The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/18/1990, 2 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A GLASSWORKING BUSINESS MEETING : DAT I�III�;!I�,:I+li,, city of San iuis OBIspo /A- /F 90 ,� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community 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 This item was continued from the December 4, 1990 City Council meeting because of a noticing error. 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 81 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. 1��h7� '111 f„ili�ylA►ijl; city Of San LUIS OBISp0 MMbMM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 " Data Summary Appellants: Gary Kunkel and other supporters of the Bearces 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 78500 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 2.0-foot street yard setback. °i'��'►' Al' city of San WIS OBISpo WWras 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. Finding 03 of the Draft. Resolution denying the appeal relates to the issue of noncompliance with parking requirements. The applicants have not submitted a request to allow tandem parking or plans to show how their garage might be modified to separate uses. Furthermore, the division of the garage to separate uses raises yet another issue with compliance with the home occupation requirements. The concern is that creation of the shop area in the garage would result in that portion of the garage being reclassified from an M-1 residential garage occupancy as outlined in the Uniform Building Code to a B-2 manufacturing occupancy. This is not consistent with Requirement 17 listed on the home occupation permit application and is referenced in Finding #2.B. of the draft resolution for denial of the appeal. * 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. Finding #2.B. of the draft .resolution for denial of the appeal relates to fire safety concerns. A related finding, Finding #2.C. , cites the use and the need for high pressure gas service in amounts higher than normally required for residential uses. The applicant has recently been exploring the possibility of use of natural gas at an increased pressure as a substitute for bottled gas. Such activity would also be in violation of an ordinance standard for the conduct of home occupations. * 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. a � 3 mw��f�i'IIIIIII�j ►��; city of SM LUIS OBISp0 NEW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 Findings # 1.A. and 1.B. of the draft resolution for denial of the appeal are included to respond to concerns with delivery activities. 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: 5. The home occupation will not encroach on any required parking, yard or open space (Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.C.7.) . 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 (Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.C.9.) . 8. No use shall create noise, dust, vibration, smell, smoke, glare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance (Municipal Code Section 17.08.040.C.10.) . 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. Furthermore, the first requirement of Section 17.08.040.C. , General Requirements for Home. Occupations, states: 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 neighborhoods shall be maintained. This is another requirement of home occupations cited in the draft resolution for denial of the appeal. 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 12 (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. lii►,ii!61 ►ii°�! city of San tins OBISpo MIsMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 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. The applicant has indicated that he has received this new oxygen generator and plans to follow-up on Fire Department direction to have the equipment reviewed by an independent engineer who will determine whether it satisfies applicable code requirements. CConclusion 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. 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, changes to occupancy classification of the garage and deliveries remain. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the draft resolution upholding the appeal and approving the home occupation with findings and additional conditions. MY Of San tins OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 6 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 —Section 17. 08. 040 of Zoning Regulations -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 List of Home Occupations Reviewed at Hearings (1986-90) (Letters in support of the Bearce's home use permit are in the Council Agenda Reading file for review) d:a74-90-2 .wp s 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. Fihdihds. 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 use of the premises as a glassworking business would C reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhood (reference MC Section 17.08. 040 C-1) due to: A. Increased volumes of business traffic; and B. Deliveries and pick ups on a residential cul-de- sac which is not appropriate for business traffic, and which interferes with the peace and quiet of the surrounding residential area. 2. The use of the premises as a .glassworking business does not meet the home occupation criteria, as set for in MC Section 17.08.040, C-9, because: A. It requires a change in occupancy classification from an "M-1" classification as described in the UBC for residential garages, to a "B-2" manufacturing occupancy classification. B. It establishes a use which changes the fire safety of the premises because of the materials and processes used in the manufacturing of glass products. C. It may require the use of utilities, such as high pressure gas service, in amounts greater than C normally provided for residential uses. 3. The use of the garage for a glassworking business is in violation of the automobile parking standards applicable -� to the R-1 zone, and would encroach upon required parking in violation of MC Section 17.08.040C.7. 4. . The operation of a glassworkng business on the premises involves levels of public safety risk that are not in keeping with the purpose of residential zones within San Luis Obispo and is not compatible with surrounding residential uses. SECTION 2. The home occupation permit for the glassworking business at 1075 Capistrano Court, A74-90, is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1990. Mayor - ATTEST: City Clerk CAPPROVED: ity A inistrative Officer o ney Community Deve o ment Director G C 1 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 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 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 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. l C' SECTION 2. Conditions. The request for approval of a. home occupation 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) . C 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. 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. 