HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-22-2020 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Co mmission
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE
Broadcasted via Webinar
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the
Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March
17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of
San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical
location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely
and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Planning Commission (PC) are allowed to attend the meeting via
teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in PC meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
• View a livestream of the meeting on the City’s YouTube channel: http://youtube.slo.city
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8884104938197607951
➢ Webinar ID: 182-009-147
➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 655-0060; Audio Access Code: 225-730-302
2. Public Comment - The PC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview.
Public comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and
will be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting.
Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your
name, the agenda item number and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited
to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body Members and saved as
Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
➢ During the meeting – Members of the public who wish to provide public comment can join
the webinar (instructions above). Once you have joined the webinar, please put your name
and Item # in the questions box. Your mic will be unmuted once Public Comment is called for
the Item and you will have 3 minutes to speak.
Planning Commission Agenda for July 22, 2020 Page 2
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hemalata Dandekar
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn, Nicholas Quincey, Michelle
Shoresman, Mike Wulkan, Vice-Chair Robert Jorgensen, and Chair Hemalata
Dandekar.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of Ju ly 8, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on
the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are
generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a
future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes;
consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes.
2. Review of a four-story, 200 room dual brand hotel in the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area;
The project is consistent with the previously certified FEIR and SEIR for the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan and no additional environmental review is required per CEQA; Project Address:
1035 Madonna Road; Case #: ARCH-0796-2019; Zone: Neighborhood-Commercial Zone
(N-C) San Luis Ranch Specific Plan; Arris Studio, Thom Jess, applicant.
(John Rickenbach – 20 minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt the draft Resolution approving the development plan based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval.
3. Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an attached
two-car garage. The project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the
retention of five, two-bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of
Historic Properties. The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots,
each will contain one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from
development standards to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced (five feet where seven is
the standard, six feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where nine feet is the standard,
and eight feet where eleven feet is the standard) and to allow required parking to be provided
in tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed;
Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant.
(Kyle Van Leeuwen – 20 minutes)
Planning Commission Agenda for July 22, 2020 Page 3
Recommendation: Adopt the draft Resolution recommending the City Council approve
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 3140, the project design, and adopt the associated
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
4. Review of the 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element and Negative Declaration of Environmental
Review; Project Address: Citywide; Case #: GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020; City of
San Luis Obispo, owner/applicant. (Rachel Cohen – 20 minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt the draft Resolution which recommends that the City Council
amend the Housing Element for updates associated with the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Update and adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5. Staff Updates & Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 12,
2020, at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference.
APPEALS
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to City Council within 10 days of
the action (Recommendations to City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action).
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal
forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City Clerk’s office, or on the
City’s website (www.slocity.org). The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public.
Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with
disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order
to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100
at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)
781-7410.
Planning Commission regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection
on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. Meeting video
recordings can be found on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/city-clerk/on-demand-meeting-videos
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 99 0 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 6:10 p.m., via teleconference, by Chair Dandekar.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn, Nicholas Quincey, Michelle
Shoresman, Mike Wulkan, Vice-Chair Robert Jorgensen (6:18), and Chair
Hemalata Dandekar
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Principal Planner Tyler
Corey, Assistant City Attorney Roy Hanley, Assistant City Attorney Markie
Jorgensen, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
1.CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER QUINCEY, CARRIED 6-0-1 to approve the Planning Commission
Minutes of June 24, 2020.
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4
July 8, 2020
Chair Dandekar called a recess at 6:15 to allow technical issues to be resolved. The meeting was
called back to order at 6:19 with all Commissioners present, including Vice-Chair Jorgensen.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Review of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, within the Downtown Historic
District, including review of the cultural resources analysis of the project. The project includes
a rezone to provide a Planned Development Overlay, demolition of an existing
structure, permanent preservation of an off-site building located at 868 and 870 Monterey
Street, and a request to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet, where 50 feet is normally
allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review (CEQA) is proposed; Project Address: 1144 Chorro, 868 and 870
Monterey, 876 and 890 Marsh, 895, 898, 973 Higuera Streets,; Case #: ARCH-1687-2018,
PDEV-0509-2019, EID-0475-2019; Zone: C-D-H; Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP,
owner/applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant Representative, Mark Rawson, provided an overview of the project iterations
through the approval process, highlighted street views stressing design work focused on
reducing the project’s scale visually, previewed project architectural details, and responded to
Commission inquiries.
Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Allan Cooper
Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR JORGENSEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KAHN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to adopt a resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
A SIX-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE AND 50 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS, WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES A REZONE TO PROVIDE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY,
PERMANENT PRESERVATION OF AN OFF-SITE BUILDING LOCATED AT 868 AND
870 MONTEREY STREET, A NEW DRIVEWAY ALONG MARSH STREET, AND A
REQUEST TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 75 FEET, WHERE 50
FEET IS THE STANDARD IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ZONE. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 8, 2020 (1144 CHORRO, 868 AND 870 MONTEREY, 876
Item 1
Packet Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4
July 8, 2020
AND 890 MARSH, 895, 898, 973 HIGUERA STREETS ARCH-1687-2018, PDEV-0509-
2019, & EID-0475-2019)”
With modifications as follow:
Condition 9 (dedication of pedestrian easement in Downtown Centre): modify second sentence
as follows: The covenant shall identify the responsibilities for private maintenance and public
access of Downtown Centre, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
Condition 34 (bicycle facilities): modified to eliminate the option for inverted U style bicycle
racks, and to provide for the installation of electric bicycle parking stations, and bicycle
parking spaces that accommodate the size of cargo style bicycles.
RECESS
Chair Dandekar called a recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:23 with
all Commissioners present.
3. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery and CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Thresholds and Guidance Document
Sustainability Manager Chris Read and Special Projects Manager Teresa McClish presented
the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing.
Public Comments
Justin Bradshaw
Eric Veium
Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOPKINS, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIR
JORGENSEN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to adopt a resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN FOR COMMUNITY RECOVERY AND ASSOCIATED CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION THRESHOLDS
AND GUIDANCE INCLUDING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.”
Item 1
Packet Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4
July 8, 2020
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
4. Agenda Forecast – Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 2020, via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 1
Packet Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Development plan approval of a 4-story, 200-room dual brand hotel within the NC
zoned portion of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area. Includes a determination that the project
is consistent with the certified Final EIR for San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and therefore exempt
from further environmental review under the California Envir onmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
Phone Number: 805-610-1109
Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0796-2019 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the development plan based on findings and
subject to conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Representative
General Plan and
Zoning
Site Area
Environmental
Status
SLO HHG SCM Hotel Development
Heather Wiebe
Neighborhood Commercial (NC);
allows a 200-room hotel under the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
3.41 acres
Exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-
Fill Development Projects) and
Section 15182(b) as a project in a
commercially-zoned area with a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least
0.75 (project FAR is 0.89), is
consistent with a Specific Plan and
accompanying certified Final EIR,
and is in a “transit priority area”
pursuant to PRC Section 21099(a)(7)
(i.e., within 0.5 miles of a planned
major transit stop).
Meeting Date: July 22, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item 2
Packet Page 5
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 2
SUMMARY
The proposed project is a four-story hotel within the approved San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
(SLRSP). One side of the hotel will be branded Springhill Suites and the other half will be branded
Residence Inn. Up to 200 guest rooms are proposed. The project site would occur on a 3.41 -acre
parcel, which corresponds to Lot 8 of an approved tentative map (VTTM 3096) that covers the
entire 132-acre San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area. The project site is within the NC
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone of the SLRSP.
The ground floor of the hotel will consist of a lobby, dining area, living room area, fitness room,
guestrooms, laundry, and hotel service area. The project is designed to comply with the California
Green Building Code and will incorporate several measures consistent with that code, including
low flow plumbing fixtures, LED light fixtures, ample insulation, energy efficient windows and
doors, provision for future solar panels and drought tolerant landscaping.
1.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Table 1 summarizes the key proposed project components, and their consistency with various City
regulations and requirements:
Table 1. Proposed Project Features and Consistency with Requirements
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation NC NC regulations apply from SLRSP
Hotel Rooms 200 Up to 200 (SLRSP Table 2-1)
Setbacks Street Fronts: 10-18 feet;
Adjacent to agriculture: 7 feet
(see Sheet A2.1 of Attachment 2)
Street Front: 5-foot minimum;
Side – Interior Lot: no minimum
Street side corner lot: no minimum
Parking: 15-foot minimum (with landscaped
setback adjacent to public street)
Rear – 10-foot minimum
(per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Building Height 50’
(see Sheets A5.0 through A5.2)
20’ minimum; 50’ maximum
(Per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Lot Coverage 23.5% 80% maximum (per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
Wall Sign
1
6 feet
17.2 SF
5 Surface Signs
1 per street frontage
6 feet
24 SF
3; additional 2 allowed per porte-cochere
Item 2
Packet Page 6
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 3
Table 1. Proposed Project Features and Consistency with Requirements
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Max Height
Max Area
Pylon/Pole Sign
Max Height
Max Area
2-foot letters; 3’4” with two rows
50 SF each
none
-
-
(see Sheets A7.1 and A7.2 of
Attachment 2)
3’ (not specific to lettering)
50 SF
1
16 feet
72 SF
(per SLRSP Table 3-11)
Public Art Not provided Public art only required for commercial
portion of SLRSP; project subject to
Municipal Code 17.70.140
Parking
Automobile
spaces
Electric Vehicle
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle
Parking
Clean Air Vehicles
198 (6 ADA)
2 charge stations (+10 future)
30 (20 short-term; 10 long-term)
10
16
(see Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 2)
200 (1 per guest room); 6 ADA
10 (future)
20
10
16
(per SLR SP Table 3-7 and Municipal Code
17.72.030 and 17.72.040)
1 parking space may be eliminated by
providing 5 additional bike spaces
Environmental
Status
Project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). The project is also exempt
pursuant to Section 15182(b) as a project in a commercially-zoned area with a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75 (project FAR is 0.89), is consistent with a Specific Plan
and accompanying certified Final EIR, and is in a “transit priority area” pursuant to
PRC Section 21099(a)(7) (i.e., within 0.5 miles of a planned major transit stop).
Item 2
Packet Page 7
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 4
2.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to review for consistency with the General Plan1, San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP)2, Zoning Regulations3, Community Design Guidelines (CDG)4, and
applicable City development standards. Planning Commission (PC) review is required for projects
which include more than 10 residential units, or more than 10,000 square feet of non-commercial
space.
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project design (ARCH-
0796-2019) on May 18 and July 6, 2020 for consistency with the SLRSP Design Guidelines and
Community Design Guidelines (CDG). After the applicant team made changes to their plan in
response to the ARC’s directional items of May 18, the ARC determined that the project was
consistent with applicable design guidelines (Attachment 3, ARC Staff Report and Meeting
Minutes). The ARC’s directional items and applicant responses are included in Section 4.4 of this
Agenda Report.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
1 General Plan: Land Use Element Chapter 3 (Commercial and Industrial Development), Chapter 8 (Special Focus
Areas) and Chapter 9 (Sustainability)
2 SLRSP: Chapters 3 (Neighborhood Form), 5 (Sustainability), and 7 (Infrastructure and Financing)
3 Zoning Regulations Article 3 (Regulations and Standards Applicable to All Zones) and Article 8 (Housing-Related
Regulations)
4 CDG: Chapter 2 (General Design Principals), Chapter 3 (Commercial and Industrial Project Design), and
Chapter 6 (Site Planning and Other Design Details
Figure 1: Rendering of view from the north toward the Hotel entry.
Item 2
Packet Page 8
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 5
The proposed project must conform to the standards and limitations of General Plan, SLRSP, and
any applicable aspects of the Zoning Regulations, and Engineering Standards that are not
otherwise addressed in the SLRSP which apply to the overall development plan approval. Staff
has evaluated the project and identified discussion items for the Planning Commission to consider,
including direction provided by the ARC related to design guidelines.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The project area is within the San Luis Ranch Special Focus area as identified in Section 8.1.4 of
the Land Use Element (LUE). Section 8.1.4 of the LUE identifies a general framework guiding
development in that area, including issues related to circulation, site design, view protection,
agricultural protection, and public safety. Specifically, it anticipates that the area could support a
hotel with up to 200 rooms, consistent with the proposed project.
The LUE required that a specific plan be prepared for the entire 132-acre San Luis Ranch area. A
specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of a general plan. The San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan (SLRSP) was adopted in 2017. Because the Specific Plan is inherently consistent
with the General Plan, the project’s consistency with the Specific Plan is the focus of this policy
analysis. This discussion is in included in Section 3.2 of this Agenda Report.
4.2 Consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Upon its adoption in 2017, the SLRSP became
the primary guiding land use regulatory
document for the area it encompassed. Figure 2
shows the land use map for the SLRSP, and the
proposed project area is within the NC land use
designation shown on that map.
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic
implementation of a general plan. It effectively
establishes a link between implementing policies
of the general plan and the individual
development proposals in a defined area. In the
case of the SLRSP, it addresses the broad range
of planning issues and policies typically covered
in the City’s General Plan or zoning ordinance,
from land use, circulation, site planning
standards, design guidelines, landscape design
requirements, project phasing, and infrastructure
requirements. In some cases, it establishes
standards that go beyond those included in the General Plan, or that are tailored to the needs of the
project site. For that reason, the project will be evaluated against the requirements of the SLRSP
to determine consistency with City planning policies.
Table 2 summarizes key relevant policies from the SLRSP, and City staff’s analysis of the project’s
consistency with those policies. In certain instances, the SLRSP defers to the City’s zoning
Figure 2: San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
Land Use Map, showing the Project Site
Project
Site
*
Item 2
Packet Page 9
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 6
requirements, and where this is the case, it is noted in the analysis. As noted above, the ARC has
reviewed the project and recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with
Community Design and Specific Plan Guidelines. The applicant’s analysis of the project’s design
consistency is found on Sheets A1.2 and A1.3 of the project plans.
Table 2. Project Consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
SLRSP Relevant Policy or Guidance Discussion Potential
Consistency
Section 2.5.3 of the SLRSP calls for a 200-
room hotel and conference center to
contribute to local tourism and complement
other facilities adjacent to San Luis Ranch.
The project is consistent with that intent. It is
proposed within the Neighborhood Commercial
(NC) zone in the SLRSP, in a location identified
in the land use plan included in that document.
Yes
Figure 2.22- Illustrative Plan for Hotel and
Conference Area
The proposed project is visually consistent with
the intent of that illustration, which depicts a
well-landscaped 4-story building in a Modern
Agrarian architectural style.
Yes
2.6.5 Indoor Noise. Indoor space for the
following uses must provide a maximum
noise exposure not exceeding 45 decibels
(dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level, and
a 60 dB maximum for aircraft single events:
dwellings; offices and incidental meeting
rooms; public reception areas; worker break
rooms…
Required subject to Mitigation Measure N-5(a),
which requires a variety of design measures to
reduce interior noise related to walls, doors and
windows.
Yes
2.6.8 Non-Reflective Building Materials.
Building materials shall not produce glare
that conflicts with the operation of the
airport
Project includes non-reflecting building
materials; project also reviewed by Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) and found consistent
with ALUP requirements.
Yes
Section 3. Unnamed figure on page 3-4 of
SLRSP shows pedestrian connection to
adjacent proposed ag center and other
commercial areas
The project includes a pedestrian connection to
the ag center with enhanced pavement and
entry sign, reviewed and recommended by ARC.
Sidewalks along Froom Ranch Way and Prado
provide connections to other proposed
commercial areas.
Yes
Table 3-7. NC Development Standards. In
summary, these include:
Lot Coverage – 80% maximum
Building Height – 20’ min; 50’ max
Setbacks – 5’ front; 10’ rear; 15’ from parking
Automobile Parking – 1 space per room
Bicycle Parking – per municipal code
Landscaping – 20% minimum
Project conforms to these standards. See Table
2 (Project Statistics) for details. For certain
issues, such as parking and the provision of
public art, the SLRSP defers to zoning
requirements within the Municipal Code.
Please refer to Table 2 for a summary of these
issues.
Yes
3.7.2 Commercial, Office and Hotel Design
Guidelines. These address site planning and
design, building form, building elements,
lighting, signs, building materials, exterior
colors, utilitarian aspects of buildings, parking
The ARC reviewed the project in detail for a
variety of design-related issues in making a
recommendation to the Planning Commission,
and the requirements of this section were at
the core of their review. Ultimately, the ARC
Yes
Item 2
Packet Page 10
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 7
Table 2. Project Consistency with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
SLRSP Relevant Policy or Guidance Discussion Potential
Consistency
lot design and screening,
landscape/hardscape, screens/walls/fences,
and noise.
found the project consistent with these, based
on the applicant’s responses to directional
items described in Section 3.5 of this report.
3.9.1 Plant Palette. Table 3-12 includes an
approved plant palette for development in
the SLRSP.
Project is consistent in intent with the SLSRP
plant palette, which focuses on native and
drought-tolerant landscaping.
Yes
5.2.2 Affordable Housing. City Commercial
Requirements. The commercial uses
provided within the Specific Plan Area will be
required to provide an additional 34 units of
affordable housing, which will either be
provided on-site or through the payment of
in lieu fees based on 5% of the building
valuation. The commercial inclusionary
calculations for the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan are as follows:
Table 5-3. Commercial Affordable Housing
Calculation
•Hotel – 3.5 acres; x2 = 7.0 required
inclusionary housing units
(This is a subset of the 34 units
required overall for all commercial
development in the SLRSP.)
The project as proposed does not directly
address this requirement but is subject to the
Development Agreement (DA) for the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan. No housing is proposed
within the project. The DA calls for in-lieu fees
to be paid based on the provisions of Exhibit F
(Affordable and Workforce Housing Plan) of
that document. The in-lieu fee will be based on
the project’s requirement to provide the
equivalent of 7 units of affordable housing. This
aspect of the DA is consistent with Zoning
Regulations Section 17.138.040, which relates
to inclusionary housing requirements for both
residential and commercial projects.
Yes
Table 7-9. San Luis Ranch Performance
Triggers. The SLRSP describes certain
infrastructure that must be in place prior
various aspects of development becoming
operational. In the case of the hotel, the
following are required:
•Circulation. Internal only
•Water. 12-inch Connection to
Froom Ranch Way
•Wastewater. 8-inch connection in
Froom Ranch Way
•Drainage. Underground detention
and bioswales as needed
•Recycled Water. 6-inch connection
in Froom Ranch Way
Project conforms with these requirements,
subject to coordination with City Public Works
and Utilities staff.
Yes
4.3 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The SLRSP includes standards and requirements that in many cases supersede those in the Zoning
Regulations. These include items such as allowed land uses, setbacks, building heights,
Item 2
Packet Page 11
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 8
landscaping, and signage, among others. In other cases, the SLRSP defers to the zoning
regulations, notably for items such as lighting, parking (in some cases), walls/fences. Table 1
summarizes the project’s characteristics, providing context within the framework of both the
SLRSP and application zoning regulations. The project is consistent with applicable Zoning
Regulations.
4.4 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
In its meeting of May 18, 2020, the ARC recommended several directional items to be reviewed
and evaluated prior to taking final action on the project design. The applicant made changes in
response to the directional items, and on July 6, 2020, the ARC recommended unanimous approval
to the Planning Commission, with the following condition:
•Consider using a commercial-grade lap siding product to ensure durability
The following summarizes the ARC’s original direction to the applicant team, and the applicant’s
response to that direction that formed the basis of ARC’s ultimate recommendation:
ARC Directional Item #1: Simplify the presentation of materials and colors; reduce “clutter” per
Section 2.2.B of the Community Design Guidelines.
Response: The applicant simplified materials and colors, focusing more on the contrasting light
and gray colors, now 4 colors instead of 7. These are shown on Sheets A8.0-A8.2.
ARC Directional Item #2: Enhance Agrarian architectural element, and less of the Modern
element.
Response: The design now has a greater emphasis on the Agrarian element, shown in colors,
materials and design elements such as awnings (see sheets A5.0-A5.2)
ARC Directional Item #3: Emphasize the ground floor level; increase horizontal articulation and
decrease vertical articulation; provide more landscaping across the front entrance driveway, such
as layered planting to soften the visual appearance.
Response: The applicant’s redesigned project includes a clear horizontal break and articulation
above ground floor; in addition, there is more landscaping along building frontages, including
larger trees and more shrubs (see sheets A2.1, A3.0, and A5.0-A5.2).
ARC Directional Item #4: Show more detail in the pedestrian connection to the future Agricultural
Heritage Center.
Response: The applicant added entry signage leading to the Ag Heritage Center and widened
enhanced paved crossing from 5 to 10 feet (see sheets A2.1 and L2.0).
In addition, the ARC included the following recommendation, which was not addressed by the
applicant:
Item 2
Packet Page 12
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 9
ARC Directional Item #5: Identify the required Electric Vehicle (EV) parking, and where the
future EV spaces would be.
Response: The applicant did not modify the original plan to respond to this recommendation, as
staff determined this is a Municipal Code requirement, with which the project is required to comply
through the building permit process. Section 17.72.040 of the Municipal Code requires 10% EV
ready spaces, plus 25% EV capable for non-residential projects. Staff has added a condition of
approval on this requirement to the draft resolution.
4.5 Airport Land Use Commission Review
On April 19, 2017, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
previously reviewed the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, and determined that it was consistent with
the County’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), with conditions related to relocating 27 dwelling
units that would have otherwise been in a more restrictive airport safety zone, and by requiring a
portion of the designated commercial area be restricted from having developed structures.
The ALUC will have this project as a discussion item on July 15, 2020, to discuss if the overall
proposal can be consistent with the intent of Condition 9 (below) with minor deviations from the
lighting and landscaping height requirement in portions of the parking area called out in Condition
9.The applicant is proposing that some landscaping and lighting elements be allowed up to 15 feet
in height primarily for safety and aesthetic purposes, including provision of parking lot shading.
“Condition 9. The Updated Amendments and Conditions of Approval shall provide for a
200-foot by 1,200-foot “no build” zone within the S-1b Safety Area that shall remain free
of structures except for infrastructure associated with any planned highway interchange
with Highway 101. The “no build” zone may be used for parking areas with no lighting
or landscaping that exceeds 8 feet in height. All drive aisles within the “no build zone”
will be parallel with the centerline of the airport runway.”
This Agenda Report was prepared prior to the ALUC’s July 15 meeting. Staff will provide an
update on the outcome of the ALUC discussion on this via agenda correspondence and/or during
the presentation to the Planning Commission on July 22.
5.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COVID-19 ORDERS AND CURRENT FISCAL
CONTINGENCY PLAN
This activity is presently allowed under the State and Local emergency orders associated with
COVID-19. This Project and associated staff work will be reimbursed by the developer directly or
indirectly through fees and therefore consistent with the guidance of the City’s Fiscal Health
Contingency Plan.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On July 18, 2017, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
the SLRSP and approved the SLRSP through Council Resolution 10822 (2017 Series). A Final
Supplemental EIR to address modifications to the phasing plan within the SLRSP was certified by
the City Council on July 17, 2018, through Council Resolution 10927 (2018 Series). All
Item 2
Packet Page 13
ARCH-0796-2019 - 1035 Madonna Road (Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Planning Commission Report – July 22, 2020
Page 10
mitigation measures adopted as part of the SLRSP FEIR and FSEIR that are applicable to the
proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to effectively mitigate the
impacts that were previously identified.
The project is consistent with the certified FEIR for SLRSP and exempt from further review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332
(In-Fill Development Projects). The project is also exempt pursuant to Section 15182(b) as a
project that meets the following criteria: 1) is in a commercially-zoned area with a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75 (project FAR is 0.89); 2) is consistent with a Specific Plan and
accompanying certified Final EIR; and 3) is in a “transit priority area” pursuant to PRC Section
21099(a)(7) (i.e., within 0.5 miles of a planned major transit stop). Such a transit stop is planned
within the SLRSP is close proximity to the project along Froom Ranch Way, but outside the project
area.
No Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required pursuant to Public Resources Code
§21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because: 1) the project does not include or
require any revisions to the certified SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR; 2) no substantial changes would
occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no
revisions to the SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR are required; and 3) no new information of substantial
importance is available that was not already known at the time the SLRSP FEIR and FSEIR were
certified.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Transportation, Natural Resources, Building, Utilities, and Fire. Comments have
been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required to make a decision on the project.
2.Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the
basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community
Design Guidelines, SLRSP, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. Should the PC
want to pursue this alternative, staff recommends that the specific findings under
Government Code § 65915(d)(1)(B) and (d)(3) are adequately addressed.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution – Development Plan Approval
2.Project Plans
3.ARC Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 5-18-20 and 7-6-20 (Draft)
Item 2
Packet Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 4-STORY, 200-ROOM DUAL
BRAND HOTEL WITHIN THE NC ZONED PORTION OF THE SAN LUIS
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFIED FINAL EIR FOR
SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JULY 22, 2020 (1035
MADONNA ROAD, ARCH-0796-2019)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted public hearings on May 18, 2020, and July 6, 2020, and recommended the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP), pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0796-2019, SLO
HHG SCM Hotel Development, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on July 22, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0459-2019, SLO HHG
SCM Hotel Development, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final development plan
approval to the project (ARCH-0796-2019), based on the following findings:
1.As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and
will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2.The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to tourist
commercial uses (LUE 3.6), and hotel development within the San Luis Ranch Special Focus
Area (LUE 8.1.4).
3.The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 5.5.7 because
the project promotes energy efficiency in new development.
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 15
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 2
4. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the SLRSP, especially as they relate
to allowed land uses within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, the density of
development within that area, design considerations and urban form, parking requirements,
and public safety.
5. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the San Luis Ranch Design Guidelines
within the SLRSP, and consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for commercial
and hotel development because the architectural styles are complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood including site design, roofing style, siding materials, finish, landscaping, and
scale. The project design incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish
materials that are compatible with existing and planned development within the immediate
vicinity.
6. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the overall
character of the neighborhood or the street’s appearance because the development is designed
in a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar access to adjacent properties, and that
incorporates vertical and horizontal wall plan offsets providing a high-quality and
aesthetically pleasing architectural design.
7. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project is necessary to provide the 200 hotel rooms
and other related amenities that are included in the project, and anticipated by the San Luis
Ranch Specific Plan.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is consistent with the certified Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for SLRSP and exempt from further review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In -
Fill Development Projects). The project is also exempt pursuant to Section 15182(b) as a project
that meets the following criteria: 1) is in a commercially-zoned area with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of at least 0.75 (project FAR is 0.89); 2) is consistent with a Specific Plan and accompanying
certified Final EIR; and 3) is in a “transit priority area” pursuant to PRC Section 21099(a)(7) (i.e.,
within 0.5 miles of a planned major transit stop). Such a transit stop is planned within the SLRSP
is close proximity to the project along Froom Ranch Way, but outside the project area. On July
18, 2017, the City Council certified the FEIR for the SLRSP and approved the SLRSP through
Council Resolution 10822 (2017 Series). A Final Supplemental EIR to address modifications to
the phasing plan within the SLRSP was certified by the City Council on July 17, 2018, through
Council Resolution 10927 (2018 Series). All mitigation measures adopted as part of the SLRSP
FEIR and FSEIR that are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the
proposed project to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified. No
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required pursuant to Public Resources Code §21166
and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 because: 1) the project does not include or require any
revisions to the certified SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR; 2) no substantial changes would occur with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, and no revisions to the
SLRSP FEIR or FSEIR are required; and 3) no new information of sub stantial importance is
available that was not already known at the time the SLRSP FEIR and FSEIR were certified.
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 16
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 3
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include all mandatory
code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may
include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission hereby grants
final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission (ARCH-
0796-2018). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a
building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as
sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping,
or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review
Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures and conditions applicable to the project
site, as established under City Council Resolutions No. 10822 (2017 Series) and No. 10927
(2018 Series).
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with the Architectural Review application, and approved
by the ARC. As recommended by the ARC, the project shall use a commercial-grade lap
siding product to ensure durability.
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and
long-term bicycle parking on the site. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement
and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering
Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and
Community Development Directors.
5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required Electric
Vehicle (EV) parking spaces, as well as those that are EV-ready, and could be converted into
EV spaces in the future, pursuant to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.72.040
(10% EV ready spaces, plus 25% EV capable).
6. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating
compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained value of 10
foot-candles. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting,
shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures
shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All
wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the
building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 17
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 4
on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light
is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation
standards contained in Chapter §17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations.
7. Mechanical and electrical equipment should be located internally to the buildings. With
submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the buildings,
which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If
any condensers, transformers, or other mechanical equipment are to be gr ound mounted or
placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that these features will
be adequately screened. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed
screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later
improvements.
8. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right -of-way
consistent with §17.70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject property shall be
maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of excessive leaves, branches, and
other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean-up of any landscape
material in the public right-of-way.
9. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
Landscaping plans shall include the following information, at a minimum:
a. The species, diameter at breast height, location, and condition of all existing trees;
b. Identification of trees that will be retained, removed, or relocated;
c. Location and size of plant and tree species proposed to be planted;
d. The location of proposed utilities, driveways, street tree locations, and the size and
species of proposed street trees; and
e. A reclaimed water irrigation plan.
10. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings of all
walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards
described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.70.070 –Fences, Walls, and Hedges).
11. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown
on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction
plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as
determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20
feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities
Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street
yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate
by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such
equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community
Development Directors.
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 18
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 5
12. The design of proposed structures will incorporate noise attenuating construction techniques
that reduces noise exposure to acceptable levels. Exposure in outdoor activity areas must not
exceed 60 dB and indoor exposure must not exceed 45 dB consistent with the City’s Noise
Ordinance. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly indicate and describe noise
attenuation measures, techniques, and materials, and demonstrates their compliance with
noise levels limits.
13. Prior to occupancy, an overflight notification shall be recorded and appear with the property
deed. The applicant shall also record a covenant with the City to ensure that disclosure is
provided to all buyers and lessees at the subject property. Notice form and content shall be to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and include the following language:
NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of
an airport, within what is known as the airport influence area. For that reason, the property
may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to
airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those
annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport
annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and
determine whether they are acceptable to you.
14. The project will comply with any direction provided by the Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) in its meeting of July 15, 2020, with regard to possible onsite landscaping height
restrictions.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
15. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the project master drainage
report, City Drainage Design Manual, Floodplain Management Regulations, and Post
Construction Stormwater Regulations.
16. The building plan submittal shall include the latest information regarding the floodplain as
adjusted through the phased Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) or as defined by the
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and any accepted depths of flooding from the
respective reports for both the Cerro San Luis Channel and Prefumo Creek. If any structure
is located within an existing mapped zone, the structure(s) shall be shown to comply with the
Floodplain Management Regulations or the final LOMR shall be completed show that the
buildings have been removed prior to building permit issuance. The plans and reports shall
show that the new building pads are at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation for any
areas of known flooding that are outside the FEMA studied Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) or X shaded (XB) floodzones.
17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and erosion control
plan. The grading plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15’ of the
property lines and/or building pad in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 6
include all existing and proposed grades, finish floor elevations, and spot elevations to depict
the site drainage. The plan shall include all existing and proposed drainage devices and
systems. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may
need to be conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage.
18. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water
discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations
result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre,
but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also requires a permit.
Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a Genera l
Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the S tate Board under
their Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). Waste
Discharge Identification Number (WDID) shall be include on the building plan submittal.
The project may be developed under the master application and WDID number or could stand
alone.
19. Provide a Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement
(Operations and Maintenance Agreement) on a form provided by the city. The agreement
shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the
approved building plans.
20. The building permit plan submittal shall include all required parking lot improvements,
dimensions, space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage,
pavement marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway
Standards and disabled access requirements of the CBC.
21. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway
Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving
materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area
of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the
dripline of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Planning Division.
22. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground
and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades.
23. The building plan submittal shall show the location of the fire service lateral, double-check
assembly, and fire department connection (FDC) on the site utility plan. Show the location
of the fire riser room and interior fire riser in accordance with the ARC approvals and/or the
Planning Divisions architectural guidelines. Provide access to the fire riser and appurtenances
in accordance with the UFC and as approved by the Fire Marshal. Clarify to the satisfaction
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 7
of the Fire Marshal whether an FDC should be provided at the double-check assembly,
remoted FDC, or on each respective building.
24. The building plan submittal shall show and label all proposed street trees per City Engineering
Standards, subject to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Public Works Director,
consistent with the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan.
Building Division – Community Development
25. Construction plans submitted for Building permits shall be designed in accordance with the
applicable codes in effect at time of submittal. Review of the general information provided
for entitlement is cursory and does not guarantee code compliance for a future construction
submittal.
26. When providing Electric Vehicle charging stations include Accessible stations in accordance
with California Building Code 11B-208.
Utilities Department
27. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments
needed for maintenance of public infrastructure along public roads.
28. The proposed project is within an area subject to shallow groundwater, therefore heat -fused
HDPE pipe shall be used for the proposed private and public sewer collection system to
prevent groundwater infiltration.
29. The proposed pool shall drain to the sanitary sewer. Drains located on the pool deck shall
drain to the storm drain system.
30. If commercial uses in the project include food preparation, provisions for grease interceptors
and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with
the design. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats,
equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer.
31. The proposed private fire protection system shall be separate from the private domestic water
distribution system. The fire service shall connect to the water main within the public right of
way, and shall install a RPDA backflow preventor system. If private hydrants are proposed,
the RPDA shall be equipped with a detector assembly to track water used by the hydrants.
32. The domestic water service shall have a separate water system with a master meter that
includes a RP-backflow preventor per Engineering Standards for sites utilizing recycled
water.
33. The site is within the City’s Water Reuse Master Plan area and landscape irrigation for the
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 8
project shall utilize recycled water.
34. Irrigation systems using recycled water shall be designed and operated as described consistent
with the City’s Procedures for Recycled Water Use, including the requirement that sites
utilizing recycled water require backflow protection on all potable service connections.
35. The project’s Landscape Plan shall provide total estimated total water use (ETWU), and
maximum applied water allowance (MAWA).
36. Recycled water, San Luis Ranch onsite wells, or another non-potable water source, shall be
used for construction water (dust control, soil compaction, etc.). An annual Construction
Water Permit is available from the City’s Utilities Department.
37. The final location, configuration, and sizing of on-site service laterals and meters shall be
approved by the Utilities Director in conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire
sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans.
38. Management of refuse generations for waste, recyclables, and organics shall comply with
state law per AB 1826 and the local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
39. Driveways and access routes to all refuse receptacles shall be designed to accommodate the
size and weight of the garbage trucks; a written confirmation from the San Luis Garbage
Company shall be included in the building permit plans for the proposed project.
40. Trash enclosure(s) shall conform the access requirements by the San Luis Garbage Company
and refuse bins shall be sized to provide a reasonable level of service.
41. Trash enclosures shall be sized appropriately such that bins within the enclosure shall not be
stacked in front of other bins. The building permit submittal shall submit trash enclosure
details that are consistent with the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste.
42. Per the General Requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste, bin
enclosure walls shall be at least 6’ or the height of the bin enclosure door, whichever is greater.
Transportation Division – Public Works
43. All required Transportation Impact Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
44. Developer shall provide submittal of bicycle racks, to conform to City Standard Plan 7930.
45. Fire Department
46. Provide both public and on-site fire hydrants to provide a Needed Fire Flow of at least 3125
GPM at 20 psi residual. No exterior wall shall be more than 300 feet from a fire hydrant.
