setup ai%E C E I V E D condition for them to receive a permit: NOV 1 01990 Q., CITU CLERK 00. Pam Richie and/or some other planning staff person(s) may need at least two weeks prior to the Council meeting in order to adequately prepare a new staff report. I, as well, may need some additional time to procure the required safety data on the oxygen generator and related equipment.. An extension to the current continuance is requested in order to allow adequate time for the Fire Department, the Planning Department, the Bearces, the architect and myself to work out arrangements. Ron and Leslie also wish to take all the plans that receive preliminary approval from the Fire, Building, Planning Departments and gas company to each of their thirty or so neighbors in order to inform them of the progress made in addressing the concerns of those neighbors. Although an additional two weeks may be adiquate to work out all arrangements, various staff may request more time to complete individual meetings, approve preliminary workshop plans, finish inspections of new equipment yet to be received, and other neccessary work that all needs to be completed two weeks prior to the City Council meeting. Those of us appealing, feel it is important to have all the information completed for the City Council before they make their decision. I believe that most, if not all, of the Councilmembers would appreciate having all the information available to them before making a decision. Not only for the benefit of staff and the City Council but also for the holiday plans of the appealant and of the permit applicants it.may be best to bring this before the Council after the Christmas holidays. Thanks for your time and consideration. •. Sincerely, Gary . Kunkel l w SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5035-90 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 October 10, 1990, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application No. A 74-90 by Ron and Leslie Bearce, applicants. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: A home occupation to allow glassworking, sales, and marketing. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: On file in the office of Community Development, City Hall. GENERAL LOCATION: 1075 Capistrano Court. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT: - Low-density Residential. PRESENT ZONING. R-1-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: Finding 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the need to utilize. and stored on-site significant quantities of highly flammable compressed gases. 2. The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses because of the safety hazard generated by the compressed gases used in the manufacturing operation and the volume of business travel introduced into the neighborhood. �-j9 city osAn luisoBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 October 11, 1990 Mr. b Mrs. Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Use Permit A 74-90 1075 Capistrano Court Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bearce: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 10, 1990, denied your appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer's action denying a home occupation permit to allow glassworking, sales, and marketing at the above address. Denial is based on findings listed on the attached resolution. C The decision of the commission is final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten day of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of the commission. If you have any questions, please contact Pamela Ricci at 549- 7168 . ince ly, Arnold B. JD , irec or Community De opment cc: Ned Rogoway Attachment: Resolution No. 5035-90 01/49 Resolution No. 5035-90 Use Permit A 74-90 Page 2 3. Activities conducted, and equipment or materials used in the home occupation; will change the fire safety characteristics of the house. 4. The business activity as conducted results in violation of automobile parking standards applicable to the R-1 zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application No. A 74-90 be denied. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo upon the motion of Commr. Gurnee, seconded by Commr. Karlesknt, and upon the following roll call vote: VOTING: AYES: Gurnee, Karleskint, Billington, Kourakis, Peterson, Schmidt NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: October 10, 1990 Draft P.C. Minutes Aueust 8. 1990 Page Item 1. Public Hearing: Use Permit A 74-90. Appeal of Hearing Officer's action denying a home occupation permit to allow glassworking, sales, and marketing; 1075 Capistrano Court; R-1-S zone; Ron and Leslie Bearce, applicants/appellants. Chairman Hoffman stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis assumed the chairman's responsibilities for this item. Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the appeal be denied and the Hearing Officer's action to deny the home occupation permit be upheld. Erwin Willis, Fire Marshal, discussed the possible fire hazards associated with the glassworking operation and storage of compressed gasses in the garage. He indicated that the commercial nature of the use raised more concerns than a hobbyist would because of the frequency of glassworking activities at the home and the number and types of gas canisters stored in the garage. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing open. Ned Rogoway, 1163 Main, Morro Bay, applicant's representative, discussed the applicant's business history and safety record. He noted the applicant had installed fire walls and a sprinkler system in the garage. He stated there was parking available in the garage and that fire safety measures and performance standards agreed to in the application had been met. He stated that no deliveries to the house associated with the business were presently being made and would not be in the future. He added that no flammable materials were every delivered. He discussed the storage of oxygen tanks and stated that no hydrogen would be delivered. He noted that the business operation did not affect the exterior of the house or the operation of the neighborhood. Kelly Condron, 1080 Capistrano, objected to issuance of the home occupation permit and had concerns with neighborhood safety, increases in traffic, and liability issues. He felt the garage as constructed would not protect the neighborhood in the event of an explosive accident. He felt this operation should be performed in a commercial area, not in a residential area. Marty Moroski, 1070 Capistrano, concurred with Mr. Condron's objections and noted the previously submitted objections of neighbor Dr. Longabaugh. He was concerned AN Draft P.C. Minutes August 8. 19.90 with the safety of children in the neighborhood and did not feel that the use was suitable for a. R-1 zone. Gary Kunkel, 571 (fiesta, licensed safety engineer, stated that the glassworldng was safer than cooking on a gas stove. He felt the applicant's garage met fire safety standards. Will Bearce, 1695 Valle Vista, felt that the applicants were extremely safety conscious and that the home occupation complimented the applicants' lifestyle. Don Ross, 982 Bluebell, did not feel the operation was a safety issue and felt home occupations were a benefit to the community. Rod Mass, 571 Cuesta, felt the site was protected against &e. Leslie Bearce, 1075 Capistrano, applicant, submitted a letter of support written by Ronald Garcia. Ron Bearce, 1075 Capistrano, applicant, explained that he had received the necessary permits over the years to conduct his business and felt his operation was safe and appropriate as a home occupation. He commented on the safety history of his operation and his expertise in handling gasses and equipment. He did not feel that his operation was any more impactful to the neighborhood than other ordinary residential uses. He discussed deliveries to the site and indicated that no retail sales occurred on the premises. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Willis noted that the garage walls were not one-hour rated construction and that the door leading to the house was not fire-rated. He did not feel that flammable gas canisters should be stored in residential areas (e.g., oxygen and propane) and stated that his department would not issue a permit for compressed gas storage. He stated he could support approval of a permit if only 1-2 oxygen cylinders were used and no propane was used. He suggested the applicants use natural gas. Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the commercial intrusion into neighborhoods and the health/safety issues associated with the storage of compressed gasses. He wanted to see if staff could work with the applicant to come up with acceptable conditions of approval. Commr. Gurnee was concerned that the business had been operating from the site without a home occupation permit or a compressed gas storage permit for several years. He felt the neighbors should discuss the issues with one another. He W-A Draft P.C. Minutes August 8. 1990 Page 3 indicated that be he supported the home occupation approach to conducting business when reasonable. Commr. Gurnee moved to continue the item and directed staff (both the Fire and the Community Development Departments), the applicants, and the concerned neighbors to negotiate a working solution as soon as possible. Commr. Peterson seconded the motion. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis was against the motion, supporting the Hearing Officer's action to deny the appeal. She felt the use is hot appropriate in a residential area, primarily because of safety issues. Commr. Karleskint was against continuing the item. He felt the commission had adequate information to make a decision. VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Gurnee, Peterson, Billington, Schmidt NOES: Commrs. Karleskint and Kourakis ABSENT: Commr. Hoffman The motion passes. Chairman Hoffman returned to the meeting. �`�3 T'rd P1 I c4MML%t~ KaFfAfte R41 Prmarbg Com Dtrntcv,.$.m�or,lahCa,tdfum,or Dat.f August 12, ION Last Wednesday; we considered Use Permit A 7 -90 an appeal of Hearing Officer's Action. As we began to discus the situation the item vas continued so that the appellant, neighbors,staff, and the fire department could get together and see if things could be worked out between them. In the discussion that will ensue I wish to make some of the comments that I would have made during commission discussion which was cut short by the motion to continue. The public,staff,and short commission discussion brought out some items and soon led toward the possibility of the operation being allowed to continue at the residence provided that concerns of the staff,fire department, and the neighbors could be mitigated. Accordingly, I have put some of my concerns into this memorandum-so that they may be part of the discussion between all parties.. The chief concern of all is that the operation be as safe as possible. My concern is that the work.if done in the present location, be safe for the neighbors and the neighborhood in general, but also for the Bearces themselves. To accomplish this I propose that the parties consider the following items as part of the items considered to make the operation safer for all peoples enfolded. Cylinder Security- to be verified by fire department • Limit 250 -/7. "0"Cylinders to only TWO(2). • Place the two cylinders on or into a "floorplate"devise that will prohibit a cylinder from tipping over. • Chain the two cylinders to a sturdy wail bracket. • Keep the safety cap on the unused cylinder. • Stop using other gas cylinders- switching to a heavy-duty natural gas system. • Provide a secure, safe method of transportation to and from filling station AND between vehicle and site. Site Security - to be verified by Building department •Remove all except normal "side of wall" storage and provide space for one (1)vehicle to park in the garage. • Install an approved solid separation wall between "garage"and the work space. Page One ilii/�sin(R( Mu"CoNVgtawan Dip=6SRon•Seww dFpe*4C4.lfimmm 1 AuquA 12, 2990 Page Two Site Security- to be verified by Building department(confd) •Remove all items from work space that are not part of the operation. Reorganize the space for better operational use and neatness(safety). •Separate kilms from other work area and secure. •Provide site/use appropriate fire sprinklers. • Install storage cabinets so that tools may be secured when not in use. In a separate cabinet:dangerous items. •Re-install heave duty window and side door to the satisfaction of building department. Door and window will normally closed type with commercial, opaque screen that will be closed when no one is working. Door(possibly window also) must open out to provide an emergency exit. Door and window must remain closed.(commercial screen possible) Ventilation and General - to be verified as needed • Provide an evacuation type ventilation fan for roof outlet that will remove all fumes.gases,smoke and smells from the working area. • Provide a wall air system that will provide fresh air to workers within work area. Do not use separate portable fans • Provide lighting system proper for work area. • Provide a bell in living quarters to indicate door has been opened in garage. • Provide insurance certificate to neighbors within 300 'of residence: to city fire department, to community development departmentshowing liability, fire, and product coverage to satisfaction of city attorney. Most of these items should be obvious so the area is safe for the Bearces and those around them, including a multitude of children I am very surprised that the safety experts that spoke didn't seethe need for most of the items. Others will undoubtedly have other items also I hope all parties can come to agreement and present a"united" front when we again take up this item cc. Bearce, Willis, Neighbors I city of sAn ISIS OBISPO 990 Palm StreettPost Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo.CA 93403-8100 I May 16, 1990 I Ron and Leslie Bearce 1075 Capistrano Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 74-90 1075 Capistrano Drive Dear Mr: and Mrs. Bearce.: On Friday, May 11, 1990, I conducted a public hearing on your request for a home occupation permit to allow glassworking, at. the subject location.. After reviewing the information presented, I denied your request, based on the following findings: C" Findings 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working at the -site or in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3 . Activities conducted and equipment or materials used in the home occupation will change the fire safety of the house. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of tht- action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If you have any questions, please call Dave Moran at 549-7175. Sincerely, i 14 Or I Ken Bruce \__ .• Hearing Officer I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY MAY 11, 1990 1075 Capistrano Court. Use Permit Appl. A 74-90; Request for a home occupation permit to allow glass- working, sales and marketing; R-1-S zone; Ron and Leslie Bearce, applicants. Judy Lautner presented the staff report. She explained that home occupation permits are approved for cases where there is no interference with the use of the home as a home. In this case, however, she noted that the garage is used entirely for the glass- making business, and materials are being used that are hazardous and that the Fire Department does not allow in this type of. situation. Given these situations, staff recommends denial of the request. i The public hearing was opened. Ron Bearce, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He explained that he makes animal figures using oxygen and propane. Sales are handled by phone and through the mail; people do not come to the home to purchase items made there. He further explained that this business has been operating for the past IS years; he obtained his business license about 15 years ago and a home occupation permit at his previous home. He explained this takes place in the garage and uses about 50% of the area of the garage. He also noted that an electric kiln is also used in the business, but it is heavily insulated. He also noted that the goods are marketed through the post office, UPS and Federal Express. He noted that UPS Trucks make pick-up about two to three times per week, except during the Christmas season when pick-ups occur daily. He stated that the equipment used at this home is the same equipment used at the previous address where his Home. Occupation Permit was approved for. Ken Bruce explained that he had received a communication from the Fire Department noting that the applicants had requested some type of hazardous material permit and the Fire Department had denied the request. He asked Mr. Bearce to explain. Mr. Bearce said Irwin Willis from the Fire Department had contacted him because of a complaint/concern regarding a one-time delivery Of 10 to 15 hydrogen tanks. He explained that this was not a normal situation, and the tanks did not remain in the garage for very long. Mr. Bearce was informed that• a business license and home occupation permit were required, and after those approvals, I a permit would be required from the Fire Department for compressed gas storage. He noted he was surprised that he got a certified letter from the Fire Department the day before this hearing stating that the request for this permit had been denied. He said he, didn't think he had applied for it yet, since he hadn't gotten the I A/-01 7 Page 2 home occupation permit approval. The letter said the Fire Department denial could be appealed to the Fire Chief. It was noted that the concern was with hydrogen, oxygen and propane, but the natural gas was not a concern. Ken Bruce noted that a letter opposing the home occupation was received from the residents of 1055 Capistrano Court which was read into the record. They felt the materials used are dangerous and i storage of noxious gases in the neighborhood setting is inappropriate. They also felt the storage of gases is not secure, and feared for the safety of neighborhood children. Commercial traffic in the neighborhood was also a concern. Marty Moroski, 1070 Capistrano Court, said they live across the street from the Bearce 's. He said there Are many young children that live on the cul-de-sac (his two children being 4 years and 1- 1/2 years old) and he was concerned with their safety. He also had concerns about ventilation of the garage. He felt that the means for ventilating is also a means for children to enter the garage. Mr. Moroski also shared the traffic concern. Ron King, 1060 Capistrano Court, echoed the same concerns as Mr. Moroski . He said that UPS trucks are nearly a daily routine, with large trucks coming in once every week or two to deliver the gasses . Leslie Bearce, applicant, said the garage is equipped with roof ventilation, and on the sides of the garage, as well as fire sprinklers in the garage. She further noted that faire extinguishers are located in the garage as well.. Ken Bruce asked how many tanks of gasses are normally kept on the site. Mr. Bearce said it varies, but they prefer low-pressure liquid oxygen, which is delivered once every 4-6 weeks. He said he likes to keep a 2-4 week supply of gas on-site. Ken Bruce asked if there were any employees other than those living in the home. Mr. Bearce responded that there are no employees. However, they do train people to be independent contractors. Will Bearce, 298 Pismo Street, said his son is trying to make a living, and felt the operation is as safe as can be.. He felt that if the gases are not allowed in the garage, then people should not be allowed to park cars in their garage, ; or store lawn mowers, gas cans, paints or cleaning fluids. He also felt that dryers should not be allowed in garages. Ron Bearce said he wanted to work any concerns out with the neighbors, and noted that Dave Moran, City Planner, had spoken to another neighbor who had concerns about this business. In reference to the comment regarding "noxious gases", Mr. Bearce explained that the torches do not give off gases or fumes, although acetylene Page 3 gives off carbon dioxide and heat; the heat being the more dangerous. He said that over the years, children have come into the shop looking for them or their children, and there is a standard method for handling the children; they are not allowed to play in the garage, although a space is set up for their own children so they can be watched while the Bearce's work. Mr. Bearce also noted the presence of some coloring agents such as iron oxide which are in the garage. Mr. Bearce indicated that they have concerns regarding the traffic and try to keep business traffic to a minimum. He expressed that safety is his main concern. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce said it is his opinion that this business is probably fairly safe most of the time, but also felt it is not an appropriate home business, primarily because of the type of activities, equipment and materials used in the activities that changes the fire safety of the home and the area. Ken Bruce denied the request, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3 • Activities conducted and equipment or materials used in the home occupation will change the fire safety of the house.. Ken Bruce explained that in taking an action, the Hearing Officer has some options that are open to him; one is to render a decision at the close of the public hearing. That action could be a continuance, an approval or conditional approval or denial. Another option is to reser the item to the Planning Commission. The final option is to take an item under submission or advisement, which means the Hearing Officer has an additional 10 days to render a decision. He noted that any decision that is made can be appealed to the Planning Commission within ten calendar days from the date of the action, by any person aggrieved by the decision. Appeals are filed with the Community Development Department, and heard by the Planning Commission. I city of SAn luis oBispo FIRE DEPARTMENT 748 Pismo Street - San Lula Obispo,CA 93401 •8051549.7380 Ron and Leslie Bearce November 16, 1990 1050 Capistrano Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ron and Leslie Bearce: I have reviewed the information on the oxygen generator that the Air Sep dealer, Dave Williams, provided on our meeting of November 15th. Additionally, as I mentioned, I have visited a local company that utilizes this unit as a component of a product that they manufacture. It is my understanding that it is your intent to receive my approval on an oxygen generator process in order to do away with the use of "H" oxygen cylinders at your residence. The unit you plan on using is the AS-10 manufactured_by the Air Sep Corporation. As to the information provided, I ' ll deal with each document' separately. The Canadian Standards Association makes no approval on the AS-10 oxygen generator; however, the AS-20, HS-80 'and 250 are approved. The N.Y.F.D. Certification also makes no approval on the AS-10 and refers to conditions for other units "set forth by Technology Management" which are not included. The City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health letter only states that the unit doesn 't require a permit based on a local Hazardous Materials Ordinance and makes no approval of the unit itself. The typical approval that we look for on this type of equipment is from Underwriter 's Lab (U.L..) and/or Factory Mutual (F.M. ) . The Unit in question appears to have the majority of its components U.L. approved, the system is not U.L. approved. The Fire Department would not typically require that equipment of this sort be U.L. approved but we would only expect to find this equipment in occupancies regulated much differently than Residential Zones The UFC Edition Section 2.302 (enclosed) addresses situations such as this and appears to offer a solution to our problem. Simply put, I don't have the expertise to make this decision but am willing to accept the report of a qualified engineer or laboratory. The .report would have to certify your entire process (glass blowing torch operation) not simply the oxygen generator. As the Code section specifies, I would have to approve of your choice of engineers or lab before testing could begin. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Thank you, Robert F. Neu ann Fire Marshal �f-30 iiiiiiIA' iicrtyofsAntuisoBisni-% FIRE DEPARTMENT E T 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 •805/549.7380 November 2. 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 1075 Capistrano Court Dcar Mr. and Mrs. Bearcc: Once again, this letter is a 170110}v-up to our mcetin" an,1 Coll%;rSLIT ion of Ociol•cl l - 1990 As of this date, the Fire Department has not receiveda�ditional information regarding Elie Factory Mutual approval or Underwriters Laboratory listing of the .A'irscp or Xorbox oxygen generators. Until this information is received, the Fire Department shall not accept this installation. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact the Fire Prevention Office at 549-7380 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. S\nccrcly, r Obert F. Neumann Fire Marshal RFN:cb ��3 r.I � I I" I• ...,,:,�,�,li,�llll'' City of sAn luis dovBiS po FIRE DEPARTMENT 748 Pismo Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 •805/549.7 38919 IV October 11, 1990• e IJ o* Ag W �� �r ��0 Mr. & Mrs. Ron Bearce S`J �LO 1075 Capistrano Ct. r San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 � ,Vn RE: 1075 Capistrano0�) ` -> o � Dear Mr. &- Mrs. Bcarcc: R VO $� k �' p I This letter is a follow up to our conyersaticm c>1 O tut ] 11; 0P and is i visit to your residence on October 10, 1"). additionally on my As I expressed on both occasions, the Fire Department is most interested in your family's and your neighborhood safety and we are willing to work with you in tht regard. We are most concerned over the use of compressed oxygen, natural gas and propane. a On my visit of October 10th, I noted a large container of liquid oxygen. Upon return to my office, I researched the use of liquid oxygen in residential areas. I've enclosed the applicable section of the Uniform Fire Code which prohibits the use of this substance entirely in those areas. As I expressed to you during telephone conservation on October H. 1990 this vessel, empty or full, must be removed immediately. If within 72 hours of 10:00 am October 11, 1990 the vessel is still in place, I shall be forced to cite you with Failure to Comply, and I shall have the vessel removed at your expense (for the record, Mr. Bearce stated he would immediately comply). We at the Fire Department are more than willing to meet with you and your neighbors to go over our concerns and the applicable sections of the Uniform Fire Code. please call my office the week of October 15-I9, 1990 so that we may sit down and review the requirements we have established. S, rely, Robert F. Neuma n Fire Marshal RFN:pjs - Enclosure 46) r.� MEMORANDUM TO: Pam Ricci, Planning Department FROM: Robert F. Neumann, Fire Marsh R� SUBJECT: 1075 Capistrano DATE: 14 September 1990 After careful review, the Fire Chief and I have established the following guidelines under which the Fire Department would issue a permit for compressed gas storage and use. We base all requirements from Uniform Fire Code Article 49, 74, 75 and 90. With 100% concurrence with the neighbors, the Fire Department would issue a permit, renewable yearly, that would allow the storage and use of only oxygen and natural gas with the following restrictions: 1) No more than 2 'H' bottles may be on site at a time with a limit of 12 bottles used during a year (verification from vendor will be required). 2) No vehicle storage will be allowed in the garage area. 3) The residence will be subject to routine fire inspection yearly. 4) All requirements for: make-up air, piping, electrical service, area separations, ventilation, and tank installation shall be detailed to this department and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of the permit. r 07 fl � city of Shc'1 kas oBispo FIRE DEPARTMENT 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo,GA 93401 •805549.73M May. 7. 1991► Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Ct. San Luis Ohispct, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Bcarcc: • As you are aware, the Fire Department has received a complaint concerning the glaes working business you arc running out sof your home at 1075 Capistrano Ct. On April 11, 1990 1 visited your home and looked at your garage where the glass work takes place. At that time I informed you that you would need to apply for a Home Occupation Permit from the Planning Department and a Compressed Gases Permit from the Fire Department. I also informed you that you may for may not receive either of these permits, and that you must have NO oto continue your business. At that time you rcqueacd that you he issued a Compressed Gases Permit from the Fire Department. After reviewing our past fxilicy of issuing these permits and the City's general Policy of keeping hazardous prex:ecscs out of residential areas. I am denying your request for this permit. This decision may he appealed to the Fire Chief, Michael D older, at the Main Fire Station, 749 Pismo Street. If I can answer any questions concerning this decision, you may contact me at the above numher. Sincerely, Erwin L. Willis Fire Marshal cc: Michael Doldcr, Fire Chief RKoya►�� ��37 UU OCT 3 i uwu XER c n Car a Son Lm Um�m �" Caaasao Deweopowt wDm ❑ FK DaL TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE �,FII�FROM: KELLY J. CONDRON AND BONNIE L. CONDRON FwDa ' ❑ Pwam RESIDENTS AND OWNERS ❑ MCMLTEAM ❑ MDUt 1080 CAPISTRANO OCT 2 9 t9on O CRFADFIIF Q IIIItD�t SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93405 C47YOMK DEAR CITY COUNCIL: sew LUIS MGM.CA I WAS DISMAYED WHEN I READ IN LAST NIGHT'S TELEGRAM TRIBUNE THAT RON BEARCE AND HIS POLITICAL COHORTS HAVE FILED AN APPEAL OF SUPPORT AND THAT THESE 60 APPEALS WILL BE COUNTED AS LETTERS OF SUPPORT. PLEASE . EXAMINE THE LIST, HOW MANY ARE NEIGHBORS? HOW MANY LIVE IN SAN LUIS OBISPO% I AM SUBMITTING THIS LETTER TO DOCUMENT MY OPPOSITION TO GRANTING RON BEARCE A HOME OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR A GLASSBLOWING BUSINESS AT HIS RESIDENCE . THERE IS NOT A SINGLE NEIGHBOR THAT I KNOW OF THAT SUPPORTS GRANTING THIS PERMIT. IT IS CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF ESTABLISHED REGULATIONS WHICH ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOMEOWNERS' LIFE AND PROPERTY. IT IS YOUR OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS AND NOT YIELD TO POLITICAL PRESSURES BROUGHT TO BEAR BY RON BEARCE. MR. KUNKEL STATED IN HIS TESTIMONY DURING THE FIRST APPEALS HEARING THAT HE WAS A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PROVIDED A LICENSE NUMBER WHEN ASKED FOR IT. I CHECKED WITH STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND FOUND OUT THAT MR. KUNKEL WAS NOT REGISTERED AND NEVER REGISTERED AS A FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER AS HE CLAIMED IN TESTIMONY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I AM GOING TO TAKE THIS MATTER UP WITH THE STATE BOARD BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS A MISDEMEANOR IN THIS STATE TO FALSELY PRESENT ONE'S SELF A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WHEN SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. MR. BEARCE OPERATED HIS GLASSBLOWING WORKS ILLEGALLY, AND WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE, PUTTING HIS NEIGHBORS AT RISK. HE INDICATATED THAT HE WAS INSURED WHEN I TALKED TO HIM AT THE FIRST APPEALS HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I CHECKED WITH HIS INSURANCE CARRIER AND HE IN FACT DID NOT HAVE A BUSINESS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY. HE CONTINUES TO OPERATE HIS BUSINESS ILLEGALLY. HIS TESTIMONY AND WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE MIS-STATED THE FACTS. THE CONCLUSIONS HE DRAWS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS IN THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS (THAT WE WERE SOMEHOW MADE FEARFUL VIA A MEETING WITH THE PLANNING DEPT. ) ARE OUTRIGHT UNTRUTHS. MR. BEARCE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A SHRED OF CREDIBILITY WITH ME IN THIS WHOLE UNFORTUNATE PROCESS. I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT HE WILL FAITHFULLY CONDUCT HIS OPERATION IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH ANY 'REVISED' REGULATIONS THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN HE AND THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU GRANT THIS PERMIT, YOU WILL . FORCE THE NEIGHBORS INTO A POLICING FUNCTION THEREBY DESTROYING THE DELICATE SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WHICH MAKE UP A NEIGHBORHOOD. FURTHERMORE, YOU WILL BE ESTABLISHING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR THIS CITY. IF RON BEARCE IS GRANTED AN APPEAL WHICH EXTENDS WELL BEYOND THE REGULATION LIMITS FOR HOME OCCUPANCY PERMITS, WHAT'S TO STOP OTHERS FROM APPLYING FOR SIMILAR PERMITS AND TAKING THE CITY TO TASK I gr- • Erb.:, ��,:;: FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW WHEN THEIR PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED? 1 AM REQUESTING THE NAMES. OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SUPPORT RON BEARCE'S APPEAL. I WILL BE HAPPY TO REVIEW THE LIST AND GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC ACCOUNT FOR HOW MANY OF THOSE SUPPORTERS LIVE WITHIN 500 YARDS OF MR. BEARCE. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THE CITY COUNCIL RULE ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON A NUMBERS GAME. THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN, THE PROTECTION OF OUR PROPERTY, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ESTABLISHING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT ARE ALL AT STAKE. I PLEAD WITH YOU TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND REJECT THIS APPEAL . THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF, AND BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO GIVE MR. BEARCE A FAIR HEARING IN THIS MATTER. MR. KARLESKINT SUGGESTED THAT MR. BEARCE AND HIS COALITION OF ARTISTS COULD COLLECTIVELY RENT A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT. MR. BEARCE ANDI}IS FRIENDS WOULD BE ABLE TO ' CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS IN A SAFE MANNER AND AT AN ACCELERATED PRODUCTION RATE THAT COULD OFFSET THE ADDED EXPENSE OF RENT. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE RULE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR THIS CITY. I WILL BE WRITING TO YOU AGAIN, SUBSEQUENT TO A REVIEW OF - THE COVENANTS AN RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION YOU COULD PROVIDE ON THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO FILE AN INJUNCTION SHOULD AN OCCUPANCY PERMIT BE GRANTED. SINCERELY ELLY ONDRON BONNIE L. CONDRON OWNE OWNER 1080 C: ISTRANO 1080 CAPISTRANO �VVJ �(�Tbkritil"V 0515Pp ��- PM p� min r /�`tt� Zee 26 OCT �,. _ X990 ell t%3U L elI o� std �.V15 MARTIN P. MOROSKI 1010 Peach Srreei San Luis Obispo.California 93401 RECEIVED WT 10 WO .W%P October 10, 1990 Planning Commission HAND DELIVERED City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Planning Counter 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Attention: Pam Ricci Re: Use Permit A74-90 SSnecific Reference: Continued hearing on appeal of Hearing Officer's action denying home occupation permit A74-90 Dear Commissioners: Please accept this letter as a reiteration of my wife's and my opposition to the issuance of the use permit (A74-90) applied for by Ron and Leslie Bearce. My wife and I request that you consider this letter and make it part of the administrative record on October 10, 1990, as we will be unable to attend the hearing due to other commitments. In short, we request that the Planning Commission ("Commission") follow what Staff has twice now recommended, follow and apply the specific legislative standards set forth in: the City's Zoning Regulations ("Regulations") and uphold the Hearing Officer's action denying the Bearces' application. Standing. My wife and I own the residence located at 1070 Capistrano Court. WP have two (2) children, ages 4 k years (Rachel) and 2 years (Alexander) . Two of the characteristics of our neighborhood which led us to purchase our home were its R-1 zoning and the relative lack of traffic on Capistrano Court. Focus of hearing. My wife and I request that the Commission focus on the only issue presented by the Bearces' appeal. The sole issue before the Commission is whether, based upon the evidence before the Commission, the Bearces' home occupation meets the specific legislative standards for allowable home occupations set forth in Section 17.08.040 of the Regulations. The Commission is duty bound to take quasi-judicial action and apply those standards in an expeditious fashion. Regulations, Section 17.66.050. �3" Planning Commission October 10, 1990 Page 2 Comments were made by at least two Planning Commissioners at the August 8 marathon hearing to the effect that the Commission should not waste its time in attempting to :resolve neighborhood squabbles. My wife and I believe that by failing to follow Staff's recommendation and uphold the Hearing Officer's action on the. Bearces' application, the Commission has, in a very real sense, made what should have remained a simple zoning issue into a personal issue pitting neighbor against neighbor. My wife and I have nothing against the Bearces and certainly have no interest in denying any person his or her ability to make a living. However, we believe we have a right to rely on this City's zoning laws and the even-handed, objective and non-partisan application of those laws by the Director, the Commission and the City Council. It is the Commission's duty to apply to the facts before it the specific legislative standards for granting home occupation permits set forth in Section 17. 08.040. the Commission does not have the authority to rewrite those standards. Moreover, those standards must be presumed by the Commission to be the result of a constitutional exercise by the City of its police power to promote the general welfare. By their very nature, zoning laws sometimes appear to encroach upon or infringe the property rights of the few to promote the property rights of the many (i.e. to promote the general welfare) . Of the nature of zoning laws, the California Supreme Court has stated as follows: "It is thoroughly established in this country that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. Although one owns Property. he may not do with itas he Pleases any more than he may act in accordance with- his personal desires. As the interest of society justifies restraints upon individual conduct, so, also, does it justify restraints upon the use to which property may be devoted. It was not intended by these constitutional provisions to so far protect the individual in theuse of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, society did not part with the power to protect itself or to promote its general well-being. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with the interest -of society. such individual interest is subordinated to the general welfare. . . . '" Miller v. Board of Public.Works, 105 Cal. 477, 488 (1075) ; emphases added. Planning Commission - October 10, 1990 Page 3 It is the Commission's duty to apply and enforce the requirements of Section 17.08.040. It is not the responsibility of the neighbors of Ron and Leslie Bearce to work out a compromise solution with them. By failing to take action as required by Sections 17. 66.050, 17.72.010 and 17.72.020, and foisting the responsibility of resolving this matter onto the shoulders of the Bearces ' neighbors, the Commission has succeeded in personalizing the dispute and creating an atmosphere where feelings have been hurt or may be hurt. One of the purposes of our zoning laws is to depersonalize disputes involving what are and what are not permitted uses of property. Another purpose is to provide an enforcement mechanism by which a. governing body can ensure that only permitted uses are made of property. Even assuming that a compromise "agreement" was reached between the Bearces and their neighbors, who or what entity would be charged with the responsibility of monitoring or enforcing compliance with the terms of the agreement? Would such an agreement be enforceable at all? My wife and I restate that we don't want to be stripped of our right to reasonably rely on the public officials in this City in applying and enforcing the law as it was intended to be applied and enforced. A dispassionate, objective and non-partisan application of the law to the facts before the Commission indicates that the Bearces ' appeal be rejected and the hearing Officer's action in denying their application upheld. Requirements of Section 17 08 040. Section 17. 08. 040 articulates the following general requirements for home occupation permits: C. General Requirements 1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent customer access or have other characteristics which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and atuiet of residential areas shall be maintained. 3. There shall be no sales, rental or display on the premises. 6. . .No vehicle larger than a three-quarter- ton truck may be used in connection with a home occupation. Planning Commission October 10, 1990 Page 4 7. The home occuRAtion shall not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space area. 9. Activities conducted and equipment -or materials used shall not change thefire-safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. 10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, vibration, small, smoke, glare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. . . . (Emphases added. ) The Bearces' Proposed home occupation does .not meet the general requirements of Section 17 08 040. In descending order of importance, we list below the specific requirements of Section 17 . 08 . 040 which the Bearces' home occupation does not appear to satisfy: 1. The Bearces' activities in connection with their home occupation have changed the fire classification of their premises. The Fire Department's position in this matter is clear. The Bearces ' home occupation changes the fire classification of the premises located at 1075 Capistrano Court. With respect to Fire Marshal Robert F. Neumann's memorandum to Pam Ricci dated September 14 , 1990 (Exhibit "1" hereto) , the loot concurrence of the neighbors will not be forthcoming. Therefore, the Fire Department will not issue a permit to the Bearces. Section 17.08.040(C) (9) would appear, therefore, to require rejection of the Bearces' appeal. 2. The Bearces' `some occupation has an adverse impact on the peace quiet and safety of Capistrano Court. Section 17.08 .040(C) (1) mandates that the Commission exercise its discretion in taking action on an application for home occupancy permit in such a Way as to maintain the peace and quiet of residential areas. Section 17.08.040(C) (.10) requires that a permitted home occupation = create any hazard or nuisance. The Commission has heard or will hear testimony from no fewer than six (6) households on Capistrano Court objecting to the Bearces' application on the ground that the proposed home occupation actually or potentially threatens the peace, quiet and safety of the neighborhood. The concerns of the neighbors are underscored and heightened by the fact that our neighborhood is populated by y-y Planning Commission October 10, 1990 Page 5 -- a large number of very young children. In rebuttal, the Bearces have offered only their own testimony. None of the other witnesses called by the Bearces reside in our neighborhood. 3. Vehicles larcer than a three-ouarter ton truck have been used in connection with the Bearces' home occupation. The Commission has heard ample testimony of deliveries of compressed gas cylinders by larger than three-quarter ton trucks and deliveries by UPS delivery trucks to the Bearce residence. There is evidence before the Commission, therefore, that the requirement set forth in Section 17.08.040 is not satisfied. 4 . The Bearces' home occupation encroaches on required Parking. In its Home Occupation Permit, based on Section 17. 08. 040, the City of San Luis Obispo further defines the general requirement set forth in Section 17.08.040(C) (7) by stating that " [p)arking space in a garage is normally required parking." There is evidence before the Commission that the Bearces' home occupation takes up all the space in their garage and that no space exists in the garage for parking a car. The Bearces' home occupation is more akin to those uses specifically prohibited by Section 17 08 040(D) than those uses allowed under the Section. It is arguable that the light industrial/commercial enterprise the Bearces conduct in their garage is less compatible with surrounding residential uses than a number of the uses specifically prohibited by Section 17 . 08. 040 (D) (e.g. , carpentry and cabinet making, welding and appliance repair) . It is arguable, therefore, that the Bearces ' home occupation is not consistent with the intent of Section 17 . 08. 