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• �) i NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Dow, O APPROVED: City Administrative Officer it Att rn Community Development Director � P �3 O cep V� O a-a R-1- ,P . R=2 P1 Z �. a 0 771 � Of I u *4 ta, CAPISTRANO 95S G1 17 A44-µ A ota 4� iJ-n O • s a PR f=UMO _ D � _ O { oA 85 R 12.G.1e SCALE: 1' v in � --t VICINITY IY1AP A74 90 NORTH HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT �•zrM,M:' � ` �` city O� Sai. SUIS OBIS ( -15 i 0 ��i, o _ � 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 areas Return this completed form with your$25.00 application fee-Ihio-formrwkbe your permit when approved In some cases,you may have to comply with additional conditions Also, be sure to ge'L4business lictnse Business Applicant c ,. S Ll,S, :c �G C Name ((LO g SSV►B kf PhoneAddress 1'n7 `OI9'�QrD ( J ZoneDo you own the home? 6,1 es 0 No. (If you do not own the home, the owner must sign this form consenting to your homeAccurately describe youroccupation• r^ i ` % 4 tv-aket U^ 4( 1A Of w �,CN1 y •A more detailed descripti n of your home occ pation and a site plan may be required lat r. In some cases a hearing may be required REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL My home occupation will comply with the following: 1.This business will be conducted entirety 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 am. ,--3.There will be no signs other than address and name of residents APPLICANT:I understand that,i1 a permit is issued I must meet the lose signs will meet the requirements for my zone. requirements listed above. If the requirements are not met, the --.6.There will be noadvertising which identifiesthe home occupation permitwill bevoid and the homeoccupation must cease immediately. by street address or location. 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 to parking.) 6.No vehicle larger than a 3A-ton truck will be used in Connection Dates l 9 Q with my home occupation.Parking for vehicles used in connection OWNER:Asownerof the property,Igive theapplicantpermission 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 Owner's change the fire safety or occupancy classification of the premises name(print) Utilities will not be used in amounts greater than normally provided pMmers for residential use. signature B.My home occupation will not create noise,dust,vibration,smelL smoke,glare, electrical interference,or other hazard or nuisance. Date 0 Whhe-Flle Yellow-Applicant Pink-Finance _ 7 1`J 17.03.0•10 home occupation. on business cards and business correspondence origi- nating from the home. i A. Intent. The provisions set forth in this section are intended to allow the conduct of homeenterprisesuhich 6. No vehicle larger than a three-quarter-ton truck may are incidental to and compatible with surrounding resi- be used in connection with a home occupation. denial uses. A "home occupation" is gainful employ- ment engaged in by the occupants of a dwelling. 7. The home occupation shall not encroach on any re- quired parking,yard or open space area. B. Permit Required. 8.Parking forvehicles used in connection with the home 1. The conduct of home occupation requires the ap- occupation shall be provided in addition to parking provalofa home occupation.permit by thedirector,who required for the residence. may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this section. A permit is required when a person does 9.Activities conducted and equipment or ma serials used business in his/her home. Home occupations may be shalt not change the fire safety or occupancy classifica- conducted from dwellings located in residential zones or tions of the premises,nor use utilities in amounts greater from dwellings located in commercial zones where than normally provided for residential use. dwellings are an allowed or conditionally allowed use. 10. No use shall create or cause noise,dust, vibration, A public notice shall be posted at the site of each pro- smell,smoke,glare,or electrical interference,or other posed home occupation. If anyone informs the commu- hazard or nuisance. nity development department of a question or objection concerning the proposed home occupation within five 11. No employees other than residents of the dwelling days of the posting,the director shall schedule hearing shall be allowed. (Babysitters or domestic servants are for the application as provided for administrative use not considered employees of a home occupation.) permits. If no questions or object ions are received by the community development department within five.days 12.Clients or customers shall not visit the homeuccupa- 1 after posting, the director may issue the permit upon tion between the hours of ten p.m.and seven a.m. submission of all required information and without fur- ther notice or public.hearing. 13. If the home occupation is to be conducted in rental property, the property owners aut~orization for the 2. State licensed child day care centers for six or fewer proposed use shall be obtained. children are exempt from home occupation regulations (see state Health and Safety Code,Section 1529.5). D.Prohibited Uses. The following uses by their opera- tion or nature may interferewith residential welfare and C. General Requirements diminish the convenience intended for commercial zones, and therefore shall not be permitted as home occupa- 1. Home occupations shall not involve frequent cus- tions: tomer access or have other characteristics which would reduce residents' enjoyment of their neighborhoods. 1.Automotive repair(bodyor mechanical).ordetailing, The peace and quiet of residential areas shall be main- upholstery or painting of automobiles. tained. 2. Barber or beauty shop; 2.Activities shall be conducted en tirelywithin the dwell- ing unit or an enclosed accessory building,and shall not 3.Carpentry or cabinet.-making; alter the appearance of such structures. (Horticultural activities may be conducted outdoors.) 3. Welding or machining; 3.There shall be no sales,rental or display on the prem- 5. Medical offices,clinics, laboratories; ises. 6.Child care of more-than six children or instruction for J.There shall be no signs other than address and names more than three school-age children or adults at one of residents. time (not counting residents of the home); 5.Mere shall be no advertising the home occupation by 7.Appliance,radio or television repair; street address except that street address may be included P , 12 O S. Print shop. 1. Thev shall not ohuruct private pedestrian 9. Gun or ammunition sales, including by mail order. a minimum of forw-four inches shall tic kept clear ((( (Ord. 1102- 1 Er. AO).1987:Ord. 1(X)6- I (part), 1951: obstructions,or more if pedestrian traffic volume.++ar- Ord.911 - 1 (part), 1982: prior code -9202.1(D)) rants. They are not allowed on puhlic sidewalks. (Ord. 911 - i (part). 1982: prior code -9202.1(H)) 17.08.0;0 Public utilities. 