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 22
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1035 Madonna Road, ARCH-0796-2019
Page 9
47. All on site curbed area shall be posted “No Parking – Fire Lane”
48. Fire sprinkler Floor control valves shall be co-located in the riser room.
Indemnification
49. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers
or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and
all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified
Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being
presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against
an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of July, 2020.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Attachment 1Item 2
Packet Page 23
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA1.0MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$COVER SHEET5(6,'(1&(,11635,1*+,//68,7(66$1/8,62%,632&$Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 24
PROJECT SITE/$*81$/$.(+,*+:$</2 62 62 69 $//(<52 $'0$'211$5'35$'25''DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA1.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PROJECT DATAPROJECT DESCRIPTIONSHEET INDEXPROJECT DATAPROJECT DIRECTORYVICINITY MAP&,9,/& (;,67,1*6,7(&21',7,216& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1* '5$,1$*(3/$1& 35(/,0,1$5<87,/,7<3/$1& 35(/,0,1$5<67250:$7(5&21752/3/$15& 5()(5(1&(21/<'$/,',2 )52205281'$%287(/(&75,&$/6/ (/(&75,&$/6,7(3/$16/ 6,7(3+2720(75,&3/$16/ '$7$6+((7/$1'6&$3(/ &21&(378$//$1'6&$3(3/$1/ :(/2:25.6+((7 /$1'6&$3('(6,*1127(6$5&+,7(&785$/$ &29(56+((7$ 352-(&7'$7$$ '(6,*1&216,67(1&<0$75,;$ '(6,*1&216,67(1&<0$75,;$ *$5%$*(&203$1</(77(5$ (;,67,1*6,7(3/$1$ &21&(378$/6,7(3/$1$ 3(563(&7,9(6$ 3(563(&7,9(6$ 3(563(&7,9(6$ 3(563(&7,9(6$ 3(563(&7,9(6$ ),567)/2253/$1$ 6(&21')/2253/$1$ 7+,5')/2253/$1$ )2857+)/2253/$1$ 522)3/$1$ %8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$ %8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$ %8,/',1*(/(9$7,216$ %8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7(6(&7,21$ 6,7('(7$,/6$ 6,*1$*(352*5$0$ 6,*1$*(352*5$0$ &2/256 0$7(5,$/6$ &2/256 0$7(5,$/6$ &2/256 0$7(5,$/6ADDRESS:6(&251(52))52205$1&+:$< '$/,',2'5,9(APN:TRACT: /27SITE AREA:6) $&5(6 ZONING:1& 1(,*+%25+22'&200(5&,$/ 6$1/8,65$1&+63(&,),&3/$1 EXISTING USE:9$&$17PROPOSED USE:+27(/:685)$&(3$5.,1*
GROSS FLOOR AREA:+27(/ 6)HOTEL AREAS:),567)/225 6)6(&21')/225 6)7+,5')/225 6))2857+)/225 6)727$/$5($ 6)NUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS:635,1*+,//68,7(6.,1* 52206 635,1*+,//68,7(6'28%/(48((1 52206 5(6,'(1&(,11678',2 52206 5(6,'(1&(,11%('5220 52206 BB727$/ 52206
FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.):$//2:(' 0$;,080352326(' 6)6) LOT COVERAGE:$//2:(' 0$;,080352326(' 6)6) LANDSCAPE AREA:5(48,5(' 0,1,080352326(' 6)6) TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:7<3(9$SPRINKLERS:<(6 1)3$ OCCUPANCIES:$% 5BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED:)((7BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED:)((7NUMBER OF STORIES ALLOWED:6725,(6NUMBER OF STORIES PROPOSED:6725,(6PROJECT APPLICANT6/2++*6&0+27(/'(9(/230(17/3'(&.(5&285768,7(,59,1*7;$771 (':$5'<83+21( (0$,/ (':$5'<#++*'$//$6&20ARCHITECT$55,6678',2$5&+,7(&76$5&+(5675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$ $771 7+20-(663+21( (0$,/ 7-(66#$55,6678',2&20CIVIL ENGINEER5,&.(1*,1((5,1*&203$1<0$56+675((768,7($771 .(//<'586(3+21( (0$,/ .'586(#5,&.(1*,1((5,1*&20LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT-,0%8552:6/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&785($771 -,0%8552:63+21( (0$,/ -,0#-%/$6/2&20SURVEYOR&$1121&2536287+:22''5,9(6$1/8,62%,632&$ 3+21( 7+,6352-(&7&216,6762)$1(:6725<'8$/%5$1'+27(/$63$572)7+(6$1/8,65$1&+'(9(/230(1721(6,'(2)7+(+27(/:,//%(%5$1'('635,1*+,//68,7(6$1'7+(27+(5+$/):,//%(%5$1'('5(6,'(1&(,117+(*5281')/2252)7+(+27(/:,//&216,672)$/2%%<',1,1*/,9,1*5220$5($),71(66*8(6752206/$81'5<$1'+27(/%$&.2)+286(7+(352-(&7,6'(6,*1('72&203/<:,7+7+(&$/,)251,$*5((1%8,/',1*&2'($1':,//,1&25325$7(6(9(5$/*5((1%8,/',1*0($685(67+(6(0($685(6,1&/8'(/2:)/2:3/80%,1*),;785(6/('/,*+7),;785(6$03/(,168/$7,21(1(5*<()),&,(17:,1'2:6$1''22563529,6,21)25)8785(62/$53$1(/6$1''528*+772/(5$17/$1'6&$3,1*7+(+27(/,65(48(67,1*$9$5,$1&(727+(0$;,0806,*1$*(+(,*+76,*1$*(,6%(,1*352326('$%29(7+()7 $%29($'-$&(17*5$'( +(,*+7/,0,77+,6352-(&7:,//3529,'($1,1/,(8)(()2581,762),1&/86,21$5<+286,1*3(57+('(9(/230(17$*5((0(17RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILL SUITES6$1/8,62%,632&$/,)251,$PARKING SPACES REQUIRED:63$&(6 63$&(3(55220
PARKING SPACES PROPOSED: 63$&(6
ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED:63$&(6 9$1 67$1'$5'$&&(66,%/( ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED:63$&(6 9$1 67$1'$5'$&&(66,%/( ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGING STATIONS:63$&(6 9$1 67$1'$5'$&&(66,%/( CLEAN AIR VEHICLES REQUIRED:63$&(6 &$ CLEAN AIR VEHICLES PROVIDED:63$&(6 &$ FUTURE EV CHARGING STATIONS:63$&(6 (9& FUTURE EV CHARGING STATIONS:63$&(6 (9& MOTORCYCLE PARKING REQUIRED: 63$&(6 3(53$5.,1*63$&(6 MOTORCYCLE PARKING PROPOSED: 63$&(6BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED:63$&(6 3(5*8(6752206 BICYCLE PARKING PROPOSED:63$&(6 6+2577(50/21*7(50
*PER SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-6 HOTEL IS AN ALLOWED BY RIGHT USE**PER SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 2-1 HOTEL ALLOWS A 200 ROOM HOTEL***PER SPECIFIC PLAN TABLE 3-7 PARKING IS REQUIRED AT 1 SPACE/GUESTROOM PLUS 1 SPACE PER MANAGER'S QUARTERS (NO MANAGER'S QUARTERS PROVIDED)****PER 2019 ZONING REGULATIONS 17.72.050.C.3.b PARKING REDUCTIONS -ONE PARKING SPACE REDUCED FOR EACH FIVE BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF REQUIRED PARKING.Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 25
$29(5$//'(6,*12%-(&7,9(6)25&200(5&,$/352-(&763.1 COMMERCIAL PROJECT DESIGN GUIDELINES&216,'(56$1/8,62%,632
660$//72:16&$/($ $ 7+(86(2)0$7(5,$/&+$1*(672&5($7(60$//(50$66,1*$1'$:1,1*6$77+(*5281')/22572&5($7(+80$16&$/(COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINEDESCRIPTIONREFERENCE SHEET / DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANCE$92,'%2;<6758&785(6:,7+/$5*()/$7:$//3/$1(6%<$57,&8/$7,1*%8,/',1*)2506 (/(9$7,216$ $ 0$7(5,$/&+$1*(6$1'3/$1(%5($.6%27++25,=217$/$1'9(57,&$/:,7+$9$5,$7,21,1522)/,1(72%5($.'2:17+((/(9$7,21,17260$//(50$66,1*3(56(59(7+('(6,*1,17(*5,7<2)$5&+,7(&785$//<25+,6725,&$//<6,*1,),&$176758&785(6$1'1(,*+%25+22'6$'-$&(17726,7($ $ 7+(86(2)(/(0(176)5207+(6$1/8,65$1&+63(&,),&3/$1,17+((/(9$7,216$ 3('(675,$1&211(&7,21%(7:((1352-(&76,7($1'$'-$&(17+,6725,&%8,/',1*63529,'(/$1'6&$3,1*$6$352-(&7$0(1,7<$1'72+(/36&5((13$5.,1*(48,30(17$1'6725$*($5($6/ / 75((/$<287$1'/$1'6&$3(723529,'(6+$'(,17+(&2857<$5'$5($$1'3$5.,1*/27$1'$9,68$/%8))(52)7+(3$5.,1*/27$/21*%27+)52205$1&+:$<$1''$/,',2'53529,'(/2*,&$/ 6$)($&&(66727+(6,7($1''(6,*13$5.,1*$1',17(51$/&,5&8/$7,21$5($672$92,'$:.:$5'25&5$03('7851,1*029(0(176216,7($&&(66'5,9(:$<66+28/'%(/2&$7('$:$<)520675((7,17(56(&7,216720,1,0,=(&21)/,&76:,7+7851,1*029(0(176)52075$)),&21$'-$&(17675((76$ 7+(6,7((175<:$6/2&$7('$:$<)5207+(5281'$%287$1'+$/):$<'2:17+()52205$1&+:$<)5217$*(7+((175</2&$7,213529,'(6&/($59,6,%,/,7<2)7+(+27(/(175$1&($1'/2$',1*'5232))$5($7+(5(,6$/62$)/8,'&,5&8/$7,21$5281'7+(6,7(:,7+12'($'(1'$5($6&216,'(57+(1((')256,*16$1'7+(,5$335235,$7(6&$/($1'/2&$7,216($5/<,17+('(6,*1352&(66$ $ %8,/',1*6,*1$*(6+2:1,17+((/(9$7,21)256&$/(21%27+635,1*+,//68,7(6 5(6,'(1&(,116,'($/21*:,7+6,*1$*(217+((175<$:1,1*$ 02180(176,*1/2&$7('$76,7((175<)259,6,%,/,7<$1':$<),1',1*/2&$7(287'225(48,30(1775$6+5(&(37$&/(66725$*($1'/2$',1*$5($6,17+(/($67&2163,&82863$572)7+(6,7($ 287'2250(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17,6/2&$7,21621$/2:522),17+(&2857<$5'6212772%(6((1)5207+((;7(5,25(/(9$7,2167+(75$6+,6/2&$7('$/21*7+(5($52)7+(6,7($1'2872)9,(:)520)52205$1&+:$<7+(5($5(12'(6,*1$7('/2$',1*$5($6%876833/,(6:,//%('(/,9(5('$/21*7+(5($52)7+(6,7($1'2872)9,(:)5207+(+27(/(175<%*(1(5$/$5&+,7(&785$/'(6,*1*8,'(/,1(6$5&+,7(&785$/67</( 7+(*2$/,67235(6(59(7+(+,6725,&)/$9252)7+(&20081,7< 5()(57263(&,),&3/$1)25025(',5(&7,21 $ $ 7+(0$7(5,$/$1'&2/253$/(77($5(($57+&2/256$1'38//$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176)520$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(72&203/,0(177+($'-$&(17+,6725,&%8,/',1*61(,*+%25+22'&203$7,%,/,7<D$335235,$7('(6,*17+(0(E3523257,21$/%8,/',1*6&$/(F$335235,$7(6(7%$&.6 0$66G$335235,$7(&2/256 7(;785(6$1'0$7(5,$/6$ $ 7+(0$7(5,$/$1'&2/253$/(77($5(($57+&2/256$1'38//$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176)520$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(72&203/,0(177+($'-$&(17+,6725,&%8,/',1*67+(5($5(%27++25,=217$/$1'9(57,&$/0$66,1*75$16,7,216$1'$9$5,(7<2)7(;785(6$1'0$7(5,$/6'(6,*1&216,67(1&<$ $ 7+(0$7(5,$/$1'&2/253$/(77($5(($57+&2/256$1'38//$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176)520$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(%27+7+(635,1*+,//68,7(6$1'7+(5(6,'(1&(,11(/(9$7,21638//)5206,0,/$5&2/250$7(5,$/3$/(77(6$1'$33($5$621(&2+(6,9(%8,/',1*)250$1'0$66 $ $ 7+(%8,/',1*0$66,1*$1'3523257,2163529,'($6(16(2)+80$16&$/($1'7+(86(2)$9$5,(7<2)0$7(5,$/63/$1(%5($.65(&(66(':,1'2:6$:1,1*6$1'522)29(5+$1*6$57,&8/$7(7+((/(9$7,216522)/,1(6$$ $ 7+(86(2)%27+)/$7522):,7+3$5$3(76$1'6+('522):,7+287/22.(5'(7$,/69$5<7+(522)/,1((48,30(176&5((1,1*$ $ 7+(6(&7,2166+2:7+((48,30(17,66&5((1(')5209,(::,7+7+(9$5,286522)/,1(63$5$3(76$ $ 7+(3$5$3(7'(6,*1),1,6+(6($&+9(57,&$/0$66,1*$621(,17(*5$/%8,/',1*(/(0(17(175,(6$ $ 7+(+27(/(175<,6'(),1('%<$/$5*(&$123<$1'6,*1$*(72'5$:7+(*8(676727+(/2%%<(175$1&( $'',7,21672(;,67,1*6758&785(61$ 7+(5($5(12$'',7,21625(;,67,1*6758&785(6%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6$ $ 7+(0$7(5,$/6352326('$/,*1:,7+$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(:,7+7+(86(2)%2$5'$1'%$77(16,',1*/$36,',1*678&&2$1'$&&(177,/(725(6(0%/(&257(10(7$/:,1'2:61$ 7+(5($5(12(;,67,1*:,1'2:6$//352326(':,1'2:6+$9(9,6,21*/$66$1'$5(86('723529,'(/,*+7$1'$,5,1727+(%8,/',1*&2/256$ $ 7+(%8,/',1*&2/256$5(($57+721(6$1'$'+(5(72$02'(51$*5$5,$1$67+(7,&&2/25&+$1*(62&&85$70$66,1*75$16,7,216$1'0$7(5,$/&+$1*(66,*16$ $ %8,/',1*6,*1$*(6+2:1,17+((/(9$7,21)256&$/(21%27+635,1*+,//68,7(6 5(6,'(1&(,116,'($/21*:,7+6,*1$*(217+((175<$:1,1*&6,7(3/$11,1*&216,'(51(,*+%25,1*'(9(/230(17$ 7+(&2857<$5'$&&(66727+(+27(/:$6'(6,*1('217+(6287+:(676,'(2)7+(352-(&7)$&,1*7+($'-$&(173523(57<627+(0$66,1*,65('8&('$1'025(681/,*+75($&+(67+(1(,*+%25,1*'(9(/230(17$3('(675,$1&211(&7,21%(7:((17+(+27(/$1'1(,*+%25,1*6,7(,6352326('$1'7+(9,(:2),5,6++,//6,60$,17$,1(')5207+(1(,*+%25,1*'(9(/230(17%8,/',1* 3$5.,1*/2&$7,21$ 7+(%8,/',1*,63/$&('3$5$//(/727+(675((7$1'$6&/26($63266,%/(:,7+67,//0$,17$,1,1*),5($&&(66$5281'7+(3(5,0(7(52)7+(352-(&77+(6,7(+$6$)227:,'(12%8,/'($6(0(177+$7:$687,/,=(')257+(0$-25,7<2)3$5.,1*216,7($3('(675,$1&211(&7,21)5207+(352-(&7727+(1(,*+%25,1*'(9(/230(17,63529,'('72(1&285$*(&211(&7,9,7<%(7:((1$'-$&(176,7(67+(3$5.,1*216,7(:,//%(6&5((1(')5207+(675((7%</$1'6&$3($1'%(506$/21*7+(675((77+(86(2)(1+$1&('3$9,1*&211(&767+(3$5.,1*727+(%8,/',1*$1''(/,1($7(67+('(),1(67+(/2%%<(175$1&(/$1'6&$3,1*/ / /$1'6&$3(,686('726&5((13$5.,1*)5207+()52205$1&+:$<$1''$/,',2'5,9(7+(5(,6$9$5,(7<2)75((66+58%6$1'*5281'&29(56352326('72(1+$1&(7+(%8,/',1*$1'3529,'(9,68$/,17(5(677+528*+2877+(6,7(216,7(/,*+7,1*$ 6,7(/,*+7,1*$1'(;7(5,25%8,/',1*/,*+7),;785(6$5('(6,*1('72$'(48$7(/<,//80,1$7(7+(%8,/',1*3$5.,1*/27$1':$/.:$<6:+,/(35(6(59,1*7+(1,*+76.<6&5((1,1*$ $/$1'6&$3(%(50,6352326('$/21*%27+)52205$1&+:$<$1''$/,',2'5,9(726&5((17+(3$5.,1*/27)5207+(675((75()86(6725$*($1'(48,30(17$5($6$ 7+(6,7(75$16)250(5:,//%(6&5((1(')5209,(::,7+75((6$1'6+58%67+(75$6+(1&/2685($/21*7+(5($52)7+(6,7(:,//%(6&5((1(':,7+$678&&2:$//720$7&+7+(0$,1%8,/',1*$1'$:22'75(//,6720$7&+7+(:22'287/22.(56$/21*7+(522)/,1(6,7(3/$11,1*$1''(6,*13.7.2. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL DESIGN GUIDELINES$%8,/',1*66+28/'%(25,(17('72:$5'(;7(5,25$1',17(5,25675((76'(6,*16+28/',1&25325$7(3('(675,$1:$/.:$<6287'2256($7,1*$1'/$1'6&$3($5($6:+(5(3266,%/($ $ 7+(%8,/',1*,6$57,&8/$7('21$//6,'(6627+(5(,6125($5727+(%8,/',1*7+(5($5(3520,1(17&251(50$66,1*$1'$352-(&7('&$123<$77+((175$1&(72'5$:$77(17,21727+(/2%%<(175</$1'6&$3($1'6($7,1*$5($6$5('(6,*1('7+528*+2877+(+27(/&2857<$5'$1'$9$5,(7<2)/$1'6&$3($&&(1767+(%8,/',1*3(5,0(7(5SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN STANDARDSDESCRIPTION REFERENCE SHEET / DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANCE%287'22563$&(6723529,'(3/$=$63$&(6:,7+'(),1('('*(6%(1&+(6$1'/,*+7,1*7+$7(67$%/,6+$6(16(2)3/$&($ 7+(+27(/&2857<$5',6'(6,*1('723529,'($9$5,(7<2)6($7,1*$5($6$1'63$&(6'(),1('%(63(&,),&352*5$07+(5($5(/281*($5($6$),5(3,7$%%4$5($$),71(66&(17(5$1'322/'(&.$1'6($7,1*&3/$=$6&2857<$5'632&.(73$5.6$1'287'225&$)(66+28/'%('(6,*1(',1$1,19,7,1*0$11(57+$7(1&285$*(63('(675,$186(7+528*+7+(,1&25325$7,212)75(//,6(6)2817$,16$576($7,1*$1'6+$'(75((6$ 7+(+27(/&2857<$5',6'(6,*1('72'5$:7+(*8(67,1:,7+7+(86(2)75(//,6(6/$1'6&$3,1*6($7,1*$1'$&7,9,7<7+(&2857<$5',6(1*$*,1*21$//6,'(6:,7+7+(+27(//2%%<$1'',1,1*$5($23(1,1*832172$/281*($1'),5(3,7$5($:+,/(7+(23326,7((1'2)7+(322/,6$&7,9$7('%<7+(),71(66&(17(5'38%/,&$576+28/'%(3529,'('$6$1216,7($0(1,7<)25$//352-(&76$ 7+(&/,(17:,//(,7+(53529,'(216,7(38%/,&$5725&2175,%87(72:$5'38%/,&$57,1$1(,*+%25,1*/2&$7,21%8,/',1*)250$'(*5(($5&+,7(&785($ $ 7+(%8,/',1*,6$57,&8/$7('21$//6,'(6627+(5(,6125($5727+(%8,/',1*7+(5($5(3520,1(17&251(50$66,1*$1'$352-(&7('&$123<$77+((175$1&(72'5$:$77(17,21727+(/2%%<(175<(9(17+28*+7+(+27(/+$67:2+27(/%5$1'67+((/(9$7,21$67+(7,&,6&2+(6,9($&5266$//6,'(6%522)6&29(5,1*7+((17,5(%8,/',1*68&+$6+,36$1'*$%/(6$5(35()(55(('29(50$16$5'522)6$$ $ 7+(86(2)%27+)/$7522):,7+3$5$3(76$1'6+('522):,7+287/22.(5'(7$,/69$5<7+(522)/,1(&7+($33($5$1&(2)6(9(5$/60$//(5%8,/',1*65$7+(57+$121/$5*(5%8,/',1*$ $ 7+(9$5,(7<2)0$66,1*&5($7(67+($33($5$1&(2)6(9(5$/%8,/',1*6,167($'2)21(0212/,7+,&%8,/',1*7+(&2/25$1'0$7(5,$/9$5,$7,216$/62&5($7(9,68$/,17(5(67'9(57,&$/(/(0(17668&+$672:(566+28/'%(86('72$&&(17+25,=217$/0$66,1*$1'3529,'(9,68$/,17(5(67(63(&,$//<21&251(5%8,/',1*6$ $ 67$,572:(56(;7(1'$%29(7+(6855281',1*522)/,1($1'$&&(170$66,1*$77+(%8,/',1*&251(56&+$1*(726+('522)6)259,68$/,17(5(67%8,/',1*(/(0(176$1'$57,&8/$7,21$+80$16&$/(6+28/'%(&5($7('7+528*+$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(1767+(6((/(0(1766+28/'%(,17(*5$7(',1727+(%8,/',1*'(6,*1$ $ 7+(86(2)$:1,1*6$1'0$7(5,$/&+$1*(6217+(),567)/225$5(86('72&5($7(+80$16&$/(7+('(6,*1$/62+$63277('3/$176$1'%8,/',1*/,*+7,1*$/21*7+(),567)/225720$,17$,19,68$/,17(5(67$7675((7/(9(/%6725()5217:,1'2:6',63/$<&$6(6$1'27+(5(/(0(1767+$73529,'(9,68$/,17(5(6772)$&$'(66+28/'%(3529,'('$$ $ 6725()5217:,1'2:6/,1(7+(),567)/225/2%%<$1'',1,1*$5($)259,6,%,/,7<,1727+(+27(/&20021$5($67+(5($5($/626725()5217217+(&2857<$5'6,'(2)7+(/2%%<627+(5(,6',5(&7/,1(2)6,*+7727+($0(1,7<&2857<$5'&'(7$,/668&+$6:$//685)$&(6&216758&7(':,7+3$77(516&+$1*(6,10$7(5,$/6%8,/',1*3232876&2/8016$1'5(&(66('$5($66+28/'%(86('72&5($7(6+$'2:3$77(516$1''(37+217+(:$//685)$&(6$ $ $:1,1*65(&(66(':,1'2:6522)29(5+$1*6$1'0$7(5,$/668&+$6%2$5'$1'%$77(16,',1*&5($7(6+$'2:6$1''(37+727+(%8,/',1*(/(9$7,216'%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6$1'),1,6+(66+28/'%(758($87+(17,&727+(6758&785(
6$5&+,7(&785$/67</($ $ 7+(0$7(5,$/3$/(77(38//6)520$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(:,7+7+(86(2)%2$5'$1'%$77(16,',1*5867,&7,/(7+$75(6(0%/(6&257(10(7$/678&&2$1'/$36,',1*(%8,/',1*)$&$'(6)$&,1*3$6(266+28/'%($57,&8/$7(':,7+'(7$,/$1'',63/$<:,1'2:6$ $ 7+((/(9$7,216)$&,1*7+(675((76+$9($9$5,(7<2)&2/25$1'0$7(5,$/&+$1*(6$/21*:,7+$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176/,.($:1,1*6522)29(5+$1*6$1'&$123,(6)259,68$/,17(5(67)085$/675(//,6(6259,1(66+28/'%(3/$&('21/$5*((;3$16(62):$//6$77+(5($5256,'(62)%8,/',1*67262)7(17+($33($5$1&($1'&5($7(9,68$/,17(5(67$ $ $75(//,6$''66+$'($1'$6(16(2)6&$/(,17+(&2857<$5')256($7,1*:+,/(9,1(6$5(352326('$77+(/2%%<(175<$1'6287+(1'2)7+(%8,/',1*7262)7(1%8,/',1*0$66(6&200(5,&$/3/$=$6$287'22563$&(66+28/'+$9(&/($55(&2*1,=$%/(6+$3(67+$75()/(&7&$5()8/3/$11,1*$1'6+28/'127%($5(68/72)/()729(5$5($6%(7:((16758&785(6$ 7+(&2857<$5'+$6$9$5,(7<2)352*5$0)520/281*(6($7,1*$),5(3,7%%4$5($6322/'(&.$1'6($7,1*$1'$),71(66&(17(5%6,7($0(1,7,(6,1&/8',1*%(1&+(6'5,1.,1*)2817$,163529,6,216)25%,&<&/,676:$7(5)($785(6$1'38%/,&$576+28/'%(87,/,=('$1'6+28/'&203/(0(177+(352-(&7
6$5&+,7(&785$/&+$5$&7(5$ 7+(&2857<$5'3529,'(6$9$5,(7<2)6($7,1*237,216%,.(5$&.6),5(3,76$1''(&25$7,9(+$5'6&$3($1'/$1'6&$3()259,68$/,17(5(677+(),71(66&(17(5)$&(67+(322/$5($:,7+/$5*(6725()5217:,1'2:6)259,6,%,/,7<$1'72$&7,9$7(7+(&2857<$5'21%27+(1'6&3('(675,$1/,1.66+28/'%(3529,'('%(7:((1%8,/',1*6217+(6$0(6,7($1'&216,67(17:,7+7,7/($1'$&&(66,%,/,7<5(48,5(0(176$ 7+(5(,6$67521*&211(&7,21%(7:((17+(+27(//2%%<&20021$5($$1'7+(&2857<$5'7+(5($5(&/($53('(675,$13$7+:$<6:,7+'(&25$7,9(3$9,1*$1'/$1'6&$3,1*:+,&+/($'3$677+(322/$5($$1'727+(),71(66&(17(57+(&2857<$5',6$&&(66,%/($1''(6,*1('72%(:(///,7)253('(675,$1$&&(666,'(:$/.&$)(61$ 7+(5($5(126,'(:$/.&$)(6352326(''DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA1.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$DESIGN CONSISTENCYMATRIXDESIGN CONSISTENCY MATRIX -1Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 26
3.7.2. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL DESIGN GUIDELINESSAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGN STANDARDSDESCRIPTION REFERENCE SHEET / DESCRIPTION OF COMPLIANCE/,*+7,1*$3529,'($0%,$1&(6$)(7<$1'6(&85,7<:,7+28763,//29(525*/$5(%$335235,$7(/,*+7,1*/(9(/6$1'86(2)(1(5*<()),&,(17),;785(6&$5&+,7(&785$//<&203$7,%/(:,7+%8,/',1*67</('$&&(17/,*+7,1*21.(<$5&+,7(&785$/(/(0(176:,7+6&5((1('/,*+76285&(6(3('(675,$1$5($63$6(266,'(:$/.6$1'%8,/',1*(175$1&(66+28/'%($'(48$7(/</,7723529,'(6$)(7<$1'6(&85,7<(7+(%8,/',1*/,*+7,1*,6&203$7,%/(:,7+7+(%8,/',1*67</($1'7+(6,7($1'3$5.,1*/27/,*+7,1*,6&203$7,%/(:,7+7+(29(5$//'(9(/230(177+(),;785(6$5(1,*+76.<&203/,$176,*16$6,*166+28/'%(726&$/($1',13523257,21:,7+35,0$5<%8,/',1*)$&$'(6%6+28/'5()/(&77+(7<3(2)%86,1(667+528*+'(6,*16+$3(25*5$3+,&)250&7+(0(7+2'2)$77$&+0(176+28/'%(,17(*5$7(',17229(5$//6,*1'(6,*1'6,*166+28/'127&29(583:,1'2:625,03257$17$5&+,7(&785$/)($785(6(:+(5(6(9(5$/7(1$1762&&83<7+(6$0(6,7(,1',9,'8$/:$//02817('6,*166+28/'%(86(',1&20%,1$7,21:,7+$02180(176,*1,'(17,)<,1*7+('(9(/230(17$1'$''5(66))/86+02817('6,*166+28/'%(326,7,21(':,7+,1$5&+,7(&785$/)($785(668&+$67+(:,1'2:3$1(/$%29(7+(6725()52172))/$1.,1*7+('225:$<*352-(&7$5&+,7(&76+28/'%(&2168/7(':+(135(3$5,,1*$6,*1$*(352*5$072(1685(&216,67(1&<:,7+7+(352-(&7$5&+,7(&785($1'&+$5$&7(5+6,*1&216758&7,216+28/'5()/(&7$+,*+/(9(/2)&5$)760$16+,3$7+(6,*1$*(217+(%8,/',1*)$&$'($1'7+(02180(176,*1$*(,63523257,21$7(727+(%8,/',1*$1'5()/(&767+(%5$1'67$1'$5'6)257+(+27(/7+(6,*1$*(,67+28*+7)8//<3/$&('72%(&(17(5('217+($5&+,7(&785$/0$66,1*$1',6,17(*5$7(',1727+(+27(/'(6,*17+(6,*1$*(,6'(6,*1('$6,1',9,'8$//(77(5,1*)25$&/($1$67+(7,&%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6$%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/66+28/'&216,672)$87+(17,&0$7(5,$/6&20021/<$662&,$7(':,7+7+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(%8,/',1*%60227+3/$67(5),1,6+(6$5(35()(55('29(5528*+7(;785('678&&2678&&20$<%(86(',1&20%,1$7,21:,7+27+(50$7(5,$/668&+$66,',1*$1'%5,&.$ $$9$5,(7<2)0$7(5,$/6$5(352326('217+((/(9$7,216:+,&+,1&/8'(60227+678&&2%2$5' %$77(16,',1*/$36,',1*$1'7,/((;7(5,25&2/256$(;7(5,25&2/2566+28/'%(&216,67(17:,7+7+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(%8,/',1*&2/256&+(0(67+$7,192/9($0,1,0802)7+5(( &2/2566+28/'%(87,/,=('%',))(5(17&2/256$&&(178$7,1*',))(5(17$63(&76$1''(7$,/62)7+(%8,/',1*$5&+,7(&785(6+28/'%(87,/,=('(;&(37)25$&&(17,1*',))(5(17$63(&76$1''(7$,/62)$%8,/',1*%5,*+7&2/2566+28/'%($92,'('&&(57$,10$7(5,$/668&+$66721($1'%5,&.+$9(',67,1&7&2/25,1*,17+(,51$785$/67$7($1'6+28/'%(7+28*+72)$6$1(/(0(172)7+(&2/253$/$77(86('$ $7+(&2/2562)7+(%8,/',1*$5(($57+721(6$1')2//2:$02'(51$*5$5,$167</(3(57+(6$1/8,65$1&+63(&,),&3/$1'(6,*167$1'$5'67+(0$66,1*,6+,*+/,*+7('7+528*+7+(86(2)',))(5(17&2/256$1'0$7(5,$/6:+,&+$&&(178$7(67+($5&+,7(&785(87,/,7$5,$1$63(&762)%8,/',1*6$287'2256725$*($5($6,1&/8',1*75$6+$1'5(&<&/,1*6+28/'%(/2&$7('727+(5($5256,'(62)$%8,/',1*$1'6+28/'%(6&5((1(')52038%/,&9,(::,7+:$//6%(50625/$1'6&$3,1*%0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17217+(522)25*5281',1&/8',1*$,5&21',7,21(56$1'+($7(566+28/'%(6&5((1(')52038%/,&9,(:6&5((1,1*(/(0(1766+28/'%($5&+,7(&785$//<&203$7,%/(,1&2/256+$3(6,=($1'0$7(5,$/:,7+7+(35,0$5<%8,/',1*$1'6+28/'%(&$5()8//<,17(*5$7(',1727+(29(5$//%8,/',1*'(6,*1&87,/,7<6(59,&($5($668&+$6(/(&75,&$/3$1(/66+28/'%(3/$&(':,7+,1(1&/2685(67+$7$5($5&+,7(&785$//<,17(*5$7(',1727+(%8,/',1*'(6,*1'75$6+(1&/2685(6$1'/2$',1*$5($66+28/'%('(6,*1('72%(&203$7,%/(:,7+35,0$5<%8,/',1*(75$6+(1&/2685(66+28/'%(&20%,1(':,7+27+(5%8,/',1*6:+(5(3266,%/()$3('(675,$1(175$1&(727+(75$6+(1&/2685(6+28/'%(3529,'('627+(/$5*($&&(66*$7(6'2127+$9(72%(23(1('$62)7(1*6+((70(7$/9(1763,3(67$&.6$1')/$6+,1*6+28/'%(3$,17('720$7&+7+($'-$&(17522)25:$//0$7(5,$/+*877(56$1''2:1632876217+((;7(5,252)7+(%8,/',1*6+28/'%('(&25$7,9(25'(6,*1('72,17(*5$7(:,7+7+(%8,/',1*)$&$'(,522)$&&(666+28/'%(3529,'(')5207+(,17(5,252)7+(%8,/',1*$7+(75$6+(1&/2685(,66&5((1(')52038%/,&9,(:%</$1'6&$3($1'7+(0(&+$1,&$/(48,30(17,6/2&$7('217+(522)$1'6&5((1(')5209,(:7+(6&5((16:,//0$7&+7+(35,0$5<%8,/',1*)$&$'($7+(87,/,7<6(59,&($5($6$5(3/$&(',17+(0$,1(/(&75,&$/5220:+,&+,6:,7+,17+(0$,1%8,/',1*$1'3$572)7+(29(5$//(/(9$7,216$7+(75$6+(1&/2685($5('(6,*1('72%(&203$7,%/(:,7+7+(0$,1%8,/',1*7+(5(,6$3('(675,$1(175$1&(727+(75$6+(1&/2685(627+(/$5*($&&(66*$7(6$5(21/<23(1('2175$6+3,&.83'$<$//9(1763,3(67$&.6$1')/$6+,1*:,//%(3$,17('720$7&+7+($'-$&(17&2/25250$7(5,$/*877(56$1''2:1632876:,//%('(&25$7,9(,11$785($7+(522)$&&(6667$,5,66+2:1217+(522)3/$13$5.,1*/27'(6,*1$1'6&5((1,1*$3$5.,1*6+28/'%(/2&$7('$77+(5($52)%8,/',1*6%/$5*($5($62)3$5.,1*6+28/'%($92,'(',7,635()(5$%/(72&5($7(60$//&211(&7('3$5.,1*/27687,/,=,1*6+$5(''5,9(:$<63('(675,$1&211(&7,216$1'/$1'6&$3(%8))(56&3$5.,1*/2766+28/'3529,'($5($6)25%,&<&/($1'02725&</(3$5.,1*$1'$5((1&285$*('72,1&25325$7((/(&75,&$/9(+,&/(&+$5*,1*67$7,216''(&25$7,9(/$1'6&$3,1*$1'/,*+7,1*:,//(1+$1&(3$5.,1*$5($6$1'5('8&(7+(9,68$/,03$&7(3$5.,1*$5($6$%877,1*$38%/,&6,'(:$/.25675((76+28/'3529,'($/$1'6&$3(6723253/$17(57+$7,1&/8'(6$&20%,1$7,212)75((6$1'6+58%6)3$77(516$1'&2/2566+28/'%(,167$//(',13$9,1*75($70(17686,1*7,/(%5,&.257(;785('&21&5(7(,125'(5723529,'(&/($5,'(17,),&$7,212)3('(675,$1$&&(6632,176,172%8,/',1*6$1'72+,*+/,*+73$5.,1*)($785(6$7+(3$5.,1*/27,6/2&$7('727+(6,'(2)7+(%8,/',1*:+(1(17(5,1*7+(6,7('8(72$)22712%8,/'($6(0(177+,6($6(0(17'529(7+(3/$&(0(172)7+(%8,/',1*:,7+),5($&&(66$5281'7+(%8,/',1*$1'7+(/2&$7,212)7+(352326('3$5.,1*/27/7+(/$1'6&$3(3/$16+2:6$9$5,$7<2)75((6$1'6+58%6$/21*7+()5217$*(2)%27+)52205$1&+:$<$1''$/,',2'5,9(723529,'($%8))(5%(7:((17+(38%/,&:$<$1'7+(352326('3$5.,1*/27/$1'&$3,1*,6$/623529,'('$/21*$3('(675,$1&211(&7,21)5207+(%8,/',1*7+528*+7+(3$5.,1*/27$1'$77+(3('(675,$1&211(&7,21727+($'-$&(17&200(5&,$/6,7(('(&25$7,9(6,7(/,*+7,1*,6352326('72(1+$1&(7+(%8,/',1*$5&+,7(&785$/$6:(//$67,(,1727+(29(5$//'(9(/230(17$(1+$1&('3$9,1*,6352326(')5207+(6,7((175<$/21*7+(0$,1(175$1&(727+(+27(/72&/($5/<,'(17,)<7+(3('(675,$1$&&(6632,176,1727+(%8,/',1*%,&<&/($1'3('(675,$1&,5&8/$7,21$'(9(/230(17:,7+,17+(&200(5&,$/$5($2)6$1/8,65$1&+6+28/'3529,'(%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3(57+(&,7<2)6$1/8,62%,632
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
/$1'6&$3(%8))(56+28/'%(3529,'('%(7:((15(6,'(17,$/$1'&200(5&,$/86(6/7+(352326('/$1'6&$3(3$/(77(,6%$6('217+(/,67,17$%/(2)7+(6$1/8,65$1&+63(&,),&3/$175(($1'6+58%6(/(&7,21$1'3/$&(0(17$5(3529,'(')250$785($1'/21*7(50*52:7+7+(5($5($9$5,(7<2)75((6$1'6+58%6352326('72$''&2/25$1'&2175$67727+(+27(/$1'6,7(9,1(6$1'3277('3/$176$5(352326('$5281'7+(+27(/(;7(5,25$6:(//$67+(&2857<$5',1&20%,1$7,21:,7+,1*5281'3/$17(567+(/$1'6&$3(,6'(6,*1('$/21*7+()5217$*(62))52205$1&+:$<$1''$/,',2'5,9(726&5((17+(3$5.,1*/27$1'38%/,&87,/,7,(6$6:(//$67+(75$6+(1&/2685(,17+(5($52)7+(6,7(/$1'6&$3(3/$1'(021675$7(6$//$5($672%(&29(5('$1',1&/8'(6$5($&$/&8/$7,21'(021675$7,1*7+$7/$1'6&$3((;&(('6 5()(572127(6+((7/$1':(/2&$/&8/$7,216+((7/675((7)5217$*(/$1'6&$3(6&5((1,1*,6352326('72%(*5281'&29(566+58%6$1'75((6 %(506$5(1271(('('72$&+,(9('(6,5('6&5((1,1*$1'9,6,%,/,7<3/$173$/(77(352326('75((6,=($1'&+$5$&7(5$1'27+(5/$1'6&$3(0$7(5,$/6$5('(021675$7('217+(/$1'6&$3(3/$16 5()(5726+((76/$1'/)25)(1&,1*5()(572$)25322/(1&/2685(6&5((1:$//6$1')(1&(6$:+(5(6(59,1*$6$9,68$/2512,6(%$55,(5)25(1&/2685(2)6725$*($5($623(1:25.$5($6255()86(&2//(&7,21$5($6:$//$1')(1&(+(,*+76$1'0$7(5,$/66+28/'%(68)),&,(1772(1685(7+$7$'-$&(173523(57,(6$1'38%/,&675((76$5(3527(&7(')5209,68$/2512,6(,03$&76%3$5.,1*$5($66+28/'%(6&5((1('$608&+$63266,%/()5202876,'(675((767+,6&$1%($&&203/,6+('7+528*+7+(86(2)/2::$//6+('*(6%(506$1'*5$'(&+$1*(67+,66&5((1,1*'2(61271(('722%685(6,*+7/,1(672&200(5&,$/6758&785(6&7+(/2&$7,21$1''(6,*12):$//6$1')(1&(66+28/'%(,1$&&25'$1&(:,7+7+(&,7<&2'($1'6+28/'%(,1&/8'(':,7+,17+(68%0,77$///$1'6&$3(,686('726&5((17+(3$5.,1*/276$/21*7+(7:2)5217$*(6$1'7+(75$6+(1&/2685(12,6($12,6(6+28/'%(0,1,0,=('$635$&7,&$/725('8&(,03$&7621$'-$&(1786(67+()2//2:,1*0,7,*$7,210($685(65(/$7(7212,6()257+(63(&,),&,('%8,/',1*7<3(6$'',7,21$/,1)250$7,21&$1%()281',1$33(1',;% 1 E 3$5.,1*/27/2$',1*'2&.25,(17$7,21$1'12,6(%$55,(5 1 D ,17(5,2512,6(5('8&7,21 1 E 5(6,'(17,$/287'225$&7,9,7<$5($12,6($77(18$7,21 1 G 86+,*+:$<12,6(%$55,(5$7+27(/5()(5727+($&2867,&$/5(3257)2512,6(,03$&76217+(6,7(7+(86(2)3(5,0(7(575((66&5((112,6()52086+,*+:$<$/21*7+(6287+($673523(57</,1(7+(/2$',1*$5($,6$/21*7+(6287+($676,'(2)7+(%8,/',1*$'-$&(17727+(75$6+(1&/2685($1'7+('(/,9(5<6&+('8/(,60,1,0$/'8(72127.,7&+(1$77+(+27(/5()(5727+($&2867,&$/5(3257)251250$/12,6(/(9(/6,17+(&2857<$5'6,1&(7+(%8,/',1*6&5((167+(&2857<$5')5207+(+,*+:$<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA1.3MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$DESIGN CONSISTENCYMATRIXDESIGN CONSISTENCY MATRIX -2Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 27
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA1.4MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$GARBAGE COMPANYLETTERAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 28
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA2.0MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL126&$/(6$1/8,62%,632&$EXISTING SITE PLANGENERAL NOTESEXISTING & DEMOLITION PLANFIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, CHAPTER 33. THIS CHAPTER PRESCRIBES MINIMUM SAFEGUARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION AND DEMOLITION OPERATIONS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE SAFETY TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE DURING SUCH OPERATIONS.-SEE SURVEY FOR MORE INFORMATION$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 29
PARKING 63$&(6POOL / LANDSCAPED COURTYARDTRASHFROOM RANCH WAYDALIDIO DRIVE12%8,/'($6(0(17
:,'(SPRINGHILL SUITESRESIDENCE INN3662571712523222125HOTEL DROP OFF/ PICK UPPROPERTY LINE15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTMONUMENTENTRY SIGNPEDESTRIAN PATHPEDESTRIAN CONNECTION/ENHANCED PAVINGSEE L2.0 FOR PERSPECTIVE AT PED CROSSING4M6M(10) LONG TERM BICYCLE LOCKERSSMOKING AREA
7<3
7<3
(9&$3$%/(7<3
10' STREET TREE EASEMENT
S29°08'14"W315.52'S48°31'05"E308.18'S43°28'47"W9.25'S88°28'47"W14.14'S43°28'47"W20.11'S55°08'09"W34.54'N16°44'15"W20.62'N56°54'33"E22.84'N35°20'07"E431.69'Δ=20.19L=95.50'R=271.00'Δ=21.99L=28.70'R=74.79'Δ =5 1 .7 8L=3 0 .7 3 'R =3 4 .0 0 'Δ=10.42L=122.35'R=672.58'Δ=6.06L=68.86'R=650.50'Δ=5.87L=78.83'R=770.00'LOADING
ENHANCED PAVINGNO PARKING -FIRE LANENO PARKING -FIRE LANENO PARKING -FIRE LANEFIRE SPRINKLER FLOOR CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE CO-LOCATED IN THE RISER ROOM.$($($.$($.$(4) SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKINGCABANASGENERATOR
OUTDOOR FITNESS(4) SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING
(12) SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING(9&$3$%/((9&$3$%/(
TRANSFORMER'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA2.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANPROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+-FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SEE CIVIL FOR MORE INFORMATIONAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 30
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA3.0MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PERSPECTIVESVIEW FROM NORTH (HOTEL ENTRY)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 31
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA3.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PERSPECTIVESVIEW FROM WEST (SPRINGHILL SUITES)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 32
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA3.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PERSPECTIVESVIEW FROM EAST (RESIDENCE INN)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 33
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA3.3MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PERSPECTIVESVIEW FROM SOUTH (RESIDENCE INN)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 34
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA3.4MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$PERSPECTIVESVIEW OF AMENITY COURTYARD AND POOLAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 35
$$$$$SS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KING SS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QQW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGSTAIR #1CORRIDOR #46)HOUSEKEEPING6)ENGINEER'SOFFICE6)M RESTROOM6)OFFICE6)F.F.6)MEETINGROOMPOOLFIRE PIT$SS KING$$$$$SS DBL QUEEN SS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS DBL QUEENW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS DBL QUEEN6)STO. 6)FITNESS 6)LOBBY7<3
7<3
6)ELECT./ RISERSTAIR #27<3
6)MECH.ICE DISP. 6)GUESTLAUNDRY6)W RESTROOM 6)PANTRY6)DINING'5<(56 6)ELECT.6)GM OFFICE6)AGM6)SALES6)MDF/STG.6)STOR.6)REST.6)REST.6)POOL EQUIP.6)MARKET 6)FOOD PREP6)EMP. LOUNGE 6)VESTIBULE/CART STOR.CORRIDOR #1SS KING*(1(5$725ELEV. LOBBYCORRIDOR #2CORRIDOR #36)CHECK-IN6)ENG. STG. 6)LINEN6)BUFFET6)HOUSELAUNDRYSTAIR #3&20021$5($&255,'252)),&(0$1*(55,%'5,678',266'%/48((166'%/48((1$&&66.,1*66.,1*$&&66.,1*&/26(787,/,7<OFFICE*8(6752206 *8(6752200,; SPRINGHILL SUITES.,1*52206 '28%/(48((152206 RESIDENCE INN678',2 52206 %('522052206 727$/*8(6752206 52206'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA4.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$FIRST FLOOR PLANUNIT COUNTFIRST FLOOR PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+LEGENDAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 36