040. Liability insurance. Assuming the Commissioner gets past the. concerns outlined above, which it really shouldn't, my wife and I request that the issue of liability insurance be revisited in earnest on a number of different levels. First, the issue is significant from the standpoint . of the Bearces' financial accountability for the liability they might incur if one of their compressed gas cylinders blows up or some other disaster occurs on their premises causing injury to a person and/or property. Second, the issue is significant on the broader question of whether the Bearces' home occupation is compatible with and incidental to the residential uses on Capistrano Court. See Section 17.08.040(A) . Most, if not all, standard homeowners' liability insurance policies exclude from coverage liability arising out of or from business pursuits carried on in or at the insured premises. The Bearces have, to date, indicated that the only insurance they currently carry is homeowners' insurance. If this is the case, the Bearces would probably not be covered for any liability arising Planning Commission October 10, 1990 Page 6 from an accident in connection with their home occupation (i.e. , business pursuit) . The business pursuit exclusion is included in homeowners' policies for a reason (i.e. , business pursuits and the potential liabilities arising . therefrom are incompatible with homeowners' pursuits and the potential liabilities arising therefrom) . With respect to the testimony of various witnesses called by the Bearces to the effect that the potential hazards in most peoples' garages (e.g. water heaters and gasoline engines) are at least as great as the potential hazards in the Bearces' garage, the insurance issue is of critical importance. The explosion of or fire caused by a water heater and damage caused thereby would probably be covered by a homeowners' policy. The damage caused by a fire or explosion resulting from any aspect of the Bearces' home occupation would probably not be covered by their homeowners' policy. Conclusion. In closing, my wife and I request that the' Commission assume responsibility for the Bearces' appeal and discharge the Commission's obligations under the Regulations. Further, consistent with the requirements of Section 17.66.050, we request that the Commission deny any request for postponement or continuance of the hearing and act on the Bearces' appeal without further delay. Sincerely, t a X6'2 Martin P Moroski Diane W. Moroski MPM/dbc b/letter/RICCI .ltr MEMORANDUM FROM Robert F Neumann, Fire Marsh R SUBJECT: 1075 Capistrano DATE: 14 September 1990 After careful review, the Fire Chief and I have established the following guidelines under which the Fire Department would issue a permit for compressed gas storage and use. We base all requirements from Uniform Fire Code Article 49, 74, 75 and 90. with 100% concurrence with the neighbors, the Fire Department would issue a permit, renewable year hat woul ow the storage and use of only oxygen and natural gas with the following restrictions: 1) No more than 2 W bottles may be on site at a time with a limit of 12 bottles used - during a year (verification from vendor will be required). 2) No vehicle storage will be allowed in the garage area. 3) The residence will be subject to routine fire inspection yearly. 4) All requirements for: make-up air, piping, electrical service, area separations, ventilation, and tank installation shall be detailed to this department and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of the permit. I EXHIBIT "1" sL #4�5 Received @ 8-5- 90 meefinq presented C.ommeat 5 AUGUST R, 1990 `1 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL HEARING FOR RON SEARCE'S GLASSBLOWING BUSINESS AT CAPISTRANO COURT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO: WE LIVE DIRECTOLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PETITIONER AND HAVE OBJECTED PREVIOUSLY VIA WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THIS COMMISSION. I Ari APPEARING THIS EVENING TO PERSONALLY REITERATE MY OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF GLASSBLOWING, MARKETING . AND SALES: 1 — I OBJECT BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SAFETY OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHILDREN WOULD BE COMPROMISED BY VIRTUE, OF INCREASED TRAFFIC. MR E:EAF.CEc• RESIDENCE AND MY RESIDENCE ARE LOCATED AT THE END OF THE CULDESAC ON CAPISTRANO COURT. ONE CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING OUR RESIDEr-ICE t-AS SAFE STREETS. THE BENEFITS OF RAISING CHILDRED ON A CULDESi:�C AS OPPOSED TO A THOROUGHFARE ARE OBVIOUS. CONDUCTING SALES, Nt-,P.KETING "rdD MANUFACTURING IN THE GARAGE OF A RESIDENCE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC' AND REDUCE STREET SAFETY. I AM PF;RTICUL�RL'r' CONCERNED ABOUT DELIVERY TRUCKS AND CUSTOMER PICKUP ANE, GELP,!EPY . HAS A STUDY BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF THIS E:U=TINE S Orj STREET TRAFFIC? - ELT BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT 11R. �-ig-�� - ' �� BEr=+RCE''o GARAGE IS NOT SUIT�;E:Lr DE'=•IGNED Tr-'l PRECLUDE DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE EVENT OF :;CCIDEHTAL SEVERING• OF THE VAL�_'E ON A COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDER. SUCH ACCIDENTS ARE NOT UNCOMMON AND RESULT IN THE CYLINDER BECOMING A HIGH VELOCIT', PROJECTILE CAPABLE OF SIGNIFICAr•!T PROPERTY DAMAGE AND INFLIC:TIrlG SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH. 3 - I OBJECT BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT MR. BEARCE` S GARAGE IS NOT _:UTIABL , DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDEr1TAL EXPLOSION OF FLAMMABLE GAS WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL FOF. MCC:Ur1ALATIGN SHOULD BOTTLES BE LEFT ON AND FITTINGS;HOSES: LEAK. IN A TESTIHOIIIAL TO THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE . ONE OF MR. BEARCES FRIENDS. • CLAIr•11rlG TO BE A SAFETY ENGINEER . SAID HIS GARAGE WAS FIREPROOF AND THE OPERATION WAS SAFE . IS THIS INDIVIDUAL A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL FIRE PROTECTI011 ENGINEER WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND iF SO. WHAT IS HIS LICENSE NUMBER AND THE BASIS FOP. HIS CONCLUSIONS. 4 — I OBJECT BASEL? Oro THE GROUNDS THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED> WITH :;NY INFORMATIOrI RELATIVE TO MR. BEAP,CE' S LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO M`r. PROPERTY OR INJURY TO 1-1'7' CHILDREN RESULTING FROr1 CONDUCTING HIS MANUFACTURING OPERATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD LIKE THE NAME OF THE INSURANCE CARRIER . POLIC:Y NUMBER. AND LIABILITY LIMITS . 5 — I OBJECT BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT A GLASSBLOWING BUSINESS IS BEST C SUITED TO BE CONDUCTED IN A PART OF TOWN ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS . I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE SENSATIONALISM TOUTED IN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR THAT MR. BEARCE IS BEING HARASSED BY THE CITY . I ASK, WHY CANT MR BEARCE CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AT A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT IN TOWN IN LIEU OF DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME? S N L S BM ED THIS AUGUST STH, 195+0 K C NOR 10 PISTRANO COURT SAS IS OBISPO, C.A. 9$405 10/04i1990 09:48 Di_. CanyonComputerCentr 6- '1, 4275 P.01 'fix;• -i . ., ... .. ... . .. ,. . ?,OVA I THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1990 TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KELLY J. CQNDRON SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF POSITION ONMIEARCE'S APPLICATION FOR GLASSBLOWING PURSUANT TO DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS AND AFTER REVIEWING THE EXISTING REGULATIONS REGARDING A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY REQUEST THAT THIS PERMIT NOT BE GRANTED. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSED USE FOR THE BEARCE'S PROPERTY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED ZONING REQUIREMENTS, IS OUT OF CHARACTER FOR FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER FROM THE NEIGHBORS. IN OUR MEETING WITH PAM RICCI, NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS PRESENT WANTED TO SEE THIS PERMIT GRANTED. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T ENFORCE THE LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS AND REJECT THIS APPLICATION OUTRIGHT. IN PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE I HAD INDICATED THAT IF ALL THE CONDITIONS OF -MR. KARLESKINT'S LETTER WERE MET, I COULD WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION. UNDERSTAND IA THIS CORRESPONDENCE THAT I WITHDRAW ANY SUCH NOTION FOR SUPPORT. I WANT TO SEE THE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAINTAINED AND SUPPORT THE OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THEIR OBJECTION TO THIS PERMIT. SI Y LLY CONDRON 108 PISTRANO S IS OBISPO, CA. TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 141 1990 PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS - PLANNING DEPT. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. SUBJECT: RON BEARCE'S APPLICATION FOR GLASS-BLOWING PERMIT This is a follow-up correspondence to previous correspondence and my public testimony provided at the appeals hearing. This correspondence is to update you on two specific issues/questions which I raised. 1) LIABILITY INSURANCE: Contrary to the impression I was given at the appeals hearing, the Bearce's do not have a business liability policy. I discussed this matter with State Farm Insurance, their policy holder. The Bearce's have a homeowner's umbrella policy which includes specific exclusions for liabilities incurred as a result of a business activity. My objection to granting this permit based on the lack of suitable liability coverage for damage or injury to my property or family remains unchanged. 2) PROFESSIONAL SAFETY WITNESS: According to my notes, Mr. Kunkel stated that he was a registered fire protection engineer with the State of California and that his license number is 107714. I contacted the State Consumer Affairs Dept. , Professional Registration Divison. License 107714 is not a California State Fire Protection Engineering license number. Under Gary Kunkel, they showed a Kunkel in their computer who lived in Orcutt with a Mechanical Engineering license number of 23772 which expired in 1989 and had not been renewed. I request that you not consider Mr. Kunkel Is "expert testimony" at the hearing until his qualifications have been confirmed since my objection to granting this permit based on but not limited to the potential safety consequences remains unchanged at this point in time. One other point of interest. At the appeals hearing, Mr. Bearce made the comment . that only a few neighbors had showed up, thus implying that there wasn't an overwhelming objection to his application. Such inference may be valid. I would like to point out that none of the proponents for granting this application who spoke at the appeals hearing lived in the neighborhood. We have been contacted by Ron Bearce with respect to setting up meeting with the Fire Dept. , Commission, and the neighbors. The time and place for such a meeting remains to be determined. Mr. Bearce was advised of our current schedule with regard to vacation and I would request that a permit not be granted should the meeting be held in our absence. I also have one other question. If Mr. Bearce is granted this permit, has a precedent been established which will allow other "glassblowing", craft, etc. businesses to be established in my neighborhood? If so, consider this another grounds for my objection to granting this permit. eje t(y Cron l "AJt -� � 0;rLsxi&t 545-4!009 c� X11�.IT - (F I IJCo(LPp2R�� AtJ D W kThA Ti<' ( Ns,.�ahtJCE ST�Vu�1�x�1 Z A- wo��D �, t w�wu �/«(9c� ��• Tc� e..R ^ 4-�c .^O /+r> ., 1L'1r ��— �1-ft.1.T Jim and Cnery Longabaugh 1055 Capistrano Gt. S.L.u. , Ua. 93405 Dear Zoning bearing ufficer, We are opposed to mr. and Mrs* bearce, at 1075 Capistrano Ct., S. L.U. , being permitted to operate a glass-blowing business from their nome. The materials used for the glass blowing are dangerous. The storage of noxious gases in a neighborhood setting is inappropriate. The area where the gases are stored Is r-ot secure, and children play in the area, unsupervised, on a regular basis. The flame and heat used to blow the glass poses an obvious fire hazard . Tnis threatens not only the }bearce 's none, but the neighborn000 in general . We bought a none or, a cul-de-sac, so tnat our children wouls not nave to play on a busy street. To have a retail business at the end of the cul-de-sac, wnicn requires supplies to be picked up ana delivered, as welt as customer pick-ups , inappropriately increases commercial trafiic In the neignbornood. inanx ,you !'or your attention. 1 /Jim LoritSa� Chery Longabaugh_ i �.e0 %cCEIVEN. MAYO 990 • oas..�r�: DAVE MORAN, PLANNER MAY 29 1990 SFW LUIS OBISPO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 990 PALM SAN LUIS OBISP09 CA. 93408 Dear Mr . Moran : This correspondence is being written for submittal at the public hearing to be held regarding the proposed business to be conducted at 1075 Capistrano Court in San Luis Obispo, Ca. This business is described on the notice as a glassblowing business. It has been my personal observation that glassblowing activities have been undertaken at the aforementioned residence for several years. While I have no objection to our neighbor conducting certain aspects of his business at home , I do have some questions and concerns that I would like to see addressed at the public hearing: 1 - I have seen numerous deliveries of high pressure compressed gas cylinders and fuel gas cylinders to 1075 Capistrano. The delivery truck is carrying significant quantities of compressed gas and fuel gas cylinders/containers and I question the wisdom of transporting such a large quantity of potentially explosive materials through a residential neighborhood. 2 - High pressure gas cylinders which are improperly secured have the potential for becoming 'missiles' in the event the cylinder valve is broken off if the cylinder falls over . (as in a earthquake , inadvertant 'bump' , or striking the valve inadvertantly with a some type of tool/instrument at high impact) . What provisions exist at this residence to properly secure and protect the outlet valve? How many hiqh pressure cylinders will be present at this location at any given time? What inspections will the city perform to insure the business owner is complying with proper safety rules for the the use and handling of compressed gas(es)? What limitations will be imposed on monthly usage and how will it be enforced? 3 - How does the business owner intend to protect against or otherwise mitigate the consequences of a house or garage fire which causes fuel and gas cylinders to explode? If the business owner reIys on fire sprinklers and extinguishers, will these be inspected and certified at a frequency required by law? What are the CAI/OSHA requrirements for use , handling and transportation of the materials used in this business and how will they be enforced? 4 - Neighborhood children and the business owner's children are often found playing in and around the garage where glassblowing is being conducted. What provisions does the business owner intend to employ to prevent children from being injured in the event of a mishap associated with compressed gas/fuel gas cylinders? Will the work are& ' . be secure from *youthful intrusion' which could otherwise lead to injury , burning, and possibly death? 5 - What type of liability insurance or bond dots the business owner carry to provide protection for the neighborhood in the event of injury, death, or destruction of property? Is the business owner's insurance company aware of the activities proposed for and being conducted at this residential property? Will the business owner's insurance company underwrite such a liability policy? What are the maximum limits for such liabilities and what are the exclusion provisions? Are there any state , county or city requirements for such insurance? 6 - Do the San Luis Obsipo Fire Marshall and Public Health Department concur with the issuance of a permit for conducting a glassblowing business at this address? If so, what is the basis for their ,justification and what criteria was used for establishing this basis? I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns relative to the issuance of a glassblowing business permit at 1075 Capistrano. I formally object to granting such a permit until the questions raised above have been appropriately addressed/answered by the business owner and the City. I would also appreciate notification of the results of the City' s determination/ruling on this matter. Sincerl , Ke 1 J Condron I C pistrano S n is Obispo, Ca. 93405 544-8658 (home) 595-4609 (work) or • . -_ --- •ti._ _.ate- .-:'�% i`� . �• � v � �� v`'Z Vv� '1 To- The Honorable San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners i `' ,� 199 13 From: The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family ` Date: Oct. 8, 1990 Subject The Oct.10 Planning Commission Hearing - A•Jo�As � Dear Planning Commissioner, 0. Pt*e`' A number of people have joined together to help resolve the Ron and Leslie Bearce Home Occupation Permit issue, not only for the Bearces but the neighbors and others involved If we understand the Fire Department, Planning Staff and others correctly, they cannot regulate parking, torchs, oxygen tanks, etc. that are used as hobbies or home use, meaning that if the permit is denied, the best the neighbors will end up with is the exact same setup as now with no restrictions or any regular inspections. We believe that the Commission, in a difficult situation, gave the various parties involved a very fair opportunity to resolve some differences by instructing people to actually meet together to find some common ground. To our suprise, there seems to have been a completely different approach taken by the Planning Department staff. Instead of working openly with the applicant, the staff seems to have waited until the last minute to do their work and have apparently kept the Bearces out of the' communication process needed to resolve this. In the last few days, we have put together what has happened to the Bearces' glassworking occupation starting 18 years ago to present time for you own use. Your impression of what has occured since Aug. 8 may change after reading this. Thank you, The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family Ron and Leslie Bearce's Chronological order of events: Section I: 1972 to the Aug. 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting Section 11: Aug. 9 to present SECTI0N I 1972: Ron began working with glass just after graduating from Sen Luis High.He bought and set up his first equipment at his parent's home On Dei Mer Court in San Luis Obispo. 1973-1975: With Leslie s help, Ron paid for his college education at Cuesta and Cal Poh' while working out of his home and downtown apartment above E.E.Long Pieta Dec 27, 1975: Ron and Leslie,who both grew up in Sen Luis Obispo, married They began:dhortly after that working out of their first home at 254 Sendercock SL The Beerces applied for and received a County Fictitious Name Statement for doing business as Icarian Glassworks of California,a staleretail sales tax number,a city business lies w ,and a city home occupation permit. 1977-1983: The Beerres worked out of their Sandermrk home in their garage without incident or one complaint for the duration of the time they lived there. They also rented 1000 sq ft of mwdectoring space off of Broad SL for three years to aaandete their expanding work forte of up to twelve additional employers. 1984: Due to the diffiauiting of training glassworkers, the high overhead, and interest in other arms, they closed their manufactoring outlet to focus on new glass art work and,hopefully,a new detail shop. Sept. 1985: After years of effort ,including four months of struggling to obtain a building permit Ron and Leslie Be& finally obtained a modest home for their family and the most fireproofed location yet in their garage for their glass art workshop. They still had a downtown retail store, now downstairs in the Network Mall, where they also did glasswork after obtaining all the proper Fire Department permission while doing additional work at hone. 1988: With the Network closing for remodeling and a new baby at tale, they chase to work exclusively at home while they looked into additional commercial space.They transferred all their government required licenses and permits, including their city Business License, to their home. The city has from 1988 to July of 1990 issued the Bearces a business license at their Capistrano CL home Mar.1990: After 18 years of working safely and quietly in various locations with not one complaint from anyone, the city Fire 1 Is sl 11 called to say someone had made an a nonomous phone call to City Heli uhonnplaining about their home occupation. He told them they would need certain city permits to work at home. Apr. 1990: City Fire Marshall Erwin Ellis met with Ron and Leslie in their workshop and was surprised that they had been working out of San Luis Obispo homes for 18 years, had obtained a home occupation permit at their previous hone and already had a business license for their Capistrano CL horne. He outlined very specifically the required chronological procedure: First obtain a business liceae, secmd obtain a home ocWWion permit and third obtain fire department approval,in that order. Ron and Leslie felt axauropad that they could work with the Fire Department, as they had successfully in five previous locations including two retail shops, a home, a manufactoring site, aid in the middle of the Formes Market Ron and Leslie decided since it would be unlikely they would open another commercial site anytime soon,they filled out an application for a Home Occupation Permit May 1990: Since the city received at least ane complaint, a May I Ith Public Hearing was scheduled to Insider their permit On May 9th Associate Planner Dave Marren called and said - "I've reached my decision to rarrommand denying your permit' He never investigated the site or celled to talk to the Beercrs He did say one neighbor, nomad Cheryl Huffman, came in on May 8th to talk to him about why the permit should be denied Mrs. Hoffman is the Planning Commission Chairman's wife,a political activist with opposing views to those of Ron Decree and lives nearly a block away from the Bawce& Yet as of October 6,1990, she has avoided putting on record what her May 8th co nptaints were. On May 11 th at the Inning Hearing Officer Hearing two neighbors cone to'mainly get some questions Nowerod', as they each statad They also expressed concerns Ran and Leslie began addressing those concerns, but the Hearing Officer would not allow them to talk directly with the neighbors but stated that they must 'talk to the their'. Hawing Officer and Staff Planner Ken Bruce closed the hearing then reed off a previously prepared tyvewritten statement his decision to deny them a permit and the reasons why. Yet later, in an Oct 5th phone conversation, Ken Bruce told Ron Bearce that he agrees that.Ron runs a 'very safe operation'. Mother city Planner, Pam Ricci, explained on October 3rd that 'ace ase