17.08.090 Outdoor sales. A. Distribution facilities may he located in.anv zone; provided,that equipment on the ground in residential A-"Outdoor sales"means the business ofsellineoutdoor zones shall be screened by landscaped visual barriers. items usually sold indoors,such as flower or vegetable stands, sales from vehicles, or swap-meets. Outdoor B. Transmission lines may be located in any zone,pro- sales may be temporary, intermittent, or permanent. videdtherouteisapprovedbytheplanningcommission. "Outdoor sales"do not include incidental outdoor dis- plays of merchandise associated with a business occupy- C.Other unmanned public utility structures may he lo- ins a building on the site,nor sale of things usually sold cated in any zone,provided an administrative use permit outdoors,such as building or landscape materials. (See is approved by the director. (Ord.911 - 1 (part), 1982: also Chapter 5.16-Solicitors and Peddlers and Chapter prior code-9202.1(E)) 5.18-Sales on Streets and Sidewalks). 17.08.060 Signs. B. Outdoor sales require approval of a use permit. Where sale of a particular type of merchandise is al- Signs may be located in any zone subject to the limita- lowed or allowed with administrative use permit op- tions of the sign regulations. (Ord.911 - I (part), 1982: proval,outdoor sale of that type of merchandise maybe ' prior code-9202.1(F)) allowed upon approval of an administrative use permit. Where sale of a particular type of merchandise is al- 17.08.070 Cemeteries and mausoleums. lowed upon approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission,outdoor sale of that't}pe of merchandise Upon approval of use permit bythe planningcommis- may be allowed upon approval of a use permit by the cion,cemeteries and mausoleums may be established in Planning Commission (see Section 17.,2.010 - Uses any zone. (Ord. 911 - 1 (part), 19S2: prior code - Allowed by Zones). 9'_02.1(0)) C. Parking requirements, setbacks to sales or stor: :_e 17.08.080 Vending machines. areas,safety and aesthetic screening and rt her develop- ment standards usually related to buildings shall be A. A "vending machine- is a device which dispenses a established by use permit approval. (Ord. 1102 - 1 Ex. product or service,eith;r for sale or for free,and which A(3)(part), 1987) is activated entirely by the receiver of the product or service,including ice machines.cigarette machines,food L7.08.100 Concurrent sales of motor fuel and alcoholic vending machines, and newspaper racks and the like. beverages. Vending machine does not include a motor fuel pump. Concurrent sales of alcoholic beverages other than hoer B. Indoor vending machines are accessory to allowed and wine are prohibited.The concurrent sales of motor uses. Outdoor vending machines are allowed in ail fuel and beer orwineatasingle premises orretail outlet commercial ("C) zones. shall he subject to the following: 1.Vending machines shall be located along the.face of a A.There shall be no sales of beer or ovine for on-site building or against a structure designed to accommo- consumption; date them; B. Beer and wine may he.old only in conjunction with 2. They shall be visible from access drives or public selling groceries and other sundries.and convenience streets; items; 3. Thcyshall occupy not more than ten percent of the C.No concurrent-sales outlet shall be established within length of the wall facing the street or access drive, or 1,000 feet of anv other establishment selling or serving twenty feet,whichever is less; alcoholic beverages; 1 13 r �IlblllN► CIty o � f say hues OBISPO all 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Oblspo. CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedureas authorized by Title 1 . Chapter 1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of PLar,el rn a SJ C rendered on �e t 1l7 which decision consisted of the following ( I .e.. set forth factusituation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . // Use additional sheets as needed) : LSe pe /� Pe / ? A — 7Zy 4 _ 9 lr7��aL d f THCS�risr�tJiO� ac—)L -> Pei!JyiA J accUPa 'e fp o//a g14Sf wor ,��-�Jc ) So t es Ct tk%►a ( �qp J qr{�c T'� �'y @ � 1�� `gp 5 ,.StrRh 10 COv t'�. ReASor+ 1S r qeo1. Ron �.eslie Qev-e a IS' O r`' wcrk O 1- Corr�n, c,.r � 1tE O�isy tlie/� O/- f•[.v. l(t �a �lo/ti�� fNc y r � - B y J o�t-er ir�c�corleJ �s,['e <v�. � f'o� -(-yC, ncaj4 Q,4o vd,.l reds CCd 'Cj�l`� 11'C , CZJh DQrI+ ��j•q IG n drC 'f 4a 47ClG�Qc�a �. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: !J /Sen Rroc on /O O DATE & TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: .2 . R ii// Qry S. kun Le.L- C ame/Title RECEI Y,`E ® Representative OCT 1 9 1990 CUeS7A a (2% St �c A CITY CLERK Address 80 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA SLt.3 _ 54 'ge 45 Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney gl en r. /02 Copy to City Administrative Officer Copy to the following department(s) : Pity Clerk._ �I �� """ wbl •l�l `� •UlV C To : City Clerk November 6, 1990 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA From: Gary S. Kunkel, y3 .5,,1 go 57.1 Cuesta St. San Luis Obispo, CA Subj. Request for a continuance on Appeal on Home Occupation Permit =A74-90 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 G' 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. 000002 20 8575 11-06-90 Sincerely, PERMITS 1 40.00 0010011019010 20 CASH 2 TOTAL 1 40.00 Gary S. unkel \ .1a i 11/18/90 Dear Pam, The person doing the appeal of our home occupation permit, Gary Kunkel, has ■ore 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 mag be able to eliminate most of the oxygen tanks we use and ouch of the propane. lle are investing over $2,000 in new equipment ("not to mention a new workshop) to try to meet the city's permit requirements as •ell as address the concerns of some of our neighbors. Because Bob Newman, the Fire norsholl, and other building and planning staff have. indicated or told us directly that more time is needed for their work, we have talked to Gary and other appealonts about requesting ■ore 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 To : City Clerk November 18,1990 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street C psST«O-US, �I San Luis Obispo, CA ra-MK/ORIC. 2/CC`DDiR 00 00` `0 9454 11-19-90 ❑ FIN.DIX k•aC• 1 44.00 From: Ga S. Kunkel O F> ECHIEF 001o0HO007o ry ❑ FwDI. 20 CASH 2 TOTAL 1 40.00 571 Cuesta St. FoucEaL !7 Mcwr.Tzw `] Rsr Dirt San Luis Obispo, CA VI LE DR ,t,n IR (805) 543-5480 u0 Subj. Request for extending the current continuance of Appeal for Home Occupation Permit *A74-90. 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 I/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 separate 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 i 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 vould 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 aRE C E condition for them to receive a permit. I E NOV t 41990�-� .� CITY CLERK Q� 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 anew staf f 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, A'�"r Gary . Kunkel a Q Qjfj CI 0sAnAWIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 October 11, 1990 Mr. & 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 C' listed on the attached resolution. 