$$$$$ROOF BELOWSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEEN SS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS KING SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSTAIR #1SS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KING-2SS KINGSS KINGENTRY AWNING BELOWCOURTYARD BELOW$RI 1-BEDROOMKINGSTAIR #2RI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QQW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGELEV 3RI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI 1-BEDROOMRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KING$$$$$ 6)ELECT.RI KING6)LINENCORRIDOR #3CORRIDOR #4CORRIDOR #2SS KING6)HOUSE-KEEPINGCORRIDOR #1STAIR #3 6)IDFRI KINGICE&255,'255,%'5,678',266'%/48((166'%/48((1$&&66.,1*66.,1*66.,1*&/26(787,/,7<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA4.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL 6$1/8,62%,632&$SECOND FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+LEGENDAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 37
$$$$$$SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEEN SS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBLQUEEN-2SS KING SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KING 6)ELECT.SS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KING-2SS KINGSS KINGRI KINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGSTAIR #26)HOUSE-KEEPINGRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING 6)IDFRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KING$$$$$CORRIDOR #2CORRIDOR #4RI KINGSTAIR #1CORRIDOR #1SS KINGICECORRIDOR #3RI KINGSTAIR #3ELEV 3&255,'255,%'5,678',266'%/48((166'%/48((166.,1*66.,1*66.,1*&/26(787,/,7<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA4.3MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$THIRD FLOOR PLANTHIRD FLOOR PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+LEGENDAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 38
$$$$$$SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEEN SS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBLQUEEN-2SS KING SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS KINGSS KINGRI KINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGSTAIR #26)HOUSE-KEEPINGRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING 6)IDFRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING RI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING$$$$$$$$$STAIR #1ICEELECT.CORRIDOR #1CORRIDOR #2CORRIDOR #3CORRIDOR #4STAIR #3SS KINGELEV 3&255,'255,%'5,678',266'%/48((166'%/48((166.,1*66.,1*$&&66.,1*&/26(787,/,7<$'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA4.4MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$FOURTH FLOOR PLANFOURTH FLOOR PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+LEGENDAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 39
ROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED IN CENTER OF ROOF & SCREENED FROM VIEWROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED IN CENTER OF ROOF & SCREENED FROM VIEWSTAIRROOFELEVROOFROOF ACCESS STAIRROOF TOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATED IN CENTER OF ROOF & SCREENED FROM VIEW'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA4.5MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$ROOF PLANROOF PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 40
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
STUCCO, SMOOTH FINISHLAP SIDINGDOUBLE WINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGSTUCCO,SMOOTH FINISHACCENT STUCCO,SMOOTH FINISHBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGSTUCCO,SMOOTH FINISHEXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT SHED ROOFSBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGAWNINGS AT LAP SIDING AREASWINDOW TRIMALUMINUM STOREFRONTEXPOSED RAFTERS UNDER PORTE COCHERE CANOPYAWNINGS OVER SMOKING & SEATING AREA),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
BRAND SIGNAGELAP SIDINGBRAND SIGNAGE),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
LAP SIDINGSTUCCO, SMOOTH FINISHACCENT STUCCO, SMOOTH FINISHDOUBLE WINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGMETAL AWNINGLAP SIDINGLAP SIDINGBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGEXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT SHED ROOFSLAP SIDINGALUMINUM WINDOWS WITH INTEGRAL PTAC LOUVER, TYPICAL ON SS SIDEALUMINUM STOREFRONTEXPOSED RAFTERS UNDER PORTE COCHERE CANOPYBOARD & BATTEN SIDING
),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
BRAND SIGNAGEBRAND SIGNAGEMETAL AWNING'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA5.0MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$BUILDING ELEVATIONSELEVATION - NORTH (FRONT)ELEVATION - WEST (SS)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 41
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
ACCENT STUCCOBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGSTUCCOBOARD AND BATTEN SIDING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
CABANAS AT POOL DECKGENERATOR ENCLOSUREBIKE LOCKERSSTUCCOACCENT STUCCO),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
BOARD & BATTEN SIDINGBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGAWNINGDOUBLE WINDOW TRIMWINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGAWNINGSSTUCCOEXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT SHED ROOFSSTUCCOAWNINGS AT LAP SIDINGBOARD AND BATTENACCENTSTUCCOSTUCCOACCENT STUCCO),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
BRAND SIGNAGE'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA5.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$BUILDING ELEVATIONSELEVATION - SOUTH (ENDS)ELEVATION - EAST (RI)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 42
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
DOUBLE WINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGLAP SIDING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
DOUBLE WINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGMETAL AWNINGSTUCCOEXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT SHED ROOFSAWNINGS AT LAP SIDING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
ACCENT STUCCODOUBLE WINDOW TRIMLAP SIDINGLAP SIDINGBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGEXPOSED RAFTER TAILS AT SHED ROOFSBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGSTUCCOWINDOW TRIMLAP SIDING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
BOARD & BATTEN SIDING'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA5.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$BUILDING ELEVATIONSELEVATION - COURTYARD LOBBYELEVATION - COURTYARD - EAST (SS)ELEVATION - COURTYARD - WEST (RI)Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 43
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
SS KINGLOBBYRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
RI KINGSS KINGSS KINGFITNESSSALESAGMMARKETVESTIBULE/CART STOR.MECH.
0$;%8,/',1*+7
RI KINGELEV. LOBBY),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QUEENRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QQW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI 1-BEDROOMDBL QQW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESCOURTYARD),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
SS KINGSS KING'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA6.0MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$BUILDING SECTIONSSECTION BSECTION B1Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 44
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
RI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI 1-BEDROOMRI 1-BEDROOMKINGRI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGW/MOBILITYFEATURESRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KINGRI KING),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
FITNESSGUESTLAUNDRYEMP. LOUNGE),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSTAIR #2SS KINGSS KINGSS KINGMEETINGROOMSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS DBLQUEEN-2SS DBLQUEEN-2SS DBL QUEENW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGSS KINGELECT./ RISERSS DBL QUEENSS DBL QUEENW/MOBILITYFEATURESSS DBL QUEEN),567)/5723/$7(
6(&21')/5723/$7(
7+,5')/5723/$7(
0$;%8,/',1*+7
MECH.'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA6.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$BUILDING SECTIONSSECTION ASECTION A1Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 45
),567)/2256(&21')/568%)/225
7+,5')/22568%)/225
)2857+)/568%)/225
522)723/$7(
0$;+(,*+7
),567)/225),567)/225),567)/2250$;%8,/',1*+7
12%8,/'($6(0(17
:,'(
+(,*+7/,0,7DALIDIO DRIVEHOTEL DROP OFF/ PICK UP'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA6.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$SITE SECTIONSITE SECTION - NO BUILD ZONEAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 46
$$522)2)(1&/2685($%29(6+2:1'$6+('&21&5(7($3521685)$&(
+,*+&2558*$7('0(7$/*$7(67((/3,3(&21&),//('%2//$5'60,16/23(75$6+(1&/2685(&85%6723 &8<'75$6+%,1 &8<'5(&<&/(%,1 *$//2125*$1,&6%,1
:22'75(//,63$,17('),1,6+$7,17(5,252)&08%/2&.:$//$&&(17678&&260227+),1,6+$7(;7(5,252)&08%/2&.:$//
$&&(17678&&260227+),1,6+$7(;7(5,252)&08%/2&.:$//:22'75(//,667((/3,3(&21&),//('%2//$5'6
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ 7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7 &$ &67(3+(1$5,*25$5&+,7(&7 &$ &$''5(66$55,6678',2&20&217$&7$0$55,275(6,'(1&(,11 635,1*+,//68,7(6+27(/6$1/8,62%,632&$6,7('(7$,/675$6+(1&/2685(1257+(/(9$7,21($67(/(9$7,21)/2253/$1
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 47
$$$$$$$'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA7.1MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL6$1/8,62%,632&$SIGNAGE PROGRAMBLDG SIGN LOCATION - NORTH ELEVATIONBLDG SIGN LOCATIONS - EAST ELEVATIONBLDG SIGN LOCATION - SOUTH ELEVATIONBLDG SIGN LOCATION - WEST ELEVATIONAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 48
...)******9(56,21),567)/22566666666666666)$%5,&$7('$/80&$%,1(73$,17('720$7&+306&*5$< 6$7,1),1,6+ 5$,6('0(7$//(77(5,1*3(5%5$1'67$1'$5'6/('*(56721(%$6(
,//80,1$7,21)520$%29(
726,*1
726,*1
,1',9,'8$//('&+$11(//(77(5,1*3(5%5$1'67$1'$5'6
SPECIFIC PLAN ALLOWED SIGNAGE AREA02180(17 3(5675((7)5217$*( 6):$//6,*1 $'',7,21$/6,*16)253257(&2&+(5( 6)($ACTUAL SIGNAGE AREA685)$&(6,*1 635,1*+,//68,7(6 6)685)$&(6,*1 635,1*+,//68,7(6 6)685)$&(6,*1 5(6,'(1&(,11 6)685)$&(6,*1 5(6,'(1&(,11 6)685)$&(6,*1 5(6,'(1&(,11 6)02180(176,*16)FROOM RANCH WAYDALIDIO DRIVESPRINGHILL SUITESRESIDENCE INNSURFACE SIGNAGE #1SURFACE SIGNAGE #2SURFACE SIGNAGE #4SURFACE SIGNAGE #5MONUMENT SIGNAGESURFACE SIGNAGE #3
726,*1
726,*1
,1',9,'8$//('&+$11(//(77(5,1*3(5%5$1'67$1'$5'6
726,*1
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTA7.2MARRIOT RESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILLSUITES HOTEL
6$1/8,62%,632&$SIGNAGE PROGRAMMONUMENT SIGNAGESURFACE SIGNAGE (RI) = 50 SF EA.SIGNAGE INFORMATIONKEY PLAN$&78$/1257+352-(&71257+6,'((/(9$7,21)5217(/(9$7,21SURFACE SIGNAGE (SS) = 50 SF EA.SURFACE SIGNAGE #1SURFACE SIGNAGE #2SURFACE SIGNAGE #4SURFACE SIGNAGE #5SURFACE SIGNAGE #3Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 49
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ttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 50
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ttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 51
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ 7+20$6(-(66$5&+,7(&7 &$ &67(3+(1$5,*25$5&+,7(&7 &$ &$''5(66$55,6678',2&20&217$&7$0$55,275(6,'(1&(,11 635,1*+,//68,7(6+27(/6$1/8,62%,632&$&2/256 0$7(5,$/65(6,'(1&(,11 &2/256 0$7(5,$/63 3$,17('%2$5' %$77(16,',1*6+(5:,1:,//,$066: '2:1,1*6/$7(3 3$,17('678&&26+(5:,1:,//,$066: 02125$,/6,/9(53 3$,17('/$36,',1*678&&26+(5:,1:,//,$066: :+,7(612:33127( 3$,17&2/25$1'0$7(5,$/&+$1*(66+$//21/<2&&85$7,16,'(&251(56,)7+(5($5($1<',6&5(3$1&,(6&217$&7$5&+,7(&73$,17&2/25629(5678&&2685)$&(66(()/2253/$16 :$//$66(0%/,(633333 3$,17%2$5' %$77(16,',1*6+(5:,1:,//,$066: *,%5$/7$5Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 52
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 53
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 54
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 55
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 56
LOT 8Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 57
666(&6(&66666666666(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&66666$$6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6666669$$96(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&666666666666666666666666666666666666$666666$666666666666666666666666(&6666666666666666666666666666'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTRESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILL SUITES6$1/8,62%,632&$SL-0Electrical Site PlanAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 58
666(&6(&66666666666(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&66666$$6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6666669$$96(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&6(&666666666666666666666666666666666666$666666$666666666666666666666666(&6666666666666666666666666666'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTRESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILL SUITES6$1/8,62%,632&$SL-1Site Photometric PlanAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 59
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW[ [ $5&+(5675((767(6$1/8,62%,632&$ THOMAS E. JESS$5&+,7(&7 &$ &STEPHEN A. RIGOR$5&+,7(&7 &$ &ADDRESS$55,6678',2&20CONTACTRESIDENCE INN & SPRINGHILL SUITES6$1/8,62%,632&$SL-2Data Sheets( ? ':*6? ? 6/GZJ 30':*7R3')SFAttachment 2Item 2Packet Page 60
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 61
Attachment 2Item 2Packet Page 62
Meeting Date: May 18, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project is a four-story hotel within the approved San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP).
One side of the hotel will be branded Springhill Suites and the other half will be branded Residence
Inn. Up to 200 guest rooms are proposed. The project site would occur on a 3.41 -acre parcel, which
corresponds to Lot 8 of an approved tentative map (VTTM 3096) that covers the entire San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan area. The project site is within the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone of the SLRSP.
The ground floor of the hotel will consist of a lobby, dining area, living room area, fitness room,
guestrooms, laundry and hotel back of house. The project is designed to comply with the California
Green Building Code and will incorporate several measures consistent with that code, including low
flow plumbing fixtures, LED light fixtures, ample insulation, energy efficient windows and doors,
provision for future solar panels and drought tolerant landscaping.
The following are the key proposed project components:
•200 hotel rooms
•132,940 square feet (SF) of building area in four stories (0.89 FAR, when up to 2.0 FAR is
allowed)
•Lot coverage of 23.5% (up to 80% is allowed)
•Landscaped area of 35,308 SF, or 24% of the site (at least 20% is required)
•Maximum Building Height of 50 feet (up to 50 feet is allowed)
•198 automobile parking spaces (inclusive of 6 accessible; 2 EV stations; 16 Clean Air Vehicle
spaces)
•10 motorcycle parking spaces
•30 bicycle parking spaces (20 short-term, 10 long-term)
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0796-2019
APPLICANT: SLO HHG SCM Hotel Development REPRESENTATIVE: Heather Wiebe
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: John Rickenbach at 805-610-1109 or jfrickenbach@aol.com
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 63
General Location: The 3.4-acre project site is located on a vacant parcel along the south side of
Madonna Road, midway between Oceanaire Drive and Dalidio Drive. Access will be via the future
extension of Froom Ranch Way.
Present Use: Vacant Land
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial (San Luis Ranch Specific Plan)
Surrounding Uses:
East: Commercial Retail
West: Agriculture; planned residential
North: Planned Commercial Retail
South: Agriculture
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Draws from Modern Agrarian elements, with design as described in Section 3.7.2 of the
Specific Plan (Commercial, Office, and Hotel Design Guidelines).
Design details: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the Specific Plan. Details include articulation on all
sides, outdoor seating areas, outdoor pool, BBQ pit, fitness center, landscaped courtyard, pedestrian
pathways with decorative paving and landscaping , screened trash enclosures, decorative lighting and
signage. Design is intended to preserve views of the Irish Hills from neighboring development. Lighting
features are intended to avoid spillover and are downward oriented to preserve the night sky and
minimize potential impacts related to aircraft operations.
Materials: Smooth stucco, board & batten siding, lap siding, and tile.
Colors: Earth tones consistent with Modern Agrarian architecture.
Figure 1: Subject Property and Surrounding Area Figure 2: Location in the Context of
approved Specific Plan land uses
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 64
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan (SLRSP), Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations and applicable City
Standards; and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24679
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2116
4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, SLRSP, and CDG. Notably, upon its adoption the SLRSP was found to be consistent with
the General Plan (see Appendix A of the SLRSP for an analysis), and the guidelines contained in the
SLRSP were found to be consistent with the CDG. Therefore, consistency with the SLRSP is the key
consideration for ARC with respect to this project. In certain instances, the SLRSP defers to other
existing City regulations, and these are noted below.
Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with relevant provisions of the
SLRSP (Chapter 3—Neighborhood Form: Section 3.6, Sign and Monument Development Standards;
Table 3-7, [Neighborhood Commercial Development Standards]; Section 3.7.2 [Commercial, Office,
and Hotel Design Guidelines]; Section 3.8, Architectural Style Reference Guide; and Section 3.9, Plant
Palette. For reference, this staff report includes a discussion of the applicability of portions of the CDG
(Section 3.1, Commercial Project Design Guidelines; Chapter 6, Site Planning & Other Details), and Sign
Regulations Article 4 (Sign Standards).
Figure 3: View from the north toward the Hotel entry
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 65
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project is a four-story hotel within the approved San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP).
One side of the hotel will be branded Springhill Suites and the other half will be branded Residence
Inn. Up to 200 guest rooms are proposed. The project site would occur on a 3.41 -acre parcel, which
corresponds to Lot 8 of an approved tentative map (VTTM 3096) that covers the entire San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan area. The project site is within the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone of the SLRSP.
The ground floor of the hotel will consist of a lobby, dining area, living room area, fitness room,
guestrooms, laundry and hotel back of house. The project is designed to comply with the California
Green Building Code and will incorporate several measures consistent with that code, including low
flow plumbing fixtures, LED light fixtures, ample insulation, energy efficient windows and doors,
provision for future solar panels and drought tolerant landscaping.
The following are the key proposed project components:
•200 hotel rooms
•132,940 square feet (SF) of building area in four stories (0.89 FAR, when up to 2.0 FAR is
allowed)
•Lot coverage of 23.5% (up to 80% is allowed)
•Landscaped area of 35,308 SF, or 24% of the site (at least 20% is required)
•Maximum Building Height of 50 feet (up to 50 feet is allowed)
•198 automobile parking spaces (inclusive of 6 accessible; 2 EV stations; 16 Clean Air Vehicle
spaces)
•10 motorcycle parking spaces
•30 bicycle parking spaces (20 short-term, 10 long-term)
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0796-2019
APPLICANT: SLO HHG SCM Hotel Development REPRESENTATIVE: Heather Wiebe
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: John Rickenbach at 805-610-1109 or jfrickenbach@aol.com
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 66
General Location: The 3.4-acre project site is located on a vacant parcel along the south side of
Madonna Road, midway between Oceanaire Drive and Dalidio Drive. Access will be via the future
extension of Froom Ranch Way.
Present Use: Vacant Land
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial (San Luis Ranch Specific Plan)
Surrounding Uses:
East: Commercial Retail
West: Agriculture; planned residential
North: Planned Commercial Retail
South: Agriculture
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Draws from Modern Agrarian elements, with design as described in Section 3.7.2 of the
Specific Plan (Commercial, Office, and Hotel Design Guidelines).
Design details: As described in Section 3.7.2 of the Specific Plan. Details include articulation on all
sides, outdoor seating areas, outdoor pool, BBQ pit, fitness center, landscaped courtyard, pedestrian
pathways with decorative paving and landscaping , screened trash enclosures, decorative lighting and
signage. Design is intended to preserve views of the Irish Hills from neighboring development. Lighting
features are intended to avoid spillover and are downward oriented to preserve the night sky and
minimize potential impacts related to aircraft operations.
Materials: Smooth stucco, board & batten siding, lap siding, and tile.
Colors: Earth tones consistent with Modern Agrarian architecture.
Figure 1: Subject Property and Surrounding Area Figure 2: Location in the Context of
approved Specific Plan land uses
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 67
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan (SLRSP), Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations and applicable City
Standards; and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission.
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=24679
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2116
4.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, SLRSP, and CDG. Notably, upon its adoption the SLRSP was found to be consistent with
the General Plan (see Appendix A of the SLRSP for an analysis), and the guidelines contained in the
SLRSP were found to be consistent with the CDG. Therefore, consistency with the SLRSP is the key
consideration for ARC with respect to this project. In certain instances, the SLRSP defers to other
existing City regulations, and these are noted below.
Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with relevant provisions of the
SLRSP (Chapter 3—Neighborhood Form: Section 3.6, Sign and Monument Development Standards;
Table 3-7, [Neighborhood Commercial Development Standards]; Section 3.7.2 [Commercial, Office,
and Hotel Design Guidelines]; Section 3.8, Architectural Style Reference Guide; and Section 3.9, Plant
Palette. For reference, this staff report includes a discussion of the applicability of portions of the CDG
(Section 3.1, Commercial Project Design Guidelines; Chapter 6, Site Planning & Other Details), and Sign
Regulations Article 4 (Sign Standards).
Figure 3: View from the north toward the Hotel entry
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 68
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
SLRSP Chapter 3 – Neighborhood Form
§Table 3-7: Neighborhood
Commercial Development
Standards
The ARC should focus on compliance with lot coverage, building height,
setback, landscaping, lighting, and building facade requirements for the
NC zone; other architectural and design standards are referred to
elsewhere in the SLRSP or other city regulations. Sheets A1.2 and A1.3
of the applicant’s submittal provides a summary of design-related
information in the context of various City regulations. Key issues for
ARC consideration may include building architecture, lighting,
landscaping, and visual presentation from neighboring streets.
§Section 3.6: Sign and
Monument Development
Standards
Table 3-11 describes standards for monument, pole and pylon signs,
wall signs and directional signage. Each sign type has a maximum
allowed area and height, with pylon signs being the most prominent (up
to 16 feet in height and 72 SF in area). As noted in Section 3.6, the
standards in the SLRSP are to be used in conjunction with those in the
City’s Sign Regulations. When the two standards conflict, the standards
in the SLRSP prevail. Where the SLRSP is silent, the City’s Sign
Regulations apply. Proposed signage is included on Sheet A7.1 and A7.2.
As proposed, the project’s sign program appears to be consistent with
applicable sign regulations.
§Section 3.7.2: Commercial,
Office and Hotel Design
Guidelines
This section provides general guidance for site planning and design,
building form, building elements and articulation, lighting, signs,
building materials, exterior colors, utilitarian features, parking lot
design/screening, bicycle/pedestrian circulation, landscape/hardscape,
screen walls and fences, and noise. Proposed design information
related to these issues may be found on Sheets A1.2, A1.3, A2.1, A5.0,
A5.1, A5.2, A6.0, A6.1, A6.2, A7.0, A7.1, A7.2, A8.0, A8.1, A8.2, SL0, SL1,
SL2, L1.0 and L2.0. As proposed, the project appears to be consistent
with the intent of the Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan.
§Section 3.8: Architectural Style
Reference Guide
This project is designed with a Modern Agrarian architectural theme,
which is described in Section 3.8.4. This section provides guidance on
massing, building form and composition, materials, colors, and various
architectural features. The ARC should focus on consistency with these
guidelines. Proposed building elevation and architectural inspiration
are shown on Sheets A3.0 through A3.4, and A5.0 through A5.2.
§Section 3.9: Plant Palette
Section 3.9 discusses the appropriate plant palette to be used in project
landscaping, with a focus on native and drought-tolerant plants. Table
3-12 provides a plant list, which ARC can refer to in order to determine
consistency. The project’s proposed plant palette information may be
found on Sheets L1.0 and L2.0. In most respects, the proposed plant
palette is consistent with that included in the Specific Plan. However,
there may be concerns within the ALUC “No Build” zone, where tree
heights need to be limited. It appears the applicant’s intent with
parking lot trees in the ALUC “No Build” zone is for tree species that
would not exceed 15 feet in height. Two species are included.
However, note that the Bronze Loquat (one of the two tree species)
could reach 30 feet, based on information included on Sheet L2.0. In
addition, Cercis occidentialis (western redbud) is not on your list of
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 69
ARCH-0796-2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 5
proposed species shown on Sheet L2.0. Please clarify how you intend
to keep trees to less than 15 feet in height in the ALUC “No Build” zone,
and provide information about Cercis occidentialis. Note also that in
addition to Cercis, Magnolia grandiflora, Quercus palustris and Ulmus
parvifolia are not on the plant palette included on Table 3-12 of the
Specific Plan. Applicant should justify why these species are included in
lieu of other suitable species on the list.
CDG Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Project Design
§Section 3.1: Commercial
Project Design Guidelines
The SLRSP was previously found to be consistent with the City’s
Community Design Guidelines. However, the CDG provides a
framework upon which the SLRSP builds, and provides additional
direction with respect to basic design issues. The applicant has
provided an analysis of how the proposed design meets the intent of
the CDG (Sheets A1.2 and A1.3 of Attachment 1). Thus, ARC does not
need to determine the project’s consistency with the CDG. However,
these are identified for reference, in the event ARC needs further
clarification when evaluating the project’s consistency with the SLRSP.
Sign Regulations Article IV. Sign Standards
§ 15.40.430. Illumination
For wall signs, directory or informational signs, the SLRSP refers to
Section 15.40.430 of the Municipal Code in order to determine
consistency with respect to illumination.
§ 15.40.470.A Wall Signs; and F.
Monument Signs
These sections of the Sign Regulations provides additional detail
regarding sign design that expand on those included in the SLRSP. The
ARC should use this section to evaluate the design of proposed signage.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation NC NC regulations apply from SLRSP
Hotel Rooms 200 Up to 200 (SLRSP Table 2-1)
Setbacks Street Fronts: 10-18 feet;
Adjacent to agriculture: 7 feet
(see Sheet A2.1 of Attachment 1)
Street Front: 5-foot minimum;
Side – Interior Lot: no minimum
Street side corner lot: no minimum
Parking: 15-foot minimum (with
landscaped setback adjacent to
public street)
Rear – 10-foot minimum
(per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Building Height 50’
(see Sheets A5.0 through A5.2)
20’ minimum; 50’ maximum
(Per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 70
ARCH-0796-2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 6
Lot Coverage 23.5% 80% maximum (per SLRSP Table 3-7)
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
Wall Sign
Max Height
Max Area
Pylon/Pole Sign
Max Height
Max Area
1
6 feet
17.2 SF
5 Surface Signs
2-foot letters; 3’4” with two rows
50 SF each
none
-
-
(see Sheets A7.1 and A7.2 of
Attachment 1)
1 per street frontage
6 feet
24 SF
3; additional 2 allowed per porte-
cochere
2 feet (lettering); 3’4” for all wording
50 SF each
1
16 feet
72 SF
(per SLRSP Table 3-11)
Public Art Not provided Public art only required for
commercial portion of SLRSP; project
subject to Municipal Code 17.70.140
Parking
Automobile spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
Clean Air Vehicles
198 (6 ADA)
2 charge stations (+10 future)
30 (20 short-term; 10 long-term)
10
16
(see Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 1)
200 (1 per guest room); 6 ADA
10 (future)
20
10
16
(per SLR SP Table 3-7 and Municipal
Code 17.72.030 and 17.72.040)
1 parking space may be eliminated by
providing 5 additional bike spaces
Environmental Status
Project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan and exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).