staff makes a decision, other staff will almost never disagree with it." Mr. Bruce had literally reed Planner Dave Moron's typewritten retxoc, anion. Aug. 1990 Mr. Moran stuck with his decision again and wrote a very inaccurate report to the Planning Commissioners to back it up. The confussion the report created that conflicted with the August 8th Planning Commission Public Hearing testimony in a large way prompted four comm issiorers to vote to direct all parties involved to meet to attempt to work out a solution. SECTION II Sept. 1990 Ron and Leslie wrote a letter to the commissioners dated Sept 3, 1990 detailing their extensive efforts to that point to solve this problem. On October 3rd and 4th, Pam Ricci stated she obtained the letter and Piled Ito. She said it was never sent to any of the planner commissioners until the staff report was sent On Sept. 12th Planner Commissioner Mary Billington asked the planning staff for an update on the Beane perm it appeal. The Community Development Director Arnold Jams stated 'that the staff was attempting to work with various parties imrolved',according to the Planning Commission minutes. Planner Pam Ricci stated to Ron and Leslie on both Oct 2nd and 3th that it was not true that the staff had done any work on this before Sept 12th. The minutes go on to say that the staff will be meeting during the week of Sept 24th with the various parties, including the neighbors and the Fire Department On Oct 3rd of the.Bearce's home,Pam Ricci stated that that was also not true and went on to state: "I'm really not sure wiry he said that'. The first contact the Bearces had to let than know all this was accuring was a call from Pam Ricci on Friday Sept 28th She said she was'trying to finish my staff report'on the Beerces plannning commission appeal. To the Bow=disbelief, she told then that they were on the next Planning Commission agende and she wanted to come out to their home becoa 'I've really never been out there". Facing a C3hristmas order rush, Ran and Leslie assumed this must merely be an update presentation to inform the commission of the progress so far. Oct 1990: On Tuesday Oct 2nd,Ron called Pam and found out same ter jna nformation.Pam also final ty visited the Baortes on Wednesday Oct 3rd and stated some other amazing things: ( 1) Ran and Leslie's letter dated Sept 3rd and mailed to the Planning Commissioners at the City Halt address had never been sent on to them.Pam said the secretary brought her the letter and Pam sold she decided to file it and that she chosen to send it until she Issued her staff report an the Beeman permit,which would be sent out at least a month later. This was a letter that started with 'Dear Planning Commissioners,We wanted to give you an v dote about what has been happening since the August 6 meeting.' flo (2) Pam did state on 0.i. 2nd that stn had copies of Bne Baw ccs letter, adfn eased to the Commissioners,sent to'the neighbors'. (3)On October 3rd, she stated that she contacted the now Fire Marshall, Bill Galloway,and asked the fire dopa fmad to write a report an the Baorces permit application. She did not state that she told him that the Bas res had not been contacted about any of this at that time. Working almost in a vacuum, the Fire Marshall approved two high pressure oxygen cylinders and associated equipment and pieced restrictions on propane use, perking, and other eonditba He added the very unusual statement that he would allow any single neighbor the pow to veto his entire professibnel safety decision. This probable would not be needed if the Planning Commission's original intent of everyone meeting had been followed, e3p ciaity with the Beam's nes x of success in westing with the fire department. (4)During the eight months this has been going on,the Barnes have met with,phoned,written to and given invitations to all neighbors who are on raver d expressing question or concerns The Beerces received not one visit, letter,or other indication of actually how Laxin,red any of the neighbors are about this. Since it was their busiest glass season, they chose to focus on finding ways to mitigate the impacts of their 18 year old occupation so that they could present it to the neighbors, Fire Department,Planning Department and Planning Commissioners. Those of us assisting them have heard these methods and they deserve serious consideration. If Ron and Leslie had simply ban informed September 12 or stwrtly after about the October 10 Plaenin d Cotmnaission meatino. they would have had the time to meet face to face with all those involved. Those were the instractiaisof the Planning Commission wd the intent of Ron and Leslie. There are important questions - --Why wasn't the Bearce s letter forwarded to the Planning Commission: it was addr$ssed to them and and started, -We wanted to give you an updste...' --Why weren't the Bearces informed immediate -aft the Sept. 12 meeting about, the Comm ission meeting to be held a month later? --Why did the Planning Department Director tell the Commissioners the staff had been 'attempting to work with' the parties involved on Sept. 12 when no action in that direction had covered,ecm ing to his own planning staff? --Why did he say that there were meetings planned for the week of SepL 24 when none were planned, again according to his own staff? --Wty did Planning staff meet with neighbors saperate from the Baares and not tell the Bea cc's about it? --Why did the staff not have the Fire Department and the Bearps meet together? --Has the Fire Department ever made a safety decision then allowed citizens,even neighbors, to veto it? --Wty did staff cell up two neighbors who had not expressed concerns for nearly half a year and two others who had never expressed concerns or even questions? Those of us helping the Beerce.family urge you to not give up on your worthy attempt to try a different way of working out these often frequent neighborhood conflicts You impressed many of us with a desire to stow impatiainess and an desire to solve problems. Please set a date certain to give a justifiable time period to get the parties together this time and make sure the planning staff either works to bring people together or simply stays out of the way. This is an issue that will affect hundreds of local artists, the Commission and may others involved and should be given the chance to work the way you originally intended Thank you for your time To: The San Luis Obispo City Council Oct. 22, 1990 From: The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family Subject: Ron and Leslie's home glass working business Dear City Council: We disagree with the denials by the Planning Commission concerning the new permits the Bearces need for their home business. Why is making items of beauty in one's fireproof garage 'incompatible with the neighborhood'? Many of us know people who use oxygen tanks in their homes because of respiratory problems and we know others who have propane BBO(s) stored in their garage. With proper safety precautions, these are safe and acceptable. We, who have known Ron and Leslie for some time, are aware of their eighteen years of safe operations and that they have operated from a number of locations with fire department approval, with City business licenses, and at their former residence with a home occupation permit issued by the city. We are also aware that two months ago at the August 8th Planning Commission Meeting that the fire department approved the basic setup, including at least two oxygen tanks, torches, and existing work stations. If past city Fire Department experts have approved their equipment and their operation and if both current Fire Marshalls are saying that Ron and Leslie's operation is safe and if safety concerns resulted in the recent denial, then reverse the denial and issue the permit. We hereby instruct our public servants to serve us by immediately granting the permits to allow the Bearces to continue their eighteen years of safe operation and get on with more important issues facing our city. Sincerely, The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family Ronald A. Garcia, Chairman (544-7664) RECEIVED Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering OCT 2 3 1990r-- Master of Business Administration ' CRY CLERK Joe Eister 543-6005 Will Bearce 544-9444 SAN LUIS o81SP0, CA Gary Kunkel 543-5480 Rod Manns 546-8648 -(N is w�41 t�a7 (AcjB� VJ -40-� pC�C,&..Q,C'�t�.e[c ., C� CCC. 4 a CIZ n J Ut UL LA CIA Ju �li u �ii.eL t,: G.'2 CES ,C.k'•�`—e•�i � ✓i��-6�tL. •L�ti�n4,�,�,�-�-- uL� n 1 l. .&AVE . g. �r� August 3 , 1990 To: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission From: Ronald A. Garcia, 543 Felton Way, San Luis Obispo Subject: The Bearce's home glassworking business Dear Planning Commission: Since I am unable to attend the August 8th Planning Commission meeting regarding the Bearce's home glassworking business, I respectfully request that the following be read into the record during the public hearing: Ron and Leslie Bearce are old friends who until recently Z had not spoken with in a couple of years. As a degreed industrial engineer with professional experience in safety engineering, I disagree with the denials by a zoning hearing officer over the new permits the Bearces need for their home business. Why is making items of beauty in one's fireproof garage "incompatible with the neighborhood"? Is the beautiful shelf that my dad built for my girlfriend in his garage "incompatible with the neighborhood"? Does this same hearing officer park his car (with gasoline in it 's tank) in his garage and "pose a potential fire danger"? Surely the city planners are not preparing to tell city residents that we can no longer park a propane BBQ in a garage (due to flammable propane vapors) ! My mom has an oxygen tank in use in her home necessitated by a respiratory problem. I know people who have been using gas tanks for welding, brazing, and soldering in their garages for many years. with proper safety precautions, all of the above applications are safe. I personally know that Ron and Leslie are very safety conscious parents. The insignificant level of decreased safety by this business is so acceptable to this long term resident that he is welcome to come and use my garage. I hereby instruct my public servants to serve me by immediately granting the permits are necessary to allow the Bearces to continue their ei hteen years of safe operation and get on with more important issues facing our city. 5UM Ar 61 MD Sincerely, R"14b CAny�tsslc. L1fJ�tt� �v� 7 Ronald A. Garcia Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering Master of Business Administration From: Ron and Leslie Bearoe (805) 541-.2616 1075 Capistreno CL RECEIVED San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 October 10o IM OCT 10 00 To: AronldJones,0ommuni Deva araWYDtvd a� ty topmast Director cW..M,a.a= ,,,, city Hell Sen Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject Request to continue our appeai of denial of hone occupation permit to the October 24. 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Deer Mr.Jones Due to a set of unusual circumstances,we both feel that a continence an this item would be best for everyone Involved for the fol lowing reasons: ( 1)As applicants,we were not notified about this planning Oommission meeting until a week ago last Friday ( 1/28/90). (2)We were later informed on Tuesday( 10/2/90)that this meeting was actually the final dectsion regarding the planning commissions decision an our appeal. This hes given us very little time to prepare for this meeting (3) If we had known about the meeting with the neighbors,the Fire Department staff meeting,and any of the planning staff meetings we would have gladly attended any or all of them. (4)Our consultant,Ned Ragoway,was not informed until the city mailed him an agends which he didn't receive unti i last Friday( 10/5/90). This morning he requested a continuance for this evenings meeting and was told by yourself that there would be no abjection to a continuance by staff,which we appreciate. (5)The three commissionrers,we have been able to talk with yesterday about this,seem to support a continuance based on the fact that the commissions original intent of all the parties meeting with staff was not fullfilled For the benefit of the fire department,the neighbors,the planning staff and the applicant,as well as the planning commissioners, It seems best to hold a meeting with all interested parties some time within the next week or so and bring this item back to the planning commission at the next meeting with as much worked out as possible; As Oommissioner Ournee stateoyestorday, Olt is the prerogative or the permit applicant to request a continuance'. We request a continuance believing this will help everyone concerned to resolve this. If you have any questions please feel free to give us a cell. Sincerely, n Ron end Leslie Bearce S ld you seacopies of this letter are distributed to each of the commissioners before tonight's m y-s/ RECEIVED Sept . 3, 1990 SEP 1200 Ron and Leslie Bearce Coy oasmu:.oe9wo orb o.r.ba*ra Dear Planning Commissioners, We wanted to give you an update on our home glasswork.ing business situation . We ' ve been using the time to look into ways of mitigating as many of the concerns as possible the Planning Department staff , the fire marshal , the commissioners and the neighbors expressed. We contacted on the weekend after the meeting our neighbor who seems. most concerned, Kelly Condran . I first called him but there was no answer , so I then went over there, but it. looked like no one was home for awhile . We found out later they were on vacation. The next day I left a message on his answering machine . He called on Monday and, as he said after the Planning Commission meeting, he and his family were going on a cruise for a couple of weeks starting Thursday, I think to Mexico and Carribbean , so they would be unavailiable for awhile . Leslie talked to him and he said to tet him know if we could get a meeting arranged with everyone before he left to tet him know. Otherwise he would meet with us when he got back . We decided to focus on looking into, seeing if there are alternative equipment , techniques, etc . that could be used that would not cost us in terms of lost income or production . We can share some of that with you here.. Since there have only been two people atte.nd each of the two hearings held here , we hope to be able to keep working at home by continuing by focusing on their concerns. We did go up to th home of one neighbor from up the street from us who sent in an extensive letter\ of concerns. We also wrote up a detailed response and hand delivered it , which seems to have helped. Also , after the Hearing Officer hearing, I met with Ron King and talked with him about his questions and felt like I answered some if not all of them . He came to the hearing, as he said during the meeting , to have some questions answered. After both hearings, I talked with Marty, another neighbor , and invited him to get together with us . During the hearing he had said I stated earier in the meeting that over the years we've invited neighbors over to see what we did for a living, as well as get to know us. He stated that he had not been invited over , so I promptly gave him a. friendly invitation to come on over and get together . We have had many people over , either to ,lust visit or other reasons , including several times a neighbor who was then then the president of the Fireman' s Association . In fact , until this process started no neighbor in IS years has ever had any complaints. In spite of this , we have been taking many steps to try to address those current concerns. . We met with several of those helping us who spoke at the hearing who are trying to help resolve this . We also received the list of changes from Commissioner Barry Karlskint . If you have any other ideas , we 'd like to consider them along with those of other people . \ As far as the parking goes, we have someone designing a work table that can be hinged to the wall and lifted up when not in use so that a second car can be put inside. Another person is drawing out a work area that puts everything on wheels to accomplish the same thing. 45 .f 1-ew We would have to redo our hoses and electrical lines we need for lighting and fans, but it may not cost too much for all that. This whole process so far , though, has cost us over $1586 in lost production and cancelled orders, so we're trying to be careful on costs. We've also found someone who can deliver oxygen in a smaller pickup truck that fits inside our garage and, after trying them recently, will switch to them. We have not had the medium size truck del i ver oxygen in over half a year . We're starting to get into the make-or-break Christmas season (most artwork must be made months ahead of time) , so we're running short of free time right now. We've always wanted a propane BBQ and could purchase one, put it outside our garage in our courtyard area and run a line off of it into our wo2kshop . That would mean we would have to go outside once in a while to adjust the pressure. (Propane is not high pressure , as the staff report inaccurately stated, but does need occasional adjustment . ) There are some options availiable on the oxygen supplies that we are looking into, but need the right choice to be able to get our work done . We did check with someone who felt the Fire Marshal was wrong about the city-required fire sprinklers, that they actually would work in case there was. a fire somewhere in the garage . The Fire Marshal stated they recently changed the sprinkler requirements, but considering there are four to five years worth of them in Gan Luis , it would be great if all of them worked . _ Also, the earth did quake hard enough in San Francisco to cause buildings to collapse and gas lines to errupt in the city itself , hard enough to shake the hundreds if not thousands of oxygen , helium, hydrogen , compressed air and other pressurized tanks with zero damage anywhere in the city, according to he San Franciso Fire Chief . One comment we 're all preplexed about was dismissing the use of oxygen tanks in =schools, hospitals, etc . shen he Fire Marshal said he didn ' t think, we would want to "bring your workshop up to operating room standards" . The point is that these tanks are tried and proven safety equipment used safely by the hundreds of thousands all over the country . There are other area=_ we have been working on including going well be> ond meeting requirements other neighbors do not have to meet for their day to day activities or we would not need to even consider if we keep our setup for non-income work . Please let us know if you have any imput into this issue or any way You can help us out on this. Sincerely, R �andLesl i Bearce To: Zoning Hearing (.., *er Ken Bruce M '1,1990 DaA- Staff Planner ihoran b.. San Luis Obispo Planning Commission City Hall, San Luis Obispo nECEIVEI. 990 Palm Street MAY 21 S90 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 a foSWL"ftw ^+rrr 4.sewr From: Ron and Leslie Bearce 1075 Capistrano San Luis Obispo, California 93405 Subj: Appeal of Decision made by Zoning Hearing Officer to deny permit to continue our home business. The reasons for our appeal to the SLO Planning Commission are follows: ( i ) Excellent Safety Record During eighteen years of working at home (nearly five years.at our current location), safety has been our a 1 priority . Fireproofing our workshop has always been done, mainly because. the well being of our home, business and especially our family is dependent upon it. Our 18 years of experience with a flawless safety record indicates our dedication to safety. (2) Approval Record The equipment we use in our glassblowing operation typically puts out less than I / 10th of the heat of one burner on a gas kitchen stove. Our equipment has been approved a number of times at various locations including at two downtown stores, one other residential address (for which we received a home occupation permit and business license) and the busy downtown Farmers Market. Our present equipment is the same as what our own fire department has okayed many times over the last eighteen years for us as we]i as for others, including for Hooper Studios' downstairs Network Mall store, as wel I as what other fire departments have approved for decades all over the country, most notably the glassworkers seen by millions each year at places like Disneyland. (3) Cooperation With Neighbors, Mutual Benefits Questions by the two people who appeared at the Zoning Hearing seem to have been generated by the city's Zoning Officer Agenda mailout that went to our immediate neighbors. As one neighbor put it, he thought that we were planning some major change or expansion. Another thought we we starting retail sales, none of which we are doing. Otherwise, this is the first time since we started in 1972 thatanyone ever questioned our home business. Because we are currently able to work at home, we create a number of benefits not only for ourselves but for our community as a whole. By not commuting, we reduce traffic problems, air emissions and gasoline m nd IgE Wg[g C2MpICMJpJ sbace o the. need for more car trips per day in and out of our neighborhood which commuting brings. You might even say that everyday for us is Earth Day. By working at home, we are able to enjoy much higher quality of life with our children, Robby and Christina, without adding to the growing demand for. day care. We feel this is important for their happiness and proper upbringing. We enjoy having the opportunity to help supervise our children's interaction with the neignborhood children and feel strongly that our presence is a positive influence for the. safety, security and well being of the entire neighborhood , Over the last eighteen years, many of our neighbors in various locations have expressed their appreciation that there is someone around during the day to watch out for the neighborhood. (4) Has the City Staff followed the correct Procedural Rules and Regulations? There are many questions about why we are going through this process in this manner. For example, we were notified that we were being denied a fire department `gas permit' for which we had never applied. No one visited us from the Planning Department to actually check on the safety of our operation. Our and other's favorable input seemed to have little impact at the public hearing and the hearing officer's decision was read from a prewritten statement. On the other hand, Ken Miller, the Home Occupation Permit applicant before us at the May hearing was not even present at his, which is his right. .Yet, the Hearing Officer said he had been out to Mr. Miller's site at least once and the hearing of icer gave himself another ten days after the May hearing just to make a decision. The procedures for appeal were not given to us in any written form unti I just last Friday. We were