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. Jb i c re or Community De opment cc: Ned Rogoway Attachment: Resolution No. 5035-90 _ �3 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5035-90 WHEREAS, the Planning Cornmission 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 7490 by Ron and Leslie Bearce, applicants. USE PERMIT REQUESTED: A home occupation to allow glassworkng, 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 itsel& and in behalf and of testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the following circumstances: Fin— des 1. The proposed home occupation wi11 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. - a.a C' 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 parldng 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. Karleskint, and upon the following roll call vote: VOTING: AYES: Gurnee., Karlesldnt, BIllington, Kourakis, Peterson, Schmidt O NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman Arnold B. Jonas, Secretary Planning Commission DATED: October 10, 1990 . C v� P.C. Minutes August 8. 1990 P. aee 1 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 v P.C. Minutes . August S. 1990 Page 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 Cuesta, licensed safety engineer, stated that the glassworking 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 a :remely 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 fire. 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 C% 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 P.C. Minutes 1 Auzust 8. 1990 Pate 3 indicated that he 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 not 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. �I � O draft MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION San Luis Obispo, California Regular Meeting - October 10, 1990 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 w7:'.: this requested continuance if Mr. Bearce wanted to take time to develop a dialogue with his neighbors. Commr. Schmidt indicated he had spoken to Mr. Be::rce on the phone to set up a time to see the workplace. Mr. Bearce expressedhis point of view that he felt he needed more time. Commr. Schmidt indicated he could support a one-time �.' continuance only. a ( 1 t 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 Aprit. 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. to 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. a 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 Officers 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. Commr. Gurnee felt that staff had done everything they had been expected to do. C' 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 Kouralis agreed with previous comments. _3� 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, Blllington, Kourakis, Peterson, Schmidt NOES: None ABSENT: Hoffman The motion passed. Chairman Hoffman returned to the meeting. a-� grant cow Kmtakht Ad: Momins caradmA ammo eBom+or A_—_ar1/CoatErma,�ae tater August tZ, tsso Last Wednesday, we considered Use Permit A 7490 an appeal of Hearing Officer's Action. As we began to discus the situation the item was 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 pari of the items considered to make the operation safer for all peoples enfolded. Cylinder Security- to be verified by fire department •Limit 250 •/- "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 wall 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 betveen 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 parkin the garage.. • Install an approved solid separation wall between "garage"and the work space. Page One G�Or�i�,I,A�KSi�STORd' Kmtes�f Amumb� C awnirsiom Discussion sBemwe AppeaKoatbweeae AuguO 12, 19W Page Two Site Security- to be verified by Building dapartment(cont'd) •Remove all items from work space that are not part of the operation. Reorganize the space for better operational use and neatness(safety). •Separate kilns 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 is 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 department shoving 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 lam 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 �3�b �� IIIIIA�►►��ai III IN at' ' y osay WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo.CA 93403.8100 May 16, 1990 - Ron 990Ron 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, U based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed home occupation will be detrimental to the I 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 residentiai 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 the 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, 6� b 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. The public hearing was opened. Ron Bearce, applicant, spoke in support of his request. He explained that he makes animal figures 'usingoxygen 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 18 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, a permit would be required from the Fire Department for compressed gas storage. He noted he was surprised that he got a certified J 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 a-3 t-_ C ' 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 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 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 fire 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 refer 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. V i a �i�il II j� O sAn Us� � � oBispo FIRE DEPARTMENT — # 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo,CA.93401 •805649-7380 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 Cthe 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, - a' Robert F- Neu ann Fire Marshal I �� Illjli�l;'i'i�IP4 j II I I I�q ..llll..... �,, �li!��!�,6lilillll��IIIIII��IIII!IIIIIIu,��I��I IIII c4 O m '1 tuis J FIRE DEPARTMENT 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P 80515497380 November 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 1075 Capistrano Court Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bearcc:. Once again, this letter is a follow-up to our meeting and coil\' crsJ60il ill' Oclol•:r 17. 1990. As of this date, the Fire Department has not received additional infer;naucn the Factory Mutual approval or Underwriters Laboratory listing of the Airscp or Xorbox oxo-gcn 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- Sincere]\,, / obcrt F. Neumann Fire Marshal RFN:cb a A�IDUII!!!�lq!,IPI+�'I�► l !II;��III'�I!;I��I;II►j�p - _. I��, �►ain,�� QtY Of San IUIS 'OBISPO G = _°= FIRE DEPARTMENT ----_— 748 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo,cA 934ot•905/549.738Q 11,1_' October 11, 199000 61 W 40 `p t� Mr. & Mrs. Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Ct. � � D � �� S San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE 1075 Capistrano `6 a O '_1 j�* Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bearce: S'bp <.