The project is also exempt pursuant to Section 15182(b) as a project in a
commercially-zoned area with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75
(project FAR is 0.89), is consistent with a Specific Plan and accompanying
certified Final EIR, and is in a “transit priority area” pursuant to PRC Section
21099(a)(7) (i.e., within 0.5 miles of a planned major transit stop).
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and City Sign Regulations.
The Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to
address consistency with the SLRSP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines.
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 71
ARCH-0796-2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 7
6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, SLRSP, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Project Plans
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 72
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, May
18, 2020 at 5 :00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, Micah Smith,
Vice Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
May 4, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 6-0-0 to approve the minutes of the Regular Architectural Review
Commission meeting of May 4, 2020.
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 73
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of May 18, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.Project Address: 1035 Madonna Road; Case #: ARCH-0796-2019; Zone: Neighborhood-
Commercial Zone (N-C) San Luis Ranch Specific Plan; Arris Studio, Thom Jess,
applicant. Review of a four-story, 200 room dual brand hotel in the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan area; The project is consistent with the previously certified FEIR and SEIR for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan and no additional environmental review is required per CEQA
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Thom Jess with Arris Studio, provided a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, FAILED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 6-0-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain with the following
recommendations to the applicant:
Simplify the presentation of materials and colors; reduce “clutter” per Section 2.2.b of the
Community Design Guidelines
Enhance Agrarian architectural element, and less of the Modern element
Emphasize the ground floor level
Increase horizontal articulation and decrease vertical articulation
Show more detail in the pedestrian connections
Identify the required Electric Vehicle parking, and where the future EV spaces would be
Provide more landscaping across the front entrance driveway, such as layered planting to
soften the elevation
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural
Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 06/01/2020
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 74
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
Item Number: 2
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project is a four‐story hotel within the approved San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (SLRSP).
One side of the hotel will be branded Springhill Suites and the other half will be branded Residence
Inn. Up to 200 guest rooms are proposed. The project would occur on a 3.41‐acre parcel, which
corresponds to Lot 8 of an approved tentative map (VTTM 3096) that covers the entire San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan area. The project site is within the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone of the SLRSP.
The ground floor of the hotel will consist of a lobby, dining area, living room area, fitness room,
guestrooms, laundry, and hotel back of house. The project is designed to comply with the California
Green Building Code and will incorporate several measures consistent with that code, including low
flow plumbing fixtures, LED light fixtures, ample insulation, energy efficient windows and doors,
provision for future solar panels and drought tolerant landscaping.
The following are the key proposed project components:
200 hotel rooms
132,940 square feet (SF) of building area in four stories (0.89 FAR, when up to 2.0 FAR is
allowed)
Lot coverage of 23.5% (up to 80% is allowed)
Landscaped area of 35,308 SF, or 24% of the site (at least 20% is required)
Maximum Building Height of 50 feet (up to 50 feet is allowed)
198 automobile parking spaces (inclusive of 6 accessible; 2 EV stations; 16 Clean Air Vehicle
spaces)
10 motorcycle parking spaces
30 bicycle parking spaces (20 short‐term, 10 long‐term)
General Location: The 3.4‐acre project site is located on a vacant parcel along the south side of
Madonna Road, midway between Oceanaire Drive and Dalidio Drive. Access will be via the future
extension of Froom Ranch Way.
Present Use: Vacant Land
Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial (San Luis Ranch Specific Plan)
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road FILE NUMBER: ARCH‐0796‐2019
APPLICANT: SLO HHG SCM Hotel Development REPRESENTATIVE: Heather Wiebe
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: John Rickenbach at 805‐610‐1109 or jfrickenbach@aol.com
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 75
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 2
Surrounding Uses:
East: Commercial Retail
West: Agriculture; planned residential
North: Planned Commercial Retail
South: Agriculture
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Draws from Modern Agrarian elements, with design as described in Section 3.7.2 of the
Specific Plan (Commercial, Office, and Hotel Design Guidelines).
Design details: Details include articulation on all sides, outdoor seating areas, outdoor pool, BBQ pit,
fitness center, landscaped courtyard, pedestrian pathways with decorative paving and landscaping,
screened trash enclosures, decorative lighting, and signage. Design is intended to preserve views of
the Irish Hills from neighboring development. Lighting features are intended to avoid spillover and are
downward oriented to preserve the night sky and minimize potential impacts related to aircraft
operations.
Materials: Smooth stucco, board & batten siding, lap siding, and tile.
Colors: Earth tones consistent with Modern Agrarian architecture.
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its consistency with the San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan (SLRSP), Community Design Guidelines (CDG), Sign Regulations and applicable City
Standards (see links below); and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning
Commission. For this review, the ARC is focused on considering changes to the project based on ARC’s
recommendation of May 18, 2020.
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=15833
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Sign Regulations: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2116
Figure 1: Subject Property and Surrounding Area Figure 2: Location in the Context of
approved Specific Plan land uses
Packet Page 7
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 76
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 3
4.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
The previous staff report for the ARC meeting of May 18, 2020, included a detailed discussion of the
project’s relationship to the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, SLRSP, and
Community Design Guidelines (CDG). That analysis is not repeated here, but is available online at:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=116644&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
In their discussion at that meeting, the ARC did not identify any potential project inconsistencies with
existing relevant regulations related to their purview, with the exception of Section 2.2.B. of the CDG,
which calls for building design that “strives for interest, not clutter.” Their unanimous direction and
recommendation was in part based on that provision of the CDG. The ARC’s recommendation included
the following:
Simplify the presentation of materials and colors; reduce “clutter” per Section 2.2.B of the
Community Design Guidelines;
Enhance Agrarian architectural element, and less of the Modern element;
Emphasize the ground floor level;
Increase horizontal articulation and decrease vertical articulation;
Show more detail in the pedestrian connections;
Identify the required Electric Vehicle parking, and where the future EV spaces would be; and
Provide more landscaping across the front entrance driveway, such as layered planting to
soften the elevation
The following summarizes the key changes the applicant made in response to ARC direction, which are
reflected in the ARC’s packet as referenced below:
Exterior Finishes:
See sheet A5.0‐A5.2 for enhanced Agrarian Elements on the elevations through the choice of
materials, colors, and the addition of awnings;
Materials and colors are simplified on the elevations; and
Revised the elevations to look more horizontal than vertical with the use of material
continuity on the first floor and color variations.
Pedestrian Connection:
See sheet A2.1 for enhanced pedestrian connection from the pool courtyard at the hotel to
the adjacent Ag Center site through a direct gate from the pool area to the pedestrian
connection;
On sheet L2.0, entry signage to the Ag Heritage Center was added; and
On sheet L2.0, enhanced paving was expanded from 5 ft to 10 ft wide to create a stronger
sense of place and visual connection to the neighboring site.
Landscape Buffer:
See sheet A2.1 and L1.0 for added landscape along the building which faces Froom Ranch
Way as well as landscape areas along the entry elevations of the building facing the parking
lot. This is also shown on building elevations and renderings.
Packet Page 8
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 77
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 4
The following illustrations compare the revised design (Figure 3) with what was originally presented
to ARC on May 22 (Figure 4):
Figure 3: Revised Design. View from the north toward the Hotel entry.
Note the changes in colors and materials, addition of awnings, and color
change to emphasize horizontal aspect.
Figure 4: Original Design. View from the north toward the Hotel entry.
Packet Page 9
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 78
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 5
The following illustrations compare two of the elevations of the revised design (Figure 5) and the
original (Figure 6), with the updated design intended to show a greater emphasis on Agrarian (as
opposed to Modern) architectural elements:
Figure 5: Revised Design. West and North Elevations.
Figure 6: Original Design. North and West Elevations.
Packet Page 10
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 79
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 6
Figure 7, below, illustrates modifications to the pedestrian connection between the hotel and the
adjacent Agricultural Heritage Center. In the revised design, the walkway is expanded from 5 to 10
feet, and an arched entryway sign is added.
With regard to the ARC’s May 22 direction to add more landscaping elements to the front of the hotel
in order to soften visual presentation, sheet L1.0 indicates additional shrubbery along the entire
building perimeter, as well as in in the central courtyard near the pool. This is also shown on the
building renderings and elevations—see Figures 3 and 5 for examples of this.
The applicant’s revised design does not address the ARC’s recommendation related to EV parking. This
aspect of the project would be more appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission, as a review
item within their purview.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation NC NC regulations apply from SLRSP
Hotel Rooms 200 Up to 200 (SLRSP Table 2‐1)
Setbacks Street Fronts: 10‐18 feet
Adjacent to agriculture: 7 feet
(see Sheet A2.1 of Attachment 1)
Street Front: 5‐foot minimum
Side – Interior Lot: no minimum
Street side corner lot: no minimum
Parking: 15‐foot minimum (with
landscaped setback adjacent to public
street)
Rear – 10‐foot minimum
Figure 7: Design Comparison of Pedestrian Connection to Ag Center. Revised design
is at left, incorporating prominent entryway and wider decorative paving.
REVISED DESIGN ORIGINAL DESIGN
Packet Page 11
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 80
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 7
(per SLRSP Table 3‐7)
Building Height 50’
(see Sheets A5.0 through A5.2)
20’ minimum; 50’ maximum
(Per SLRSP Table 3‐7)
Lot Coverage 23.5% 80% maximum (per SLRSP Table 3‐7)
Monument Sign
Max Height
Max Area
Wall Sign
Max Height
Max Area
Pylon/Pole Sign
Max Height
Max Area
1
6 feet
17.2 SF
5 Surface Signs
2‐foot letters; 3’4” with two rows
50 SF each
none
‐
‐
(see Sheets A7.1 and A7.2 of
Attachment 1)
1 per street frontage
6 feet
24 SF
3; additional 2 allowed per porte‐cochere
3’ (not specific to lettering)
50 SF
1
16 feet
72 SF
(per SLRSP Table 3‐11)
Public Art Not provided Public art only required for commercial
portion of SLRSP; project subject to
Municipal Code 17.70.140
Parking
Automobile spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
Clean Air Vehicles
198 (6 ADA)
2 charge stations (+10 future)
30 (20 short‐term; 10 long‐term)
10
16
(see Sheet A1.1 of Attachment 1)
200 (1 per guest room); 6 ADA
10 (future)
20
10
16
(per SLR SP Table 3‐7 and Municipal Code
17.72.030 and 17.72.040)
1 parking space may be eliminated by
providing 5 additional bike spaces
Environmental Status
Project is consistent with the certified Final EIR for San Luis Ranch Specific Plan and
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐Fill Development Projects). The project is also exempt
pursuant to Section 15182(b) as a project in a commercially‐zoned area with a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.75 (project FAR is 0.89), is consistent with a Specific
Plan and accompanying certified Final EIR, and is in a “transit priority area” pursuant
to PRC Section 21099(a)(7) (i.e., within 0.5 miles of a planned major transit stop).
Packet Page 12
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 81
ARCH‐0796‐2019 (1035 Madonna Road – Residence Inn and Springhill Suites)
Page 8
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend the Planning Commission approve the project based on consistency with the
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines, and City Sign
Regulations. The Architectural Review Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to
the Planning Commission for final action. This action may include recommendations for
conditions to address consistency with the SLRSP Design Guidelines and Community Design
Guidelines.
6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues, and reference specific Design Guidelines or Sign
Regulations.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include recommended findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference
inconsistency with the General Plan, SLRSP, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy
documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
Packet Page 13
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 82
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 6, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, July
6, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini (5:08 p.m.), Mandi Pickens, Vice
Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioner Micah Smith
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1.Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 1, 2020 and June 15,
2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to approve the minutes of the
Architecture Review Commission meetings of June 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARING
2.Project Address: 1035 Madonna Road; Case #: ARCH-0796-2019; Zone: Neighborhood-
Commercial Zone (N-C) San Luis Ranch Specific Plan; Arris Studio, Thom Jess,
applicant. Review of a four-story, 200 room dual brand hotel in the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan area; The project is consistent with the previously certified FEIR and SEIR for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan and no additional environmental review is required per CEQA.
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 83
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 2
Applicant representative, Heather Wiebe, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
WITHERS CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning
Commission approve the project with the following recommendations:
• Consider using a commercial-grade lap siding product to ensure durability
3. Project Address: 830 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0764-2019, AFFH-0210-2020, USE-
0209-2020; Zone: Commercial Services (C-S) zone; 830 Orcutt, LLC, owner/applicant.
Review of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 residential units and 1,714 square feet of
commercial space within the Commercial Services (C-S) zone. The project includes a density
bonus of 5% including a request for an alternative incentive to relax development standards
for the creek setback requirement and a request to allow residential uses on the ground floor
within the first 50 feet of the structure along the street frontage, the project also includes a
request for a 10 percent parking reduction. Project is categorically exempt from environmental
review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Bryan Ridley, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DEMARTINI, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the project
be continued to a date uncertain with the following recommendations to the applicant and staff:
• Provide additional information regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability
Act in relation to the project’s requested exceptions.
• Consider providing a residential gate along the pedestrian entrance to the residential units
along the east property line, for the safety of the residents.
• The project should address consistency with Community Design Guideline 2.1.C, where
site activities are logically located so that the project will operate efficiently and effectively
for the needs of all uses, specifically the relationship to open space and the adjacent creek.
Consider providing community space oriented toward the creek.
• The project should be revised to provide further articulation of each building’s mass along
the drive aisle.
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 84
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 3
• Additional landscaping should be provided to soften and create a counterpoint to the
architectural design, landscaping should include organic elements.
• The project should be redesigned to provide private or common open spaces for residents,
consideration should be provided for common open space between the commercial and
residential units, and along the creek, balconies should also be added to the residential
units.
• Consider adding alternative pavers along the drive aisle and parking areas that coordinates
with landscaping and open areas.
4. Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant. Review of five new two-
bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an attached two-car garage. The
project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of five, two-
bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic Properties.
The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will contain
one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards
to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided in
tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed.
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative, Will Ruoff, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Levi Seligman
Jeremy Weintraub
Timothy & Sharon Watson
Josh Frantz
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 3-2-1 (Commissioners Beller and DeMartini dissenting, Commissioner
Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the
following recommendation:
• Consider adding trees from the approved “street tree” list along the fence of the shared
driveway with similar spacing as required for street trees, adding shade to the driveway
and a more organic separation between the existing properties.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 85
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 4
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Attachment 3Item 2
Packet Page 86
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an
attached two-car garage. The project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the
retention of five, two-bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the City’s Contributing List of
Historic Properties. The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each
will contain one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from development
standards to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced (five feet where seven is the standard, six feet
where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where nine feet is the standard, and eight feet where eleven
feet is the standard) and to allow required parking for three of the five existing residences to be
provided in tandem. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach Street BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019, FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)
No. 3140, the project design, and adopt the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution).
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences on a
0.86-acre site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained in
their existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and Toro
Streets, with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing structures. The
project also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would contain one single -
Applicant Levi Seligman
Representative Ten Over Studio
Zoning R-2-H (Medium-Density
Residential, Historic Preservation
Overlay)
General Plan Medium-Density Residential
Site Area ~37,500 square feet (0.86 acre)
Environmental
Status
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)
Meeting Date: July 22, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item 3
Packet Page 87
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 2
family residence. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards to allow
interior side setbacks from proposed property lines to be reduced (five feet where seven feet is the
standard, six feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where eight or nine feet is the standard,
and eight feet where eleven feet is the standard), and to allow required parking for three of the five
existing residences to be provided in tandem (Attachment 2, Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map).
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision
Regulations and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission (PC)
review is required for projects that include the subdivision of five or more lots (Subdivision
Regulations, Table 1). The PC’s role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on approval
of the proposed subdivision, environmental review, and project design, which includes the requested
setback exceptions and proposed tandem parking.
2.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Density (units/acre) 10 10.32
Front Setback (Peach) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear Setback (from existing PL) 11 feet 11 feet
Side Setback (from existing PL) 8 feet 8 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 31 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 32% 50%
Total # Parking Spaces (New) 11 11
Environmental Status Draft IS/MND has been prepared, and released for the required
30-day public review period, ending July 11, 2020
*Zoning Regulations
SUBDIVISION: LOT SIZE AND SIDE SETBACKS FROM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES
Lot Lot Size (sf) Structure Proposed Required**
East West East West
1 3,621 Existing 5 10 5 5
2 3,718 Existing 10 5 5 5
3 3,704 Existing 7* 6* 8 8
4 3,855 Existing 5* 8 7 7
5 3,739 New NA 7* NA 9
6 4,370 Existing NA 5 NA 5
7 3,617 New 7* 8 8 8
8 3,617 New 8* 8 11 8
9 3,622 New 9 9 8 8
10 3,624 New 11 NA 11 NA
*Exception Requested ** Zoning Regulations
Item 3
Packet Page 88
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 3
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on June 22, 2020 for
consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
The CHC recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic
Preservation ordinance and guidelines. The applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the
CHC to explore some options to provide additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the
interior structures, reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street
(Attachment 3, CHC Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes).
On June 30, 2020, City staff and members of the applicant’s architectural team met with two of the
subcommittee members, James Papp and Shannon Larrabee, to go over the modifications made to the
architectural styling of the interior structures. Some minor modifications to the corner structure (lot
5) were also discussed. The subcommittee members agreed that the modifications made by the
applicant’s architectural team successfully provided a variety in styling that better reflects the
neighborhood and variety of adjacent existing structures facing Peach Street (Attachment 4, Staff
Memo and Modified Project Renderings).
On July 6, 2020, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), including the modifications reviewed
and agreed upon by the CHC subcommittee. The ARC recommended the PC find the project
consistent with the CDG. During their review, the ARC provided one directional item to the applicant:
to add “street trees” adjacent to the shared driveway along the proposed fencing. (Attachment 5, ARC
Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision
Regulations and be consistent with the General Plan and applicable CDG. Staff has evaluated the
project and the PC shall consider if the project is in substantial compliance with the applicable
standards, as discussed in this analysis.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) provides policies for the conservation and development
of residential neighborhoods. The project is consistent with these policies including the policy
promoting infill development and rehabilitation efforts that contribute positively to existing
neighborhoods1. The project is consistent with this policy because it proposes infill development of a
residential site within a residential neighborhood and includes the retention of the five units already
existing on site. The project is also consistent with LUE Policies 2.8 and 4.2.1 (A & B)2, pertaining
1 LUE Policy 2.2.7. The City shall promote infill development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts
that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.
2 LUE Policy 2.8. In Downtown residential areas, the City should encourage the rehabilitation and maintenance of
existing housing. Additional dwellings may be permitted, in keeping with density limits, provided that the existing
character of the area is not significantly changed. Demolition of structurally sound dwellings shall be strongly
discouraged.
LUE Policy 4.2.1 A. Existing residential uses within and around the commercial core should be protected, and new
ones should be developed. B. Dwellings should be provided for a variety of households.
Item 3
Packet Page 89
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 4
to the Downtown residential areas because the project includes the protection of existing homes and
the creation of additional dwellings within established density limits, which does not significantly
change the existing character of the area. The project also has the potential to reduce automobile
dependence in the Downtown area consistent with LUE Policy 2.93, which also supports sustainability
goals. The General Plan Housing Element also provides policies and programs that speak specifically
to supporting infill and densification within City Limits4.
4.2 Consistency with Subdivision Regulations
The applicant is requesting a common interest subdivision that includes easements for shared
vehicular access, sewer, drainage, and utilities. The vesting tentative map also identifies at least 150
square feet per residential unit of open space. In this type of common interest subdivision, each lot
is subject to the property development standards of the R-2 zone. These include standards for lot
coverage, density, and setbacks. All proposed lots are appropriately sized to allow for a two-bedroom
unit on each lot and are consistent with lot coverage standards. Some setback reductions have been
requested and are further discussed below.
4.3 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The project design complies with density, lot coverage, building height, and front setback
development standards for the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) zone, and is compliant with side
and rear setback standards from all existing property lines. However, the project includes requested
exceptions to side setbacks standards in relation to the proposed property lines of the common interest
subdivision (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics). The project also includes a request to allow parking
to be provided in tandem for three of the five existing residences.
3 LUE Policy 2.9. The City shall encourage the development of Downtown housing that minimizes the need for
automobile use and minimizes the storage of vehicles in surrounding neighborhoods .
4 Housing Element Policy 6.10. To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill
development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
Housing Element Program 6.17 Encourage residential development through infill development and densification
within City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.
Item 3
Packet Page 90
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 5
Side Setback Exceptions: The Zoning Regulations (§17.70.170 D.2.c.) provides that a reduction in
the side and rear setback standards may be approved within new residential subdivisions5. The
proposed setbacks are consistent with this section because a separation of 10 feet between buildings
will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be provided consistent with General
Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Policy 4.5.16. Consistency with this policy is
illustrated by the solar study provided by the applicant in project plans (Attachment 2), showing that
most roof areas, nearly all second-story and most first-story south walls will be unshaded between 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice. All setbacks provided along existing property lines on the
perimeter of the site are consistent with Zoning Regulations standards.
Tandem Parking: The project also includes a request to allow parking for three of the five existing
residences to be in provided in tandem. The requested tandem parking approval is not for the new
residences, which all include an attached two-car garage, but to formalize the parking scenario already
in use for much of the site. The four residences fronting Peach Street are currently provided onsite
parking on three driveways that are one car wide. This leaves one residence with no onsite parking.
Staff has worked with the applicant to develop a parking plan that will provide and formalize parking
locations for all existing residences facing Peach Street. This is accomplished though approval of
tandem parking and access to the proposed driveway isle. The existing residence facing Toro Street
has an existing driveway along the south property line, and the project proposes to provide parking
to this residence though the use of this existing driveway, also in tandem.
Based on staff’s review, the parking configuration shown below is the most optimal scenario to
provide the required number of parking spaces while minimizing the number of spaces in tandem and
the number of required parking spaces located with the front setback. This is slightly different than
the parking arrangement shown on project plans. Parking shown in red are spaces arranged in tandem,
which will take access only from public streets, and spaces shown in yellow are non-tandem spaces,
which will have access to or from the common driveway. Conditions seven through nine have been
included in the draft resolution requiring the final map to reflect this parking configuration through
recoded easements.
5 Zoning Regulations 17.70.170, D.2.c. In new residential subdivisions, the review authority may approve exceptions to
the side and rear setback standards, with the exceptions to be noted on the map, provided a separation of at least 10
feet between buildings on adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed
by alternative setback requirements or private easements to ensure the development will comply with solar access
standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1.
6 COSE Policy 4.5.1 To encourage use of solar energy, reasonable solar access shall be provided and protected. The
City will protect reasonable solar exposure for existing collectors and likely locations of future collectors, both active
and passive. Standards for the subdivision and development of property should assure desirable solar access, as
described in Table 2. Protection beyond that established by the City may be provided by recorded agreement among
private parties. Table 2. Desired Solar Access for: Residential uses between six and 12 dwellings per acre (…) on sites
less than one acre - Most roof areas, nearly all second-story and most first-story south walls should be unshaded
between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice.
Item 3
Packet Page 91
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 6
3.4 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items
The ARC recommended the PC find the project consistent with the CDG and identified one
recommended condition for the final approval of the project. This condition is to provide “street”
trees along the north edge of the proposed drive isle, consistent with spacing required for street trees,
to soften its appearance. Condition #6 has been included in the resolution to require trees from the
approved street tree list along the north edge of the new drive isle.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated
from June 11, 2020 through July 11, 2020 (refer to Attachment 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration). Comments were received from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control
recommending certain broad-based evaluations be included in the MND Hazards and Hazardous
Materials section. In review of these recommendations, staff finds that the Initial Study sufficiently
identifies the potential impacts related to hazardous materials for this project and project site. Given
the project’s size, location, surroundings, type (residential), and the limited amount of grading
required for the project, potential impacts would be mitigated by Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4
and AQ-5. This was the only comment received during the 30-day public comment period. The
applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed specific to this project. The IS/MND shall
constitute the complete environmental determination for the project.
Item 3
Packet Page 92
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571 & EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach Street
Page 7
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated
into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3113 and the Architectural
Approval of the project. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the project
complies with the City’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations and would help
meet the City’s housing objectives. The Planning Commission would be required to
development findings to support this recommendation.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
3. CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes 6.22.20
4. Staff Memo and Modified Project Renderings
5. ARC Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes 7.6.20
6. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 3
Packet Page 93
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, A COMMON INTEREST VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3140 TO CREATE TEN (10)
RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AND APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
OF FIVE NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OVERLAY (R-2-H) ZONE (ARCH-0568-2019/SBDV-
0571-2019/EID-0800-2019)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a web based public hearing on June 22, 2020, recommending the Planning Commission find the
project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and
EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based public hearing on June 6, 2020, recommending the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman,
applicant and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on July 22, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0568-
2019, SBDV-0571-2019, and EID-0800-2019, Levi Seligman, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council
approve the project (ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV 0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019), based on the
following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and
Item 3
Packet Page 94
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 2
will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
2. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.7 because the project includes
infill development and rehabilitation efforts that contribute positively to the existing
neighborhood and surrounding area.
3. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.8 because the project includes the
rehabilitation and maintenance of existing housing and provides additional dwellings that
keep with density limits and do not significantly change the existing character of the area in
a Downtown residential area.
4. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.9 because the project provides
Downtown housing that minimizes the need for automobile use and storage of vehicles in
surrounding neighborhoods.
5. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1 because the project protects
existing and provides new residential uses around the Downtown core and contributes to the
variety of housing types in the area.
6. The project is consistent with Housing Element policies and programs (6.10 and 6.17)
because the project consists of residential infill development.
7. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.4.3 because
the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public
facilities and services, and to improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.
8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, since the proposed
building design complies with property development standards for height, coverage, and
parking, for the Medium Density Residential (R-2) zone.
Architectural Review Findings
9. The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines for construction in historic districts because the structures are designed
to be architecturally compatible with the districts prevailing character and nearby historic
resources. The project is consistent with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural
elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures
and does not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract
from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located on or
adjacent to the project site.
10. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for Infill
Development because the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood and is designed consistent with the prevailing setback pattern of the
Item 3
Packet Page 95
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 3
neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3 & 5.4).
11. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines by
providing a variety of architectural treatments that add visual interest and articulation to the
building design that are compatible with the design and scale of the existing structures in the
surrounding neighborhood (CDG, Chapter 5.3).
Subdivision Findings
12. The site is physically suited for the type of development allowed in the medium-high density
(R-2) zone.
13. The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures
prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Deceleration (IS-MND).
14. The design of the vesting tentative map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems or substantial environmental damage since further development or
redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with the City’s Development
Standards, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval.
15. The project insures safe, orderly development because the project complies with the City’s
housing goals and the City’s General Plan to maintain a compact urban form.
Variable Side and Rear Setback in New Subdivision Findings
16. The reduced side and rear setbacks proposed (a setback of five feet where seven is the
standard, six feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where nine feet is the standard,
and eight feet where eleven feet is the standard) are consistent with section 17.70.170. (D.2.c)
of the Zoning Regulations, because a separation of at least 10 feet between buildings on
adjacent lots will be maintained and an acceptable level of solar exposure will be guaranteed
by the proposed setbacks consistent with the solar access standards of General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1. The setbacks are consistent with this
policy because most roof areas, nearly all second-story south walls, and most first-story south
walls will be unshaded between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the winter solstice.
17. All proposed side and rear building setback exceptions meet the five-foot minimum
requirement specified in the Zoning Regulations for the R-2 zone.
18. All setbacks between proposed structures and previously established property lines are
consistent with Zoning Regulations Standards for the R-2 Zone.
Tandem Parking Findings
Item 3
Packet Page 96
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 4
19. As conditioned, the proposed tandem parking for residential use is consistent with section
17.72.090 (C.1) because the spaces are identified for the exclusive use of occupants of a
designated dwelling.
20. The proposed tandem parking provides needed flexibly on a site constrained by the location
of existing historic structures and existing parking arrangements.
21. The proposed tandem parking is safe and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
because both Peach and Toro Streets are classified as Residential Local streets and are
consistent with the current parking arrangement on site and in the neighborhood.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the IS/MND, based on incorporation of
the following mitigation measures, which will reduce potential environmental impacts to less than
significant.
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement
the following idling control techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road
Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced
at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with
Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation
limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular
weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways.
It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation
specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes
at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any
location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Item 3
Packet Page 97
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 5
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers
of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the
following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person
or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their
duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The
name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City Community
Development Department prior to commencement of construction. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division
prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity
for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency
would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of
any soil-disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance
by the SLOAPCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on
any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall
maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. “Track Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the
exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then
Item 3
Packet Page 98
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 6
fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section
23113 and California Water Code Section 13304. To prevent track out, designate
access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them.
Install and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can be any
device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located
at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or
steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways
accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be
modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building
plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility
is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance
the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall
include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for
example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim
Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing
for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department
upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the
potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request
with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory
jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated
in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to
the SLOAPCD;
Item 3
Packet Page 99
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 7
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant;
and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for
identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implement the following
measures to reduce the risk associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials
that may be present within the existing structures onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart
M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos emissions during demolition activities.
SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement the Federal
Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be
notified, per NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that
SLOAPCD has been notified prior to demolition activities to the City Community
Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the
construction materials (e.g., chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be
evaluated independently from the building material by a qualified hazardous
materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials
shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if
the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition (and is not
chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non-hazardous construction
debris. The landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint
materials. If required, all lead work plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least
10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall submit proof that paint
waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and
handled according to their recommendation to the City Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Item 3
Packet Page 100
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 8
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal associated with any future residential (or accessory) development
at the project site shall be scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of
the typical nesting bird season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal
or other construction activities are proposed during the nesting season (February 1 through
September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active nests shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the start of activities. If nesting
birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have
successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non -disturbance buffer of
50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be
implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a
qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed
construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young.
If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an
appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and
construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources
Manager shall verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as
necessary.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified
archaeologist shall conduct a cultural resource awareness training for all construction
personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and
local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new
discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new
discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed
as well as intact human burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground
disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be
notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-qualified archaeologist assesses
Item 3
Packet Page 101
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 9
the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American
affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work
in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further
study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance
in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall
prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in
conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will
capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall
also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with
the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated
with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community
Development Director and locally affiliated Native American representative(s) (as
necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no
further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to
origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains
are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on
all building and grading plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The
City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
Item 3
Packet Page 102
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 10
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits.
NOISE MITIGATION
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best
Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devises
(i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for
project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically
powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed-air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise
abatement methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine
vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure
proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers,
shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise
Best Management Practices (BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building
permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry
sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction
phase of the project. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting
on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP measures are to be
implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected
properties will not exceed 75 dBA for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall
be employed as needed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by
the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission
class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
Item 3
Packet Page 103
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 11
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger
vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours
between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No movement of
heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and
affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300
feet of the project of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to
minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Signs shall be in place prior to
and throughout grading and construction activities informing the public that noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community
Development Department.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building
plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall
be verified by the City during regular inspections.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The
City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEM
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1
through N-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.
Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant shall submit
the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with
Item 3
Packet Page 104
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 12
measures AQ-4 and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and
prior to issuance of grading permits. BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N1 through N-5 shall be
noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall
verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as necessary.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants
final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division - Architectural Conditions
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the PC (ARCH-0568-2019 &
SBDV-0571-2019). A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings
submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project
approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as
to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors,
materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the
color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application or reviewed at the
Architectural Review Commission hearing on June 6, 2020 and Planning Commission
Hearing on July 22, 2020.
3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details and all other
details including but not limited to awnings, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses and other related
window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design
features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the
neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
4. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included
as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building
architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of
the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected
fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the
requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100
of the Zoning Regulations.
Item 3
Packet Page 105
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 13
5. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the
landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with
corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show no less than five trees to be planted along
the north edge of the common drive isle, spaced approximately 35 feet apart, and of a species
on the City’s approved street tree list.
Planning Division – Subdivision Conditions
7. The subdivider shall include on the final map an access and parking easement for the benefit
of lot 2 that secures the use of no less than 56.8 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1143 Peach Street and 1151 Peach Street, extending from the northwest property
line.
8. The subdivider shall include on the final map an access and parking easement for the benefit
of lot 4 that secures the use of no less than 56.8 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1151 Peach Street and 1163 Peach Street, extending from the northwest property
line.
9. The subdivider shall include on the final map two access and parking easements for the benefit
of lot 3 that secures the use of no less than 18.4 feet of the existing driveway between the
residences at 1143 and 1151 Peach Street, and the existing driveway between the residences
at 1151 and 1163 Peach Street, adjacent to and extending from the new common drive isle.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development - Architectural Conditions
10. Except for any proposed “model home(s)”, the subdivision map shall be recorded prior to
building permit issuance for new dwellings.
11. The building plan submittal shall show and label all property lines, dedications, public
easements, and private easements in accordance with the tract map. The building plans shall
show and label all existing and proposed survey monumentation for reference. The plan shall
note the required monument preservation or replacement for any disturbed monuments
12. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and proposed frontage
improvements and sidewalk furniture located within the public right-of-way to scale on the
site plan for reference. Improvements to be shown include but are not limited to curb, gutter
& sidewalk, driveway approaches, catch basins, curb ramps, fire hydrants, street lights, utility
poles, parking meters, curb and street painting, overhead and underground utility services,
utility vaults, water meter vaults, water and sewer services, utility abandonments, street signs,
sidewalk underdrains, fences, retaining walls, landscape improvements, and street trees. Plan
must differentiate between existing frontage improvements and new frontage improvements.
New improvements shall include reference to the applicable Engineering Standards.
Item 3
Packet Page 106
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 14
13. Prior to building permit issuance, any existing steps, concrete pads, walls, fences, etc. that are
located in the right-of-way shall be removed or relocated unless an encroachment agreement
is requested and approved by the city.
14. Projects involving the construction of new structures require that complete frontage
improvements be installed and that existing improvements be upgraded per City Engineering
Standards. Pursuant to Municipal Code 12.16.050, plans submitted for a building permit shall
show these improvements.
15. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. All areas to be repaired
or replaced shall be shown on the building plan submittal for reference.
16. Sections of damaged curb, gutter, or sidewalk adjacent to the large ficus trees on Peach Street
shall be repaired or replaced due to root intrusion to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director. New bulb-outs may be considered to retain existing trees. A site visit shall be
arranged with the Community Development and/or Public Works Department to coordinate a
site visit with the City Arborist to discuss areas to be repaired and/or replaced. Areas to be
repaired or replaced shall be shown on the building plans submittal for reference.
17. The building plan submittal shall show the existing curb ramp at the corner of Peach and Toro
and clarify if it complies with current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), City Standard
#4440, and Cal Trans Standards Plan RSP A88A.
18. The building plan submittal shall show the existing shared driveway curb drop off between
1137 & 1127 Peach Street. Provide details of this curb drop off transition and any treatment
features that will be included and installed to mitigate the interface. If a property line fence
is proposed, the fence height and line-of-sight analysis shall conform to City standards.
19. The subdivision improvement plans may be included within the building permit plan set.
Separate record drawings (as-built) plans may be required at the completion of the project. A
separate subdivision improvement plan review fee will be required based on the fee schedule
in effect at the time of plan submittal. A separate encroachment permit will be required to
cover the required Public Works Department inspections.