not even instructed as to who the appeal should be addressed to. Does the appeal have to be written or can it be verbal? Who do we appeal to? May we have a written copy of your procedural rules and regulations? We therefore are appealing the Hearing Officer opinion to deny our right to work out of our home. This is based on not only the loss of our business, for we would have to either close up or move out of town, but on the loss of neighborhood and citywide benefits that home businesses.create. Signed Ron and Leslie Bearce --- _•!LY? fr/c 1. `_ice ' /1 lIt V I r I I .. � a - � - 9z) To : City Clerk November 181 1990 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street PTO: San Luis Obispo, CA p Actl0" � C y y [� O CDD DIX i4 � C E @! ar' ( Cy�0 ❑ RN.DIX From: Gary S. Kunkel, /± �0T��- Tlottrv�r 0 ��� 571 Cuesta St. NQy 2 0 199(1 ❑ �io�`c. ❑ )LICE CIL `! ❑ KEG DIX San Luis Obispo, CA D � CUMDIR CI r� CIERn �,•c' � (805) 543-5480of;JcnU. : , Subj. Request for extending the current continuance of Appeal for Home Occupation Permit -OA74-90. The current continuance of the appeal for Home Occupation Permit *A74-90 has been advantageous for the Fire Department to work out arrangements with the Bearces. As you are aware, Ron and Leslie Bearce are attempting to meet Fire Department requirements concerning use of a new oxygen machine and other related equipment. Although some of the new equipment has arrived, some other important components are still in shipment as of 1 1/19/90. During a meeting last Thursday on November 15th with the Fire Marshall, the Bearces were told by the Fire Marshall, that he would need a week to investigate the equipment before he can make a final recommendation on its installation. The.Fire Marshall has also indicated that he will recommend installation of the equipment in a workshop space requiring fire walls, etc. within the existing garage or in a seperate workshop to be built in the Bearce's backyard. The Fire Marshall has referred the Bearces to Hal of the Planning Department to work out building permits for the new workshop. A three-way meeting is being scheduled to include the Fire Marshall, Hal of the Planning Department, and the Bearces. The Bearces have secured the professional services of an architect to draw up plans for a backyard workshop in order to meet the requirements of the Fire Department. Representatives of the Southern California Gas Company are scheduled to come out and meet with the Bearces this coming Wednesday or Thursday with the purpose of making arrangements to supply adequate natural gas to the workshop in order to reduce the volume of other gases such as propane. At the last Planning Commission Meeting addressing the Bearce Appeal, several Planning Commissioners stated that an appeal to the City Council would give the Bearces time to work out their permit problems. Some of the neighbors have gone on record in support of changing the Bearces setup as a condition for them to receive a permit. Pam Richie and/or some other planning staff person(s) may need at least two weeks prior to the Council meeting in order to adequately prepare a new staff report. I, as well, may need some additional time to procure the required safety data on the oxygen generator and related equipment. (update as of 11/20/90) In a phone conversation 11/20/90 between the Fire Chief and the applicant, the Fire Chief indicated that he would require that the new oxygen equipment be sent out to be tested by an independent safety engineer, requiring additional time. He indicated that he would request that the appeal be continued until the 2nd City Council meeting in January. In a staff meeting that occurred today, 11/20/90, the fire chief requested that the appeal be continued until the second meeting in January in order that the new equipment can be tested by an independent safety engineer. It is also my understanding that all the staff people present at the agenda review meeting supported continuance until the 2nd regularly scheduled meeting of January 1991 and that Counci]member Penny Rappa, who was also present, felt that the Fire Chief's request was reasonable. Therefore an extension to the current continuance is requested to the second regularly scheduled meeting of January 1991 in order to allow adequate time for the Fire Department, an independent safety engineer, the Planning Department, the Building Department, the Bearces, the architect and myself to work out arrangements. Ron and Leslie also wish to take all the plans that receive preliminary approval from the Fire, Building, Planning Departments and gas company to each of their thirty or so neighbors in order to inform them of the progress made in addressing the concerns of those neighbors. Those of us appealing, feel it is important to have all the information completed for the City Council before they make their decision. I believe that most, if not all, of the Councilmembers would appreciate having all the information available to them before making a decision. Thanks for your time and consideration. CeIVED Sincerely, n NOV 2 0 1990 CITY CLERK GaryS. Ku kel MEETING AGENDA DATE 42--y-19 ITEM draft 1PISTO: L) MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,, �'NIICU,AcEon D I L San Luis Obispo, California . F__11 C !_60�'=i"r% .Oundl `0 L Regular Meeting - October 10, 1990 FEN.DiR. L_�?'ACAn F 7, C 1. Use Permit A 74-90. Appeal of Hearing Officer's action denying a home occupation permit to allow glassworking, sales, and marketing-, 1075 Capistrano Court; R-1-S zone; Ron and Leslie Bearce, applicants/appellants. Chairman Hoffman stepped down due to a conflict of interest; Vice-Chairperson Kourakis assumed the chairman's responsibilities for this item. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis indicated a letter had been received from Ron and Leslie Bearce requesting a continuance to the October 24th meeting. Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, indicated that the commission did not automatically have to grant the continuance, but it was within the commission's prerogative to do so. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing only in order to allow the applicant's representative to speak on the requested continuance. Ned Rogoway, 1163 Main Street, Morro Bay, representative for the applicants, spoke to the issue of the letter from the Bearces' requesting a continuance. He indicated that Mr. Bearce has not had an opportunity to present some ideas to the Fire Department and to the neighbors after the August 8th meeting. In order to allow Mr. Bearce the opportunity to present the ideas, he requested a continuance to a date convenient to the commission. He felt it was the commission's original intent to have all parties involved to try and solve the problem, and this has not been done. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, explained that while the project planner, Pamela Ricci, was not able to get all the parties together, she was able to speak with each of the key parties individually. Keith Gurnee felt, as the maker of the motion to continue the project in August, that the staff had done what the commission had intended. He did not intend that staffs role was to get the neighbors and applicant together to agree, but only to facilitate discussion. He indicated he did not have a problem with this requested continuance if Mr. Bearce wanted to take time to develop a dialogue with his neighbors. Cornmr. Schmidt indicated he had spoken to Mr. Bearce on the phone to set up a time to see the workplace. Mr. Bearce expressed his point of view that he felt he needed more time. Cornmr. Schmidt indicated he could support a one-time continuance only. PC Minutes October 10, 1990 Page 2 Commr. Billington felt she did not want to stop the line of communication if it finally was starting. She felt issues, such as deliveries, be further explored in the staff report. She could support a continuance to October 24, 1990. Commr. Schmidt indicated that Mr. Bearce had indicated he was looking into options including new construction which could be an alternative to using the garage. Commr. Karleskint indicated he did not support the continuance in August because he felt the commission already had enough information to make a decision. However, he could support a two-week continuance in order to keep the lines of communication open. Commr. Peterson indicated he could also support a continuance. He was concerned, however, how the Fire Department felt about the continuance and the potentially- hazardous condition. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis did not support a continuance because she felt there was a serious safety condition which had existed since April. She referred to letters from neighbors Dawn Groves and Marty Moroski in opposition to the use. She felt staff had done a conscientious job in making sure all the parties involved were contacted. Arnold Jonas indicated the earliest this item could return to the commission is November 14, 1990. Commr. Gurnee felt that if an applicant makes a request for a continuance, the commission has an obligation to grant the request. He moved to continue Use Permit A 74-90 to the October 24th meeting. The motion died for lack of a second. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis moved to deny the request for continuance and handle the item at this meeting. Commr. Billington seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs. Kourakis, Billington, Gurnee, Karleskint, Peterson, Schmidt NOES: None ABSENT: Commr. Hoffman The motion passed. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Hearing Officer. PC Minutes October 10, 1990 � Page 3 Commr. Billington stated she had spoken to Mr. Bearce, Associate Planner Pam Ricci, and Fire Marshall Bob Newmann. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis stated she had spoken to Mr. Bearce and visited the site. She indicated that the commission had received a letter from the Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family, dated September 8, 1990, supporting the use permit. However, there was no name or address on the letter. She noted other letters had been received by Dawn Groves and Martin Moroski in opposition to the use permit. Commr. Karleskint stated that he spoke to Mr. Bearce and visited the site. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing open. Ned Rogoway, 1163 Main Street, Morro Bay, representative for the applicant, had hoped the commission would continue the request to allow the applicant to have the opportunity to be able to present his ideas to the neighbors and the Fire Department. He was concerned that the applicant did not have this opportunity and would not be given a fair hearing. He responded to a memo from the Fire Department. He noted that Mr. Bearce was not invited to the meeting referred to in the memo. Mr. Bearce had wanted to present proposals to the Fire Department and was never given the chance to do so. He felt conditions outlined in the report by the Fire Department made it practically impossible for Mr. Bearce to operate his business out of his home. He felt staff and the Fire Department had stated their opposition to the request in the past without having the benefit of Mr. Bearce's ideas about how to solve some of the problems. Mr. Rogoway noted that after the last commission hearing, Mr. Bearce attempted to arrange a meeting with his neighbors and was told by some neighbors they would be out-of-town and unable to attend.. This prevented Mr. Bearce from meeting with the neighbors. He noted that staff did meet with the neighbors alone. He felt that as a result of this meeting, staff who were publicly opposed to the request advised the neighbors they contacted on how to oppose the request. He felt this was unfair to Mr.. Bearce. Commr. Schmidt was concerned that it has taken five months for the applicant to respond to safety problems. Mr. Rogoway noted that Mr. Bearce has been operating the use out of the garage for a number of years without any complaints from the neighbors up to now. He noted the opportunity to resolve the problem did not come up until the Planning Commission instructed the neighbors and applicant to meet. At that time, Mr. Bearce felt it was his duty to formulate solutions to the concerns raised by the neighbors. He has not had an opportunity to meet with the neighbors and Fire Department to discuss these solutions. PC Minutes October 10, 1990 Page 4 Vice-Chairperson Kourakis asked if there were any other options presented to the Fire Department? Mr. Rogoway indicated that the applicant had met with the Fire Department when his property was inspected several months ago, but did not have an opportunity at that time to present any plans to them. Ron King, 1060 Capistrano, stated that in a conversation with he had with Mr. Bearce, Mr. Bearce admitted to using hydrogen in his garage, but did send it back after using it for a week. He noted that there are deliveries, on occasion, by trucks larger than a 3/4-ton pickup. He felt there was a liability involved and felt the neighborhood should not have to bear the liability. Kelly Condron, 1080 Capistrano, read a_statement in opposition to the home occupation. He felt the neighbors have been put in an awkward position in an attempt to find a workable solution. While he was concerned that not granting the permit may cause the applicant some financial hardship, he expressed concerns with safety, liability, and the precedent-setting aspects of granting the permit. Mr. Condron indicated that it was his original understanding that the applicant had a business downtown and that minimal activities took place in the home. He was not aware the home occupation was the sole source of the manufacturing operation. Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, was concerned with the possible ramifications if the commission upholds the appeal. He felt the operations taking place in the garage were not incidental to and compatible with the surrounding residential uses. He felt the commission should support staffs recommendation and deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's decision. Cheryl Longabaugh, 1055 Capistrano, was opposed to the home occupation. She noted that the applicant has made no attempt to communicate with her on this matter. Michael Lancaster, 107 Millhouse, Springfield, Massachusetts, indicated the state of Vermont had tried to outlaw "cottage industries" but found it could not be done. He asked if anyone suggested how the applicant could mitigate fire safety concerns. He was concerned that if the home occupation permit were not granted, artists would have a difficult time working out of home studios. He felt the applicant should be given a chance to make the fire safety corrections. Ron Bearce, 1075 Capistrano, applicant-, indicated he just found out about this meeting a week ago and felt he would have liked to have received earlier notification in order to meet with the neighbors, Fire Department and Planning Department staff. He felt a two-week continuance would give him a chance to work things out with the various parties. He felt new developments have occurred since the August 8th meeting which would enable them to reach an agreement with the Fire Department. PC Minutes October 10, 1990 Page 5 He has found that high-pressure oxygen tanks may not be needed. He felt all pick- ups and deliveries could be eliminated and that he could mitigate all impacts that the neighbors are currently concerned about to abide by the laws. He noted that zoning laws allow residential uses that meet the home occupation qualifications and he was working hard to make the adjustments to meet these qualifications. He felt it would be unfortunate if artists had to join the lists of businesses that are being forced out of town. He questioned how the city could support the public art program and then oppose artists in private residences. He indicated he was willing to work with all parties involved to resolve the problems and would not be forced out of town because of policies. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed.. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis clarified that she had called Mr. Bearce regarding the letter from the Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family, asking if he could provide a name, addresses, or phone number for the letter. __. Comtnr. Gurnee felt that staff had done everything they had been expected to do. He also felt the commission had been fair on the issue and open to a negotiated solution. He supported home occupations when they were appropriate, but felt that when a use was inappropriate, it could become a terrible thing for a neighborhood. He appreciated the support for the Bearce family, but could not support the home occupation. Commr. Peterson agreed with Commr. Gurnee's comments. He felt the safety issue was a major issue. He noted that if there were any possible alternative solutions that the applicant would have, he would be free to reapply for the permit. Commr. Karleskint suggested that perhaps a group of artists and the applicant could rent a commercial establishment together and alleviate all problems and fears. Commr. Billington felt there was no unfairness involved and that there was plenty of opportunity for dialogue and changes. She appreciated the support for the applicant, but given the current status of the situation she would have to deny the appeal. Commr. Schmidt supported the previous continuance because he thought it might give the applicant a chance to work out a solution to reduce the hazardous nature of the operation. While he felt some small steps have been taken, he does not feel they are adequate. He was disappointed that the applicant has not taken it upon himself to move more forcefully in the direction that was clearly mandated. He would support a denial since he felt the hazard does not appeal to have been reduced. Vice-Chairperson Kourakis agreed with previous comments. PC Minutes October 10, 1990 Page 6 Commr. Gurnee moved to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Hearing Officer based on the following findings: 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity due to the need to utilize and stored on-site significant quantities of highly flammable compressed gases. 2. The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding residential uses because of the safety hazard generated by the compressed gases used in the manufacturing operation and the volume of business travel introduced into the neighborhood. 3. Activities conducted, and equipment or materials used in the home occupation, will change the fire safety characteristics of the house. 4. The business activity as conducted results in violation of automobile parking standards applicable to the R-1 zone. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion, Resolution No. 5035-90. VOTING: AYES: Gurnee, Karleskint, BIllington, Kourakis, Peterson, Schmidt NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman The motion passed. Chairman Hoffman returned to the meeting. MEETING AGENDA DATE /?-Jf-90{TEM # Members San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm St. corrESTo: ❑•Denotes Action ❑ FYI San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 y^ l,- cm cul 1-:;) r L-D 7R. November 14, 1990 QeAo RUN.ntr, RF.E C.4,1EP 1 Subject: Home Occupation • Arrt.R."IFY �' <. j 1075 Capistrano Ct. c� �r'OR1c. - -ter` ❑ CL: RLE kD T" Dear Council Members: �L_ We the undersigned oppose the issuing of a home occupation permit for a glass blowing business at 1075 Capistrano ;Court. The staff hearing officer denied the permit, the staff recommendec denial to the Planning ; Commission and the Planning Commission denied the appeal by the applicants, Ron and Leslie Bearce. We ask that the City Council apply the legislative standards they have developed in the city's Zoning Regulations and Home Occupation Permit Restrictions and deny the Bearce's appeal. We request that this issue be resolved in a timely manner. This permit was applied for on April 14,1990. It was denied on May 11, 1990. Numerous continuances have been granted at the applicants' request at every step in the appeals process. We feel that seven months is an adequate period of time to resolve this matter. 1. 2. UV 3. 4. C �� a 5. �Y1c�1 n /ala C pl ezm o Cir Lrt ao 6.'".. X055' C pf� -ago Cf . 1�-Lc7 7. (O �Oi �ISiR/dn►a S La 70 90 �Lo lo. _ LU q7 ��. ? 11. ►'�( Gt9�3 G�,auu �o 12. 1 /0(�O CIVis1ravo C, 13. 14. vv o JI.,/0 3 C?cr� .i -- 15. -Y, 17. 70 0 Pa 4,L aS�4 vuQ. 0 9 340 S I �►��iii►►�►�►�►�illllllllllll pI�►iiiiiil illlll III spocit o san lug s oB�y 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 November 30, 1990 TO: City Council FROM: Kim Cond n VIA: Pam Voges SUBJ: DEC 4 AGENDA - APPEAL - GLASSWORKING BUSINESS Letters received in support of a home glassworl ing business at 1075 Capistrano Court (Item No. 4 on next Tuesday's meeting) are available for review in the Council Agenda reading file. We will continue to add new letters as they come in. c: John Dunn Ken Hampian Arnold Jonas Jeff Jorgensen File Telegram Tribune Councilmembers.: Bill Roalman requested the following information regarding dinances on home occupations. � 7._ _970N _ ITEM #, -- - 17.08.020-17.08.040 limited to the types of retail sales allowed by the offbetween ten p.m.and seven a.m. if the station location's zone. is adjacent to a residential zone. In approving a use permit for a temporary or D. Pump islands shall be located at least fif- intermittent use, the director shall establish teen feet from any street right-of-way line or requirements for parking and other facilities to setback line, except that cantilevered roofs may serve the use. The director shall determine the extend to a point at least five feet from such lines. extent to which any permanent parking and E. Repair work shall be done and dismantled other facilities provided for permanent uses on vehicles shall be stored inside a building or area the site may satisfy the requiremerimfor the pro- screened so that it is not visible from off the posed use. premises. (See also Chapter 17.18, Performance The director may refer the proposed use to the Standards and Section 5.36.020,SERVICE STA- planning commission for action. (Ord. 1102 § 1 TIONS, Alcoholic beverages — Sale prohibited Ex. A(3) (part), 1987; Ord.. 1085 § 1 Ex. A (part), —Exceptions.)(Ord. 1085 § I Ex. A(part), 1987; 1987; Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § Ord. 1006 § 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 9202.1(A)) 1982: prior code § 9202.1(C)) 17.08.020 Mineral extraction. 