� /V ��' This letter is a follow up to our conversation of October 11,990, andisbased �ionally on my visit to your residcncc on Octobcr 10, 1990. As I expressed on both occasions, the Fire Department your is most interested in your familys an neighborhood safety and we are willing to work with you in that regard We most concerned over Cthe use of compressed oxygen, natural gas and propane . On my visit of October 10th, I noted a large liquid o g container of liquidoxygen. Upon return to my of5ce, I researched the use of li 9 oxygen in residential areas. rve 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 11, 1990 this vessel, empty or full, must be removed immediately. If within 72 hours of 10.00 am October 11, 1990 the vessel its still in plate I shall be ply, and I shall have the vessel removed at your expense (for the forced to cite you with Failure to Com record, Mr. Bearce stated he would immediately comply}. We at the Fre 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 can my office the week of October 15-19, 1990 so that we may sit down and review the requirements we have established nT N\-Z 'E'_ ,�/ S. ely, 1�Ot� �cSLrr ot,3 Io/r-7/9J, (L was Q�sO �Q�; TRobert F. Ne . Fire Marshal RFN:pis v�'Ct. ' ti 01.5 ;1 t.wt e. r t1 ^� t_ t.t.�' t t3rc t>s c•c= cc,n t r? Enclosure p20-(46) �Z 1� rr�tt sa1S OrVLy Ct�F�7 a.` Ati` �)X�t-tZ turf �� N L t v5 St L C11-r— c MEMORANDUM TO: Pam Rieei, 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: NE 11 P.�J city of sAn Us oBispo FIRE DEPARTMENT 718 Pismo Street•San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 •8051549.7380 May 7. 1990 Ron Bearce 1075 Capistrano Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Bcarcc: As you are aware. the Fire Department has received a complaint concerning the glass working business you arc running out of your home at 1075 Capistrano Ct. On April 11. 1990 1 visited your home and looked at your garage where the glass work take plat. At that time I informed you that you would need to apply for a Home Occupation Permit from the Planning Department and a Compressed Gascs Permit fmrn the Fire Department. I also informed you that you may or may not receive either of these permit;, and that you must have both to continue your businl.ss. At that time you requested that you be issued a Compressed Gascs Permit from the Fire Department. After reviewing our past policy of issuing these permits and the Citv's general policy of keeping ®hazardous processes out of residential areas. 1 am denying your request for this permit. This decision may be appealed to the Fire Chief, Michael Folder, at the Main Fire Station, 748 Pismo Street- can tre t.can answer any questions concerning this decision, you may contact me at the above number. Sincerely, Erwin L Willis Fire Marshal cc: Michael Doldcr, Fire Chief MARTIN P. MOROSKI 1010 Peach Screee San Luis Obispo, California 93401 December 4 , 1990 City Council HAND DELIVERED City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93403 Attention: Peg Pinard, Jerry Reiss, Penny kappa, 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 74-90 Dear Council Members: 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 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 isnot 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 h 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 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 ® 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 actin 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 the use of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, 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 the interest- of society, such individual interest is . subordinated to the general welfare. . . . "' 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 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, 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 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(0) (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 Bearces' residence. 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(C) (1) mandates that the Council 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 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 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 11.08.040(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 precedentwill 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, .S® City Council December 4, 1990 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 occupation 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, Martin P. Moroski Diane W. Moroski MPM/dbc b/letter/Council.MPM O OCT 3 law Com i Lam/ ne�E� Cara yw Son a vaapomD MDerdapoient ❑ FIN.DIX TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL 23,b i� ECEIV ❑ FWDIX FROM: KELLY J. CONDRON AND BONNIE L. CONDRON '' ❑ Pu�a� IX RESIDENTS AND OWNERS ❑ CkEADMWr FAEt ❑ U`n DU .1080 CAPISTRANO OCT 2 9 goon D cilswDFlLE O uni.D�. SAN LUIS OBI SPO, CA. 93406 CmOLEAK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA DEAR CITY COUNCIL: 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 1 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 MAKEUP 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 FOR UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW WHEN THEIR PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE DENIED? I 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 Vzl�p 915Pp LJ�i C P M J 26 i -lin r /990 _ O G� � 0ds �lS � MARTIN P. MOROSKI 1010 Peach Srreer San Ws.Obispo, California 93401 RECEIVED OCT 10 1990 Car of So"MOM ��ar Dneloaaem 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' Snecific 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. We have two (2) children, ages 4 # 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. 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 O 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 bronertv._ .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 individual in the use 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, 195 Cal. 477, 488 (1975) ; emphases added. ,5� 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 17.72.0.20, 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 I. 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. r66 a Planning Commission October 10, 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 change 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, smoke. glare, or electrical interference, or other hazard or nuisance. . . . (Emphases added. ) The Bearces' proposed home occupation does not meet the Qeneral requirements of Section 17 08 040. Indescending order of O 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 100% 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' home 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(0) (10) requires that a permitted home occupation not 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 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 larger than_a three-quarter-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. S.