20. The building permit submittal shall show and note compliance with the Post Construction
Stormwater Regulations and the City’s Drainage Design Manual. This project is considered
to be a common plan and is not a single-family residential project for purposes of evaluating
the Performance Requirement triggers. The altered and/or replaced frontage improvements
shall be included in the area analysis. Unless the net impervious area is less than 5,000 square
feet, compliance with Performance Requirement 2 will be required
21. The building plan submittal shall include an operations and maintenance manual as required
for the Post Construction Stormwater improvements, if applicable. A private stormwater
Item 3
Packet Page 107
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 15
conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals.
22. Documents submitted for a building permit shall show compliance with the grading ordinance
of the adopted building code, and a summary drainage report or note on building plans shall
be provided showing the pre vs. post drainage analysis for the 2 through 100-year storm with
plans submitted for a building permit. Improved or diverted drainage shall not be directed
across the side or rear property lines unless conveyed in an existing waterway, or a drainage
easement.
23. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan for this
project. The plan shall show the existing and proposed contours and/or spot elevations to
clearly depict the proposed grading and drainage. The plan shall show and label the high
point elevation or grade break at the yard areas and drainage arrows to show the proposed
drainage. Plans shall include the finished floor (FF) of the residences/garage, patio finish
surface elevations, finish grade elevations, and yard drainage.
24. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show that any improved drainage is directed to a
non-erosive outlet and ultimately discharged to the face of curb on Peach Street with an
approved sidewalk underdrain, per City Engineering Standards.
25. The building submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. The utility plan shall show
all existing and proposed on-site and off-site utilities. Show the location of all overhead and
underground utilities along with the location of any utility company meters. Show all existing
and proposed improvements located within the public right-of-way if applicable.
26. The building submittal shall show all new wire utilities to serve the development on all ten
parcels to be underground. The underground wiring shall be achieved without a net increase
in wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the
City and serving utility companies. Interim overhead wiring may be proposed to provide
replacement services to the existing residences until the PGE underground service to the
subdivision is available for the underground conversion.
27. PG&E and Tele-Com plans shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal
and/or subdivision plans. Preliminary plans shall be reviewed by the engineer of record for
consistency with the overall design. The final PG&E handout package shall be reviewed and
approved by the engineer of record and the City prior to construction. PG&E, AT&T, and
Charter plans shall not be deferred unless specifically approved for deferral by the City.
28. If allowed by PG&E, plans submitted for a building permit shall show and reference a new
streetlight to be located on the existing wood joint pole on Toro Street, in accordance with
Engineering Standards #1010.G, #7520, and #7910.
29. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show newly provided driveway and parking areas
in compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimensions, maneuverability,
Item 3
Packet Page 108
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 16
slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving material shall be provided consistent with
project plans and to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
30. A final landscape plan shall be included with plans submitted for a building permit and shall
show a line-of-sight analysis for new plantings at driveway approaches to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
31. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees to be r emoved and trees to be
retained. The plan shall show any neighboring trees with canopies/root zones within the area
of construction disturbance. Tree preservation measures shall be shown and noted on the
building plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
32. Safety pruning may be required for any existing street trees depending upon the scope of
proposed work and required construction activities. If required, any existing street trees along
the property frontage shall be safety pruned to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to
building permit issuance.
33. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show street trees at an approximate rate of one tree
per each 35 lineal feet of frontage. The City Arborist shall approve the proposed tree species
based on the location, soils type, and overhead wiring conflicts. The City Arborist shall
review and approve the tree species for the newly planted parkway trees prior to acceptance
as satisfying the street tree requirement.
34. The building plan shall show new trees with 4’ x 4’ wells with grates for areas along Peach
Street. Show all new tree wells to be located at the back of curb per city engineering standards
#8130. As an alternative, the City would support the removal of the infilled parkway to
provide a minimum tree planting area to support the new street tree plantings. Any parkway
and/or tree well plantings shall include provisions for irrigation from the on-site irrigation
system. All parkways shall be kept with plantings, groundcovers, or stable landscape
materials and shall be free of any debris for perpetuity.
35. The building plan submittal shall show the limits of the existing catch basin opening and
infrastructure for reference.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development - Subdivision Conditions
36. The subdivision shall be recorded with a final map. The map preparation and monumentation
shall be in accordance with the city’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and
the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with
the current City Engineering Standards.
37. All map exhibits and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
Item 3
Packet Page 109
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 17
38. Prior to map recordation, Park In-Lieu fees shall be paid for the proposed new dwelling
units/lots. Credit for the existing houses to remain will be applicable.
39. A separate subdivision improvement or miscellaneous public improvement plan is not
required. The building plan submittal may be used to show some or all of the required private
on-site subdivision improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will
require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee
schedule in effect at the time of permit issuance. A separate subdivision improvement plan
review fee and subdivision map check fee will be required for the Public Works Department
review and inspection of the public subdivision/development improvements and map in
accordance with the most current fee resolution.
40. The site development plan submittal shall show any parking, access, utility, site, and/or
drainage improvements required to support the proposed subdivision. The building plan
submittal shall show all existing public and/or private utilities and improvements shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works
Director prior to recordation of the parcel map. Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the
site/utility plan shall include drainage improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas,
electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any related utility company meters for each parcel if
applicable. Any utility relocations, demolitions, and/or other on-site work shall be completed
with proper permits and receive final inspection approvals prior to recordation of the parcel
map.
41. If “all electric” residences are proposed, gas service may not be required to each parcel. If
proposed, a “Notice of Requirements” may be required for concurrent recordation with the
map to identify the lack of gas service to any parcel(s).
42. Plans submitted for subdivision shall show the proposed water service lateral(s), meter sizing,
and private service laterals, sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans. Unless
a design exception is specifically approved, City Engineering Standards limit a meter
manifold to 4 1” water meters. A separate service lateral and meter manifold may be required
to accommodate the number of units, fire flow requirements, and the potential addition of a
common area landscape meter.
43. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, storm drain systems, construction, common driveways, and
maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately
prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total
as blanket easements.
44. A 10’ Street Tree easement and 10’ PUE shall be shown and noted on the map along both the
Peach and Toro street frontages.
Item 3
Packet Page 110
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 18
45. A separate public pedestrian easement may be required behind the new or redeveloped
driveway approach(es) to accommodate the ADA sidewalk extension(s).
46. The map may be recorded prior to construction of the required public and/or private
subdivision improvements. If so, the map conditions or code requirements may be satisfied
by the preparation and approval of a subdivision improvement plan. A subdivision agreement
and guarantee will be required for this process.
47. An Operation and Maintenance Manual and Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall
be provided in conjunction with the development project. The Stormwater Agreement shall
be recorded separately or concurrent with the map recordation.
48. The final map shall include reference to the project soils report in accordance with the
subdivision regulations. The report may be included on the cover sheet of the map or could
be included on an “additional map sheet”.
Utilities Department
49. Plans submitted for a building permit shall label all existing sewer laterals to remain or to be
abandoned per City Standards.
50. Plans submitted for a building permit showing sewer and water services shall be in accordance
with the engineering design standards in effect at the time the building permit is approved.
51. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clarify the size of existing and proposed water
services and water meters for the project.
52. Projects generating more than two cubic yards of total waste shall comply with AB 1826, and
local waste management ordinance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
53. The building permit submittal shall include the San Luis Garbage Company letter of service
within the plan set.
54. The City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services require that single family
residential projects with interior storage are designed and constructed to include adequate
storage space for three 96-gallon waste wheelers. The minimum space required shall be 92”
side by 36” deep by 6’ tall. This area shall be depicted on the plans submitted for a building
permit or a Conditional Exception Application shall be provided.
55. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the location of garbage, recycling and
organic bins located for pickup.
56. Projects having landscape areas greater than 500 square feet shall provide a Maximum
Applied Water Allowance calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape
Standards; Chapter 17.87 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Item 3
Packet Page 111
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-20
1137 Peach Street, ARCH-0568-20219, SBDV-0571-2019 & EID-0800-2019
Page 19
Indemnification
57. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
On motion by ________________, seconded by _________________, and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of July, 2020.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 3
Packet Page 112
PEACH STREETarc PACKAGE, 10/31/19
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING ON PEACH STREET, THESE FIVE NEW HOUSES PROVIDE
A MODERN INTERPRETATION THAT BLENDS SEAMLESSLY WITH THE EXISTING HISTORIC
HOUSES ON SITE WHILE PRESERVING A SENSE OF CHARACTER AND UNIQUE DESIGN TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE UNITS WERE DESIGNED TO FEEL LIKE INDIVIDUAL HOMES WITH
PRIVATE BACK YARDS AND AMAZING VIEWS OF THE LOCAL MOUNTAINS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL NEW AND EXISTING
HOUSES WHILE PRESERVING AS MUCH OPEN SPACE PER HOME AS POSSIBLE.
Item 3
Packet Page 113
CLIENT
LEVI SELIGMAN
1405 GARDEN STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CONTACT: LEVI SELIGMAN
levi@acquireslo.com
ARCHITECT
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: WILL RUOFF
willr@tenoverstudio.com
SOILS REPORT, PROVIDED BY PACIFIC COAST TESTING, Inc.
PROJECT#: 19-8706
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT EX-1
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGER PLAN C1.1
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C2.1
SITE PLAN A1.0
(N) 2 BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS A2.0 TO A2.2
ELEVATIONS A3.0 TO A3.5
SUN SHADE STUDY A4.0
PROJECT IMAGES A5.0 TO A5.5
CONTACTS
index
JAMES M. DUFFY
C-30770
7.31.2019
RENEWALLICENSEDAR CHI
T
E
CTSTA
T
E
OF A L IFORNIAC
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
7 PEACH ST43, 1151, 1163 PEACH STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CATHESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
THE DESIGN AND INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON
THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT
INDICATED AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2017
SYMBOLS
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
APN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOT SIZE
LIVING SPACE
GARAGE (TO BE REPLACED)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SHEET INDEX
TITLE / CODE
T1.0 TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A2.0 RESIDENCE 1 FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 RESIDENCE 2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 RESIDENCE 3 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 RESIDENCE 4 FLOOR PLAN
A3.0 RESIDENCE 1 ELEVATIONS
A3.1 RESIDENCE 2 ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RESIDENCE 3 ELEVATIONS
A3.3 RESIDENCE4 ELEVATIONS
A8.0 DETAILS
BUILDING CODE DATA
SPRINKLERS:REQUIRED:YES / NO
PROPOSED:YES / NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
37 PEACH STREET
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
KEYNOTE
DOOR NUMBER
N
HWY 1
PEACH STT
O
R
O
S
T
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
O
S
O
S
S
T
M
O
R
R
O
S
T
WALNUT ST
MILL STPALM ST
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE ARCHITECT HAS NO CONTROL OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEANS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCE, OR
PROCEDURES OF CONSTRUCTION OR SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR THIS PROJECT. SUCH PROGRAMS AND
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, CODES OR ORDINANCES SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS.
2. COORDINATE THE WORK OF ALL TRADES INVOLVED IN THE CEILING WORK TO ENSURE CLEARANCES FOR
FIXTURES, DUCTS, PIPING, CEILING SUSPENSION SYSTEM, ETC., NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE FINISHED
CEILING HEIGHTS INDICATED ON ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.
3. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES. THE
CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF AND COORDINATION WITH CITY AND
STATE AGENCIES, AND PROVIDE REQUIRED PERMITS. ALL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
OBTAINING APPROVALS TO PROCEED WITH AND COMPLETE THE WORK SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE
CONTRACTOR.
4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXECUTION OF HIS WORK AND
FOR ANY CHANGES AND / OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MADE WITHOUT PRIOR
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER. THE COST OF CORRECTIONS RESULTING FROM CHANGES AND / OR
DEVIATIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
5. DESIGN ALTERATIONS MADE WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION ARE DONE AT THE OWNER'S AND / OR CONTRACTOR'S RISK. THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH CHANGES.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPERATIONS WITH THE OWNER, INCLUDING AREA FOR WORK,
MATERIALS STORAGE, AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE WORK, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR NOISY WORK,
TIMING OF WORK AND INTERRUPTION OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES. NOISY OR DISRUPTIVE
WORK SHALL BE SCHEDULED AT LEAST ONE (1) WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME WORK IS TO COMMENCE.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC
AND WORKERS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK.
8. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP IN
GENERAL AND WITH SUCH STANDARDS AS ARE SPECIFIED.
9. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF
THE PROJECT. REMOVE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL WORK REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL FIRE CODE.
PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SHOP DRAWINGS AND APPROVALS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AUDIBILITY.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL FINISHES OF SUCH SIZE AND NUMBER THAT THEY REPRESENT
A REASONABLE DISTRIBUTION OF COLOR RANGES AND PATTERN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS AND PRODUCT DATA FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL ON ALL SPECIAL ITEMS REQUIRING CUSTOM FABRICATION. (SHALL INCLUDE RATED FIRE DOORS
AND HARDWARE).
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.
ALL DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ON DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS GUIDELINES AND MUST BE FIELD
VERIFIED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK IMPLIES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL
CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO COORDINATE THE WORK WITH THE WORK OF ALL OTHER TRADES.
13. OMISSIONS MADE IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH IS MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED SHALL
NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK
AS IF FULLY AND COMPLETELY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
14. A COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS MUST BE KEPT AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ANY
CHANGES MUST BE NOTED THEREON AND INITIALED.
15. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK.
16. PATCH, REPAIR, OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
SHALL PATCH WALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ADJOINING SURFACE.
17. ALL FLOORS SHOULD BE LEVEL AND NOT VARY MORE THAN 1/4" IN 10'-0". THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
ARCHITECT OF ANY CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THIS STANDARD.
18. MATERIALS, ARTICLES, DEVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS BY LISTING
ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCTS, BY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH REFERENCED STANDARDS,
OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS. FOR ITEMS SPECIFIED BY NAME, SELECT ANY PRODUCT NAMED.
FOR THOSE SPECIFIED BY REFERENCE STANDARDS OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS SELECT ANY
PRODUCT MEETING OR EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CRITERIA. FOR APPROVAL OF AN ITEM NOT SPECIFIED, SUBMIT
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS, PROVIDING COMPLETE BACK-UP INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATION.
WHERE BUILDING STANDARD ITEMS ARE CALLED FOR, NO SUBSTITUTE WILL BE ACCEPTED.
19. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, OUTLETS, ETC., WHEN SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS, ARE FOR LOCATION INFORMATION ONLY. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TO BE DESIGNED BY
OTHERS. ALL CIRCUITING COORDINATION TO BE BY OTHERS.
20. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE DRAWINGS FOR ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL SHOWING LOCATIONS OF ALL HVAC
THERMOSTATS, GRILLES AND DIFFUSERS, FIRE AND SMOKE DETECTION DEVICES INCLUDING SPRINKLERS,
SMOKE DETECTORS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND HOSE CABINETS, PLUMBING AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT.
21. REPLACE OR RELOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
NEW WORK.
N PLAN GENERAL NOTES
NTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND LEAVE THE PROJECT AREA IN A CLEAN, SAFE AND ORDERLY
NSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO SAFELY CAP, SEAL OR TERMINATE ALL
HANICAL OR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AS NECESSARY AT AREAS OF DEMOLITION.
REUSED OR RETURNED TO OWNER SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL ITEMS TO
ALL EITHER BE (1) RETAINED BY THE OWNER AT HIS DISCRETION, (2) REMOVED AND
TE, OR (3) DELIVERED TO AN APPROPRIATE DUMPSITE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED
CE WITH LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.
LITION SHALL BE LIMITED FROM 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. VERIFY
ALL BE PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION AS STATED IN CBC CHAPTER 33,
MEASURES SHALL BE IN EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY DURING DEMOLITION AS TO LIMIT THE
ORNE DEBRIS AND DUST. PROVIDE PROTECTION AROUND AREAS WHERE NEW WORK AND/OR
O BE PERFORMED IN ORDER TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM ENTERING ACTIVE PORTIONS
.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO BE HAULED OFF SITE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY COVERED OR TARPED
W ANY MATERIAL TO LEAVE THE VEHICLE WHILE ON ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHALL
DISPOSED OF IN MEANS APPROVED BY JURISDICTION.
RIS AND TRASH FROM PREMISES AND REMOVE FROM SITE DAILY.
RING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC CHAPTER 33.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN THE BUILDING AND
VED DAILY.
S TO BE DEMOLISHED WITH OWNER/TNEANT PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION/REMOVAL.
CT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND IMMEDIATELY.
RUCTION/DEMOLITION, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF AN Y DISCREPANCIES FOUND
ANS AND THE AS BUILT CONDITION.
MEMBER SIZES AND DIRECTION AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER WITH DISCREPANCIES.
MBING LOCATIONS WITH OWNER/TENANT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION AND NOTIFY
NY DISCREPANCIES.
OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ACE.
ACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE
VE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
LOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
DS AND RAFTERS TO BE CLEANED AND SEALED TO ELIMINATE SMOKE ODOR.
ED LUMBER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. TOILET ROOMS SHALL HAVE EXHAUST RATE OF 50 CFM MINIMUM.
2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS TO BE PLACED AT 18" TO CENTERLINE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
3. ELECTRICAL SWITCHES TO BE PLACED AT 48" TO CENTERLINE FROM FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
4. DOORS HANDLES, LOCK AND OTHER OPERATING DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM 34" AND A
MAXIMUM 48" A.F.F.
5. ALL EXTERIOR WALL SHALL BE 2X FRAMING WITH MINIMUM INSULATION PER TITLE 24, U.N.O. REFER TO WALL
LEGEND.
6. ALL INTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE 2X4 FRAMING, TYPICAL U.N.O. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
7. ALL PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE 2X6 MINIMUM FRAMING. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
8. PROVIDE R-13 MINIMUM INSULATION AT PLUMBING WALLS AND WALLS OF LAUNDRY ROOM.
9. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUGH AND TO FACE OF STUD (F.O.S.).
10. ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF ANY VARIATION,
DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE
ARCHITECT / DESIGNER IN WRITING AND OBTAIN WRITTEN RESOLUTION FROM ARCHITECT / DESIGNER PRIOR
TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.
11. PROVIDE MOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT WITH BACK-DRAFT DAMPER FOR THE DRYER EXHAUST (14' MAX. LENGTH
OF DRYER EXHAUST W/ TWO 90 DEGREE ELBOWS) PER 2013 CEC 504.3 & 504.3.1.2
12. VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS IN FIELD
13. NEW 5/8" GYP. BD. THROUGHOUT. INSULATION IN EXTERIOR WALLS PER TITLE 24 REPORT
14. ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED, AND
MUST MEET OR EXCEED CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES (CA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS SEC. 4.303.)
TOTAL FIXTURE COUNT TO REMAIN THE SAME AS PRIOR TO FIRE DAMAGE.
15. ALL FINISHES AND FIXTURES TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED.
DOOR & WINDOW NOTES
1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE SECTION 110.6.
2. ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE CLEAR GLAZED, UNO, HAVE A LABEL LISTING THE CERTIFIED U-FACTOR, CERTIFIED
SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC), AND INFILTRATION THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEC SECTION
110.6. REFER TO TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL GLAZING REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND WINDOWS BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED SPACES SHALL LIMIT
AIR LEAKAGE AND ALL JOINTS AND PENETRATIONS CAULKED AND SEALED.
4. EXTERIOR WINDOWS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTIPANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED
PANE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 CBC SECTION 2406, OR BE CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS BLOCK
UNITS, OR HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 10 MINUTES WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NFPA 257, OR BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM 12-7A-2.
5. SITE BUILT WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SECTION 2404.
6. ALL GLAZING IN EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE DUAL GLAZED AND TEMPERED, UNO. ALL GLAZING IN INTERIOR
DOORS SHALL BE SINGLE GLAZED AND TEMPERED.
7. THRESHOLD AND LANDINGS
7.1. THRESHOLDS AT DOORWAYS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3/4" IN HEIGHT FOR SLIDING DOORS SERVING
DWELLING UNITS OR 1/2" FOR OTHER DOORS. RAISED THRESHOLDS AND FLOOR LEVEL CHANGES
GREATER THAN 1/4" AT DOORWAYS SHALL BE BEVELED WITH A SLOPE NOT GREATER THAN ONE UNIT
VERTICAL IN TWO UNITS HORIZONTAL (50% SLOPE). THE THRESHOLD HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7-
3/4" AND THE DOOR IS AN EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS NOT A COMPONENT OF THE REQUIRED MEANS OF
EGRESS; THE DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER THE LANDING OR STEP; AND THE DOORWAY IS NOT ON AN
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND IS NOT PART OF AN ADAPTABLE OR ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT. REFER TO CBC
1008.1.7.
8. ROUGH OPENINGS FOR DOOR & WINDOW INSTALLATION SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
9. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR HEADER/SILL HEIGHTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS.
LIGHTING PLAN GENERAL NOTES
1. REFER TO CEC SECTION 150, MANDATORY MEASURES, AND/OR TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2. ALL FIXTURE AND SWITCH LOCATIONS ARE SCHEMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A WALK THROUGH WITH
THE OWNER FOR VERIFICATION OF LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. HIGH EFFICIENCY LUMINAIRES OR LED LIGHT ENGINE WITH INTEGRAL HEAT SINK HAS AN EFFICIENCY THAT IS NO
LOWER THAN THE EFFICACIES CONTAINED IN TABLE 150-C AND IS NOT A LOW EFFICACY LUMINAIRE AS SPECIFIED
BY CEC SECTION 150(K) AND TITLE 24.
PROJECT LOCATION
1137, 1143, 1151,
1163 PEACH ST
AND 771 TORO ST
Item 3
Packet Page 114
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 T1.0
OCCUPANCY R-3
CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB, SPRINKLED
SPRINKLER SYSTEM 13-D
STORIES PROPOSED 2
BUILDING AREAS
GARAGE (SF)AREA (SF) OUTDOOR PATIO (SF)DECK, UNCOVERED (SF)
2 BED UNIT A 483.8 1465 156 0
TOTAL:2104.8
2 BED UNIT B 507.1 1404.3 150 174.9
TOTAL:2236.3
2 BED UNIT C 476.7 1460.4 150 119
TOTAL:2206.1
BUILDING INFO
DENSITY CALC
TOTAL 10 DU
DENSITY PER LOT LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3
0.083 ACRE 0.085 ACRE 0.085 ACRE
1.02 DU 1.02 DU
1
1
1.07 DU
LOT 9 LOT 10
LOT 5
0.086 ACRE
1.03 DU
DENSITY
5
5
LOT 4
0.089 ACRE
1 DU 1 DU
0.1 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE
TOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
DU FACTORUNIT COUNT
1.2 DU 1 DU 1 DU
LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8
UNIT TYPE
(E) 2 BED
(N) 2 BED
5
5
1 DU
0.86 ACRE
12/ ACRE
10.32
LOT SIZE:
DENSITY FACTOR:
ALLOW. DENSITY:
PARKING REQUIRED
(E) RESIDENTIAL
(N) RESIDENTIAL USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
2 BED UNIT A (LOT 5)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 7)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT C (LOT 8)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 9)1 2 2
1 BED UNIT C (LOT 10)1 2 2
GUEST PARKING 1
REQUIRED TOTAL 11
PROVIDED TOTAL 11
7TOTAL (E) PARKING TO REMAIN
2 BED LOT 6 (711 TORRO ST)
2
1
1
PARKING CALCULATIONS
2 BED LOT 1 (1137 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 4 (1163 PEACH ST)
(E) PARKING TO REMAINUSE
2 BED LOT 2 (1143 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 3 (1151 PEACH ST)
2
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE NEW 2 BEDROOM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CREATES A COMMON DRIVE INTO THE SITE AND PROVIDES 2
GARAGE PARKING FOR EACH UNIT, WITH THE TOTAL OF 10 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY WILL ALSO CONNECT WITH EXISTING ONES ON SITE TO INTEGRATE EXISTING WITH NEW AND
PROVIDE SHARED AMENITY TO ALL RESIDENCES. A COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED TO
ALLOW FOR THE LOT TO BE SPLIT INTO 10 PARCELS TO ALLOW FOR EACH RESIDENCE TO HAVE ITS OWN
LOT. THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING VARIABLE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISION PER
SECTION 17.70.170.D.2.c.
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST AND 771 TORO ST
APN 002-316-005
CURRENT USE RESIDENTIAL
37471 SF .86 ACRE
MAX SITE COVERAGE ALLOWABLE 50%PROPOSED 32%, 12060 SF
DENSITY ALLOWABLE 12/ACRE = 10.32 PROPOSED 10 du
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE 35'PROPOSED 25'-5"
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2
SETBACKS:
20'5'+5'+5'+
2 BEDROOM UNIT A (LOT 5)
NORTH/STREET EAST/STREET SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-1"19'-7"22'-1"19'-7"
SETBACK DISTANCE 20'-0"10'8'-8"5'-0"
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 7)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 28'-11"6'-10" *11'-3"8'-1"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C (LOT 8)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 23'8'-3" *11'-2"8'
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 9)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"8'-10"11'-1"8'-10"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C(LOT 10)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"11'11'-1"8'
*Per section 17.70.170.D.2.c "Variable Side and Rear Setbacks in New Subdivisions" are permitted
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
OVERLAY ZONES
LOT SIZE
R-2-H
H
ADDRESS
PROPOSED USE RESIDENTIAL
Item 3
Packet Page 115
Item 3
Packet Page 116
Item 3
Packet Page 117
Item 3
Packet Page 118
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 L1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
keynotes
1. (N) STREET TREE
2. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
3. (E) PROPERTY LINES
4. (N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
5. (N) CONCRETE WALKWAY
6. (N) 5’-0” TALL WOOD FENCE, TYP.
7. (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
8. (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
9. (E) SIDEWALK PLANTING AREA TO REMAIN
10. (E) RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) DRIVEWAY
PLANTING AREA TO BE
PROVIDED BY RESIDENCE
(E) LAWN TO REMAIN
(N) CONCRETE PAVING
(N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
(N) 5’-0” WOOD FENCE
Item 3
Packet Page 119
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
2 Magnolia grandiflora `Little Gem` / Dwarf Southern Magnolia 24"box Size: 20`-25` tall and 10`-15` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
4 Maytenus boaria / Mayten Tree 24"box Size: 50` tall and 20` wide.
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
18 Acanthus mollis / Bear`s Breech 5 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
67 Buxus x `Green Velvet` / Boxwood 15 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
147 Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
37 Rosa x `Noaschnee` / White Groundcover Rose 2 gal Size: 2` tall x 3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .4 - .6
28 Teucrium chamaedrys / Germander 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF: .1 - .3
75 Verbena bonariensis / Purpletop Vervain 1 gal Size: 2`-4` tall and 1.5`-3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS
439 sf Agrostis pallens / Thingrass flat Uniform and medium leaf texture
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
N
03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
DWARF SOUTHERN
MAGNOLIA
BEAR'S BREECH
BOXWOOD BLUE OAT GRASS WHITE GROUNDCOVER
ROSE
GERMANDER PURPLETOP VERVAIN THINGRASS
MAYTEN TREE
L1.1
PLANT PALETTE
PLANTING PALETTE PLANTING IMAGES
Item 3
Packet Page 120
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) CONCRETE PATIO
(N) DRIVEWAY
(N) OUTDOOR PATIO
(N) 5’ FENCE
A1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
keynotes
1. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
2. (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
3 (E) DRIVEWAY CURB RAMP TO BE IMPROVED
TO (N) DESIGN
4. (N) 10’x20’ GUEST PARKING
5. (N) PROPERTY LINE
6. (N) CONCRETE PATIO
7. (N) 2-CAR GARAGE PARKING, TYP.
8. (N) 3’x8’ TRASH ARE, TYP.
9. (N) 5’ FENCE, TYP.
10. (N) BALCONY LINE ABOVE
11. (N) 2-BIKE RACK, TYP.
12. (E) TANDEM PARKING TO REMAIN, TYP.
13. (N) PORCH
14. (N) 150 SF OUTDOOR PATIO
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.8'-8"SETBACK(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(E)
DRIVEWAY (E)
DRIVEWAY
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
GARAGE
PARKING
1 & 2 FIRE HYDRANT+/- 80'FIRE HYDRANT
+/- 200'FIRE HYDRANT+/- 220'GARAGE
PARKING
5 & 6
GARAGE
PARKING
9 & 10
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
8
7
1
2
1
11
3
10 6
11
9
5 5 5
5
9 55
9(E) 771 TORO
PARKING
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
GARAGE
PARKING
3 & 4
9
GARAGE
PARKING
7 & 8
5
2
LOT 1 LOT 2
LOT 3 LOT 4
LOT 6
12
12
14510
11
8
2
1
A3.0
3
A3.0
GUEST
PARKING
11
4
14
14
13
14
14
511'-3"SETBACK8'-3"
SETBACK
11'-0"
SETBACK 11'-2"10'-6"39'-6"39'-3"14'-10"13'-6"8'-1"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
6'-10"
SETBACK
5'-0"
SETBACK
10'-0"
SETBACK20'-0"SETBACK11'-1"SETBACK14'-1"SETBACK20'-0"7 1
11'-2"SETBACK1
10
109
5
9
2
A3.0
ADJACENT
BUILDING
5
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING19'-5"19'-5"27'-1"26'-2"19'-7"19'-8"5'-0"8'-2"8
9'-10"
4'-5"5'-0"
6'-5"9'-11"7'-5"7'-2"5'-2"
Item 3
Packet Page 121
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.0
2 BED UNIT a SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT a FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7"10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7" 10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"Item 3
Packet Page 122
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.1
3 BED UNIT b SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
3 BED UNIT b FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
OPEN
TO
BELOW
TRASH
POWDER
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
CLOSETMASTER
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
BALCONY
CLOSET
CLOSET
BATHROOM 7'-812"27'-212"34'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"22'-8"40'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"5'-612"12'-812"19'-412"11'-7"
30'-1112"
LAUNDRY
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1 2 BED B SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
0
N
8
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:
421 16
2 2 BED B FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
Item 3
Packet Page 123
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.2
2 BED UNIT c SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT c FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
POWDER LAUNDRYCLOSET
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
MASTER
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
CLOSET
BEDROOM
BATHROOM BATHROOM
OPEN
TO
BELOW
CLOSET
BALCONY
TRASH 3'-0"38'-11"10'-812"25'-212"21'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"6'-0"3'-0"44'-11"10'-812"25'-212"19'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"
1'-0"1'-0"
Item 3
Packet Page 124
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.0
1. NORTH ELEVATION -FROM PEACH ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. NORTH ELEVATION - FROM (N) DRIVEWAY
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
3. EAST ELEVATION - FROM TORO ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(E) RESIDENCE 4
LOT 4
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(E) RESIDENCE 3
LOT 3
(E) RESIDENCE 2
LOT 2
(E) RESIDENCE 1
LOT 1
TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PLPLPLPL
5'-0"5'-3"7'-7"7'-2"6'-4"9'-11"4'-6"4'-10"10'-0"
PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
PLPLPLPL
11'-0"8'-10"8'-10"8'-0"8'-3"8'-1"6'-10"5'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PL
14'-9"
PLPL
8'-2"21'-0"19'-8"
Item 3
Packet Page 125
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.1
1. LOT 5 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 5 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 5 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 5 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
CLAPBOARD SIDING
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
Item 3
Packet Page 126
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.2
1. LOT 7 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 8 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 8 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 7 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
523
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. THRESHOLD TAUPE (SW 7501)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. MINERAL GRAY (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. COLONNADE GRAY (SW 7641)
STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 127
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.3
1. LOT 9 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 10 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 10 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 9 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7075)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. SOFTER TAN (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. TONY TAUPE (SW 7038) STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. DOWNING SAND (SW 2822)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. STORM CLOUD (SW 6249)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 128
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.4
LOT 7-10 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
LOT 7-10 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11" 8'-10"8'-11" 8'-0"8'-2" 8'-2"
6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"Item 3
Packet Page 129
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A4.0
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 10AM VERNAL SOLSTICE - 10AM WINTER SOLSTICE - 10AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 12PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 12PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 3PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 12PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 3
Packet Page 130
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.0
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
Item 3
Packet Page 131
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.1
VIEW FROM TORO STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A
Item 3
Packet Page 132
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.2
VIEW FROM (N) DRIVEWAY - (E) RESIDENCE 5 AND (N) 2 BED RESIDENCES
Item 3
Packet Page 133
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.3
VIEW FROM toro STREET
Item 3
Packet Page 134
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.4
new 2 bedroom unit B
Item 3
Packet Page 135
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.5
new 2 bedroom unit C
Item 3
Packet Page 136
Item 3
Packet Page 137
Item 3Packet Page 138
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019,
APPLICANT: Levi Seligman SBDV-0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019
For more information contact Kyle Van Leeuwen: 781-7091 or kvanleeu@slocity.org
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences
on a site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained
in their existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and
Toro Streets, with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing
structures. The project also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would
contain one single-family residence.
General Location: The 0.86 project site is
located on the corner of Peach Street and
Toro Street within the Medium-Density
Residential and zone and has a Historical
Preservation (H) Overlay, within the Mill
Street Historic District (R-2-H).
Present Use: Five single-family residences
(Contributing Historic Resources), to remain
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses: The area is characterized
by single-family dwellings, with some office
uses to the west, closer to Santa Rosa
Street. Twelve of the 17 properties in the
immediate vicinity are listed historic
resources (2 Master List, 10 Contributing
List).
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, which includes the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and to
review the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the Initial Study 1
1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2059
Meeting Date: June 22, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 139
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). An
Historic Preservation Report (Attachment 4) was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants.
The Committee will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency
of the proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies and standards and may
recommend conditions of project approval as appropriate.
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Historic Preservation Ordinance: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Historic Preservation Report determined that the five existing dwellings were constructed
between 1906 and 1925. The existing structures are all single-story and exhibit multiple
architectural styles, including Queen Ann cottage and Craftsman bungalow (see Figure 2 below).
The structures are included in the City’s Inventory Historic Resources as Contributing Properties.
4.0 PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES
As shown in project plans (Attachment 1), four of the five new structures are located to the rear
of the site, behind the existing contributing historic structures to remain. These structures are
oriented towards the common driveway, which will run from east to west from Toro Street. The
fifth structure, located on the corner of Toro and Peach Street, is oriented towards Peach Street.
5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines provides guidance for new structures within historic districts and on properties with
Figure 2: Existing dwellings
Item 3
Packet Page 140
historic resources. These Guidelines apply to the proposed project because it is located within
the Mill Street Historic District, and five Contributing Historic Resources are located within the
project site. Selected applicable guidelines, standards, and recommendations from th is
document are outlined below, and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Mill Street
Historic District are provided as Attachment 2 for reference. The Committee should consider the
scale, form, and arrangement of new structures elements, the materials, window patterns, and
rooflines, and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether the project
is consistent with applicable historical preservation standards and guidelines.
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Staff notes
§3.2.1 Architecturally compatible
development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be
designed to be architecturally compatible
with the district’s prevailing historic
character as measured by their consistency
with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature
architectural elements, exterior materials,
siting and street yard setbacks of the
district's historic structures (…). New
structures are not required to copy or imitate
historic structures or seek to create the
illusion that a new building is historic.
The CHC should discuss if the use of a
raised finished floor, similar eave line,
inclusion of an entry porch, and use of
siding on the proposed corner structure
follows the pattern of the existing
structures on Peach Street and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
Similarly, the CHC should discuss if the four
proposed structures interior to the site
effectively use similar rhythm, architectural
elements, and materials in their design as
the existing contributing structures and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
§3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC
reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby
historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies,
standards, and historic district descriptions
in Section 5.2. New development should not
sharply contrast with, significantly block
public views of, or visually detract from, the
historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to
the property to be developed, or detract
from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district.
The description of the Mill Street Historic
District in the HPPG identifies common site
features and characteristics for the district.