17.08.040 Home occupations. Minerals, hydrocarbons, and soil may be A. Intent. The provisions set forth in this sec- removed in any zone, provided a use permit is tion are intended to allow the conduct of home approved by the planning commission. In addi- enterprises which are incidental to and compati- tion to the requirements which the planning ble with surrounding residential uses. A "home commission may impose for the activity itself, occupation is gainful employment engaged in there may be requirements that the site be by the occupants of a dwelling.. restored or rehabilitated in furtherance of the B. Permit Required. purposes of these regulations. (Grading carried 1. The conduct of a home occupation requires out in conjunction with a construction project the approval of home occupation permit by the need not obtain use permit approval, but shall director, who may establish additional condi= comply with the grading ordinance codified in tions to further the intent of this section. A per- Chapter 17.78.) (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior mit is required when a person does business in code § 9202.1(B)) his/her home. Home occupations may be con- ducted from dwellings located in residential 17.08.030 Service stations. zones or from dwellings located in residential Service stations are permitted as specified in zones or from dwellings located in commercial the zone district regulations, subject to the fol- zones where dwellings are an allowed or condi- lowing conditions: tionally allowed use. A. Premises adjoining residential zones shall A public notice shall be posted at the site of be screened from such zones by a six-foot-high each proposed home occupation. If anyone landscaped visual and noise attenuating barrier, informs the community development depart- subject to the limitations of Section 17.16.050, meat of a question or objection concerning the Fences, walls and hedges. proposed home occupation within five days of B. Street frontage between driveways shall the posting, the director shall schedule a hearing have a low wall or other landscape barrier to for the application as provided for administrative prevent vehicles from being driven or parked on use permits. If no questions or objections are the sidewalk. received by the community development depart- C. Bells or other sound signals shall be turned ment within five days after posting, the director may issue the permit upon submission of all 433 i San.Luts Obispo'-88; 17.08.050-17.08.060 required information and without further notice tic servants are not considered employees of a or public hearing. home occupation.) 2. State licensed child day care centers for six 12. Clients or customers shall not visit the or fewer children are exempt from home occupa home occupation between the hours of ten p.m. tion regulations (see state Health and Safety and seven a.m. Code, Section 1529.5). 13. 'If the home occupation is to be conducted C. General Requirements. in rental property, the property owner's autho- 1. Home occupations shall not involve fre- rization for the proposed use shall be obtained. quent customer access or have other charac- D. Prohibited Uses. The following uses by teristics which would reduce residents' their operation or nature may interfere with resi- enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace dential welfare and diminish the convenience and quiet of residential areas shall be main- intendied for commercial zones; and therefore tained. shall not be permitted as home occupations: 2. Activities shall be conducted entirely 1. Automotive repair (body or mechanical), within the dwelling unit or an enclosed accessory or detailing, upholstery or painting of auto- building, and shall not alter the appearance of mobiles; such structures. (Horticultural activities may be 2. Barber or beauty shop; conducted outdoors.) 3. Carpentry or cabinet making; 3. There shall be no sales, rental or display on 4. Welding or machining; the premises. 5. Medical offices, clinics,.laboratories; 4. There shall be no signs other than address 6. Child care of more than six children or Cand names of residents. instruction for more than three school-age chil- 5. There shall be no advertising the home dren or adults at one time(not counting residents occupation by street address except that street of the home); address may be included on business cards and 7. Appliance, radio or television repair, business correspondence originating from the 8. Print shop; home. 9. Gun or ammunition sales, including by 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton mail order. (Ord. 1102 § 1 Ex. A(4), 1987; Ord. truck may be used in connection with a home 1006 § 1 (part), 1984; Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: occupation. prior code § 9202.1(D)) 7. The home occupation shall not encroach on any required parking,yard or open space area. 17.08.050 Public utilities. 8. Parking for vehicles used in connection A. Distribution facilities may be located in with the home occupation shall be provided in any zone; provided, that equipment on the addition to parking required for the residence. ground in residential zones shall be screened by 9. Activities conducted and equipment or landscaped visual barriers. materials used shall not change the fire safety or B. Transmission lines may be located in any occupancy classifications of the premises, nor zone,provided the route is approved by the plan- use utilities in amounts greater than normally ning commission. provided for residential use. C. Other unmanned public utility structures 10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, may be located in any zone, provided an admin- vibration,smell,smoke,glare, or electrical inter- istrativIe use permit is approved by the director. ference, or other hazard or nuisance. (Ord.941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code§9202.1(E)) C11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling shall be allowed. (Babysitters or domes- 17.08. 60 Signs. Signs may be located in any zone subject to the (San Luis Obispo 7.88) 434 I '') 1 1 /.22.010 CChapter 17.22 means of adding new types of uses to a zone.Special notes,indicated by number in the fol- USE REGULATIONS lowing chart, may be found at the end of the chart. Sections: 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. ' 17.22.010 Uses allowed by zones. Uses within zones shall be as provided in the following chart. Symbols shall have these mean- ings: A — The use is allowed; D — If the director approves an admin- istrative use permit as provided in Sec- tions 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established; PC — Ifthe planning commission approves a use permit as provided in Sections 17.58.020 through 17.58.080, the use may be established; A/D — The use is allowed above the ground Ofloor. If the director approves an administrative use permit, it may be established on the ground floor. See also Section.17.36.030 concerning uses which may be established within public schools. Listed uses are principal uses. Accessory uses are allowed with principal uses. Drive-through facilities are not allowed in any zone. Where manufacturing is allowed, incidental sale of items made on the premises is allowed. When sale of a particular type of item is allowed, craftsman-type production of such an item for sale on the premises is allowed. These regulations are intended to permit sim- ilar types of uses within each zone.The director, subject to the appeal procedures of Chapter 17.66, shall determine whether uses which are not listed shall be deemed allowed or allowed subject to use permit approval in a certain zone. OThis interpretation procedure shall not be used as a substitute for the amendment procedure as a 459 (San Luis Obispo 7-88( 17.22.010 'Cable 9 \\ Uses Allowed by Zone R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Advertising and related serv- ices (graphic design, writing, mailing,addressing,etc.) A A/D A A D Agriculture — grazing and outdoor crops A A A Agriculture — greenhouse culture. livestock feeding PC Airports and related facilities PC PC PC Ambulance services PC PC A D Amusement arcades (video games,see Chapter 5.52, Elec- tronic Game Amusement Centers) PC D D D Amusement parks, fair- grounds PC PC Animal hospitals and board- ,ng D Animal grooming A A D Antennas(commercial broad- casting) PC PC D D Athletic and health clubs, gymnasiums, fitness centers, tanning centers D PC D PC PC PC Athletic fields, game courts PC PC PC D PC PC Auto dismantling. scrap deal- ers, recycling centers A Auto repair and related serv- ices (body, brake. transmis- sions,muffler shops,painting, etc.) D A A Auto sound system installa- tion D1= D1= A A A Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor.allowed above G:he director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use. Numbered notes arc at end of chart. (San Luis Obispo 7-881 460 17.22.010 Table 9(Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4COS O" PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Banks and savings and loans A Al A A Bars, taverns, etc. (see Night- clubs) D D D D D D Barbers, hairstylists, man- icurists, tanning centers A A A PC D Boarding/rooming houses, dormitories(See also Chapter 17.20) PC D D D Bowling alleys PC PC D PC PC Broadcast studios A A/D A A A Building and landscape main- tenance services A/D A A A Bus stations PC D A Cabinet and carpentry shops D A Caretakers'quarters A A A A A A D D D D A D D CCar-wash — mechanical PC° D D Carwash —self-service D D PC° A A Catering services A A A Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Christmas tree sales (see Sec- tion 17M.010D) D D D D D D D D D Churches, synagogues, tem- ples,etc. PC D D D A D D . D A D" Circus, carnival, fair. festival, parades (see Section 17.08.010E) D D D D D D D D D Computer services A A/D A A I D A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor.allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed,unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of chap. 461 (san Luis Obispo 7-89) 17.22.010 Table 9 Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 I R-2 I R-31EW COS O" PF C-N I C-"DD Concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages and motor fuel (see also Section 17.08.100) D Construction activities (see Section 17.08.010G) A A A A A A A A A A A A A Contractor's yards A A Convalescent hospitals PC PC D PC PC D Convents and monasteries PC A A D Credit reporting and collec- tion A A/D A A Credit unions and finance companies A A A Delivery and private postal services D A A A Detective and security serv- i ,!ces A A/D A A D 'Drive-in theaters PC PC Dwellings Az A A A A A' A/D A/D A/D D Educational conferences (see Section 17.08.010H) D D D D Electronic game amusement center PC PC PC PC Employment agencies A D A/D A Equipment rental A A Exterminators and fumigators A A Feed stores and farm supply sales PC A A Florists A A A A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Directors approval on ground floor,allowed above i -The director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to alisted use.Numbered notes are at end of chart. (San Luis Obispo 7-59) 462 17.22.010 Table 9 Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 COS O" PF C-N I C-C C-R C-T C-S M Fraternities and sororities PC PC Gas distributors — con- tainerized (butane, propane, oxygen,acetylene,etc.) D A Government agency corpora- tion yards PC A A Government agency offices and meeting rooms PC D D D Home business (see Section 17.08.040) Homeless shelters (see also Section 17.08.110) PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Hospitals PC PC Hot tubs—commercial use PC' PC PC D PC PC Insurance service—local A A/D A C Insurance services—regional office A/D A Laboratories (medical, ana- lytical) PC A A A Laundry/dry cleaner —cleaning plant A A —pickup point A A A PC A A —self-service A A A PC D Libraries PC A7 D A Manufacturing — food, bev- erages;ice;apparel;electronic, optical, instrumentation products; jewelry; musical instruments; sporting goods; art materials D A A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor,allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed,unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of chart 463 (San Luis Obispo 7.89) 17.22.010 -- Table 9(Continued) CUses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 COS 011 PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Manufacturing — basic met- als,chemicals, building mate- rials, fabricated metals, textiles, paper and cardboard; machinery, transportation equipment PC Mineral extraction (see Sec- tion 17.08.020) PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Mobile home parks PC PC PC PC Mobile home as construction office (see Section 17.08.010C) D D D D D D D D D D D D D Mobile homes as temporary residence at building site (see Section 17.08.010F) A A A A A A A Mortuaries D D A Motels,hotels,bed and break- fast inns A A A ,vluseums PC D A Nightclubs,discotheques,etc. (see Chapter 5.40, Adult Entertainment Establish- ments) D D D Offices (contractors) — all types of general and special building contractor's offices A A/D A A10 A10 Offices (engineering) engineers and industrial design A A/D A Dlo to Offices (professional) attor- neys, architects,. counselors, medical services, account- ants,investment brokers,real- tors,appraisers A A/D A 10 to A. — .Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Directors approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor,allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed,unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of char. 1 (San Luis Obispo 7-89) 464 17.22.010 Table 9(Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 I R-3 Rel COS I Ott . PF C-N I C-C C-R C-T C-S M C Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fra- ternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms D D A D A/D A D Parking(as a principal use) PC13 D13 PC13 D13 DO DO Parks A A A A D A D A A A Pharmacies A A A A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Directors approval required A/D — Directors approval on ground floor,allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed,unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of chart. 464-1 (Un Luis Obispo 7-89) 17.22.010 Table 9(Continued) �l Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 I C/OS Ott PF C-1V rr CR C-TIC-SI M i Photocopy services; quick printers A A A/D A A A Photofinishing— retail A A A PC A Photofinishing — wholesale; and blue-printing and micro- filming service PC A A Photographic studios A A A i PC D Police and fire stations and training facilities PC Pool halls.billiard parlors.etc. PC D D D I Post offices PC A , .' A Printing and publishing D D A A Produce stand (incidental 1 i sales of items produced on the premises) D I �^ Public assembly facilities i (community meeting rooms. auditoriums. convention/ exhibition halls) PC D D D PC Railroad yards, stations. crew facilities D I A Refuse hauling. septic tank and portable toilet services ! A Repair services — household appliances. locksmiths. saw sharpening. shoe repair D A A A I A Residential care facilities—6 or fewer residents A A A A A A A/D A/DIA/D I D Residential care facilities — more than 6 residents PC PC D PC PC i D Restaurants. sandwich shops. 1 takeout food. etc. A A I A A D I A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor:allowed above � The director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use. Numbered notes are at end of chart. 465 (San Luis Obispo 7.881 17.22.010 able 9 (Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS Oil PF C-N I C-C C-R C-T C-S M Retail sales — building and landscape materials (lum- beryards, nurseries, floor and wall coverings, paint, glass stores, etc.) D A A A Retail sales—appliances,fur- niture and furnishings, musi- cial instruments.data process- ing equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores;catalog stores;sporting ,goods, outdoor supply A A D Retail sales and repair of bicy- cles Ag A A D Retail sales and rental — autos, trucks. motorcycles, RV's Dk PC Retail sales — auto parts and accessories except tires and Cztteries as principal use D A A PC Retail sales — tires and bat- teries A 4 PC Retail sales and rental boats. aircraft, mobile homes A PC Retail sales — groceries, liquor and specialized foods (bakery, meats, dairy items. etc.) A A A I PC D Retail sales — general mer- chandise(drug,hardware.dis- count. department and vari- ety stores) I � — 15.000 square feet or less gross floor area per establish- ment. A A A PC — 15.001 to 60,000 square � feet gross floor area per estab- lishment PC A A PC I Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required C,' — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor:allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use. Numbered notes are at end of chart. (San Luis Obispo 7-88) 466 17.22.010 C Table 9(Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R4 C/OS Ott PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M — more than 60,000 square feet gross floor area per estab- lishment PC D PC Retail sales and rental —spe- cialties (shoe stores, clothing stores, book/record/vid- eotape stores, toy stores, sta- tionery stores,gift shops A8 A A Schools —Nursery schools,child day care PC PC D D A D D D I — Elementary, junior high, high schools; schools for dis- abled/handicapped PC PC D D D D —Colleges/universities D — Business, trade, recrea- tional, or other specialized schools PC A/D A D DS Boarding schools and aca- demies PC PC Secretarial and related serv- ices (court reporting, sten- ography, typing, telephone answering,etc.) A A/D A D Service stations (see Section 17.08.030) D D D A A Skating rinks PC PC D PC PC Social services and charitable agencies A D D 4 A Stadiums I PC PC PC Swap meets PC PC Swimming pools(public) PC PC tPC PC A — .Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required . A/D — Director's approval on ground floor.allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use. Numbered notes are at end of chart. 467 (San Luis Obispo 7.88) 17.22.010 Table 9(Continued) Uses Allowed by Zone IR-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 COS O" PF C-N C-C C-RC-TIC-SIM Tallow works PC Telegram office A A A D Temporary parking lots (see Section I7.08.010I) Temporary real estate sales office in tract (see Section 17.08.0I0B) D D D D Temporary sales (see Section 17.08.01 OJ) D D D D D D Temporary uses— not other- wise listed in Section 17.08.010K D D D D D D D D D D D D D Theaters (see Chapter 5.40, Adult Entertainment Estab- lishments) PC14 D D Ticket/travel agencies A A A PC D CTire recapping A A Title companies A A A Trailer rental D A A Trucking/taxi service A A Utility companies —Corporation yards PC A A — Customer account serv- ices(bill paying and inquiries) A D — Distribution and trans- mission facilities — see Sec- tion 17.08.050 — Engineering and admin- istration offices A/D A D — Payment drop points A A A A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required CD — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor.allowed above The director shall determine if proposed.unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of chart. (San Luis Obispo 7.881 468 17.22.010 Table 9(Continued) CUses Allowed by Zone R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 COS 011 PF C-N C-C C-R C-T C-S M Vending machines (see Sec- tion 17.08.080) A A A A A Veterinarians A6 A/IY Ab D Warehousing, ministorage, moving company A A Water and wastewater treat- ment plants PC Water treatment services A A Wholesale and mailorder houses PC A A Zoos PC A — Allowed PC — Planning commission approval required D — Director's approval required A/D — Director's approval on ground floor,allowed above The director shall determine if a proposed,unlisted use is similar to a listed use.Numbered notes are at end of chart. Notes: C1. In the C-N zone,only branches of banks are allowed — no headquarters. 2. Except for condominiums,the development of more than one dwelling on a land parcel in the R-1 zone requires approval of an administrative use permit. R-1 density standards apply. 3. In the O zone,dwellings on a site occupied by residential uses only are allowed. Dwellings on a site with nonresidential uses require approval of an administrative use permit. 4. In the C-N zone, hot tubs/spas for commercial use must be enclosed. 5. In the M zone, schools are limited to those offering instruction in fields supportive of allowed uses. 6. In the O,C-C and C-R zones,animals at veterinarian's facilities must be kept within a building. 7. In the C-N zone,branch libraries only are allowed. 8. In the C-N zone, the following types of uses are allowed provided that (1) the gross floor area of each establishment shall not exceed two thousand square feet and (2) the combined floor area of such establishments within a shopping center,or on a parcel which is not in a shopping center,shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the total floor area: retail sales and repair—bicycles; —retail sales and rental—specialties. 9. In the C-T zone,car washes are allowed only in conjunction with and incidental to service stations,and provided that no other car wash is located within 1000 feet of the site. 10. Large professional office building which can include multiple tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet may be established in the C-S and M zones subject to the approval of a Planned Development (PD) zoning application and compliance with findings specified in Section 17.62.040C. However,this provision notwithstanding,the following types of office-related uses are prohibited in PD's approved for C-S and M zones: Banks, real estate offices, financial institutions, medical clinics. doctors' Coffices and lawyers' offices. 469 (San Luis Obispo 7-89) 17.24.010-17.24.020 An administrative use permit is required for the construction of nonresidential structures or the conversion of residential structures to nonresidential uses in the O zone. In order to approve a use permit the director must make each of the following findings: A. That the location,orientation,height and mass of new structures will not significantly affect privacy in nearby residential areas . B. That the project's location or access arrangements will not significantly direct traffic to use local streets in nearby residential areas. _ C. That the project includes landscaping and yards that adequately separate parking and pedestrian circulation areas from sites in nearby residential areas. 12. In the C-C and C-R zones, use permit review of automobile sound system installations should include consideration of the following items: parking space displacement, noise from the operation,and appear- ance. Use permits may be approved only when the use is accessory to a retail sales operation. 13. Where parking as a principal use is allowed, deviations to existing setbacks and building heights are permitted upon approval of a use permit as required by Section 17.22.010.All multi-level parking facilities shall require the approval of a use permit by the planning commission.. 14. Theaters in the C-N zone shall be limited to 4,000 square feet in size, a single screen, and restricted to shopping center sites in the zone(See Section 17.04.371). 15. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable com- patibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 1128§1(part), 1988;Ord. 1124§4 Ex.A(part),1988;Ord. 1122§2(part), 1988;Ord. 1110§1 Ex.A, 1988;Ord. 1103§ I Ex.A(2), 1987;Ord. 1102§ 1 Ex.A(14),(15), 1987;Ord. 1088§ I Ex.A(3), 1987;Ord. 1087§1 Ex.A(I), 1987;Ord. 1085§1 Ex.A(part), 1987:Ord. 1058§ 1,1986:Ord. 1008§§2,3, 1984;Ord. 1006 § I (part), 1984;Ord. 946 §4, 1983;Ord. 941 § l (part), 1982: prior code§ 9202.8) Chapter 17.24 infill development in such areas, and prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low- LOW-DENSITY ow- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL density areas.This zone shall be applied to areas (R-1) ZONE designated"low-density residential"on the gen- eral plan map. (Ord. 941 § 1 (part), 1982: prior Sections: code § 9203.1(A)) 17.24.010 Purpose and application. k 17.24.020 Property development 17.24.020 Property development standards. standards. The property development standards for the R-1 zone are as follows: 17.24.010 Purpose and application. A. Maximum density: Seven dwellings per The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide net acre(see also Section 17.16.010). housing opportunities for people who want pri- B. Yards: See Section 17.16.020. vate open space associated with individual dwell- C. Maximum height: Twenty-five feet; up to ings. It is intended to preserve existing single- thirty five feet if the director approves an admin- 7imily neighborhoods, provide for compatible istrative use permit. (See also Section 17.16.020 and Section 17.16.040.) (Sen t.uis Obmm 7.89) 470 MEETING AGENDA DATE 10 �-pgTEM # RECEIVED pE 1990 i'la`:or Fon Dun. i n De/=.-ML.er _ ';L; City of San Luis Obispo CLEPff 990 Palm Street SAN LUIS OWSPO,CA San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Dear Mayoc Dunin : The purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to the issuance of a Home Occupation Permit , allow' ng the operation of a glass working business at 1075 Capistrano Court . Our primary concern is safety . We feel a glass working business is not desireable in a. residential environment . As the business in question is a full time activity , deliverles and pickups associated with the business introduce additional vehicular traffic to the neighborhood. As the business in question is located near the end of .a cul =de-sac , vehicles must travel on the street twice . This is of significant concern since there are approximately eighteen C18) children under ten ' 10 ) years of age in the neighborhood . Although we are satisfied that the applicant has good intentions in attempting to run a safe operation , we do not desire to accept the risks associated with a full time glass working business in our neighborhood . it is our understanding that in the event of an accident , the applicant 's insurance does not provide coverage for incidents associated with his operation . Additionally , in reviewing the Hortie Occupation e'eriuiit Application , it appears obvious that the business in question does not meet requirements 5,x, 7 and B . Of particular concern is requirement 7 which states that activities conducted and equipment or materials used will not change the fire safety of the premises . A glass working business utilizing explosive gasses certainly changes the fire safety of a premise . given the aforementioned concerns and the negative cecorranendat i on of the Manning Department staff , i t is requested that the permit be denied. IM-77C ' ll.-G�/ CLn'1 610.- TF. i 2.J Ll rid.Dl m. Respectfully Submitted, C, � Ron o. Mar n i Todaro Cou 1025 Capistrano ct San Luis 0b1spo_ CA 93405 --MEETING AGENDA SATE ITEM # RECEIVE ® ODecember 3 , 1990 DEC ; 1990 CLERK To the City of San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA RE: use permit for business in local residential area We are writing in response to the information sent regarding 1075 Capistrano Ct. operating a glass manufacturing business in the neighborhood. We reside at 1035 Capistrano. Here are our points of concern: 1. A manufacturing business needs to be located in its proper environment. Having such a business in a small neighborhood would appear to entail possible safety hazards including chemicals, children exposed to equipment, and general safety precautions. 2 . There are quite a few very young children in the neighborhood. Their parents should not be subjected to additional worries involved with having their kids exposed to undue danger. This can include being around large delivery trucks coming and going, equipment, gasses, etc. 3 . Our personal concerns include insurance protection. Our understanding is that a homeowners policy is not acceptable to cover this type of risk. Is there adequate business liability protection in place for this operation? What are the dollar limits? Are there any exclusions? It would seem to us that not only would the resident face serious liability but the city of SLO as well if it allows this type of business practice to continue and there is a serious accident. It seems fairly obvious that this type, of business is totally inappropriate to be operated in this residential area or any other residential area in the county. We have business parks and specific locations in this county for light industry. It does not seem unreasonable that a business of this sort be located in one of these areas. _ Si cerely, Lynn A. Johnson e,`. - William V. Johnson '` � MEETING AGENDA DATE /2 ITEM # n 11/27/90 RECEEIVED SLO City Council 1990 City Hall IV 990 Palm Street 1 rITYQLK San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93405 3A4LUIS OBI P9,CA RE: Home use permit at 1075 Capistrano Ct Ron Bearce has been manufacturing and wholesaling out of his garage without a permit for several years . Ron Bearce has avoided City regulations by first not getting a home use permit at this address and then after being caught getting one continuance after another . Why do we have a licencing procedure requiring a screening that protects our safety and quiet enjoyment if the procedure can be so easily circumvented? AS LONG AS DELAYS ARE GRANTED HE HAS NO INCENTIVE TO PERFORM. It is time to ensure the needs of the neighborhood and force performance with equanimity and not make it necessary for the neighbors to continually play the bad guy. If Ron hold.s true to form , he will once again request a continuance of your enforcing City Regulations based upon undeveloped engineering. Ron is using propane which is a heavier than air gas and will build up a pool on the floor and go off like a bomb when ignited . Hydrogen has been used and stored on the premises and is even more explosive. Additional pick up and delivery trucks are a hazard to the quiet family atmosphere of the neighborhood cul-de-sac . Trucks over 3/4 ton are used . Adequate parking spaces have not been provided. But most serious of all is that he is not motivated to completely fulfill his promises because he continues to be granted delays by suggesting partial engineering solutions or by using the appeal process. I urge you . to either grant Mr. Bearce his licence and thereby change your City Regulations governing Home Occupation or to deny his appeal and enforce your Regulations with no more delays . Sincerely, Q (` C, Ron and ndang ' C� �- �.� r i_i r•;IrDIP.=°' 1060 Capistrano Ct `�'T `��'''^ I..; F= rscErFi. Please Note: This Tlqqe was anitted in the agenda packet. It is the second pa of the resolution upholding t'. MEETINGJ AGENDA api.eal. DATE ITENi # SECTION 2. Conditions. The request for approval of a home C occupation p permit at 1075 Capistrano Court is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The business will be conducted entirely inside without. altering the appearance of the home, grounds, or adjacent buildings. 2 . There will be no sales or displays on the premises. 3. There will be no signs other than address and name of residents. Those signs will meet the requirement for the R-1 zone. 4 . There will be no advertising which identifies the home occupation by street address or location. 5. The home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, yard, or open space (parking space in a garage is normally required parking) . 6. No vehicle larger than a 3/4-ton truck will be used in connection with the home occupation. Par-king for vehicles used in connection with the home occupation will be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. 7. . Activities conducted and equipment or materials used will not change the fire safety or occupancy classification .of the .premises. Utilities will not be used in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. 8. The home occupation will not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare, electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. 9. No employees other than residents of the home will be allowed. 10. Clients or customers shall not visit the home between 10 P.m. and 7 a.m. 11. Appointments shall be scheduled so not more than one client vehicle at a time is parked at the premises. 12. Permit shall be subject to review if all conditions are not met, or if any reasonable written complaint is received by the Police Department or Community Development Department. At the review hearing, the Planning Commission may add, delete, or modify conditions, or revoke the use permit. MU = NG AGENDA DA i 12-f-Qo ITEM # 1050 Capistrano Ct San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 C December 3, 1990 City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED 990 Palm St. 0 199 4 DEC 199 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 9: 4 . CITY CLERK To Whom It May Concern: saw Luis OBISPO,CA I am writing in reference to the glassworking business taking place at 1075 Capistrano Ct. This is my second letter objecting to this business, which is a manufacturing business operating (operating without a permit) in their garage. The zoning is for a residential neighborhood and not for manufacturing. This business should be conducted in an area zoned for business. I thought that's what zones were for, and because we have zones they should be abided by. I cannot understand why a decision hasn't been made on this issue. It just keeps going on and on. I urge you to please make a decision in this matter once and for all and stop granting continuances. Sincerely, Dawn M. Groves c FISTC: ❑'Dcrotes Action FYI /"rdl L CDD^:R. LI CAO El FIN.DIR. CACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ' D�ATTGN.TEY ❑ F07 DIR. 2 CLERKJORiG. ❑ POLICE 01 ❑ MGMT.T—F,1./I ❑ I1C.DIR. CI ❑�C—READ r"T.LE UTIY DTP r tlr� f LATE A c1,�DA � 0 // of Re L es /, r iJ !7`y"W plc J'v�i? .I# 3 ori /.2 /.? 1/90 Dear Neighbor, We want to invite you to come by during our open house next Saturday December 8th, between the hours of 10:00 AM. to 12:00 Noon. I f you can not make it during those hours please call 541-2615 fora better time. During recent months we have spent a lot of time and have made a lot of changes to address the concerns of our neighbors. Those changes include: Cancelled UPS pick-up. Except for occasional UPS deliveries we don't have materials delivered to our home workshop. ** Found a new oxygen supplier who uses a small pickup truck that drives right into our garage to make deliveries, replacing the larger delivery truck approximately the same size as a bottled-water truck. ** We are currently working with the Gas company to replacepropane with natural gas. We have met six times with Fire Department officials. We are currently working with the building department to make arrangements to meet parking reguirements. ** The biggest change has been an oxygen machine which converts oxygen in a room into oxygen we can use for our work. This small machine will replace some, if not all of the oxygen cylinders. Hope to see you this coming Saturday. RECEIVF0 Sincerely, DEC 4 /) --- -,.. 4_ C1 IN CLEFIK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA ✓� / Ron and Leslie Bearce .: AGENDA # G Dear City Officials, As a neighbor of the Bearces I am interested in the fire safety of the equipment used by Ron and Leslie Bearce. It is my understanding that the Bearces can legally keep their operation as an unregulated hobby. I also understand that the city can only regulate the operation via the permit process. If a permit is denied, the operation can continue as a hobby and can not be regulated. I believe that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to allow Ron and Leslie Bearce to work out safety requirements with the Fire Department and to continue their vocation under strict regulations with regularly scheduled inspections by the fire department. C- Date /. - ,Q - 9 � RECEIVED DEC d 1990 San Luis Obisoo, California CITY MaHK AN LUIS CIBI)PO.Ca C�5 GCt�bC" v-- G V � � ttL:E:Ni7 EM O Dear City Officials, As a neighbor of the Bearces I am interested in the fire safety of the equipment used by Ron and Leslie Bearce. It is my understanding that the Bearces can legally keep their operation as an unregulated hobby. I also understand that the city can only regulate the operation via the permit process. If a permit is denied, the operation can continue as a hobby and can not be regulated. I believe that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to allow Ron and Leslie Bearce to work out safety requirements with the.Fire Department and to continue their vocation under strict regulations with regularly scheduled inspections by the fire department. C) ate. T r _ sArEf-5 C San Luis Obispo, California 93 xo S RECEIVE[ DEC d 140 CITY t�L'EFK SA7W LUIS 06ISpo.CA EETJNIG AGE; DR ITEM # C' Dear City Officials, As a neighbor of the Bearces I am interested in the fire safety of the equipment used by Ron and Leslie Bearce. It is my understanding that the Bearces can legally keep their operation as an unregulated hobby. I also understand that the city can only regulate the operation via the permit process. If a permit is denied, the operation can continue as a hobby and can not be regulated. I believe that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to allow Ron and Leslie Bearce to work out safety requirements with the Fire Department and to continue their vocation under strict regulations with regularly scheduled inspections by the fire department. Date San Luis Obisoo. California 'RECEIVED 3' ys —� � DEC 4 1990 CiTr CLERK �, SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA MEETING WENI # UNDA 4 i�►II��I I �►��►II�Illlllll�lllla1°°°°�� III II cityo san vuis omspo C990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 December 4, 1990 TO: Council FROM: Pa ges SUBJECT: December 4. 1990. Item #4. Appeal - Home Occupation Permit Late this afternoon it came to my attention that there were posting and advertising irregularities in conjunction with tonight's Council Agenda Item #4, the Home Occupation Permit Appeal filed by Mr. Bearce. It is my recommendation that the City Council, by motion, continue this item to date certain, December 18, 1990 or a later date as desired. c: John Dunn O Ken Hampian Arnold Jonas Jeff Jorgensen Ile T-T G MEETING AGENDA MARTIN P. MOROSKI DATE _ �tI I 1010 Peach Saeec ITEM San Luis Obispo, California 93401 AECEiVED Z/ /5�; `� DEC 1990 December 4, 1990 CITY CLERK -- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA f City Council HAND DELIVERED. City of San Luis Obispo : 990 Palm Street - San Luis Obispo, California 93403 ,7 Attention: Peg Pinard, Jerry Reiss, Penny Rappa, Bill Roalman, Ron Dunin, Pam Ricci Re: Use Permit A74-90 Specific Reference: Hearing on appeal of Planning Commission's action denying home occupation permit A74- 90 Dear Council Members: CPlease accept this letter as a reiteration of my wife's and my opposition to the issuance of the use permit (A74-90) applied for by Ron and Leslie Bearce. My wife and I request that you consider this letter and make it part of the administrative record on December 4, 1990. In short, we request that the City Council ("Council") follow what Staff has three (3) times recommended in the past, follow and apply the specific legislative standards set forth in the City's Zoning Regulations ("Regulations") , and deny the Bearces' application, just as the Hearing Officer and Planning Commission denied that application. The question presented by the Bearces' application is one of zoning law. It is not a political question as the Bearces and their apparent agent, Gary Kunkel, would have the Council believe. Ours is a society of laws. In the context of the Bearces' application for use permit, applicable zoning law dictates that their application be denied, again. Standing. My wife and I own the residence located at 1070 Capistrano Court. We have two (2) children, ages 4 k years (Rachel) and 2 years (Alexander) . Two of the characteristics of our neighborhood which led us to purchase our home were its R-1 zoning and the relative lack of traffic on Capistrano Court. Focus of hearing. My wife and I request that the Council focus on the only issue presented by the Bearces' appeal. The sole C issue before the Council is whether, based upon the evidence before the Council, the Bearces' home occupation meets the specific legislative standards for allowable home occupations set forth in i City Council December 4, 1990 Page 2 Section 17. 08. 040 of the Regulations. The Council is duty bound to take quasi-judicial action and apply those standards in an expeditious fashion. Regulations, Section 17.66.050. The manner in which the Bearces have presented their case to date strongly suggests the Bearces are consciously attempting to personalize and politicize a matter involving nothing more than the application of our community's zoning laws to a specific set of facts. The fact that the Bearces have brazenly continued to operate their commercial/light industrial enterprise in an R-1 neighborhood even after the administrative hearing officer and the Planning Commission both denied the Bearces' application, demonstrates a blatant disrespect for this community's zoning laws. My wife and I have nothing against the Bearces and certainly have no interest in denying any person his or her ability to make a living. However, we believe we, our neighbors and the residents of San Luis Obispo have a right to rely on this City's zoning laws and the even-handed, objective and non-partisan application of those laws by the Council. By applying those laws in such a way, the Council can avoid having to address the political and personal "non-issues" the Bearces undoubtedly will raise at the Council meeting. It is. the Council's duty to apply to the facts before it the specific legislative standards for granting home occupation permits set "forth in Section 17.08.040. The Council does not have the authority to rewrite those standards. Moreover, those standards must be presumed by the Council to be the result of a constitutional exercise by the City of its police power to promote the general welfare. By their very nature, zoning laws sometimes appear to encroach upon or infringe the property rights of the few to promote the property rights of the many (i.e. to promote the general welfare) . Of the nature of zoning laws, the California Supreme Court has stated as follows: " 'It is thoroughly established in this country that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. Although one owns property. .he may not do with it as he pleases any more than he may act in accordance with his personal desires. As the interest of society justifies restraints upon individual conduct, so, also, does it justify restraints upon the use to which property may be devoted. It was not intended by these constitutional provisions to so far protect the O individual in the use of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, O City Council December 4, 1990 Page 3 society did not part with the power to protect itself or to promote its general well-being. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with theinterest of society. such individual interest is subordinated to the general welfare. . . . I" Miller v.. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 488 (1975) ; emphases added. It is the Council's duty to apply and enforce the requirements of Section 17.08.040. One of the purposes of our zoning laws is to depersonalize and depoliticize disputes involving what are and what are not permitted uses of property. Another .purpose is to provide an enforcement mechanism by which a governing body can ensure that only permitted uses are made of property. My wife and I restate that we don't want to be stripped of our right to reasonably rely on the public officials in this City applying and enforcing the Regulations as they were intended to be applied and enforced. A dispassionate, objective and non-partisan application of the law to the facts before the Council mandates that the Bearces' appeal be rejected and the Planning Commission's action . in denying their application upheld. Requirements of Section 17.08.040. Section 17.08.040 articulates the following general requirements for home occupation permits: C. General Requirements 1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent customer access or have other characteristics which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be . maintained. 3. There shall be no sales, rental or display on the premises. 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter- ton truck may be used in connection with a home occupation. City Council (�Jl December 4, 1990 Page 4 7. The home occupation shall not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space area. 9. Activities conducted and equipment or materials used shall not chance the fire safety or occupancy classifications of the premises, nor use utilities in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. 10. No use shall create or cause noise, dust, vibration, small, smokeglare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. . . . (Emphases added. ) The Bearces' proposed home occupation does not meet the general requirements of Section 17.08..040. In descending order of importance, we .list below the specific requirements of Section 17.08.040 which the Bearces' home occupation does not satisfy: 1. The Bearces' activities in connection with their home occupation have changed the fire classification of their premises. The Fire Department's position in this matter to date has been clear. The Bearces' home occupation changes the fire classification of the premises located at 1075 Capistrano Court. With respect to Fire Marshal Robert F. Neumann's memorandum to Pam Ricci dated September 14, 1990, the 100% concurrence of the neighbors will not be forthcoming. Therefore, based upon Marshal Neumann's September 14 memorandum, the Fire Department will not issue a permit to the Bearces. Section 17.08.040(C) (9) would appear, therefore, to require rejection of the Bearces' appeal. To the extent the Bearces are proposing to change the technology of their commercial/light industrial enterprise to address concerns of the Fire Marshal, the Council must not lose sight of the issue presented by Section 17.08.040(C) (9) , to wit: whether even with the new technology proposed by the Bearces, the activities conducted and the equipment and materials used in the Bearces' garage change the fire safety classification of the Bearcesresidence. If so, the Bearces' application should be denied. 