� 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 i a5 OPlanning 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 O continuance of the hearing and act on the Bearces' appeal without further delay. Sincerely, Martin P Moroski Diane W. Moroski MPM/dbc b/letter/RICCI.ltr O 64 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 ander 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 80. With/100% concurrence w' h 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 '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. EXHIBIT "1" Recewed @ 8-5- 90 mee}ir�j ; presen+ed C,4mmerrr5 AUGUST S, 1990 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL HEARING FOR RON BEARCE'S GLASSBLOWING BUSINESS AT CAPISTRANO COURT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO: WE LIVE DIRECTOILY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PETITIONER AND HAVE OBJECTED PREVIOUSLY VIA WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THIS COMMISSION. I AM 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. MP. BEARCE` S RESIDENCE AND MY RESIDENCE ARE LOCATED AT THE END OF THE CULDESAC ON CAPISTRANO COURT. ONE CRITERIA USED IN SELECTING OUR RESIDENCE WAS SAFE STREETS. THE BENEFITS OF RAISING C:HILDRED ON A CULDESAC AS OPPOSED TO A THOROUGHFARE ARE OBVIOUS. CONDUCTING SALES, MARKETING AND MANUFACTURING IN THE GARAGE OF A RESIDENCE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC AND REDUCE STREET SAFETY . I Am PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT DELI'VER'Y TRUCKS AND CUSTOMER PICKUP AND DELIVER'i . HAS A STUDY BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF THIS OBUSINESS ON STREET TRAFFIC'7 - I OBJECT BASED. ON THE GROUNDS THAT MP'. BEARCE' 'o GkPAGE IS NOT SUITABLY DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENTAL SEVERING OF THE VALVE ON A COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDER. SUCH ACCIDENTS ARE NOT UNCOMMON AND RESULT IN THE CYLINDER BECOMING A HIGH VELOCIT'r PROJECTILE CAPABLE OF SI014IFICANT PROPERTY DAMAGE AND INFLICTING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH. 3 - I OBJECT BASED ON THE GROUNDS THAT MP.. BEARCE'S GARAGE IS NOT SUTIAEL'I' DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE EVENT OF AN ACCIDENTAL EXPLOSION OF FLAMMABLE GAS WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR, ACCUMALATION SHOULD BOTTLES BE LEFT ON AND FITTINGS/HOSEB LEAK. IN. A TESTIMONIAL TO THE TELEGRAM TRIBUNE. ONE OF MR. BEARCES FRIENDS, CLkIMING TO BE A SAFETY ENGINEER, SAID HIS GARAGE WAS FIREPROOF AND THE OPERATION WAS SAFE. IS THIS INDIVIDUAL A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IF SO, WHAT IS HIS LICENSE NUMBER. AND THE BASIS FOR HIS CONCLUSIONS. 4 - I OBJECT BASED ON THE GROLR4DS THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO MR. BEAP,CE' S LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO MY PROPERTY OR INJURY TO MY CHILDREN RESULTING FROM CONDUCTING HIS MANUFACTURING OPERATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULD LIKE THE NAME OF THE INSURANCE CARRIER. ,NUMBER, AND LIABILIT"Y LIMITS. 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 CAN'T MR BEARCE CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS AT A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT IN TOWN IN LIEU OF DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME? ' SING/PI ESM ED THIS AUGUST 6TH, 1990 K OR 10 ANO COURT SA SPO, CA. 93405 / g 10/04/1990 09:48 Di' . CanyonComputerCentr 8-_� 1 4275 P.01 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1990 T0: SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: KELLY J. CONDRON SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF POSITION ON BEARCEIS 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 STAND KARLESKINT'S LETTER WERE MET, I COULD WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION. 16A 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. 5I /. CONDRON LL 108RANO S ISPO, CA. t C TO: SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 14, 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 's "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. Ke fly CorJrpn OPDIK\c'.. T �r ►t � QoMN.\ss, � i�x1+J5'S 545-41009 / 12-1 E-MOR.NJD!N�- C)F t1 �.1T F I V2C0X: v2MT-t-\--J 1Pai3 D W%Tt,% Tt4cc w1�iRl�dJCt Ct�an-t1,YQ Z .aoat2N 7-;?.;� VAILL-ILA 7 ® Jim and Cnery Longabaugh 1055 Capistrano Ct. S.L.u. , ca. 93405 Dear Zoning hearing officer, We are opposed to Mr. and Mrs. tsearce, at 1075 Capistrano Ct. , S. L.U. , being permitted to operate a glass-blowing business from tneir 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 nome, but the neighbornooa in general . We bought a nome on a cul-de-sac, so that our children wouls riot nave to play on a busy street. To have a retail business at trre end of the cul-de-sac, wnicn requires supplies to be picxed up and delivered, as welt as customer pick-ups, inappropriately increases commercilal trafiic In the neighborhood. in.anx ,you for your attention. �i cerel Jim LChga baR n Chery Longabaugh. tcCEIVEL MAY p 7 X90 DAVE MORAN, PLANNER MAY 2, 1990 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING DEPARTMENT .990 PALM SAN LUIS OBISPO, 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: I '- 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/containe.rs 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 •missi'les' 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? Now many high 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 relys 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 area be secure from 'youthful intrusion• which could otherwise lead to injury, burning, and possibly death? 1 _ F 5 - What type of liability insurance or bond does 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. 1 would also appreciate notification of the results of the City' s determination/ruling on this matter. Sincerl , Ke yl J Condron 1 C pistrano S n is Obispo, Ca.' 93405 544-8658 (home ) 595-4609 (work) 4;A To: The Honorable San Luis Obispo Planning Commissioners f `' !� 19Ry,3 From: The Friends and Supporters of the Bearce Family Date. Oct 8, 1990 Subject The Oct 10 Planning Commission Hearing e e J. 2>0NA.-) Dear Planning.Commissioner, 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 tomo! 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 � ' L9 Ron and Leslie Bearce's O Chronological order of events: Sect Ion 1972 to the Aug. 8, 1990 Planning Cornmission meeting S t o 1: Aug. 9 to present SECTION 1972: Ron began working with glass just after graduating from San Luis High. He bought and set up his first equipment at his parent's home an Del Mar Court in Sen Luis Obispo, 1973-1975: With Lashes help, Ran paid for his college education at'Cueste and Cal Pok while working out of his home and downtown apartment above E.E.Long Piam Dec 27, 1975: Ron and Leslie,who both grew up in Sen Luis Obispo,married They began 4wily after that working out of their first home at 254 Sendercock SL The Beams applied for and received a County Fictitious Name Statement for doing business as Icarian Olassworks of California,a state retail sales tax number,a city business liamr.,and e city home occupation permit 1977-1983:TheBeerces worked out of their Sandercock home in their garage without incident or one complaint for the duration of the time they lived them They also rented 1000 sq ft of manufactoring space off of Broad St for three years to accomdate their expanding work force of up to twelve additional employees. 