The CHC should discuss how well those
features and characteristics are included in
the project, such as a consistent street yard
setback, raised finished floor, and entry
porch (refer to Figures 3 and 4, below).
Prominent architectural features within the
district include gable and hipped roofs,
traditional fenestration, and painted siding.
The proposed new corner structure does
not block views of neighboring structures in
a way that detracts from its architectural
character or blocks defining features.
Item 3
Packet Page 141
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: Proposed corner structure, existing structure in district (1237 Mill), guidelines example of
1.5-story craftsman bungalow.
Figure 4: Proposed new two-story structures, sketches of existing structures, guidelines example of
new development in historic districts
Item 3
Packet Page 142
5.2 Environmental Review
An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. Pertinent evaluation within the Initial
Study for CHC consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
sections of the Initial Study (Sections 5 and 18). The Initial Study cultural resources evaluation
found that the project would have a less than significant impact on historic resources. As outlined
in the Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 4), SWCA Environmental Consultants found that
none of the project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource . The Initial Study
evaluation found less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with incorporation of
mitigation measures, including training and contingency measures in the event of an
unanticipated discovery.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 30-day public review period on June 11, 2020
and the public review period will conclude on July 11, 2020.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
3. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project inconsistent with historical
preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Mill Street Historic District (HPPG § 5.2.4)
3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Cultural and Tribal Resources sections
4. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005, Paula Juelke Carr,
M.A., May 2020, SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 3
Packet Page 143
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, June 22, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair James Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee,
Chair James Papp
Absent: Committee Member Eva Ulz
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner Kyle
Van Leeuwen, and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Approve the minutes of the May 18, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 4-0-0 (Member Ulz absent), to approve the
minutes of the May 18, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Review of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately
30,000 square feet of commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, within the
Downtown Historic District, including review of the cultural resources analysis of the project.
The project includes a rezone to provide a Planned Development Overlay, demolition of an
existing structure, permanent preservation of an off-site building located at 868 and 870
Monterey Street, and a request to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet , where 50 feet
is normally allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review (CEQA) is proposed; Project Address: 1144 Chorro, 868 and 870
Monterey, 876 and 890 Marsh, 895, 898, 973 Higuera Streets,; Case #: ARCH-1687-2018,
PDEV-0509-2019, EID-0475-2019; Zone: C-D-H; Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP,
Item 3
Packet Page 144
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 2
owner/applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Mark Rawson and Paula Carr, provided a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
Michael Boudreau
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, SECONDED BY VICE
CHAIR LARRABEE, CARRIED 3-1-1 (Member Matteson dissenting and Member Ulz
absent), finding the project consistent with the Downtown Historic District and recommends
that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance with consideration of the following:
• The top three stories should be changed to brick facing material to match the lower three
stores to de-emphasize the height of the building.
• The CHC recognizes that the Riley’s department store uniquely embodies mid-century
modern architecture in the Downtown Historic District.
3. 1137 Peach Street. Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences,
each with an attached two-car garage, and review of the cultural resources analysis of the
project. The project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of
five, two-bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic
Properties. The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will
contain one of the ten residences, and requested exceptions from development standards to
allow interior side and rear setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided
in tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed;
Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant.
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Joel Snyder, provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
James Lopes
Laura Gaither
--End of Public Comment--
Item 3
Packet Page 145
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of June 22, 2020 Page 3
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
HAYDU, CARRIED 4-0-1 (Member Ulz absent), to recommend the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines with the
following:
• The CHC finds this project compatible with the Historic District and the surrounding
historic buildings and the applicant will work with designated members of the Committee
consisting of Chair Papp, Vice Chair Larrabee, and Committee Member Haydu to explore
options for greater variety of materials and design for the single family residences to be
consistent with the neighborhood pattern.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 146
CityofSanLuisObispo,CommunityDevelopment,919PalmStreet,SanLuisObispo,CA,934013218,805.781.7170,slocity.org
July 2, 2020
TO: Architectural Review Commission
FROM: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
VIA: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, ARC Liaison
SUBJECT: Item 4: ARCH-0568-2019 (1137 Peach)
The purpose of this memo is to update the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on recent
aesthetic modifications made by the applicant in response to the recommendations of the Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC).
On June 22, 2020, the CHC held a scheduled hearing to review the project located at 1137 Peach
Street. At this hearing, the CHC found the project to be consistent with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and recommended the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance During the hearing,
the applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the CHC to explore some options to provide
additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the interior structures (lots 7 thru 10),
reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street.
On June 30, 2020, City staff and members of the applicant’s architectural team met with two of the
subcommittee members, James Papp and Shannon Larrabee, to go over the modification made to the
architectural styling of the interior structures. Some minor modifications to the corner structure (lot
5) were also discussed. The subcommittee members agreed that the modifications made by the
architectural team successfully provided a variety in styling that better reflects the neighborhood and
variety of adjacent existing structures facing Peach Street.
The updated renderings are attached to this memo, along with a description of those changes provided
by the architectural team.
The subcommittee also provided the following notes for subsequent hearings.
The increase in overall height of the structures on lot seven and nine is necessary to successfully
execute the Victorian style of these two structures, which includes a steeper roof pitch.
The two-car wide garage doors on lots seven and nine would better match the Victorian style
proposed if they were broken up into two, single-car wide garages, similar to the garages shown
on lots eight and ten of the modified designs.
The contrast in colors between windows and window casings should be minimized. The white
widows shown within the brown casings should be changed to a darker color.
Item 3
Packet Page 147
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805. 541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 1 of 2
PEACH STREET RESIDENCES
ARC LETTER
PROJECT: Peach Street Residences
ADDRESS: TBD Peach Street, San Luis Obispo
TO: Kyle Van Leeuwen
ADDRESS: City of SLO
FROM: TEN OVER STUDIO
CONTACT: jenniferb@tenoverstudio.com
DATE: July 02, 2020
COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL CHC MEETING
Overall site layout with 2-story buildings at the rear of the site is precedented in this
neighborhood
Alley driveway precedented in neighborhood (Peach/Mill Alley)
The word 'eclectic' to describe the existing neighborhood
Two houses being similar (sister-like) is acceptable, even encouraged, as it is true of the existing
homes by WJ Smith
Directive to design more character into the proposed residences
Previously proposed described as banal. Perhaps too much function over form.
DESIGN REVISIONS
Cues we took: Massing and roof lines, added details and more varied color schemes.
Overall Design Revisions:
o Varied the siding
o Varied roof color throughout buildings to add variety.
o Referenced existing homes’ color schemes to continue a similar palette, while keeping
each home’s colors totally unique.
Refined corner house design- to incorporate more details (updated columns, porch railing,
banding) and material changes
Victorian and Craftsman were the most relevant styles to take cues from based on our floor
plan layouts and existing homes in the area.
Biggest change came from embracing the Victorian style for 2 of the residences.
o Added bay windows, protruding gable elements, trim detail, fascia treatment detailing
and some decorative enhancements, included fiber cement shingles.
o Deepened the entry porches to make them a stronger feature and to conform to the
style of the surrounding neighborhood as mentioned in the Historic Report for the
project and CHC Meeting.
o Included steeper roof pitches to conform to the Victorian Style within required height
limits. Created a variety of heights so buildings don’t look like one large mass from
Peach Street and to give the sister-like relationship
o Varied the siding to include fiber cement shingles.
Changes to Craftsman Style Residences
o Split the garage doors into two to break up the visual mass.
Item 3
Packet Page 148
Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805. 541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
info@tenoverstudio.com
tenoverstudio.com
Page 2 of 2
o Added more decorative details (brackets, columns, railings)
o Varied the gable details and entry porch roofs.
We feel we have ended with an improved project. The homes each have charm, balance, and
personality.
Item 3
Packet Page 149
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Item 3
Packet Page 150
PEACHSTREETCHC
PACKAGE, 6/30/20
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
Providing much needed housing on peach street, these five new houses provide a modern
interpretation that blends seamlessly with the existing historic houses on site while preserving
a sense of character and unique design to the neighborhood. These units were designed to feel
like individual homes with private back yards and amazing views of the local mountains of San
Luis Obispo. The shared driveway is designed to provide access to all new and existing houses
while preserving as much open space per home as possible.
Item 3
Packet Page 151
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.0
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/22/20
Item 3
Packet Page 152
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.1
VIEW OF LOTS 7 THROUGH 10
ORIGINAL DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/22/20ORIGINALDESIGNPRESENTEDON6/22/20
Item 3
Packet Page 153
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.2
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/ 20
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
Item 3
Packet Page 154
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.3
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 7
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 7
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 155
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.4
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 8
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 8
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 156
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.5
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 9
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT b, lot 9
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 157
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.6
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 10
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
N) 2 BED - UNIT c, lot 10
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/ 30/ 20
Item 3
Packet Page 158
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 6/30/20 A5.5
OVERALL SITE VIEW
PROPOSED DESIGN PRESENTED ON 6/30/20
Item 3
Packet Page 159
Item 3
Packet Page 160
Meeting Date: July 6, 2020
Item Number: 4
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences on a
0.86-acre site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained in their
existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and Toro Streets,
with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing structures. The proj ect
also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would contain one single -family
residence. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards to allow interior side
setbacks from proposed property lines to be reduced (five feet where seven feet is the standard, six
feet where eight feet is the standard, seven feet where eight or nine feet is the standard, and eight feet
where eleven feet is the standard), and to allow required parking to be provided in tandem .
General Location: The 0.86 project site is located
on the corner of Peach Street and Toro Street
within the Medium-Density Residential zone with
a Historical Preservation (H) Overlay, within the
Mill Street Historic District (R-2-H).
Present Use: Five single-family residences
(Contributing Historic Resources), to remain
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses: The area is characterized by
single-family dwellings, with some office uses to
the west, closer to Santa Rosa Street. Twelve of
the 17 properties in the immediate vicinity are
listed historic resources (2 Master List,
10 Contributing List).
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Craftsman
Design details: Two-bedroom homes, outdoor patios/balconies, hipped and gabled roofs, stucco and
siding walls, two-car garages
Materials: Siding and stucco
Colors: Light brown, tan, blue, taupe, yellow, & light and medium grays
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019,
APPLICANT: Levi Seligman SBDV-0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Van Leeuwen) at 781-7091 or kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 161
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 2
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the residential buildings in terms of consistency with the Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and
recommendations to the Planning Commission.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
3.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The proposed development must be consistent with the requirements of the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, and CDG. Staff has identified the discussion items below related to consistency with CDG
Chapters 2 (General Design Principles), 5 (Residential Project Design), and 6 (Site Planning and Other
Design Details).
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1.B – Site function
The project includes the retention of five structures on the property, with new
detached structures proposed. The ARC should consider how the various
activities and elements proposed on the site are logically located so the
project will operate efficiently, and effectively address the needs of all users.
§2.2.F – Coordinate the The ARC should discuss whether the new structures are designed to
Figure 2: Renderings of project design.
Item 3
Packet Page 162
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 3
new with the old coordinate with the existing structures to remain onsite.
Chapter 5.3 – Infill Development
§5.3.A.1 General principles
The project proposes new structures in a medium-density neighborhood that
is mostly “built out”. The ARC should discuss whether the project is
compatible in scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent
buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
§5.3.A.2 General principles
The ARC should discuss whether the project continues existing neighborhood
patterns, such as front porches and entries facing the street, and finished floor
height.
§5.3.B Building design
The project site is in a historic district that encompasses many different
architectural styles. The ARC should discuss whether the project incorporates
the traditional architectural characteristics of the existing houses in the
neighborhood, including window and door spacing, exterior materials, roof
style and pitch, ornamentation, and other details.
§5.3.C Visual impacts from
building heights
The project includes a 1.5-story structure on the corner portion of the site and
two-story structures in the interior of the site. The ARC should discuss
whether the height of new structures is consistent with of surrounding
residential structures.
Cultural Heritage Committee Review and Recommendation
The project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on June 22, 2020 for consistency
with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The CHC found
the project to be consistent with the ordinance and guidelines and recommended approval to the
Planning Commission. The applicant also agreed to work with a subcommittee of the CHC to explore
some options to provide additional architectural variety in architectural styling of the interior
structures, reflective of the neighborhood and the four residences fronting Peach Street These
changes will be aesthetic and will not significantly change the scale, massing, placement, or floor plans
of the current proposal as presented to the ARC. Staff will provide updates on any recommended
modifications prior to and/or during the ARC meeting.
4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Density (units/acre) 10 10.32
Front Setback (Peach) 20 feet 20 feet
Rear Setback (from existing PL) 11 feet 11 feet
Side Setback (from existing PL) 8 feet 8 feet
Maximum Height of Structures 25 feet 35 feet
Max Building Coverage 32% 50%
Total # Parking Spaces (New) 11 10
Environmental Status Draft IS/MND has been prepared, and released for the required 30-day
public review period, ending July 11, 2020
*2019 Zoning Regulations
Item 3
Packet Page 163
ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-2019
1137 Peach
Page 4
SIDE SETBACKS FROM PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES
Lot Structure Proposed Required**
East West East West
1 Existing 5 10 5 5
2 Existing 10 5 5 5
3 Existing 7* 6* 8 8
4 Existing 5* 8 7 7
5 New NA 7* NA 9
6 Existing NA 5 NA 5
7 New 7* 8 8 8
8 New 8* 8 11 8
9 New 9 9 8 8
10 New 11 NA 11 NA
*Exception Requested **2019 Zoning Regulations
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend approval of the project, based on consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines (CDG). This action may include recommendations for conditions to address further
consistency with the CDG.
5.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to th e
applicant and staff on pertinent issues, with references to specific CDG.
5.3 Recommend denial the project based on findings of inconsistency with CDG. An action
denying the application should include recommended findings that cite the basis for denial
and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other
policy documents.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
6.1 Project Plans
6.2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Digital attachment: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=26748)
Item 3
Packet Page 164
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, July 6, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, July
6, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini (5:08 p.m.), Mandi Pickens, Vice
Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Commissioner Micah Smith
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of June 1, 2020 and June 15,
2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to approve the minutes of the
Architecture Review Commission meetings of June 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Project Address: 1035 Madonna Road; Case #: ARCH-0796-2019; Zone: Neighborhood-
Commercial Zone (N-C) San Luis Ranch Specific Plan; Arris Studio, Thom Jess,
applicant. Review of a four-story, 200 room dual brand hotel in the San Luis Ranch Specific
Plan area; The project is consistent with the previously certified FEIR and SEIR for the San
Luis Ranch Specific Plan and no additional environmental review is required per CEQA.
Contract Planner John Rickenbach presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Item 3
Packet Page 165
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 2
Applicant representative, Heather Wiebe, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PICKENS SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
WITHERS CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning
Commission approve the project with the following recommendations:
• Consider using a commercial-grade lap siding product to ensure durability
3. Project Address: 830 Orcutt Road; Case #: ARCH-0764-2019, AFFH-0210-2020, USE-
0209-2020; Zone: Commercial Services (C-S) zone; 830 Orcutt, LLC, owner/applicant.
Review of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 residential units and 1,714 square feet of
commercial space within the Commercial Services (C-S) zone. The project includes a density
bonus of 5% including a request for an alternative incentive to relax development standards
for the creek setback requirement and a request to allow residential uses on the ground floor
within the first 50 feet of the structure along the street frontage, the project also includes a
request for a 10 percent parking reduction. Project is categorically exempt from environmental
review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Bryan Ridley, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DEMARTINI, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Commissioner Smith absent), to recommend that the project
be continued to a date uncertain with the following recommendations to the applicant and staff:
• Provide additional information regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability
Act in relation to the project’s requested exceptions..
• Consider providing a residential gate along the pedestrian entrance to the residential units
along the east property line, for the safety of the residents.
• The project should address consistency with Community Design Guideline 2.1.C, where
site activities are logically located so that the project will operate efficiently and effectively
for the needs of all uses, specifically the relationship to open space and the adjacent creek.
Consider providing community space oriented toward the creek.
• The project should be revised to provide further articulation of each building’s mass along
the drive aisle.
Item 3
Packet Page 166
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 3
• Additional landscaping should be provided to soften and create a counterpoint to the
architectural design, landscaping should include organic elements.
• The project should be redesigned to provide private or common open spaces for residents,
consideration should be provided for common open space between the commercial and
residential units, and along the creek, balconies should also be added to the residential
units.
• Consider adding alternative pavers along the drive aisle and parking areas that coordinates
with landscaping and open areas.
4. Project address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-
0800-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant. Review of five new two-
bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an attached two-car garage. The
project site is within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of five, two-
bedroom, single-story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic Properties.
The project also includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will contain
one of the ten residences. The applicant has requested exceptions from development standards
to allow interior side setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided in
tandem. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed.
Assistant Planner Kyle Van Leeuwen presented the staff report and responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative, Will Ruoff, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Levi Seligman
Jeremy Weintraub
Timothy & Sharon Watson
Josh Frantz
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS, CARRIED 3-2-1 (Commissioners Beller and DeMartini dissenting, Commissioner
Smith absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the
following recommendation:
• Consider adding trees from the approved “street tree” list along the fence of the shared
driveway with similar spacing as required for street trees, adding shade to the driveway
and a more organic separation between the existing properties.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
Item 3
Packet Page 167
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of July 6, 2020 Page 4
The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 168
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID # 0800-2019
1. Project Title:
1137 Peach Street Residential Subdivision
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7091
4. Project Location:
1137 Peach Street (APN 002-316-005), San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Levi Seligman
1405 Garden Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designations:
Medium Density Residential (12 dwelling units/acre)
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Area Overlay Zone (R-2-H)
8. Description of the Project:
The project includes a common-interest subdivision of a 0.86-acre medium-density residential parcel (Assessor’s
Parcel Number [APN] 002-316-005) to create 10 parcels and construct five new single-family homes and a 20-
foot-wide common driveway that would provide access to new and existing residences within the site. There are
five existing single-family residences within the project site; as part of the proposed subdivision, each existing
residence would be located on a new parcel (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10), and five additional parcels would be created
to accommodate construction of five new single-family residences on the remaining parcels (Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and
9). All parcels have a medium-density residential zoning designation (R-2), which allows for single-family homes
with a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The new common driveway would provide access from Toro Street
and would provide primary access to Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 and rear access to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and
10 are developed with existing 2-bedroom, single-family dwellings, including attached garages. The proposed
project would provide additional rear access and parking , permeable paving patios, utility improvements, and
Item 3
Packet Page 169
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
landscaping improvements at these existing residences, but does not propose demolition, reconstruction, or
replacement of the existing residences.
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 would each be developed with a 2 -bedroom single-family dwelling and 2-car garage. The
project would also include removal of up to five trees, and installation of new water, wastewater, and stormwater
infrastructure to service the proposed residences.
The subject parcel is located at the intersection of Peach Street and Toro Street, approximately 0.15 miles northeast
of downtown San Luis Obispo in the City-designated Mill Street Historic District. Topography of the site is
essentially level with an elevation of approximately 270 feet above mean sea level. Buildout of the new common
driveway and residences would result in removal of five trees. The project is subject to development standards
identified in the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Municipal Code Chapter 17.18 Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
Development Standards, which identify minimum property line setback distances, building height and floor area
ratio, and lot coverage standards. The project is requesting variable side yard setbacks for the new subdivision per
Section 17.70.170.D.2.c. Proposed development characteristics and setbacks are shown in T able 1. The project
would also be subject to the City Municipal Code Chapter 17.56 Historic Preservation Overlay Standards, which
are intended to provide for residential and infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with
existing development.
Table 1. Lot and Proposed Residential Development Characteristics
Lot
Number
Height
(feet)
Front
Setback
(feet)
Interior Side
Setbacks (feet)
(height=side
setback)
Corner
Lot-Side
Setback
(feet)
Rear Setbacks
(feet)
(height=rear
setback)
Minimum
Lot Size
(square
feet)
Standard 35’ 20’
20-22 = 9
23-24 = 10
25-26 = 11
10’
20-22 = 9
23-24 = 10
25-26 = 11
5,000
Lot 1 (E) 19’ (E) 10’ = 5’
10’ = 10’ N/A 12’ = 11’ 3,621
Lot 2 (E) 19’ (E) 10’ = 10’
10’ = 5’ N/A 12’ = 11’ 3,718
Lot 3 (E) 19’ (E) 18’ = 7’ (8’ req)
18’ = 6’ (8’ req) N/A 12’ = 14’ 3,704
Lot 4 (E) 18’ (E) 16’ = 5’ (7’ req)
16’ = 8” N/A 12’ = 15’ 3,855
Lot 5 22’ 20’ 20’ = 7’ (9’ req) 10’ 23’ = 9’ (10’ req) 3,739
Lot 6 (E) 20’ (E) 12’ = 8’
12’ = 20’ N/A 12’ = 5’ 4,370
Lot 7 25’ N/A 19’ = 7’ (8’ req)
19’ = 8’ N/A 22’ = 11’ 3,617
Lot 8 25’ N/A 25’ = 8’ (11’ req)
19’ = 8’ N/A 25’ = 11’ 3,617
Lot 9 25’ N/A 19’ = 9’
19’ = 9’ N/A 22’ = 11’ 3,622
Lot 10 25’ N/A 25’ = 11’
19’ = 8’ N/A 25’ = 11’ 3,624
Item 3
Packet Page 170
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
9. Project Entitlements:
Architectural Review
Subdivision
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The property is surrounded by medium-density single-family residential development, as well as office buildings
within the same block to the southwest.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with Ci ty and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. The AB 52 notification period closed on April 3, 2020, and formal consultation
was not requested.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
N/A
Item 3
Packet Page 171
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☐
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or
habitat (see attached determination).
☒
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and G ame Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
☒
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 3
Packet Page 172
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at l east one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
☐
Signature Date
For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Item 3
Packet Page 173
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, t hen the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less t han Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above ch ecklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 3
Packet Page 174
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 3, 6, 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The topography of the city of San Luis Obispo is generally defined by several low hills and ridges , such as Islay Hill, Bishop
Peak, and Cerro San Luis—three of the nine peaks known as the Morros—which provide scenic focal points for much of the
city. The project vicinity exhibits intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks, including Cerro San Luis.
The project is located within an urbanized residential neighborhood in the Mill Street Historic District of the city of San Luis
Obispo (city) and is generally surrounded by residential uses and office buildings. The project site currently consists of fi ve one-
story single-family homes with no attached or detached garages. The visual character of the project vicinity is comprised of older
residences with wood and stucco exteriors, constructed between 1906 and 1925, street trees, and sidewalks. Public views of
Cerro San Luis from viewers travelling along Peach Street at this location are heavily screened by existing buildings and
vegetation. Distant views of Islay Hill are available for viewers travelling along Toro Street at this location.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can
be seen from public viewpoints. Some scenic vistas are officially or informally designated by public agencies or other
organizations. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly
degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project site is located in an
urbanized area with intermittent views of Cerro San Luis. Public views of Cerro San Luis from viewers travelling along
Peach Street at this location are heavily screened by existing buildings and vegetation. Based on the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along roadways
considered to be of moderate or high scenic value or w ithin the cone of view of a scenic roadway. Santa Rosa and
Johnson Avenue in the project vicinity are identified as having moderate scenic value; however, the project site would
not be highly visible from these roadways. Therefore, the project is not located within a scenic vista and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located approximately 0.15 miles southeast of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Based on the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highways online mapping tool, the section of the U.S. 101
closest to the project site is eligible for state scenic highway designation but is not officially designated (reference source
5). The project site would not be visible to viewer s travelling along U.S. 101 due to existing development, vegetation,
and topography. Based on the City’s COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located along and
would not be highly visible from roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic value or within the cone of view
of a scenic roadway. The project would not demolish historic buildings (the existing residences, which are identified as
contributing resources to the Mill Street Historic District, would be retained onsite ) and the project does not propose
development that is substantially inconsistent with surrounding uses because it proposes residential uses within an
Item 3
Packet Page 175
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
existing residential area. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources within a state
or local scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.
c) The proposed subdivision and construction would occur within an urbanized residential area and is considered an infill
development project. Proposed tree removals would be consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance, which establishes
protection and compensatory planting requirements. The proposed residential development would be consistent with
existing zoning and land use designations for the site and consistent with surro unding uses. The project requires an
exception to standard setbacks, but those exceptions would not result in a substantial change in the visual character of
the project site due to the compact nature of surrounding residential uses.
The project is subject to the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines. The intent of the Guidelines is
that new structures “shall be designed to be architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character. A Historic
Preservation Report was prepared by SWCA for the project and concluded that none of the project’s proposed design
features, either individually or collectively, would constitute an effect that would cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an historical resource – in this instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing properties
to the Mill Street Historic District or the Mill Street Historic District as a whole . Similarly, none of the project’s
proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause substantial adverse change in the significance
of an historical resource (as defined above) such that that the significance of the historical resource would be materially
impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]). Therefore, the Historic Preservation Report concluded that the proposed
development would not cause the project to have a significant effect on the environment as defined under CEQA (14
CCR § 15064.5[b]).
The project would also be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the
City’s Community Design Guidelines (CDG). Consistency with the CDG and Historic Preservation Guidelines would
ensure any potential aesthetic impacts related to conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality would be less than
significant.
d) The project is in an urbanized area with existing light sources from neighboring residential and office uses as well as
light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed development of five single-family residences
would add additional sources of exterior and inter ior light in the area. The proposed lighting would not be inconsistent
with existing surrounding nighttime lighting and the project would be subject to Lighting and Night Sky Preservation
standards set forth in the City Municipal Code (17.70.100), which require residential development to minimize glare
and obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with development of the project site related to light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project is not located within a scenic vista or within the viewshed of a designated scenic highway. The project would be
subject to applicable standards set forth in the City’s CDG and Municipal Code, as well as the City’s Historic Preservation
Guidelines. The project would be subject to review by the City Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with
applicable guidelines prior to finalizing and approving design plans. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts to aesthetic
resources would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 176
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by th e
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided
in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Bo ard. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
2, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 2, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section 51104(g))?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
2, 8, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP and therefore, is not considered farmland.
According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10%
native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or mor e
forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiver sity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not contain
forest land or timberland.
a) The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. The project site is not in agricultural use and
is not located on lands designated Farmland by the FMMP. Due to existing onsite and surrounding urbanized uses, the
potential for the site to support agricultural uses in the future is very low. Therefore, the project would not result in the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
Item 3
Packet Page 177
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
b) The project site does not include land use designations or zoning for agricul tural uses and is not located within or
adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur.
c-d) The project site does not include forest land or timberland and does not include land use designations or zoning for
forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning for, result in the loss of, or result in the
conversion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts would occur.
e) The project includes the subdivision of a residentially zoned infill parcel in an established residential neighborhood near
downtown San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could
result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use and no impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not with in or adjacent to Prime Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or
forest land use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture, forest land, or
timberland would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
4, 10, 11,
12, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
10, 11,
12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 1 ,11, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 13 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The city is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in
eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ozone, and nonattainment for the
state standards for particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10). The COSE identifies goals and policies to
achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjo yment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and
Item 3
Packet Page 178
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
policies include meeting state and federal air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor
vehicles, and encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification
Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project.
To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels,
the SLOAPCD adopted a Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2001.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depend ing on the population groups and the
activities involved. CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e., sens itive
receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people wi th cardiovascular and chronic respiratory
diseases. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and
residential dwelling units. The project site is located within close proximity to multiple sensitive receptors, including residential
dwelling units within 50 feet of the parcel boundaries and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 California Code of Regulations
[CCR] Section 93105). The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an
area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur.
a) In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County CAP, a project must be consistent with the
land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the CAP. The proposed project would
be consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The project w ould also be
consistent with the CAP’s land use and circulation management strategies because it consists of an infill project within
an urbanized area proximate to public transit stops and bicycle routes. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under state ambient air quality
standards. Construction of the project would disturb approximately 37,900 sf of land and result in emissions of ozone
precursors, including reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fugitive dust emissions (PM10).
During operation, the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions
and other uses.
Construction Emissions
The project would result in approximately 37,900 sf f ground disturbance during construction, including approximately
850 cubic yards of cut and 850 cubic yards of fill. This would result in the generation of construction dust as well as
short-term construction vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NOx, and particulate
matter (PM). As shown in Table 2 below, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the APCD’s applicable
screening thresholds for ROG, NOx, DPM, or PM10. Therefore, potential construction-related emissions of these
pollutants would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant
Total Project
Emissions
(assuming 1
month/22 day
construction
period)
APCD
Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 193.46 total lbs
8.79 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Item 3
Packet Page 179
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 8.33 total lbs
0.38 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) .6525 total tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in a marginal increase in vehicle trips, electricity use, and
architectural coating off-gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Based on Table 1-1 of the
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Handbook, the size of a single-family residential project expected to exceed SLOAPCD’s
operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Brightline Threshold would be a project proposing a minimum of 76
dwelling units. The size of a single-family residential project expected to exceed the SLOAPCD operational threshold
for ozone precursors would consist of a minimum of 128 dwelling units. The project would construct 5 new single-
family dwelling units; therefore, the project would not exceed any of the thresholds established by the SLOAPCD for
operational emissions. Therefore, potential impacts associated with project-related or a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including single -family residential units to
the north, east, and south of the project site. The development of five new single-family residences on-site would result
in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors.
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to se nsitive receptors, that
require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling (DPM) and fugitive dust.
Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas (less than 1,000 feet), standard measures for reduc ing
DPM and fugitive dust are required. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce exposure of
sensitive receptors to adverse fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as
having a potential for NOA to occur. The project includes excavation for foundation installation and road construction,
and trenching and installation of new water, wastewater and stormwater service pipelines to the proposed new
residences. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105), the applic ant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
ground-disturbing activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measures AQ-
3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable
protocols and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. Based on compliance with identified mitigation
and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Some or all of the existing infrastructure (pipes, fencing, paving, yard improvements) located on-site were constructed
before 1926 and may have the potential to include asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or lead -based paint.
Demolition of these structures may have the potential to result in harmful asbestos or lead emissions. Mitigation
Measure AQ-5 has been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory requirements for removal and
disposal of these toxic contaminants if present on -site, including notification of the SLOAPCD prior to demolition of
existing utilities/improvements. Based on compliance with identified mitigation and existing regulations, potential
impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Project development activities, such as building construction, utility trenching, and installation, would generate odors
associated with equipment exhaust and fumes. The proposed activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short term in nature and limited to the
construction phase of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Item 3
Packet Page 180
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted an d enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles
with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It
applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said
vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than
5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder
shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visib le emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity
for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provid ed to the City Community
Development Department prior to commencement of construction. The name and telephone number of such persons
shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind s peeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust ba rriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Item 3
Packet Page 181
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. “Track Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor
vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in
California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water Code Section 13304. To prevent track out,
designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track -out
prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located
at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need
periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadwa ys accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention
device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive du st
emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as nece ssary
to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for
greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). The name
and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the
start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic
evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements
and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the
geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an
Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be
conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Op erations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section
61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the foll owing:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and req uirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implemen t the following measures to reduce the risk
associated with disturbance of ACM and lead-coated materials that may be present within the existing structures onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by the Natio nal Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos
emissions during demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement
the Federal Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per
Item 3
Packet Page 182
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to
demolition activities to the City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the construction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the buildi ng material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition
(and is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non -hazardous construction debris. The
landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint materials. If required, all lead work
plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall
submit proof that paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials inspector and handled
according to their recommendation to the City Community D evelopment Department.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less
than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
1, 4, 17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
1, 4 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 7, 16 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
1, 18 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 183
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located in an urbanized area within downtown San Luis Obispo and is surrounded by residential and office
uses. The project site currently consists of five single-family residences with several street trees located along the frontage of
Peach Street and Toro Street, and several trees scattered throughout the parcel. The nearest water feature to the project site is
San Luis Obispo Creek, located approximately 0.3 mile to the southeast.
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open rangeland used for grazing and other agricultural uses and open
space areas that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors
that allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City COSE identifies various goals and policies to
maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to,
protection of listed species and species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of signif icant
trees, and maintenance of development setbacks from creeks.
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was ado pted in 2010 and recently updated in 2019 with the purpose
of establishing a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining, and preserving trees within the city. This ordinance inc ludes
policies that encourage preservation of trees whenever possible and feasible, detail the procedure and requirements for acquisition
of a permit for tree removal within the city, and identify application requirements for tree removals associated with development
permits. The City has also established a Heritage Tree Progr am which protects Heritage trees throughout the city designated by
the Tree Committee and City Council. Based on the City’s GIS Division Heritage Trees map, no heritage trees are locat ed within
the project site.
a) The project would allow for the development of five new single-family residences within the project site, consistent
with adjacent areas. The project is located in downtown San Luis Obispo and surrounded by moderately dense
residential and office uses. Due to the level of existing development, freq uent human activity, regular vehicle noise,
lighting, and developed nature of the area, the project site does not contain suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife
species. Therefore, impacts to special-status plants and wildlife would be less than significant.
b) There are no mapped blue line creeks and no riparian vegetation or other sensitive natural communities within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. The project is located approximately 0.3 mile from the nearest
creek and associated riparian habitat and would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to this habitat. Therefore, the
project would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sen sitive natural communities and no impact would occur.
c) Based on the National Wetlands Inventory Map, the project site does not support state or federal wetlands or other
potentially jurisdictional water features. Therefore, the project would not result in an adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands and no impacts would occur.
d) The project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. The project site does not
contain habitat features conducive to migratory wildlife species such as riparian corridors or ridgelines. Project
development would result in the removal of mature trees, several of which are larger than 12 inches in diameter at
standard height (DSH). Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to
pass through the area and nest in trees on the project site. While in an urban environment, mature trees have the potential
to support nesting habitat for birds. If project construction activities are conducted between February and September,
they could result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds, if present. The removal of trees and construction activity
proximate to nests may result in abandonment of eggs and potential avian harm or mortality, resulting in a potentially
significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds
during construction. With implementation of BIO-1, the project would not interfere with the movement of resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) The project site does not contain any heritage trees or native vegetatio n. The proposed subdivision and subsequent
development of five single-family residences would result in the removal of up to five mature trees. The project would
add six new street trees (four dwarf southern magnolias and two mayten trees) to be located along the Peach Street and
Toro Street property frontages, which would compensate for the tree removals. The project would not adversely affect
sensitive habitats or resources identified in the COSE or impact any heritage trees designated by the Heritage Tree
Program. The proposed area of disturbance does not support sensitive resources that are protected by local policies and
Item 3
Packet Page 184
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
plans. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources and impacts would be less than significant.
f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved state, regional, or local habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal shall be scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of the typical nesting
bird season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal or other construction activit ies are proposed
during the nesting season (February 1 through September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active
nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are
located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no
longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a
250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified
biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse
impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted
until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Conclusion
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds during construction. No other
potentially significant impacts were identified. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, project impacts to
biological resources would be less than significant.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 3, 19, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 4, 61 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 4, 61 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. San Luis Obispo is located within an area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the
northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from
archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is located within a Burial Sensitivity Area as identified in Figure 1 of the
COSE.
Historic Setting
The City COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to the following:
Item 3
Packet Page 185
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
• Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources;
• Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety;
• Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing and materials of
nearby historic structures; and
• Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect
of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The City Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC14.01) was adopted in 2010 for the purpose of promoting the public health,
safety and welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, structures, site s,
artifacts and other cultural resources that represent distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social,
economic, political and architectural history. This ordinance includes the responsibilities of the Cultural Heritage Committe e
(CHC), which is responsible for reviewing and providing recommendations to City Council regarding certain projects associated
with historic districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contri buting
List Resources or Properties”, and “Non-contributing Properties”, and references the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards,
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines for projects that
involve new development in Historic Districts and the modification, demolition or relocation of structures included on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
The project site is located within the Mill Street Historic District Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H). The Mill Street Historic
District is one of five historic districts in the city which also include Old Town, Chinatown, Downtown, and the Railroad Historic
District. The Mill Street Historic District was developed at the turn of the 20 th century, with the majority of the existing buildings
dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance. Architectural styles in
the Mill Street district include examples of Neo-classic Row House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne,
Stick and Eastern Shingle), Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style.