2. The Bearces' home occupation has an adverse impact on the peace, quiet and safety of Capistrano Court. Section 17.08.040(0) (1) mandates. that the. Council exercise its discretion in taking action on an application for home occupancy permit in Gsuch a way as to maintain the peace and quiet of residential areas. Section 17.08.040(C) (10) requires that a permitted home occupation City Council December 4, 1990 Page 5 not create any hazard or nuisance. There was presented to the Planning Commission testimony from no fewer than six (6) households on Capistrano Court objecting to the Bearces' application on the ground that the proposed home occupation actually or potentially threatens the peace, quiet and safety of the neighborhood. The concerns of the neighbors are underscored and heightened by the fact that our neighborhood is populated by a number of very young children. In rebuttal, the Bearces have offered to date only their own testimony. None of the other witnesses called by the Bearces in the prior proceedings reside in our neighborhood. 3. Vehicles larger than a three-quarter-ton truck have been used in connection with the Bearces' home occupation. In connection with their commercial/light industrial business enterprise conducted in their garage, the Bearces have accepted deliveries of compressed gas cylinders by trucks larger than three- quarter ton and deliveries by UPS delivery trucks. There is evidence, therefore, that the requirement set forth in Section 17.08. 040 is not satisfied. 4. The Bearces' home occupation encroaches on required parking. In its Home Occupation Permit, based on Section J 17. 08.040, the City of San Luis Obispo further defines the general requirement set forth in Section 17.08.040(C) (7) by stating that "[p]arking space in a garage is normally required parking." The Bearces' home occupation takes up all the space in their garage. The Bearces' home occupation is more akin to those uses specifically prohibited by Section 17.08..040(D) than those uses allowed under the Section. The light industrial/commercial enterprise the Bearces conduct in their garage is less compatible with surrounding residential uses than a number of the uses specifically prohibited by Section 17.08.040(D) (e.g. , carpentry and cabinet making, welding and appliance repair) . In view of the specifically prohibited uses set forth in Section 17.08.040(D) , the Bearces' home occupation is not consistent with the intent of Section 17.08.040. Precedent. The Council must keep in mind the precedent that will be set if the Bearces' application is granted, and the potential domino effect that precedent will set in motion. Liability insurance. Assuming the Council gets past the concerns outlined above, which it really shouldn't, my wife and I request that the issue of liability insurance be revisited in earnest on a number of different levels. First, the issue is significant from the standpoint of the Bearces' financial accountability for the liability they might incur if one of their compressed gas cylinders blows up or some other disaster occurs on their premises causing injury to a person and/or property. Second, City Council December 4; 1990 U Page 6 the issue is significant on the broader question of whether the Bearces' home occupation is compatible with and incidental to the residential uses on Capistrano Court. See Section 17.08.040 (A) . Most, if not all, standard homeowners' liability insurance policies exclude from coverage liability arising out of or from business pursuits carried on in or at- the insured premises. The Bearces have, to date, indicated that the only insurance they currently carry is homeowners' insurance. If- this is the case, the Bearces would probably not be covered for any liability arising from an accident in connection with their home occupation (i.e. , business pursuit) . The business pursuit exclusion is included in homeowners' policies for a reason (i.e. , business pursuits and the potential liabilities arising therefrom are incompatible with homeowners' pursuits and the potential liabilities arising therefrom) . With, respect to the testimony of various witnesses called by the Bearces to the effect that the potential hazards in most peoples' garages (e.g. water heaters and gasoline engines) are at least as great as the potential hazards in the Bearces' garage, the insurance issue is of critical importance. The explosion of or fire caused by a water heater and damage caused thereby would probably be covered by a homeowners' policy. . The damage caused by a fire or explosion resulting from any aspect of the Bearces' home Joccupation would probably not be covered by their homeowners' policy. Conclusion. In closing, my wife and I request that the Council discharge the Council's obligations under the Regulations and deny the Bearces' application. Further, consistent with the requirements of Section 17.66.050, we request that the. Council deny any request for postponement or continuance of the hearing and act on the Bearces' appeal without further delay. Enough time has been devoted to the Bearces' application already. sincerely, /� l Martin P. Moroski Diane W. Moroski MPM/dbC b/letter/Council.MPM f - TVG AGENDA ITEM # Jim and Chery Longabaugh 1055 Capistrano Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 November 13 , 1990 cor�FSTo: ❑' otcsAction F1 LAr CAO ❑ FIN.DIA Members , City Council of San Luis Obispo ifc�� C F;REG� 990 Palm Street RIVEY ❑ ,vfl�, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 CLEPKIOR.10. ❑ poLjGECH. Dear Council Member: Q . 'fl-' DI We strongly oppose the issuing .of a home occupation permit (file # A74-90) for a glass blowing business at 1075 Capistrano Court. After being denied the permit on May 11, 1990 by the City Hearing Officer, Ken Bruce, the applicants, Ron and Leslie Bearce appealed to the Planning Commission, which also denied the permit. We are very concerned about the commercial use and storage of compressed flammable gas in a residential neighborhood. Propane, being heavier than air, collects in an enclosed space and is a known explosive fire hazard. The Fire Department has stated they will deny the Bearce' s application for a compressed gasses permit based on the inappropriateness of storage of these gasses in a residential neighborhood. Commercial traffic is created by the pick-up and delivery of finished products and the delivery of gas tanks. Less storage of gas may lessen the fire and explosion hazard but creates more pick-up and delivery traffic. We bought our home on a cul-de-sac expressly to eliminate through traffic and create a safer environ- ment for our children to play. There are in excess of 20 school aged children in the cul-de-sac. They should not have to deal with commercial as well as residential traffic. The Bearces are in violation of the zoning ordinances dealing with home occupation permits. Their occupation encroaches on required parking. Their activities certainly alter the fire safety classi- fication of the premises. Their activities are 'a hazard and nuisance. We must constantly remind our children to stay clear of the Bearce' s residence, especially the garage. As neighbors and parents, we feel we should not be made to constantly monitor our children' s movements because of the Bearce' s commercial enterprise. The Council should note that none of the neighbors have supported the Bearce' s appeal. Many have opposed it. As one can imagine, several others have concerns, but recognize the fact that they must live with the Bearces after this matter has been resolved. It is our sense that the opposition is even stronger than has been demonstrated. RECEIVED NOV 2 1 1990 Ciro CLERIC SAID!LUIS OUSPO,.CA Members , City Council of San Luis Obispo November 13, 1990 Page Two The home occupation permit goes with the home and will be valid no matter who moved in should the Bearces vacate the premises . This would theoretically be a big problem if someone less knowledgeable in compressed flammable gas use would buy the home business. It also bothers us that Mr. Bearce is instructing novices in his craft in our neighborhood. Our last concern is the length of time this is taking to come to a resolution. Mr. Bearce' s permit was denied on May 11 , 1990. We are still going to meetings, having to endure continuances, thereby cancelling personal engagements and rescheduling appointments. This is all at the request of the Bearces . Seven to eight months should be enough time to have this matter resolved. We ask that you apply the standards developed for the San Luis Obispo city zoning regulations and the home occupancy permit restrictions and deny the Bearce' s appeal. S ' erel yo s, Jim Lon abaugh Che Longabaugh From: ; Gary S. Kunkel 12/ 4/90 P.O. Box 3135 San Luis Obispo, CA (805) 543-5480 To: City Council City. Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council, As the appealant on the Bearce Appeal, i was informed by the City Clerk that because of a legal "advertising glitch" that there can be no legal public hearing tonight on the Bearce Appeal. Since 1 have talked recently with most of Ron and Leslie's neighbors I was aware of Most of the people planning to attend tonight's hearing. 1 have called a number of these people on both sides of the issue, as we]l as the applicants to let them know that there will be no legal public hearing tonight. After talking with a number of neighbors, the applicant, my staff, and others it seems best for all concerned parties to continue this appeal till the second regularly scheduled meeting in January that was requested by the Fire Chief and Supported by Senior staff. A number of people including myself, the applicants, and others may not be in town on the 18th, as well as other dates thru out the Holiday Season. The January date would give a final opportunity for everone, including staff, to give their input. Sincerely, Gary S. Kunkel �i►►►►�� II II I IIII Ilillll�����������11°►i��� ����I City Of SAWI S OBISPO a; 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 December 4, 1990 TO: City Council FROM: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner VIA: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Home Occupations Reviewed at Hearings Councilman Reiss asked planning staff to research recent home occupation permit applications that had gone to public hearings because of neighborhood concerns. The following is a list of those home occupations requests received between 1986 and 1990 that were reviewed at hearings including the type of business, business location, Hearing Officer action and findings for approval or denial of the requests (findings included for those reviewed between October 1989 and the present) . A list of standard conditions for home occupation permits is included at the end of the list. .j Sp,N vV�s HOME OCCUPATIONS REVIEWED AT HEARINGS 1986-1990 (excluding Massage Therapy - automatic hearing) 1 . 3057 S. Higuera Street #120. (A 126-90) General Contractor & Residential Drafting. Approved 10/19/90 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 2. 1340 Diablo Drive. (A 124-90) Dental Ceramist - Fabrication of porcelain crowns and bridgework. Approved 9/7/90. Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 3 . The proposed home occupation is incidental to and compatible with surrounding residential uses. 3. 854 Murray Street. (A 89-90) General Contractor. Approved 6/22/90. Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 8. The home occupation will not create noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare, electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. 9. No employees other than residents of the home will be allowed. 10. Clients or customers shall not visit the home between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 11. Appointments shall be scheduled so not more than one client vehicle at a time is parked at the premises. 12. Permit shall be subject to review if all conditions are not met, or if any reasonable written complaint is received by the Police Department or Community Development Department. At the review hearing, the Hearing Officer may add, delete, or modify conditions, or revoke the use permit. 4. 1973 San Luis Drive (A 56-90) General Contractor - Approved 4/13/90 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in -the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 5. 436 Sandercock Street. (A 63-90) - Landscape Business - denied 5/11/90 Findings 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons living at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed home occupation is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding uses. 3. The proposed home occupation advertises identifying the home occupation by street address in violation of the Zoning Regulations. 4 . The proposed home occupation encroachs on required parking, yard, or open space (parking space in the garage is required parking) , in violation of the Zoning Regulations. 5. The proposed home occupation has employees other than residents of the home which is in violation of the Zoning Regulations. 6. 1921 San Luis Drive. (A 28-90) - House Painting - approved 5/5/90 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 7. 1462 Ashmore Street (A 148-89) - Mail order gift baskets (gourmet food) - approved 10/27/89 Findings _ 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 8. 982 Bluebell Way. (A 160-89) Typing & Bookkeeping; Architecture; Real Estate; business support - approved 12-15-89 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the. vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 9. 524 Ellen Way. (A 169-89) - Office and phones for San Luis Recycling - approved 1/5/90 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 10. 11323-E Los Osos Valley Road. (A 129-89) - Eviction Service - approved 10/13/89 Findings: 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The use is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3 . The proposed use conforms to the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4 . The proposed use is exempt from environmental review. 11 . 217 Broad Street (A 136-89) - Package and mail cowpies - Became an issue of illegal occupancy and application was withdrawn. 12. 1750 Prefumo Canyon Road #79. - (A 137-89) - Home and Commercial Videos (distribute films to theatres) - approved 10-27-89 Findings 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. 13. 750 Chorro Street #13. (A 117-89) - Mobile Glass Repair Service - Withdrawn. 14. 69 Los Verdes Drive. (A 118-89) - Personalized card packages and crafts - approved 9/7/89 15. 1720 Johnson Avenue #9. (A 103-89) - Design and manufacture applique art vestments, paraments and banners - approved 8/4/89. 16. 3057 Higuera Street #92 . (A 108-89) - Computer Programming and Consulting - Approved 8/8/89. 17. 253 Warren Way. (A 47-89) Lock repair; key duplication; knife and scissor sharpening 0—approved 4/28/89 18 . 1299 Vista del. Lago. (A 35-89) - Limousine Rental Service - withdrawn 3/21/89 19. 874 Center Street. (A 45-89) - Janitorial Service - approved 4/28/89 20. 711 Mission Street. (A 19-89) - Sick child care center consultant - approved 3/17/89. 21. 2221 Rina Street #19. (A 22-89) - Consult, design, install and repair irrigation systems - approved 3/3/89. 22. 241 Via San Blas. (A 21-88) - Mail order costumes and bookkeeping for dance school - approved 11/4/88. 23. 3057 S. Hiciuera Street. (A 101-88) - Landscape maintenance - approved 8/19/88 24 . 1343 Pernwood Drive. (A 85-88) - Mail order promotional items and marketing services - approved 7/1/88. 25. 2003 Chorro Street. (A 50-88) - Vacuum reconditioning and repair - denied 5/6/88. 26. 366 Corrida Drive. (A 26-88) - Speech & Language Services - approved 3/4/88. 27 . 786-C Peach Street. (A 6-88) Custom framing of pictures - approved 1/29/88. 28. 1345 Cavalier .Lane. (A 17-88) - Retail marketing/catalog sales - approved 3/4/88: 29 . 897 Vista Brisa. (A 166-87) - Swimming pool service and repair - approved 1/8/88. 30. 234 Perrini Road. (A 169-87) - Interpreting and Translating Service - approved 1/22/88. 31. 860 Vista Collados. (A 147-87) - Hay Broker - Denied 11/20/87 32. 1343 Pismo Street. (A 126-87) - Home beer making (to be delivered to retail stores) - denied 10/2/87. 33 . 6 Los Verdes Drive. (A 40-87) - Office use for buying, selling and breeding livestock - approved 4/17/87. 34 . 2250 Ring Street #50. (A 146-86) - Service and repair equipment - approved 11/21/86. 35. .3335_Broad._Street #2.0. (A 159-86) - Graphic Design - approved 12/19/86. 36. 1411 Descanso Street.. (A 117-86) Collect, buy and sell firearms and accessories and historical arms - denied 10/3/86. 37. 1262 Vista del Lacto. ( 134-86) Art and photography - approved 11/7/86. 38. 132.7 Fernwood Drive, (A 77-86) - Office use for audio repairs - approved 7/25/86. 39. 2540 Greta Place. (A 78-86) - Handyman service - approved 8/4/$6. 40. 1269 Southwood Drive. (A 80-86) - General Contractor approved 7/25/86. 41. 1168 Vista del Lago. (A 56-86) - Consultant for buying/ selling businesses - approved 5/23/86. 42 . 1276 Sydney Street. (A 46-86) - Janitorial Service - approved 5/9/86. 43, 1750 Prefumo Canyon Road. (A 32-86) - electrician - approved 4/11/86. Standard Conditions for Home Occupations Findings for Denial 1. The proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed use is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding land uses. Findings for Approval. 1. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed use complies with zoning requirements for home occupations. Conditions 1. The business will be conducted entirely inside without altering the appearance of the home, grounds, or adjacent buildings. 2. There will be no sales or displays on the premises. 3. There will be no signs other than address and name of residents. Those signs will meet the requirement for the R-1 zone. 4 . There will be no advertising which identifies the home occupation by street address or location. 5. The home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, yard, or open space (parking space in a garage is normally required parking) . 6. No vehicle larger than a 3/4-ton truck will be used in connection with the home occupation. Parking for vehicles used in connection with the home occupation will be provided in addition to parking required for the residence. 7. Activities conducted and equipment or materials used will not change the fire safety or occupancy classification of the premises. Utilities will not be used in amounts greater than normally provided for residential use. ��►►I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII�������������IIIILII III I� II City Of SAn luis OBISPO q 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 November 20, 1990 Mr. Gary Kunkel 571 Cuesta Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Appeal - Home Use.Permit - Bearce Dear Mr. Kunkel: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider your appeal of an Planning Commission action to deny a home use permit fora glassworking business at 1075 Capistrano Court. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, 1990, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other public hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item. please contact Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department at 549-7168. The agenda report with recommendation by staff should be available by the Wednesday before the meeting. S" a y, / Yule— Pam Voges, MC City Clerk c: Ron & Leslie Bearce, 1075 Capistrano Court Pam Ricci, Community Development Department PV:klc W ` �i�Illlll IIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIII IIIII� cityO sAn tuiS OBI I' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 October 25, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Kim Condon, Asst. City ClerV " SUBJ: APPEAL - HOME GLASSWORKING BUSINESS On Friday, October 19, 1990, Gary Kunkel filed an appeal of a Planning Commission decision rendered on October 10, 1990 to deny a home occupation permit to allow glassworking, sales and marketing at 1075 Capistrano Court (Ron and Leslie Bearce). The appeal is scheduled for the Tuesday, November 20 Council meeting. Since the appeal was filed last Friday, Mr. Kunkel has delivered to the City Clerk's Office approximately 60 appeal forms signed by various "appellants" regarding this matter. Because of the volume of the material and the cost of reproducing them for agenda packets, these letters will be kept available for review in the City Clerk's Office. c: John Dunn Jeff Jorgensen Ken Hampian Arnold Jonas 11/20 Agenda File Telegram-Tribune To: The San Luis Obispo City Council Oct. 22, 1990 From: The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family Subject: Ron and Leslie's home glass working business Dear City Council: We disagree with the denials by the Planning Commission concerning the new permits the Bearces need for their home business. Why is making items of beauty in one's fireproof garage "incompatible with the neighborhood'? Many of us know people who use oxygen tanks in their homes because of respiratory problems and we know others who have propane BBQ(s) stored in their garage. With proper safety precautions, these are safe and acceptable. We, who have known Ron and Leslie for some time, are aware of their eighteen years of safe operations and that they have operated from a number of locations with fire department approval, with City business licenses, and at their former residence with a home occupation permit issued by the city. We are also aware that two months ago at the August 8th Planning Commission Meeting that the fire department approved the basic setup, including at least two oxygen tanks, torches, and existing work stations. If past city Fire Department experts have approved their equipment and their operation and if both current Fire Marshalls are saying that Ron and Leslie's operation is safe and if safety concerns resulted in the recent denial, then reverse the denial and issue the permit. We hereby instruct our public servants to serve us by immediately granting the permits to allow the Bearces to continue their eighteen years of safe operation and get on with more important issues facing our city. Sincerely, The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family RECEIVE ® Ronald A Garcia, Chairman (544-7664) ,r Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering OCT 2 3 1990 Master of Business Administration Clrr CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Joe Eister 543-6005 Will Bearce 544-9444 Gary Kunkel 543-5480 Rod Manns 546-8648