1984: Due to the difficulting of training glassworkers, the high overhead, and interest in other areas, they closed their manufacturing outlet to focus on new glass art work arid,hopefully,a new Oretail shop. Sept 1985: After years of effort ,including four months of struggling to obtain a building permit Ron and Leslie Bas finally obtained a modest home for their family and the most fireproofed location yet in their Wage 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 home. 1988: With the Network closing for remodeling and a new second baby at home, they chose 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 hes from 1988 to July of 1906. issued the Beer ces a business license at their Capistrano CL home. Mar.1990- After 18 years of working safely and quietly in various locations with rot one complaint from anyone, the city Fire Marshall called to say someone had made an anvwnanous phone call to City Hall complaining about their home occupation. He told them they would meed 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 home and already had a business license for their Capistrano CL home. He outlined very specifically the required chronological pr d re: First obtain a business license, second obtain a home occupation permit and third obtain fire department approval, in that order Ron and Leslie felt encouraged that they could work with the Fire Department, as they had successfully in five previous locations including two retail shops, a home, a manufacturing site, and in the middle of the Farmer's 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 A � � t^ l i May 1990: Sines the city racsived at hest ane complaint, a May 11th Public Hearing was scheduled to consider their permit. On May 9th Associate Planner Dave Marren called and said 'I've reached my decision to rmmmeW denyinrg your permit' He never investigated the site or called to talk to the Baer He did say ore neighbor, named Cheryl Hoffman,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 Bearce and lives nearly a block away from the Bearces. Yet as of October 6,1990, she has avoided putting on ism what her May 8th complaints Wart. On May 1 I th at the Zoning Hearing Officer Hearing two neighbors came to'mainly get some questions answered', as they each stated They also ekprtssed ins Ron and Leslie pagan 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 dmir'. Hearing Officer and Staff Planner Ken Bruce closed the hearing then read off a previously prepared typewritten statement his decision to deny them a permit and the,easor>s why. Yet later, in in Oct 5th phone conve�ion, Ken Bruce told Ron Beerce that he agrees that Ran runs a "very safe operation'. Mother city Planner, Pam Ricci, explained on October 3rd that 'onto ane staff makes a decision, other staff Will almost never disagree with It.' Mr. Bruce had literally read Planner Dave Moan's typewritten,eccornendatiens. Aug. 1990 Mr. Moran stuck with his decision again and wrote a very inaccurate report to the Planning Commissioners to back it up. The cDnfussibn the report created that conflicted with the August 8th Planning Commission Public Hearing testimony in a large way prompted four nxmmissimers to vote to direct all parties involved to meet to attempt to wok out a solution. SECTION II Sept 1990 Ron and Leslie wrote a letter to the commissioners dated Sept 3, 1.990 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 it. 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 Bearce permit appeal. The Community Development Director Arnold Jones stated "that the staff was attempting to work with various parties involved',axording to the Planning Commission minutes. P lanner Pam Ricci stated to Ron and Leslie on both Oct 2nd and3th 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 at the Bear cc's home,Pam Ricci staled that that was also not true and went on to state: 'I'm really not sure why he said that'. The first contact the Bearces had to let them know all this was oocuring was a call from Pam Ricci on Friday Sept 28th. She said she was 'trying to finish my staff report on the Beerces planning commission appeal. To the Bea ons disbelief, she told them that they wire on the next Planning Commission agenda and she wanted to corse out to their horse because 'I've really never been out there'. Facing a Christmas order rush, Ron and Leslie assumed this must merely be an update presentation to inform the commissioners of the pi ogress so far. Oct. 1990:On Tuesday Oct. 2nd,Ron called Pam and found out some startling information. Pam also final ly visited the Bawces on Wednesday Oct 3rd and stated some otter amazing things: I) Ron and Leslie's letter dated Sept 3rd and mailed to the Planning Commissioners at the City Hall address had never been sent on to them.Pam said the secretary brought her the letter and Pam said she decided to file It and that she choose &to send it until she issued her staff report on the Baarces permit,which would be sent out at least a month later. ^� This was a letter that started with'Deer Planning Commissioners,We wanted to give you an trodde i I about what has been happening since the August 8 meeting.' (2) Pam did state on Oct. 2nd that:stn had copies of the Bearces letter, addressed to the Commissioners,sent to'the neighbors (3)On October 3rd, she stated that she contacted the new Fire Marshall, BillOalioway,and asked the fire department to write a report an the Bearces permit application. She did not state that she told him that the Baerces 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 placed restrictions an propene use, parking, and other conditions. He added the very unusual statement that he would at low any single neighbor the paws-to ere w his entire p ofaasianeI safety decision. This probable would not be needed if the Planning Commission's original intent of everyone:meeting had been followed, especially with the BMMe s repand of suCLtss in working with the fire department (4)During the eight months this has been going on,the Bearces have met with,phoned,written to and given invitations to all neighbors who are an,am expressing questions or area , . The Bearces received not one visit, letter,or other indication of actually how cannon road 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 Commission Those of us assisting them have heard these methods and they deserve serious consideration. If Ron and Leslie had simply been. informed Satember 12 or stwrtly after about the October 10 Planning Commission maiitina- they would have had the time to meet face to face with all those involved Those.were the insliitliciasof the Plannina Commission and the intent of Ren mrd Leslie. �) There are important questions --Wiry wasn't the Bew 's letter forwarded to the Planning Commission. it was addressed to then and and started, -We wanted to give you an update..' --Why weren't the Bar= informed immediate ..after the Sept 12 meeting about the Commission meeting to be held a month later? --Why did the Planning Department Director tell the tbrmmissioin the staff had been 'attempting to work with' the parties involved on Sept 12 when no action in thea direction had occured,according to his own planning staff? --Wiry did he say that there were meetings planned for the week of Sept 24 when row were planned,again according to his own staff? --Why did Planning staff meet with neighbors seperate from the Bearces and not tell the Bearces about it? --Why did the staff not have the Fire Department and the Beams meet together? --ties the Fire Department ever made a safety decision then allowed citizens,even neighbors, to veto it? --Why did staff call up two neighbors who had rut expressed mxzrns for nary half o yaw and two others who had r>ever exprexsed mncernns or even questions? Those of us helping the Bea 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 merry of us with a desire to show impartialness 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 many others involved and should be given the chis ce to work the way you originally intended Thank you for your time C� .0 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 oincompatible 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 aY.,�(f�L , Ronald A Garcia, Chairman (544-7664) RECEIVED Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering OCT 2 3 19901--, -- 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 �• ) IS Vrrr• ` 1 a7 (Ac4is ICCQI O �hllD �✓�� ''L(Q I"I ✓00� 4e< Tea/`C L c� , .cam ,u -�� ''•�.�.�, C.�✓c t ..cam-'Z, yu CG.-.c,d 5-0 AA v , �- ` n C L C� TjSZ�ukl` - �c c c& s A►ug tip wr�nk` 1 Crim rr Nx. 1990 (Oxznoj ►j(. N L .6rWz . (. a .7 � C i �J CAugust 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 I 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 C 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 eighteen Years of safe operation and get on with more important issues facing our city. &Vqm Ar R)G 611%10 Sincerely, ?"146 01,41MW Ronald A. Garcia Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering ( Master of Business Administration /� S From: Ron and Leslie Bowes (805) 541-2615 RECEIVED 1075 Capistrano CL \ Sen Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Wober 10, 1990 OCT 10 00J To: G1 of Son L"o Ob"M Aronid Jones,Community Development Director CmmvAwy Denqwwt City Hall San Luis Obispo,OA 93401 Subject Request to continue our appeal of denial of hone occupation permit to the October 24. 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Mr.Jones Due to a set of unusual circumstances,we both feel that a continuainoe on this item would be best for everyone involved for the following raen ( I)As applicants,we were not notified about this planning Commission 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 decision regarding the planning commissions decision on our appeal. This has 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 c r - Itant,Ned RogDw' ay,was not informed until the city mailed him an agenda which he didn't receive until lest Friday( I 0/5/90). This morning he requested a continuance for this evenings meeting and was told by yourself that there would be no objection to a continuance by staff,which we appreciate. (5)The three commissioners,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 interestadperties some time within the rent week or so and bring this item beck to the planning commission at the next meeting with as much worked out as possible As Commissioner Gurnee stated yesterday,'it is the prerogative of 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, Ron and Leslie Bowes S Id you we Q1ZesZofetZh1s letter are distributed to each of the commissioners before tonight's m a - RECEIVED Sept . 3, 1998 SEP 12990 Ron and Leslie Bearce u„of sm LU..oa.00 oow,na,orm"ffwn Dear Planning Commissioners, We wanted to give you an update on our home glassworking 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 let him know if we could get a meeting arranged with everyone before he left to let him knew. 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 last income or production . We can share some of that with You here . Since there have only been two people attend 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 just 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. C 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. w i 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 $1588 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 deliver 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 San Luis , it would be Oreat 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 areas we have been working on including going well beyond 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 . Plea=_& let us know if You have any imput into this issue or any way You can help us out on this. Sincerely, R and Leslie Bearce r� To: Zoning Hearing Of Y tr Ken Bruce M __ 01990 Staff Planner Dav`'iloran San Luis Obispo Planning Commission AEcEIVEI, City Hall, San Luis Obispo C` 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 MAY 2 3 UY Of SW Lw.00w '^�rUe.etio� 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 as follows:. (1 ) Excellent Safety Record During eighteen years of working at home (nearly five years at our current location), safety has been our It I 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 16 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 1/ 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 well 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 mai lout 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 that anyonehas 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 620119"141-logic a U._ .. ._ ...' .: .- --.. _+T: :. .� _ -.'LYS. •C'e.-. _ 11 _ need for more car trips per day in and out of our neighborhood which commuting brings. You might even say that every day for us is Earth Day. By working at home, we are able to enjoy much higher quality of Fife 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 neighborhood 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 until 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 ►IIII I Ilii��lil!IPI��II i°ii�l�'I� I�II�'�� lilll�,!, ►!i�l�; ;�+):�i.11��i�► , I'1 city ® $An WIS OBISPO --_ 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 he including the type of business, business O 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. O / v ' 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. A3.40 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. i O 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. S. 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. a ,�3 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 rindimas 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 thegeneral 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. 3.057 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 Ring Street #19. (A 22-89) - Consult, design, install and repair irrigation systems - approved. 3%3/89. 22 . 2.41 Via San- -Blas. (A 21-88) Mail. order costumes and bookkeeping for dance school - approved 11/4/88. 23 . 3057 S. Higuera 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 35. . 3335 Broad Street #20. (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 Laco. ( 134-86) - Art and photography - approved 11/7/86. 38. 1327 Pernwood Drive. (A 77-86) - Office use for audio repairs - approved 7/25/86. 39. 2540 Greta Place. (A 78-86) - Handyman service - approved 8/4/86. 40. 1269 Southwood Drive. (A 80-86) General Contractor - approved 7/25/86. 41. 1168 Vista del Laco. (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 O4/11/86. O / V / 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 use$ 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 OS. 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. O O