The parcel is currently occupied by five single -family residences constructed between 1906 and 1925. All five of the existing
residences on-site are listed as contributing resources to the Mill Street Historic District. The proposed project would construct
five new two-story, single-family residences (each with a double garage below th e main living area) on the project site. The
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for construction within historic districts and on properties
with historic resources, alterations to historic resources, and reconstruction of his toric resources.
Characteristics of houses defining the Mill Street Historic District include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Houses set back from the street;
• Either no garage or later-built garages, generally small, detached, and set behind or be side the house;
• Either no driveway or Hollywood driveways of two parallel concrete strips;
• Raised foundation, requiring several steps leading from street t o the front door; and
• Recessed and sheltered usable front porches that are a focal point in design .
The project would not demolish, relocate, or alter the existing one-story residences, but would provide additional rear
access and parking, permeable paving patios, utility improvements, and landscaping improvements at these existing
residences.
a) The project is subject to the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Guidelines. The intent of the Guidelines is
to ensure that new structures “shall be designed to be architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character.
A Historic Preservation Report was prepared by SWCA for the project and concluded that none of the project’s proposed
design features, either individually or collectively, would constitute an effect that would cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an historical resource – in this instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing
properties to the Mill Street Historic District or the Mill Street Historic District as a whole. Similarly, none of the
Item 3
Packet Page 186
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource (as defined above) such that that the significance of the historical resource would
be materially impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]). Therefore, the Historic Preservation Report concluded that the
proposed development would not cause the project to have a significant effect on the environment as defined under
CEQA (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]). Potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located in a Burial Sensitivity Area per the City’s COSE. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Peach
and Toro Project was prepared for the project in March 2020, which included review of archival records and
archaeological site records, a records search at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), and an intensive survey
of the project site. The records search identified no cultural resources recorded within the project site. The field
investigation and survey identified no prehistoric materials or resources within the project site. The Cultural Resources
Survey concluded that the potential for intact archaeological resources to exist on the project site is low. In the unlikely
event that buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbances will cease until a
qualified archaeologist is contacted to evaluate the nature, integrity, and significance of the deposit (refer to mitigation
measures CR-1 through CR-3, below).
Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would be less
than significant with mitigation.
c) No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however, the discovery of unknown human remains is a
possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human
remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and is detailed in Mitigation
Measure CR-3. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with
incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-3. Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less
than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a cultural
resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials
and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a 25 -
foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-
qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American
affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-
approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be
included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be re corded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research
design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s)
Item 3
Packet Page 187
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also
perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information
Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the
recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate
halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native American
representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the
County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, residual impacts associated with cultural resources would be
less than significant.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
21, 23,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
21, 22,
23, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and beginning in January 2020, MBCP is
the City’s primary electricity provider. MBCP provides 100% carbon-free electricity.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory g reen building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent
version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) to encourage all-electric new
buildings. When paired with Monterey Bay Community Power's carbon free electr icity supply, all electric new buildings are
carbon free and avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its meeting on Tuesday, September 3,
2019, the City Council introduced the Clean Energy Choice Program; the City Council h as yet to adopt the ordinance. Unlike
some cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program will provide options to people who
want to develop new buildings with natural gas. New projects wishing to use natural gas wil l be required to build more efficient
and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by perfor ming retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu
fee that will be used for the same purpose.
The City COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally
controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non -
Item 3
Packet Page 188
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; fostering
alternative transportation modes; compact, high-density housing; and solar access standards.
The City Climate Action Plan also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resources in
order to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of renewable energy
financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and increasing community
awareness of renewable energy programs. The City’s CAP is currently being updated.
a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.
The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar
construction activities in the city. State and federal regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles
and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy
use would be less than significant.
The project would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips and
electricity and natural gas usage by project occupants. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC,
including applicable green building standards, ensuring a high standard for energy efficiency in building design,
materials, light fixtures, and appliances. The project would rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to
supply project electricity needs. MBCP provides 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Compliance with existing building
codes would ensure the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources . Through use of 100% greenhouse gas (GHG) free
electricity resources, project energy use would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards. The
project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available practices
in energy conservation. The project would be consistent with other goals and policies set forth in the City’s Climate
Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency , including the provision of compact, high-density
housing. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with , or obstruction of, a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project has been located and designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards, and would not co nflict
with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy wou ld
occur and no mitigation measures are necessary .
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
Item 3
Packet Page 189
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
14, 25,
26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 14, ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 14 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 26, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
14, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of
the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
14, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 29, 30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the
potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State
of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna faults are
considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and
the offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probabilit y
of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk of ground shaking is found on deep soils that were
deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These soils are typically in valleys.
Faults capable of producing strong ground -shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map and
the Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an
active fault zone.
The project site is underlain by one soil unit, as described below, based on the San Luis Obispo County Soil Survey:
162. Los Osos-Diablo Complex, 5-9% slopes. This complex is about 35% Los Osos soil and 30% Diablo soil. The Los Osos
soil is moderately deep and well-drained. Permeability is slow and the available water capacity is low to medium. Surface
runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The Diablo soil is deep and well drained. Permeability is
slow and the available water capacity is moderate to very high. Surface runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is
slight. This soil has high shrink-swell potential. The main limitations for these soils for urban development are high shrink -
swell potential, low strength and slow permeability. These soils are hard to pack. These limitations can require special design
considerations for urban development and most other engineering practices.
Item 3
Packet Page 190
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
A geotechnical investigation report was prepared by Pacific Coast Testing, Inc. to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the
project site. The geotechnical investigation identified sandy clays with medium to high expansivity to a depth of 4 to 5 feet with
Franciscan bedrock below.
a.i) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element and the DOC Fault Activity Map of
California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project site. Therefore, the project would not
have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and imp acts
would be less than significant.
a.ii) Due to the highly seismic nature of the region, potential future development on the project site would very likely be
subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The geotechnical investigation
identified a peak ground acceleration for the project site of 0.46 1 gravity (2% probability in 50 years) which would
produce severe perceived ground shaking with moderate to heavy potential damage. Development of the five additional
single-family residences onsite would be required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria
established in the CBC to adequately withstand and minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground
shaking expected to occur in the project region. The geotechnical investigation included recommendations to minimize
seismic risks. Development would be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria established in the CBC
and would adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report; therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic
groundshaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) The geotechnical report included an evaluation of on-site soils and potential soil limitations, including expansive soils
and liquefaction. Due to the soil density, the presence of clayey soils, and the shallow depth to bedrock, the potential
for liquefaction at the site is low.
In accordance with CBC Chapter 18, any geologic issues identified in the report would be addressed through standard
site construction techniques, as required by the CBC. Potential future development on the project site would be required
to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. In addition, the project would be designed in accordance with all
recommendations of the geotechnical report. Therefore, impacts related to substantial adverse effects due to seismic-
related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) The project site is essentially flat. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element,
the project site is located within an area with low landslide potential. Therefore, the pro ject would not result in
significant adverse effects associated with landslides and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is located within a developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal. No substantial
permanent changes in existing topography or total area of exposed soil would occur. The project would require surface
grading and deeper cuts for foundation and utility installation. Grading permits are required for projects, excavations,
or fills exceeding 50 cubic yards in volume and require implementation of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs)
to ensure substantial erosion, siltation, and/or sedimentation are avoided. Therefore, compliance with existing regulation
and BMPs would reduce potential impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant.
c) The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site identified expansivity of the on-site soils as the primary soils
engineering concern. The report identified little or no potential for landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse. Project construction would follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and would be required
to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure. Construction would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to
address potential seismic-related ground failure. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, the project site is located in an area underlain by s oils with
moderate-to-high shrink-swell potential. Based on the 2019 Geotechnical Report, soil expansivity is a primary concern
at the project site. Soil borings conducted in 2019 indicated that the upper sandy clay onsite met the criteria to be
classified in the “high” expansion category, per CBC Table 18-I-B. The volume changes that soils undergo in this
Item 3
Packet Page 191
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. Review of a soils report prepared by a qualified engineer
is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in accordance with CBC
Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as
required by the Code, and/or through compliance with the recommendations of the project’s Geotechnical Report.
Typical precautionary measures would likely include premoistening the underlying soil in conjunction with placement
of non-expansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced fo undation. In addition, the
project would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to
reduce risk associated with ground failure, including from expansive soils. Therefore, based on compliance wit h existing
regulations, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) The project would include a new connection to the City sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
treatment systems are proposed onsite. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by Franciscan Assemblage composed of a mélange of claystone, graywacke, and blocks of
other Franciscan rocks of the Mesozoic era. The Franciscan Assemblage consists of various types of rocks that form ed
along the Pacific Oceanic and North American Plates; these rocks were subsequently deformed and meta morphosed
during subduction of the Pacific Oceanic Plate. Various authors have reported the presence of marine invertebrates in
the Franciscan Assemblage throughout California (e.g., Bailey et al. 1964); however, marine invertebrate fossil
specimens are generally common, well developed, and well documented. They would generally not be considered a
unique paleontological resource. Because of the nature of this rock assemblage (e.g., vertebrate fossils in the original
parent material generally would have been destroyed during the subduction and metamorphosis process) and the general
lack of previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities, this formation is c onsidered to have a low paleontological
sensitivity.
There are no known paleontological resources on th e project site and there are no unique geologic features on the
property. Grading and excavation is proposed for residential foundations to remove expansive soils. Based on the low
sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit and the lack of proposed activities that would result in significant cuts into
bedrock, the project would not have the potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resour ce or unique
geologic feature; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations
and recommendations of the required Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project , potential impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required .
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
1, 11 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
10, 12,
23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 192
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in
Section 3, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City established a Climate Action Plan
that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission
levels by 2020. The City’s Climate Action Plan is currently being updated. In addition, the City is currently developing a plan
for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The City’s 2016 Community Wide GHG Emissions Inventory showed that 50% of the
city’s GHG emissions came from transportation, 22% came from commercial and industrial use s, 21% came from residential
uses, and 7% from waste.
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the state’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources
of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 % below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375,
SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, CBC, and the California Solar Initiative.
Plans, policies, and guidelines have also been established at the regional and local levels to a ddress GHG emissions and climate
change effects within the city. In March 2012, the SLOAPCD approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts, and these
thresholds have been incorporated into the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and updated in 2017 with a clarification memorandum.
The Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of CO2/year (MTCO2e/yr) is the most applicable GHG threshold for most
projects. Table 1-1 in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (updated November 2017) provides a list of general land
uses and the estimated sizes or capacities of those uses expected to exceed the GHG Bright Line Threshold of 1,150 MTCO2/yr.
Projects that exceed the criteria or are within 10% of exceeding the criteria presented in Table 1-1 are required to conduct a more
detailed analysis of air quality impacts. It is important to note the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2/year was developed
to meet the state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; however, construction and operation of the project
would occur well beyond 2020. Therefore, the project would be subject to the SB 32 -based targets for 2030, which are 40%
below the AB 32-based 2020 targets. The SLOAPCD’s GHG thresholds have not been updated to comply with SB 32 and the
more recent, more stringent GHG reduction goals; therefore, the Bright Line Threshold and SLOAPCD screening thresholds are
included for informational purposes only.
a) Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker trips and hauling trips to and from
the project site, and off-road construction equipment (i.e. dozers, loaders, excavators). As discussed in Section 3. Air
Quality, project emissions during construction activities would not exceed SLOAPCD’s construction emissions
thresholds. In addition, impacts related to GHG emissions occur on a global scale and are, therefore, cumulative in
nature. Short-term construction-related emissions rarely result in a considerable contribution to GHG emissions. The
project would be well below the thresholds established in Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Handbook for
operational GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not exceed the operational thresholds established by the
SLOAPCD for GHG emissions. The project would rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to supply
project electricity needs, which supplies energy from 100% GHG-free sources.
The proposed development proposes infill development and is located in close proximity to local public transit facilities
and bicycle infrastructure, increasing the ability for future occupants to replace vehicle trips with alternative modes of
transportation, further reducing its overall GHG emissions. The project is also consistent with CARB’S 2017 Scoping
Plan, which describes local planning efforts that can further reduce GHG reduction goals, including through developing
land use plans with more efficient development patterns that bring people and destinations closer together in more
mixed-use, compact communities that facilitate walking, biking, and use of transi t. Therefore, the project would not
generate substantial GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the
environment, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) As discussed in threshold a) above, the project would not exceed any of the operational thresholds es tablished by the
SLOAPCD for GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the land use policies identified in the SLOAPCD
CAP that encourage cities to develop at higher densities and encour age growth within their respective urban reserve
lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel distances. The project would be consistent with policies established in
CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and the City’s CAP promoting infill development. The project would not conflict with or
Item 3
Packet Page 193
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
obstruct implementation of a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize GHG emissions and would not result in a conflict with an applicable
plan or policy adopted for reducing GHG emissions. No potentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions have
been identified and no mitigation measures are n ecessary.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
32, 33 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a resource used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply
with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to develop,
at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various state and local government agencies are required to track and document
Item 3
Packet Page 194
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and
sites with known contamination, such as federal superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup
sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker
database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or
sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements can be located on the Cal/EPA website:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the SWRCB Geotracker database and the DTSC EnviroStor database, there are no active hazardous waste
cleanup sites within the project site. The closest cleanup site is located immediately south of the project site; the closed cleanup
site has been remediated and closed since 2002.
Based on the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the project site is not located
within the Airport Land Use Planning Area or noise contours.
a) The project does not propose the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances. Any potentially hazardous
substances used within the project site during construction or buildout conditions (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints,
etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for t he
handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, project impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous substances would be less than significant.
b) The project does not propose the routine handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result
in a significant risk of upset or accidental release conditions. Demolition and construction activities associated with the
proposed project are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substance s, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and paints.
The project includes demolition of existing infrastructure on the property that could contain asbestos and lead (e.g.,
through driveway modifications, utility line replacement, etc.). Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was
used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects,
asbestos can be found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials,
thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main
categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered
Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous
because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung
cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I
or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks.
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos containing building
materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent as bestos by weight; Cal/OSHA
requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based
paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts
per million [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain
more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioa ccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones.
Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into
developing systems and organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for t he presence of asbestos. If such hazards
are determined to exist onsite, the risk assessor would pre pare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM
removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement p ersonnel. If
Item 3
Packet Page 195
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state certified ACBM remov al contractor (independent of
the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and
demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures
have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation
to the City that testing, and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and
regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead -based paint. These
include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided
by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead -based paint abatement must be
performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health
Services. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be
less than significant.
The project would be subject to the City’s Municipal Code requirements associated with Demolition and Moving of
Buildings public safety standards. These standards include general requirements for building demolition activities,
permitting for such activities, and includes subsections for dust and debris management, fire safety, and removal and
disposal of demolition materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply w ith applicable federal and
state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the Federal OSHA
Process Safety Management Standard (California Code of Regulations 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for
preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, Mitigation
Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5 have been identified to require full compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements for removal and disposal of toxic contaminants if present on-site, including notification of the SLOAPCD
prior to demolition of the existing structure. Therefore, potential impacts wou ld be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is located approximately 0.36 mile from the nearest school facility, Mission College Preparatory
Catholic High School, located at 761 Broad Street. The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school facility. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStar database, the SWRCB Geotracker database, and Cal/EPA’s Cortese List
website, there are no hazardous waste cleanup sites within the project site. The closest cleanup site is located
immediately south of the project site and has been remediated and closed since 2002. There are no active hazardous
waste cleanup sites within the project site or within close proximity to the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
e) The project site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Based on
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP, the project is not located within the airport Land Use Planning
Area or noise contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project could result in periodic temporary lane closures along Toro Street during the construction phase. No road
closures are anticipated and the project would provide alternative detour routes through the project vicinity. Due to the
project site location, there are multiple detours available within 500 feet of proposed construction activities. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Any construction-related detours would include proper
signage and notification and would be short-term and limited in nature and duration. For further discussion on potential
impacts to transportation, see Section 17. Therefore, potential impacts wo uld be less than significant.
g) The project is not located within or adjacent to a wildland area. The project would be required to comply with all
applicable fire safety rules and regulations including the California Fire Code and Public Resources Code prior to
issuance of building permits; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Item 3
Packet Page 196
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or dispos al of hazardous substances. It is not located within
proximity to any known open contaminated sites, schools, or airports. Impacts related to the potential release of asbestos or lead
would be mitigated with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5. Project implementation would not
subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would not impair implem entation or interfere
with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4 and AQ-5 would
ensure potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant and no further mitigation
is necessary.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
37, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
39, 40,
41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater draina ge systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
1, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 38 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 38, 42 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
37, 39,
41, 43 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The S an Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an
approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet above
sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean and has six major tributary basins: Stenner
Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See Canyon. The creek flows
through the city of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach.
Item 3
Packet Page 197
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Post-Construction Stormwater
Management requirements adopted by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through the
development review process. The primary objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is
reducing pollutant discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or
contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable development projects t hat require approvals
and/or permits issued.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation
in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. Base d on FEMA’s National Flood Hazard
Layer (NFHL) Viewer, the project site is no t located within a 100-year flood zone.
In 2015, the state legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA requires governments
and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of
pumping and recharge. Under SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their
sustainability plans. The project is located within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, which has been designated by
the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a high-priority basin. The County of San Luis Obispo (County) and
the City formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) within their respective jurisdictions to ensure full compliance with
SGMA throughout the entire San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin.
a) The project proposes infill development located within a developed site and would not include substantial vegetation
removal. The project site is not located in close proximity to any mapped creeks or surface water bodies that could be
adversely affected by project construction or operation. Because the project would be located within a developed area
comprised of residential yards and outbuildings and would include gutters , downspouts, and chambers to capture and
retain stormwater flows similar to existing conditions, implementation of the project would not substantially change the
volume or velocity of runoff off-site.
The City’s Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Dep artments are responsible for coordinating the
implementation of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). This comprehensive program is required under
the Phase II Stormwater Regulations regulated by SWRCB, San Luis Obispo Region. The primary goal of t he program
is to minimize urban runoff that enters the municipal storm drain system and carries bacteria and other pollutants into
the local creeks, watershed, and to the ocean. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a
set of minimum designated Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are
steps taken to minimize or control the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of
polluting materials, and/or not expose potential pollutants to rainwater or other runoff. Development is required to be
undertaken in strict accordance with conditions and requirements of this program. The project site is generally flat and
does not pose a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, erosion, or runoff. With implementation of standard
BMPs and PPMs, and compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater
management, the project would not substantially affect surface water or groundw ater quality. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would be serviced by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including the Whale
Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving
as a fifth supplemental source. The City no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. Therefore, the
project would not deplete groundwater resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii) The project site is generally flat and does not pose a substantial risk to downslope runoff, sedimentation, or erosion.
The project site is currently developed with five existing single-family homes with associated driveways, yards, walks,
sidewalks, and street trees. The proposed single-family homes would include rooftop gutters and downspouts to capture
surface runoff. The runoff from the new residences and driveway connection would be directed to the existing landscape
to the east and captured within a proposed underground chamber placed under the proposed driveway.
Item 3
Packet Page 198
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project would not result in substantial permanent changes in impervious surface area onsite and would be designed
to adequately capture and retain stormwater flows. The project incorporates pervious pavers in exterior spaces (e.g.,
through use of pervious pavers in the common driveway and patios) which would further reduce changes in onsite
drainage patterns. Surface runoff and storm drains would drain into a proposed trench drain system that would connect
to a proposed stormwater storage system before draining to the existing City stormwater drain beneath Peach Street.
The proposed trench drain system has been designed to accommodate the volume of an 85 th percentile 24-hour storm
(1.2 inches of rainfall). The project site is not located in proximity to any surface stream or body of water that would be
subject to risk associated with erosion or siltation as the result of project construction or operation. The project in cludes
a stormwater storage system that would prevent substantial increases in stormwater runoff that would lead to on - or off-
site flooding or exceedance of existing stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of standard BMPs and
PPMs, and compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards related to stormwater management, the
project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Therefore, potential impacts associated
with alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site would be less than significant.
c.iv) Based on the FEMA NFHL Viewer, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone and, therefore, would
not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Based on the County of San Luis Obispo Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with
potential for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water
with the potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, the project site has no potential to release pollutants due to project
inundation and no impacts would occur.
e) As discussed in the analysis above, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge. The project includes stormw ater storage facilities to facilitate onsite detention and would not
conflict with the Central Coastal Basin Plan or other water quality control plans. The project would not con flict with
SGMA, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore,
no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone and does not proposed alterations to existing drainages or other
surface waters. The project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces , would manage stormwater onsite, and does not
propose alterations to existing water courses. Therefore, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less
than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 4, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 199
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located in a Medium-Density Residential with Historical Preservation Area Overlay Zone (R-2-H) and is
generally surrounded by office buildings to the south and southwest and residential neighborhoods on all other sides.
a) The proposed infill development would not result in a physical division between an established community. The project
would be consistent with the general level of development within the project vicinity and would not create, close, or
impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or accessibility within the
community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts
would occur.
b) The project would be consistent with the property’s land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development
within the applicable zoning designation, Land Use Element, and COSE. The project would be consistent with existing
surrounding land uses and designations and is not located within a site containing sensitive en vironmental resources;
therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No potentially significant impacts associated with land use would result from the proposed project; therefore, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits.
a-b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlike ly
due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 200
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7, 45, 46 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? 47, 48 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for maximu m acceptable noise levels associated with stationary
and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources are required to be mitigated to not exceed the
maximum acceptable noise levels below (Table 3).
Table 3. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Use
Outdoor
Activity
Areas1
Indoor Spaces
Ldn or CNEL
in dB
Ldn or CNEL
in dB Leq in dB2 Lmax in dB3
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 -- 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 -- 45 --
Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- --
Playgrounds 70 -- -- --
Note: Ldn = day-night average sound level, CNEL = community noise equivalent level, dB = decibels, Leq = equivalent continuous sound level, Lmax =
maximum sound level.
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
The Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4, regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, railroad,
and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified i n
Table 3 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition, per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between
weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is strictly prohibited, except for emergency works
of public service utilities or by exception issued by the City’s Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also
Item 3
Packet Page 201
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
states that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the
maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residences. Based
on the City’s Municipal Code, operating any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an
individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right -of-way is prohibited (9.12.050.B.7).
a) The project includes construction of five single-family homes and a new driveway and related appurtenances. During
construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the
immediate area. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used on demolition and constru ction projects
are shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 ft From Source
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Paver 85
Scraper 85
The project site is located approximately 10 feet from the nearest residential units, which generally surround the project
site. Noise produced by construction equipment would be short-term, intermittent, and would be required to comply
with City Municipal Code construction timeframe constraints prohibiting construction equipment use between weekday
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays.
Based on the construction equipment anticipated to be used and proximity to surrounding single -family residences,
construction activities associated with future development of the site have the potential to exceed the construction noise
limit of 75 dBA at single-family residences established in the City Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure N-1 has been
identified to require that all construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement
methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational. In
addition, all construction activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday and would be prohibited on Sundays and federal and state holidays, in accordance with the City Municipal
Code Noise Control standards.
Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 would ensure potential impacts associated with
generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established would be less than significant with mitigation.
Upon completion of construction activities, vehicle noise and other on-site residential noise generated from the new
single-family residences would be consistent with the surrounding noise levels and would not result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, impacts associated with generation of a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance would be less than significant.
Item 3
Packet Page 202
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
b) Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration ; however, the project does not propose pile
driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise or groundborne vibration
during construction.
The vibration threshold at which there is a risk to historic and historic-age buildings is 0.5 inches per second particle
velocity (in/sec ppv) for transient sources and 0.25 in/sec ppv for continuous/frequent intermittent sources. With regard
to human perception, vibration levels would begin to be perceptible at levels of 0.04 in/sec ppv for continuous events
and 0.25 in/sec ppv for transient events. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction
equipment are summarized in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozers 0.0003
While some construction activities may result in perceptible vibration, the project -generated vibration levels would be
well below the thresholds identified as having the potential to adversely affect surrounding historic buildings and the
substantial majority of construction activities and resulting vibration would not be at levels perceptible to humans.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located approximately 2.9 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Based on
the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport ALUP, the project is not located within the Airport Land Use Planning
Area or noise contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall
be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust
from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenanc e and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shroudin g, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior
Item 3
Packet Page 203
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction
entry sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All
construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and
where BMP measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 dBA
for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of Sa n Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well n oise barriers attenuate sound)
of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and busine ss operators at properties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construct ion activities informing the public that noise-
related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community Development Department.
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for single-
family residential uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-5 would ensure potential impacts associated with
temporary exceedances of local established standards would be less than signif icant. No other potentially significant impacts
associated with noise were identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and has grown from 45,119 in 2010 to
approximately 46,548 in 2018 according to the City’s General Plan 2018 Annual Report. According to the City’s Housing
Element, between 2005 and 2019, the City’s population grew by 2,140 persons, a total increase of 4.8 percent, or annual increase
of 0.3 percent. Based on the City’s 2018 General Plan Annual Report, the city’s total buildout population would be 57,200
Item 3
Packet Page 204
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
people. The City’s housing tenure is approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced
by California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College enrollment. A large portion of the
city’s population has difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to economic, physical, or sociological
circumstances. The city contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county and the city’s population increases to an estimated
70,000 persons during workdays.
The City’s General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of the housing
needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include ensuring safety and affordability,
conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and tenure, planning
for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable housing and
neighborhood design, maximizing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the city, and developing
housing on suitable sites.
a) The project would develop five new single-family homes, which would result in approximately 12 new residents
(assuming 2.32 people per household). The project has been designed to be consistent with goals and policies established
in the City’s Housing Element associated with the provision of new housing, sustainable housing design, and the
provision of affordable housing opportunities. The project would be consistent with the projected population growth for
the city and the City’s Housing Element goals and policies. The project would not result in substantial unplanned
population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth or displace existing housing or people. The project woul d
not result in potentially significant impacts to population or housing; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 50, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Item 3
Packet Page 205
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
The project site is located within the service area of the City’s Fire Department and would be served by City Fire Station 1. The
newest fire station in the City, Fire Station 1 provides primary response to the downtown area of San Luis Obispo. This stati on
is staffed by a Battalion Chief and a 4-person paramedic truck company.
The City’s Police Department (SLOPD), which consists of 85.5 employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers, provides
public safety services for the city. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station located at 1042 Walnut Street at the
intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and U.S. 101. The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District (SLCUSD), and public parks and recreational trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department.
All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of development impact fees, which are
administered by and paid through the Community Development Department. Development impact fees provide funding for
maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for
projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles an d equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project proposes infill development and would not result in a substantial increase in demand on
fire protection services. The project would result in a negligible increase in residents within the city and would be
consistent with the projected population growth for San Luis Obispo. The project would not result in a substantial
increase in the number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded fire protection facilities. In addition, the project would be subject to development fees for fire protection,
which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on fire protection services. Therefore, impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be less than significant.
Police protection: The project proposes infill development and would not result in a substantial increase in demand on
police protection services. The project would result in a negligible increase in residents within the city and would be
consistent with the projected population growth for the city. The project would not result in a substantial increase in the
number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for cons truction of new or expanded police
protection facilities. In addition, the project would be subject to development impact fee s for police protection, which
would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on police protection services. Therefore, impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be less than significant.
Schools: The project site would be located within the SLCUSD and potential future development of residential uses at
the project site would be subject to payment of development impact fees to offset the potential marginal increase in
student attendance in the SLCUSC’s schools as a result of the project. These fees would be used to maintain sufficient
service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Through participation in this fee program,
potential project impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks: Development of five new single-family homes would result in a negligible increase in residents that could result
in an incremental increase in local park usership. The project would not result in the need for construction of new or
expanded public parks or other public recreation facilities. The project would be subject to park development impact
fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park an d recreational facilities. Through
participation in this fee program, potential project impacts on parks would be less than significant.
Other public facilities: The project would result in a negligible increase in use of other City public facilities, such as
roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to transportation development impact fees, which would
offset the project’s contribution to increased use of City roadways. Through participation in this fee program and
standard development impact fees, potential project impacts on other public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 206
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Conclusion
The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, no mitigation measures are ne cessary.
16. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
50, 51,
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural resources
and open space areas and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Recreation Element identifies goals, policies,
and programs to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement of overall
department goals is for the City Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in fun, healthy,
or enriching activities that enhance the quality of life in the community. As demand for recreational facilities and activities grow
and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following areas: contin uing development of athletic fields and support
facilities; providing parks in underserved neighborhoods; providing a multi-use community center and therapy pool; expanding
paths and trails for recreational use; linking recreation facilities; and meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth,
and senior citizens.
Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 1 0
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, of which, 5 acres shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
a, b) The project would result in a marginal increase in the demand on public parkland and neighborhood parks from an
increased residential population. While the project would result in a slight increase in residents within the city, the
project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be
subject to City park in-lieu fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and
recreational facilities and contribute to helping the City achieve its goal service ratio of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents. These fees would be used in the future to contribute funding for the establishment of new park/recrea tional
facilities or expansion of existing facilities; however, these actions would not be directly triggered by, or required as a
result of, implementation of the project. Through participation in this fee program, potential project impacts associated
with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities or construction of new pa rk facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be subject to payment of City park land in-lieu fees for parks and recreation facilities, which would offset
potential project impacts associated with the incremental increase of demand on these facilities. No potentially significant
impacts to parks or recreation facilities would occur and no mitigation measures are neces sary.
Item 3
Packet Page 207
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
1, 15, 22,
53 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
1, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 15, 49 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways
and transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and futur e
conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environm ent
throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, reducing use of cars by
supporting and promoting alternative transportation, such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting the
safe operation of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and
when the widening would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating condition s of an intersection or roadway based on factors such
as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating
conditions and F, the worst. The Circulation Element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in the
downtown area of the city as LOS E and states any degradatio n of the LOS below this standard shall be determined significant
under CEQA.
The City’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s officia l policies for the design and development of bikeways
within the city and in adjoining territory under Coun ty jurisdiction but within the City’s Urban Reserve and includes specific
objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes. The project site is located in the City’s Central District. In the
project area, Mill Street has Class III bicycle lanes and Toro Street is a planned bicycle boulevard, as identified in the City of
San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. Bicycle boulevards are low-volume, low-speed streets that have been optimized
for bicycle travel through treatments such as traffic calming and traffic reduction, signage and pavement markings, and
intersection crossing treatments. The Toro Street Bicycle Boulevard is planned between Islay Street and Highway 101 but does
not have an established timeline for development.
In 2013, SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with
statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions” and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of SB 743 and identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new
metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3 [b]). Beginning July 1, 2020, the newly adopted
VMT criteria for determining significance of transportation impacts must be implemented statewide.
SLO Transit operates transit service within the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas.
Item 3
Packet Page 208
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
a) The development of five single-family residences would result in a marginal increase of temporary construction traffic
and long-term vehicle trips. Neither temporary construction vehicle traffic nor operational vehicle trips from the five
single-family residences would generate enough vehicle trips to substantially affect surrounding roadway and
interchange LOS, and the project would not impact surrounding bicycle infrastructure or transit services. Therefore, the
project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Based on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), projects located within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit
stop or along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation
impact. The project would be infill development and is located within 0.5 mile of the San Luis Obispo Downtown
Transit Center and approximately eleven public transit stops. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the
standards set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant.
c-d) During the construction phase, the project may result in a periodic detour and/or minor lane closure on Toro and/or
Peach Streets. Proposed lane closures and use and transport of construction vehicles and equipment within an area that
experiences a low volume of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic would have a low potential to result in safety
hazards. If traffic control is required, it would be short term and there are numerous adequate alternative routes
proximate to the project site. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The project also includes construction of a driveway extension from Toro Street to access the proposed residences
onsite. No changes to the existing driveways would be required and residential development would not require
modification of any surrounding roadways. These potential improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with City Public Works standards to provide adequate vehicle and emergency vehicle access to all five
residences. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses
or result in inadequate emergency access; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
Potential future infill development of residential uses at the project site would not result in a reduction in LOS on surrounding
intersections and would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) regarding VMT. Any future development
at the project site would be required to meet City Public Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency
access. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts related to transportation would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that
is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)
17, 18,
19 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Item 3
Packet Page 209
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
17, 18,
19 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the
lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal
cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternati ves
and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources
a.i-ii.) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 . One
tribal representative, Fred Collins of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, responded requesting the records search
and archaeological report prepared for the project. Upon receipt of these reports, Mr. Collins confirmed that the Northern
Chumash Tribal Council would not be requesting a formal consultation and has no further comments on the project.
Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-3 have been identified to address the potential for inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources and require cultural resource awareness training and cessation of work area if a discovery is made
until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
Item 3
Packet Page 210
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years?
54, ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
55, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 55, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the communit y,
and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City Water Resource Rec overy Facility
(WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the County airport. The WRRF treats 4.5 million gallons of
wastewater daily, 365 days a year. The most recent upgrade to the WRRF was completed to improve the quality of water
discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek (located downstream of the project site). The WRRF has very stringent discharge
requirements and now produces a high -quality effluent that surpasses drinking water standards for many constituents. Plans to
utilize a portion of this effluent to irrigate parks, median strips, landscap ing, and other appropriate uses are being implemented
under the City’s Water Reuse Program.
a) The project includes the installation of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrast ructure and
connections to City infrastructure. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in adverse
environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, CR-1 through CR-3, and
N-1 through N-5 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from installation and
establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, cultural resources, and noise to less than significant.
Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction or extension of existing utilities would be less
than significant with mitigation.
b) The project would be served by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including Whale Rock
Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving as a
fifth supplemental source. The City no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. As of May 2020,
both the Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs are at above 84% storage capacity and Nacimiento Reservoir is at 50%
storage capacity.
Based on the City Utilities Department website, the City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades
has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water
available for the City in 2019 was 10,136 acre-feet per year (AFY), which included 244 AFY of recycled water. As this
availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability
is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for
Item 3
Packet Page 211
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
2019 was 4,762 AF. Compared against the City’s 2019 annual availability, the City has approximately 5,374 AF of
water surplus available to allocate to new beneficial uses within the City.
The project would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s
water resources. Therefore, based on the City’s current surplus of water supplies and payment of development impact
fees to offset use, potential impacts associated with having sufficient water supplie s during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years would be less than significant.
c) The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and include s the installation of new sewer infrastructure to
connect the five new residential units to existing City sewer infrastructure. The project would result in an incremental
increase in wastewater demand on the City’s WRRF. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued
to accommodate the project’s contribution to the City’s WRRF capacity. Therefore, impacts associated with the City’s
capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than significant.
d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the project would result in the
generation of approximately 5.2 pounds of solid waste per resident per day, or 62.4 pounds of solid waste generation
per day. This represents an incremental increase in demand on San Luis Garbage Company, the local solid waste service
provider. Waste generated from the project site would likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon
Landfill has approximately 14,500,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity and is expected to reach capacity in 2040.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
e) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californi ans dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air
quality, and public health. The five single-family residences would be required to adhere to the standards set forth in
the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services for trash, green waste, and recycling. Therefore, the project
would be in compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5, potential
impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 57, 59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 57, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 3
Packet Page 212
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
1, 7, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 57, 58,
59, 60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located in an urban area within the city of San Luis Obispo. Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size,
and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities they contain. Additional factors include access,
available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based on the City ’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the
risk of wildland fires is greatest near the city limits where development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the
community is within 1 mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone , which indicates significant risk to
wildland fire.
The Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, which include approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classif ying Wildland fire hazard severity
zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibiting new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard severity zones,
and continuing enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
a) The project proposes infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a significant temporary or per manent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service or road closure s would occur as a result of project
implementation; therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation
plan and impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located within a developed parcel located within an urban area in the city of San Luis Obispo. The
project would not substantially change the existing flat topography of the project site. Project construction would be
required to comply with the California Fire Code and would not exacerbate existing fire conditions. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project includes construction of a dead-end driveway approximately 250 feet in length. The City’s Municipal Code
requires dead-end streets in excess of 150 feet in length to include an approved emergency turnaround unless all
buildings are protected with approved fire sprinkler systems, in which case the distance may be extended to 300 feet.
The project includes 13-D sprinkler systems in all buildings which would meet fire code requirements. The project also
includes the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and
connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would be located within existing
developed land and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California F ire Code
regulations; therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk from installation of new infrastruct ure
would be less than significant.
d) The project site is generally flat and is not located near a hillslope or in an area subject to downstream flooding or
landslides. The project does not include any design elements that would expose people or structures t o significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage
changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 213
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER #
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development
of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire
would be less than significant.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project would develop five new single-family residences within the project site, which would result in the removal of up to
five trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds during tree removal
and construction.
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 have been included to require awareness training be conducted for all construction
crew members so that cultural resources can be recognized if unearthed during site disturbance activities and to require work be
halted in the event of an unanticipated discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and identify
the appropriate protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery. With implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
When project impacts are considered along with, or in combination with, other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s
potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project -
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and
the relatively limited number and extent of potential impacts, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality and noise that could result in sub stantial
adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than
significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, preparation of a geologic
investigation for asbestos, and implementation of noise control measures. With incorporation of mitigation measures identified
in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adve rse
effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 3
Packet Page 214
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
22. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions of the project.
N/A
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Architectural Review Commission Package. Ten Over Studios, October 31, 2019.
2. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015
3. SWCA. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets). 2020
4. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006.
5. Caltrans, California Scenic Highways, February 2017
6. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018
9. California Department of Conservation Land Conservation Act of 1965: San Luis Obispo County, 2006
10. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, County Attainment Status, 2019
11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012 (revised
November 2017)
12. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, Decembe r 2001
13. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, 2020
14. Pacific Coast Testing, Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residences 1137 Peach Street (APN 002 -316-005) 2019
15. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013
16. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019
18. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map 2019
19. Historic Properties in San Luis Obispo, California (A SLO Story Map), accessed March 9, 2020
20. San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010
21. Pacific Gas and Electric webpage: Delivering low emission energy, accessed March 9, 2020
22. San Luis Obispo Transit 2019-20120 User Guide, June 17, 2019
23. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012
24. California Building Code, 2019
25. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010
26. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014
Item 3
Packet Page 215
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
27. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed March 10, 2020
28. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019
29. Department of Conservation, Soil Web Survey 2020
30. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004
31. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 10, 2020
32. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 10, 2020
33. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed March 10, 2020
34. San Luis Obispo 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 2019
35. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
36. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014
37. SLO Stormwater Website 2020
38. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer , accessed November 4,
2019
39. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019
40. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Luis Obispo Webpage, 2019
41. Water Sources, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Webpage , Accessed November 2019
42. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle,
2009
43. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019
44. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element 2014
45. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
46. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway
Administration, September 2017
47.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transpor tation, Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). September 2018. Available at:
<https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-
impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>.
48. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). September 2013. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>.
49. City of San Luis Obispo 2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
50. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2018
51. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018
52. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, 2001
53. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017
54. 2018 Water Resources Status Report, 2018
55. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019
56. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Accessed March 11, 2020
57. San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006
58. San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element 2014
59. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, San Luis Obispo County,
March 2009
60. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 15.04. Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations. 2019
61. Cultural Resources Survey of the Peach and Toro Project, City of San Luis O bispo, San Luis Obispo County,
California. March 2020. Prepared by: Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants.
Item 3
Packet Page 216
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
Attachments
1. Project Plans
2. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets). SWCA May 2020.
Item 3
Packet Page 217
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
e. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
f. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
g. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and,
h. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on
highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation spe cifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except
as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than
5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection
(d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter
control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or
builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of
the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City
Community Development Department prior to commencement of construction. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or
demolition.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil -disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
Item 3
Packet Page 218
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved c hemical soil binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. “Track Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor
vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in
California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water Code Section 13304. To prevent track out,
designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate
a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track -
out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out,
located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices
need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, t he track-out
prevention device may need to be modified;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive
dust emissions do not result in a nu isance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20%
opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind -blown dust could be generated on an open dirt
lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic
evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD requirements
and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the
geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file
an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be
conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM
for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requir ements stipulated
in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
b. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
c. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition activities, the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the risk
associated with disturbance of ACM and lead -coated materials that may be present within the existing structures
onsite:
Item 3
Packet Page 219
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
a. Demolition of the on-site structures shall comply with the procedures required by the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos) for the control of asbestos
emissions during demolition activities. SLOAPCD is the delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement
the Federal Asbestos NESHAP. Prior to demolition of on-site structures, SLOAPCD shall be notified, per
NESHAP requirements. The project applicant shall submit proof that SLOAPCD has been notified prior to
demolition activities to the City Community Development Department.
b. If during the demolition of the existing structures, paint is separated from the construction materials (e.g.,
chemically or physically), the paint waste shall be evaluated independently from the build ing material by a
qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be
handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. According to the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), if the paint is not removed from the building material during demolition
(and is not chipping or peeling), the material can be disposed of as non -hazardous construction debris. The
landfill operator shall be contacted prior to disposal of lead-based paint materials. If required, all lead work
plans shall be submitted to SLOAPCD at least 10 days prior to the start of demolition. The applicant shall
submit proof that paint waste has been evaluated by a qualified hazardous waste materials insp ector and
handled according to their recommendation to the City Community Development Department.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Departm ent. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 If feasible, tree removal associated with any future residential (or accessory) development at the project site shall be
scheduled to occur from September 16 to January 31, outside of the typical nesting bird season, to avoid potential
impacts to nesting birds. If tree removal or other construction activities are proposed during the nesting season
(February 1 through September 15), prior to any ground disturbing activity, surveys for active nests shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist within one week prior to the st art of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the
proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active.
A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non -listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be
implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined
that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest,
adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate
buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City
Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance through regular inspections
and review of monitoring reports, as necessary.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Cultural Resource Awareness Training. Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a
cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
Item 3
Packet Page 220
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human
burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurfa ce earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a
25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City -
qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native
American affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction
with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause
shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria b y a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American
representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The
archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the
Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the
permanent curation of the recovered materials.
CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an
immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native
American representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that
no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall
occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and dispo sition pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determin ed to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall
notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building
and grading plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits.
Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall
be shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e. mufflers, lagging, and/or motor en closures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for pr oject construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed -air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed -air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
Item 3
Packet Page 221
ER ###-## (1137 Peach Street Subdivision)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise Best Management Practices
(BMPs) on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department
prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at
construction entry sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of
the project. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on construction hour limitations and
how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented.
N-3 Construction activities shall be conducted so that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75
dBA for single-family residences where feasible.
N-4 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Cod e, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to :
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment.
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be
shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate
sound) of 25.
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers.
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways
adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving,
Labor Day).
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
N-5 The project contractor shall inform residents and business operators at pro perties within 300 feet of the project of
proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to
construction noise. Signs shall be in place prior to and throughout grading and construction activities info rming the
public that noise-related complaints shall be directed to the construction manager prior to the City’s Community
Development Department.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City du ring regular
inspections.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines .
Utilities and Service Systems
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1, CR-1 through CR-3, and N-1 through N-5.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollu tion Control District, as necessary. The applicant
shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 and documentation showing compliance with measures AQ-4
and AQ-5 to the City Community Development Department upon completion and prior to issuance of grading permits. BIO-1,
CR-1 through CR-3, and N1 through N-5 shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City Community
Development Department shall verify compliance through regular inspections and review of monitoring reports, as n ecessary.
Item 3
Packet Page 222
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7574
E-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council amend
the Housing Element for updates associated with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and adopt
the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 1).
2.0 SITE DATA
3.0 SUMMARY
Over the last year, the City of San Luis Obispo, as well as the County and other cities within the
County have been in the process of updating their Housing Elements based on the new 6th Cycle
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements from the State of California Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element has been updated in
response to input received through eight presentations, meetings, online surveys, and a public
workshop, as well as other correspondence over the past year.
On June 10, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on proposed modifications to
Chapter 3 – Goals, Policies, and Programs - of the Housing Element. A complete version of the 6th
Cycle Draft Housing Element can be found on the City’s Housing Element website at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/affordable-
housing/housing-element. Staff is proposing revisions to Chapter 3 of the Housing Element, which
sets housing policy and the City’s work program for the next eight years. This chapter contains new
Applicant City of SLO
Representative Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Zoning Citywide
General Plan Citywide
Site Area Citywide
Environmental
Status
Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact
Meeting Date: July 22, 2020
Item Number: 4
Item 4
Packet Page 223
GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 2
policies and programs, revised policies and programs, and policies and programs that are proposed to
remain without substantive changes. Additions or changes have been recommended where
appropriate to reflect the changing needs, resources, and conditions in the community, and to respond
to changes in housing law. Proposed changes are shown in Attachment 2 as a legislative draft matrix.
Additionally, in coordination with the County, all cities within the County, and San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG), a new chapter (Chapter 4) is proposed to be added to the
Housing Element. Chapter 4 includes a regional vision and policies focused specifically on fostering
regional collaboration to plan and develop housing and supportive infrastructure (Attachment 3).
4.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the General Plan and for
making recommendations to the City Council under Government Code section §65353. The Planning
Commission has two primary roles in the Housing Element update process: 1) provide a forum for
public discussion and consensus building; 2) provide policy and program direction. The 6th Cycle
Draft Housing Element and associated environmental document must be considered by the Planning
Commission in at least one public hearing before final action can be taken on the item. The
Commission’s recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council for final action on the
Housing Element.
5.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
State law establishes a schedule for cities and counties to periodically update their housing elements
of the General Plan. Under this schedule, the City’s Housing Element update is due December 2020.
As a part of this update, the City is required to develop programs designed to meet their share of the
surrounding region’s housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the region’s council of
governments. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process ensures that each jurisdiction
accepts responsibility, within its physical and financial capability to do so, for the housing needs of
its residents and for those people who might reasonably be expected to move there. The City has been
allotted a RHNA of 3,354 housing units to plan for in the new 6th Cycle Housing Element. Based on
existing residential capacity, the City can accommodate the RHNA allocation for the planning period
(January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2028) without the need to rezone property.
The 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Update and appendices (available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/affordable-
housing/housing-element)) includes information such as updated demographic and residential
capacity information, housing constraints and resources, and implementation. The core of the
Housing Element, however, falls under Chapter 3: Goal, Policies and Programs, which provides
direction and a plan for how the City will achieve the accommodation of 3,354 units as required by
HCD.
Chapter 3 of the Housing Element has been updated in response to input received through eight
presentations, meetings, online surveys, and a public workshop, as well as other correspondence over
the past year (see Section 6.0 below). At the June 10, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, staff
presented the Commission with both new and revised goals, policies and programs based on public
comment, the changing needs, resources, and conditions in the community, and state law. The
Planning Commission provided direction to staff regarding those changes. The Planning Commission
should review the proposed changes to Chapter 3 in response to community input and Commission
Item 4
Packet Page 224
GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 3
direction and provide any additional comments or direction as appropriate as part of its
recommendation to City Council. Attachment 2 shows legislative changes in red, changes based on
Commission comments in blue, and changes based on community feedback are in green. Where
changes or new policies or programs are proposed, a brief description follows to explain how the
modification or addition better achieves housing goals or state requirements.
5.1 Planning Commission Direction
On June 10, 2020, the Planning Commission provided comments of support, as well as gave direction
on additional modifications to Chapter 3. Below is a summary of the Planning Commission’s
direction from the June 10, 2020 meeting and changes made in response. New language proposed is
shown in italics.
Policy 1.4: (New) Assist owners of older residences with information on ways to repair and upgrade
older structures to meet higher levels of building safety, efficiency, and sustainability. – This is a new
policy that staff added in response to Planning Commission’s comments regarding the older stock of
housing within the City. The new policy highlights the City’s partnership with homeowners to support
improvements to older residential structures.
Program 6.13: (Modified) The language “compatible with surrounding development” was added per
the recommendation by the Planning Commission. The policy now reads, “Consider General Plan
amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higher-density,
infill or mixed-use housing where compatible with surrounding development.”
Goal 7: The Planning Commission provided direction that Goal 7 should retain the language regarding
“neighborhood stability and owner occupancy.” Staff considered this direction and determined that
since the Housing Element supports both renter and owner-occupied housing units throughout all
neighborhoods within the City, Goal 7 should not specify tenure. Additionally, where projects
propose home ownership, Goal 10: Local Preference, outlines policies and programs to support local
home ownership. Therefore, no changes were made to Goal 7.
Policy 7.9: (New) Encourage neighborhood design elements that improve overall health of residents
such as providing safe and convenient opportunities to access food outlets and active places for
recreational exercise. – This policy has been added as recommended by the Planning Commission to
address public health and housing.
5.2 Community Feedback
Policy 8.9: (Modified) Based on community feedback, this policy was revised to highlight that
housing for persons with disabilities or aging in place should include amenities that support those
living within the units. The new policy now reads, “Encourage a variety of housing types that
accommodate persons with disabilities, and promote aging in place, and include amenities such as
visiting space, first floor accessibility, etc.”
5.3 Regional Vision for Housing – Chapter 4
San Luis Obispo County is a rural coastal county with seven cities and numerous unincorporated
communities that depend on collaborative relationships between and among government agencies,
community organizations, and residents to solve the region’s significant issues including inadequate
supply of affordable housing and resilient water, wastewater, and transportation infrastructure and
resources. In early 2020, local agencies adopted a San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact
Item 4
Packet Page 225
GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 4
to establish a united regional framework to unlock our potential to develop an adequate supply of
housing and infrastructure that support our economic prosperity.
The County and all seven Cities worked collaboratively to develop the region’s first Regional
Infrastructure and Housing Strategic Action Plan (Regional Plan) that identifies actions to address
these issues. A key component of the Regional Plan is the integration of efforts to address critical
housing and related infrastructure needs. As part of the Housing Element update process,
representatives of the County, seven Cities and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
developed Chapter 4 (see Attachment 3, Draft Housing Element) to showcase the ongoing
commitment of each agency to this collaborative effort. Chapter 4 presents a regional vision and eight
policies focused specifically on fostering regional collaboration to plan and develop housing and
supportive infrastructure.
6.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Over the past year, the City facilitated eight presentations, meetings, online surveys, and a public
workshop.
• Public Forum and City Council Meeting – April 2, 2019
• Planning Commission Meeting – April 24, 2019
• Association of Realtors – July 23, 2019
• Housing Element Workshop – December 10, 2020
• Online Survey – December 10, 2019 – January 10, 2020
• Chamber of Commerce – April 2, 2020
• Economic Vitality Corporation and the Home Builders Association – May 13, 2020
• Online Survey – June 8, 2020 – June 24, 2020
• Planning Commission Meeting – June 10, 2020
Housing Element Online Survey – June 8, 2020 – June 24, 2020
The City provided an opportunity for the community to give feedback regarding the modifications to
Chapter 3 of the Housing Element. To allow full participation by the community, the City elected to
host an online survey in the place of an in-person public workshop during the COVID-19 restricted
activity period. Participants of the online survey were invited to provide input on the proposed
modifications to the goals, policies, and programs within the Housing Element Update. 337
individuals visited the survey and 78 individuals responded to the questions (this is equivalent to 3.9
hours of public comment at 3 minutes per response).
Question 1 stated, “Is there anything that was missed or needs to be modified?” Many of the
comments identified housing concepts that are included within several goals, policies, and programs
such as:
• Retain the goal of visitability in Policy 8.9
• Promote ADA/special needs housing
• Promote affordable senior housing projects
• Support high density housing developments
• Support local preference
The survey identified, for example, that Policy 8.9 should retain the goal of visitability. As noted in
Section 5.2 above, staff has proposed modifications to this policy that support amenities for those
Item 4
Packet Page 226
GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 5
living within units designed for persons with disabilities or aging in place.
Question 2 asked, “Are there additional housing topics that should be considered?” Several concepts
were shared in response to this question and are shown below. These concepts are included in various
goals, policies, and programs. For example, Goal 7 addresses Neighborhood Quality and policies 7.3,
7.6, and 7.9 promote walkability, biking, access to schools, parks, grocery stores, places to exercise,
open space, and access to food outlets.
• Infrastructure planning (e.g. pedestrian, bicycle, improvements, etc.)
• Include amenities within housing developments such as: community gardens, common open
space, parks, car share programs, and edible landscaping.
• Affordable housing
• Senior housing
• Homeless/Transition housing
The last question of the survey was, “Do you have ideas regarding how to increase the production
and affordability of housing in the community?” This question is connected to the implementation of
the policies and programs over the course of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Ideas that were
proposed are shown below. Staff will consider these concepts as they move forward with
implementation.
• Update Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
• Reduce setback requirements
• Pre-approved ADU plans
• Reduce parking requirements
• Higher density and taller buildings in Downtown
• Reduce fees
• Round all densities to the nearest 0.5
• Upzone each residential zone to the next highest density
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for the Housing Element Update
(Attachment 4). No potentially significant or significant impacts were identified. A Negative
Declaration is therefore recommended for adoption in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section
15063(b)(2): “The lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration if there is no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.” A 30-day
public comment period was opened on July 9, 2020. A Notice of Intent to Adopt was filed with the
County- Clerk Recorder and the State Clearing House.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1 Modify the Proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element. The Commission may modify the
proposed Housing Element. Specific direction should be given to staff regarding any
modifications.
8.2 Continue the review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. An action to continue the item
should include direction to staff on pertinent issues.
Item 4
Packet Page 227
GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 6
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution - recommending that the City Council amend the Housing Element for
updates associated with the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and adopt the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact.
2. Housing Element Chapter 3 Legislative Draft Matrix
3. Draft Housing Element (also available online with appendices at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/affordable-housing/housing-element)
4. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (also available online at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2062)
Item 4
Packet Page 228
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND AMENDMENTS
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS
REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
JULY 22, 2020 (GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020)
WHEREAS, State law requires cities and counties to adopt a general plan. The General
Plan includes nine required elements, one of which is the Housing Element. The Housing Element
must be updated every eight (8) years or as otherwise provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan Housing Element was last updated on January 20,
2015 in compliance with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing, on June 10, 2020 for the purpose of considering modifications to the Housing
Element’s goals, policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing, on July 22, 2020, for the purpose of considering the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan to address the
changing needs, resources and conditions in the community, as required by State law ; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed amendments included in the draft Housing Element are consistent with other
land use goals and policies of the General Plan.
2. The proposed amendments are appropriate and necessary to ensure that the City’s Housing
Element meets State law and the changing needs, resources, and conditions in the
community.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 4
Packet Page 229
Planning Commission Resolution No. XXXX-20
6th Cycle Housing Element – GENP-0217-2020 & EID-0218-2020
Page 2
3. Achieving Housing Element State certification will promote affordable housing
opportunities and help achieve adopted housing goals by making the City eligible for
various housing grants and financial incentives, and will foster cooperation among local
and state agencies in addressing an urgent need for affordable housing in the City.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend
the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines section 15063(b)(2): “The lead agency shall prepare a negative declaration if there is
no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the
environment.”
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council
adopt the proposed amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan dated July 22, 2020,
which is incorporated herein by reference.
On motion by__________________________, seconded by________________________ and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of adopted this 22nd day of July, 2020.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1Item 4
Packet Page 230
Attachment 2: Housing Element Chapter 3 Legislative Draft Matrix
The matrix below provides a legislative draft of Housing Element Chapter 3: goals, polices, and
programs. Each modification is shown in red; modifications based on Planning Commission
direction and public comment are shown in blue. Policies are highlighted in gray.
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
Goal 1 - Safety: Provide safe, decent shelter for all residents.
1.1 1.1 Safety Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter
on their own.
1.2 1.2 Safety Support and inform the public about fair housing
laws and programs that allow equal housing
access for all city residents.
1.3 1.3 Safety Maintain a level of housing code enforcement
sufficient to correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal
conditions and to preserve the inventory of safe
housing, consistent with City Council’s code
enforcement priorities.
Updated to be consistent with current
code enforcement priorities.
1.4 Safety Assist owners of older residences with
information on ways to repair and upgrade older
structures to meet higher levels of building safety,
efficiency, and sustainability.
Per Planning Commission (PC)
comments on June 10, 2020, staff is
recommending a new policy that
supports improvements to older
residential structures.
1.4 1.5 Safety Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing
conditions, improve accessibility and energy
efficiency and improve neighborhoods by
Rehabilitate using Federal, State and local
housing funds, such as Community Development
Block Grant Funds, with the objectives of 30
single-family, 75 multi-family, 10 historic, and
20 mobile homes for extremely low, very low,
low and moderate income homeowners and
renters during the planning period.
Added language from Program 3.9.
The RHNA provides the objectives
for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
1.5 1.6 Safety Continue code enforcement to expedite the
removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to
eliminate hazardous site or property conditions,
and resolve chronic building safety problems.
1.6 ----- Safety Consider a Rental Inspection Program to improve
the condition of the City’s Housing Stock.
In May 2015 the City Council adopted
the Rental Housing Inspection
Ordinance. In March 2017 the City
Council voted to repeal the ordinance.
1.7 1.7 Safety Continue to support local and regional solutions
to homelessness by funding supportive programs
services, and housing solutions. such as the
Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and The Prado
Day Center.
Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and
the Prado Day Center are now housed
within the 40 Prado Homeless Service
Center.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 231
Page 2
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
1.8 ----- Safety Create an educational campaign for owners of
older residences informing them of ways to
reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in
such structures and encouraging them to
undertake seismic upgrades.
Unreinforced masonry buildings have
been retrofitted to meet current
building code requirements. Proactive
education is complete because no
additional structures need seismic
retrofits. Although complete, staff
will continue to have information
available regarding seismic hazards
for those community members
interested in further education.
Goal 2 - Affordability: Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City’s quantified objectives.
2.1 2.1 Affordability Income Levels For Affordable Housing
households. For purposes of this Housing
Element, affordable housing is that which is
obtainable by a household with a particular
income level, as further described in the City’s
Affordable Housing Standards. Housing
affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low,
and Moderate income persons or households
shall be considered “deed-restricted affordable
housing.” Income levels are defined as follows:
❑ Extremely low 30% or less of County Area
median household income
❑ Very low: 31 to 50% of County Area median
household income.
❑ Low: 51% to 80% of County Area median
household income.
❑ Moderate: 81% to 120% of County Area
median household income.
❑ Above moderate: 121% or more of County
Area median household income.
2.2 2.2 Affordability Index of Affordability. The Index of
Affordability shall be based on the City’s
Affordable Housing Standards, updated annually
per the County of San Luis Obispo’s Area
Median Income determined by California
Department of Housing and Community
Development. whether the monthly cost of
housing fits within the following limits:
For extremely low income households, not more
than 25% of monthly income.
For very low- and low-income households, not
more than 25% of monthly income.
For moderate income households, not more than
30% of monthly income.
For above-moderate income households, no
index.
These indices may be modified or expanded if the
State of California modifies or expands its
definition of affordability for these income
groups.
Updated the policy to have the ability
to remain consistent with
standardized County data.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 232
Page 3
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
2.3 2.3 Affordability For housing to qualify as “deed-restricted
affordable” under the provisions of this Element,
guarantees must be presented that ownership or
rental housing units will remain affordable for the
longest period allowed by State law, or for a
shorter period under an equity-sharing or housing
rehabilitation agreement with the City.
The Equity Share Program has a 45-
year deed restriction if an owner does
not choose to exercise the equity share
option.
2.4 2.4 Affordability Encourage housing production for all financial
strata of the City's population, as allocated in the
proportions shown in the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation, for the 2014 – 2019 6th cycle
planning period. The number of units per income
category are These proportions are: extremely
low and income /, 12 percent, very low income,
12 percent 825 units; low income, 16 percent 520
units; moderate income, 18 percent 604 units; and
above moderate income, 42 percent 1,405 units.
Updated with the new RHNA under
the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
2.5 2.5 Affordability Continue to manage the Affordable Housing
Fund so that the fund serves as a sustainable
resource for supporting affordable housing
development. The fund shall serve as a source of
both grant funding and below market financing
for affordable housing projects; and funds shall
be used to support a wide variety of housing types
at the following income levels: extremely low,
very low, low, and moderate, but with a focus on
production efficiency to maximize housing
benefits for the City’s financial investment, and
to support high quality housing projects that
would not be feasible without Affordable
Housing Fund support.
2.6 2.6 Affordability Continue to review existing and proposed
building, planning, engineering and fire policies
and standards as housing developments are
reviewed to determine whether changes are
possible that could assist the production of
affordable housing, or that would encourage
preservation of housing rather than conversion to
non-residential uses, provided such changes
would not conflict with other General Plan
policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to
remove regulations that have been superseded,
are redundant or are no longer needed.
2.7 2.7 Affordability Continue to prioritize implement existing
procedures that speed up the processing of
applications, construction permits, and water and
sewer service priorities for affordable housing
projects. City staff and commissions shall give
such projects priority in allocating work
assignments, scheduling, conferences and
hearings. and in preparing and issuing reports and
water and sewer service allocations.
Updated language to be consistent
with City policies and processes.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 233
Page 4
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
2.8 ----- Affordability Continue to pursue outside funding sources for
the payment of City impact fees so that new
dwellings that meet the City’s affordable housing
standards can mitigate their facility and service
impacts without adversely affecting housing
affordability.
Reductions have been built into the
new fee structure that was approved as
a part of AB 1600 in 2018.
2.9 ----- Affordability To the extent outside funding sources can be
identified to offset impacts on City funds, exempt
dwellings that meet the moderate income,
Affordable Housing Standards from planning,
building and engineering development review
and permit fees, including water meter
installation fee. Maintain exemptions for
extremely-low, very-low and low-income
households.
Reductions have been built into the
new fee structure that was approved as
a part of AB 1600 in 2018.
2.10 2.8 Affordability Continue to coordinate public and private sector
actions to encourage the development of housing
that meets the City’s housing needs.
2.11 2.9 Affordability Continue to assist with the issuance of bonds, tax
credit financing, loan underwriting or other
financial tools to help develop or preserve
affordable units through various programs.
including, but not limited to: (1) below market
financing through the SLO County Housing Trust
Fund and (2) subsidized mortgages for extremely
low, very-low, low- and moderate income
persons and first-time home buyers, and (3) self-
help or “sweat equity” homeowner housing.
Eliminating the examples allows for
more opportunities and flexibility to
fund affordable housing
opportunities.
2.12 2.10 Affordability Consider updating the Affordable Housing
Standards to include incorporating Homeowners’
Association (HOA) fees and a standard allowance
for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents
and home sales prices.
Added language based on findings
and recommendations from the 2020
Affordable Housing Nexus Study.
2.13 2.11 Affordability In conjunction with the Housing Authority and
other local housing agencies, continue to provide
on-going technical assistance and education to
tenants, property owners and the community at
large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well
as the available tools to help them do so.
2.14 2.12 Affordability In conjunction with local housing providers and
the local residential design community, continue
to Continue to provide technical assistance
planning services as requested by the public,
builders, design professionals and developers
regarding design strategies to achieve affordable
housing and density bonuses.
Updated language to be consistent
with City policies and processes.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 234
Page 5
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
2.15 2.13 Affordability Update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance,
including Table 2A, based on findings and
recommendations in the 2020 Affordable
Housing Nexus Study and conduct further
feasibility analysis in order to Eevaluate the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements
and the effect of Table 2A on the City’s ability to
provide affordable housing in the proportions
shown in the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, per Policy 2.4.
Added language based on findings
and recommendations from the 2020
Affordable Housing Nexus Study.
2.16 ----- Affordability The City will evaluate and consider including a
workforce level of affordability in its Affordable
Housing Standards to increase housing options in
the City for those making between 121 percent
and 160 percent of the San Luis Obispo County
median income. This affordability category
cannot be used to meet inclusionary housing
ordinance requirements and is not eligible for
City Affordable Housing Funds.
Creating a workforce level of
affordability was examined and found
that it could not be successfully
implemented on a citywide basis as
there are no existing State standards
for such an income level.
2.17 2.14 Affordability Continue to consider support increasing
residential densities above state density bonus
allowances for projects that provide housing for
extremely low, very low and extremely low
income households.
Reordered wording.
2.15 Affordability Evaluate a flexible density pilot program and
initiate an update of the Zoning Regulations and
Community Design Guidelines to incorporate
flexible density development options in
Downtown and portions of Upper Monterey and
Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas to support the
production of smaller residential units (150 to
600 square feet).
This program was recommended in
part by input from the community and
the work program associated with the
Housing Major City Goal. The
community and Council identified
that the Downtown and portions of
Upper Monterey and Mid-Higuera
Special Focus Areas could be
appropriate for higher density housing
development.
Goal 3 - Housing Conservation: Conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement
of current occupants.
3.1 3.1 Housing
Conservation
Continue to encourage the rehabilitation,
remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable
housing rather than demolition. Demolition of
non-historic housing may be permitted where
conservation of existing housing would preclude
the achievement of other housing objectives or
adopted City goals.
3.2 3.2 Housing
Conservation
Discourage the removal or replacement of
housing affordable to extremely low, very-low,
low- and moderate income households, and avoid
permit approvals, private development,
municipal actions or public projects that remove
or adversely impact such housing unless such
actions are necessary to achieve General Plan
objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that
rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 235
Page 6
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
replacement is financially or physically
infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new
units comparable or better in affordability and
amenities to those being replaced is provided, or
(3) the project will correct substandard, blighted
or unsafe housing; and (4) removal or
replacement will not adversely affect housing
which is already designated, or is determined to
qualify for designation as a historic resource.
3.3 ----- Housing
Conservation
Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to
reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of
housing in an earthquake.
All multi-family structures have been
retrofitted and single-family
residences are exempt from seismic
retrofits. Additionally, any upgrades
to older residential structures is now
covered in the proposed new Policy
1.4.
3.4 3.3 Housing
Conservation
Encourage the construction, preservation,
rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels,
group homes, integrated community apartments,
and single-room occupancy dwellings.
3.5 3.4 Housing
Conservation
Preserve historic homes and other types of
historic residential buildings, historic districts
and unique or landmark neighborhood features.
3.6 ----- Housing
Conservation
Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e.
setbacks), and overall character and quality of life
of established neighborhoods.
Moved to Goal 7: Neighborhood
Quality & Design and is now Policy
7.9.
3.7 3.5 Housing
Conservation
Encourage and support creative strategies for the
rehabilitation and adaptation and reuse of
residential, commercial, and industrial structures
for housing.
3.8 ----- Housing
Conservation
Adopt an ordinance that implements policy 3.2 to
discourage removal or replacement of affordable
housing.
Affordable housing units are
protected by the State of California
Housing Accountability Act, SB 330
(see Policy 3.2), and the “no net loss”
requirements of SB 166. An
ordinance is no longer required.
3.9 ----- Housing
Conservation
Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing
conditions, improve accessibility and energy
efficiency and improve neighborhoods by
collaborating with agencies offering
rehabilitation programs. City will use State or
Federal grants or other housing funds to
implement the program and provide services such
as home weatherization, repair and universal
access improvements.
Consolidated this program by adding
the first sentence to Policy 1.4 which
provides a broader context to support
all housing including the preservation
of existing housing.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 236
Page 7
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
3.10 3.7 Housing
Conservation
Continue to encourage the creation of dwellings
in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the
Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no
net housing loss" program, consistent with
Chapter 17.86 17.142 (Downtown Housing
Conversion Regulations) of the Zoning
Regulations.
Updated to be consistent with Zoning
Regulations update.
3.11 3.8 Housing
Conservation
Continue to identify residential properties and
districts eligible for local, State or Federal
historic listing in accordance with guidelines and
standards to help property owners repair,
rehabilitate and improve properties in a
historically and architecturally sensitive manner.
3.12 3.9 Housing
Conservation
Continue to monitor and track affordable housing
units at-risk of being converted to market rate
housing annually. Provide resources to support
the Housing Authority, and local housing
agencies, purchase and manage at-risk units.
3.13 3.10 Housing
Conservation
Working with non-profit organizations, faith-
based organizations, or the Housing Authority of
the City of San Luis Obispo, the City will
encourage rehabilitation of residential,
commercial or industrial buildings to expand
extremely low, very-low, low or moderate
income rental housing opportunities.
Goal 4 - Mixed-Income Housing. Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixed income neighborhoods and seek
to prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status.
4.1 4.1 Mixed-Income
Housing
Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing
that is affordable to various economic strata
should be intermixed rather than segregated into
separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable
to the relative percentages of extremely low,
very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate
income households in the City’s quantified
objectives.
4.2 4.2 Mixed-Income
Housing
Include both market-rate and affordable units in
apartment and residential condominium projects
and intermix the types of units. Affordable units
should be comparable in size, appearance, and
basic quality to market-rate units.
4.3 4.3 Mixed-Income
Housing
Extremely-low and very low-income housing,
such as that developed by the Housing Authority
of the City of San Luis Obispo or other housing
providers, may be located in any zone that allows
housing, and should be dispersed throughout the
City rather than concentrated in one
neighborhood or zone.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 237
Page 8
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
4.4 4.4 Mixed-Income
Housing
In its discretionary actions, housing programs and
activities, the City shall affirmatively further fair
housing and promote equal housing opportunities
for persons of all economic segments of the
community.
4.5 4.5 Mixed-Income
Housing
Review new development proposals for
compliance with City regulations and revise
projects or establish conditions of approval as
needed to implement the mixed-income policies.
4.6 4.6 Mixed-Income
Housing
Consider aAmending the City’s Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing
Incentives to require that affordable units in a
development be of similar size, number of
bedrooms, character and basic quality as the
nonrestricted units in locations that avoid
segregation of such units including equivalent
ways to satisfy the requirement. Also evaluate
adjusting the City’s allowable sales prices for
deed-restricted affordable units per a variety of
unit types.
Added language based on findings
and recommendations from the 2020
Affordable Housing Nexus Study.
Goal 5 - Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings.
5.1 ----- Housing
Variety
Encourage the integration of appropriately
scaled, special needs housing into developments
or neighborhoods of conventional housing.
AB 101 allows this type of housing in
all zones and there is limited ability
control scale and design.
5.2 5.1 Housing
Variety
Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial
projects in all commercial zones, especially those
close to activity centers. to include live-work and
work-live units where housing and offices or
other commercial uses are compatible.
Combined with Policy 5.3 to form one
policy that encourages mixed-use
development, consistent with the
Zoning Regulations update which no
longer identifies live/work or
work/live units separately from
mixed-use.
5.3 ----- Housing
Variety
Encourage the development of housing above
ground-level retail stores and offices to provide
housing opportunities close to activity centers
and to use land efficiently.
See above.
5.4 5.2 Housing
Variety
New planned In general, housing developments
of twenty (20) or more units should provide a
variety of dwelling types, sizes and styles or
forms of tenure.
5.3 Housing
Variety
Encourage the development of a variety of
“missing middle” housing types.
This new policy is based on
community feedback and the work
program associated with the Housing
Major City Goal to address the need
for more housing. Missing middle
housing types include duplexes,
triplexes, quadplexes, cottages, etc.
Policy 5.4 also replaces Program 2.16
which discusses workforce housing.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 238
Page 9
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
5.5 ----- Housing
Variety
Review new developments for compliance with
City regulations and revise projects or establish
conditions of approval as needed to implement
the housing variety and tenure policies.
Updated language to be consistent
with City policies and processes.
5.4 Housing
Variety
Evaluate opportunities for promoting “missing
middle” housing types (e.g. duplex, triplex,
quadplex, cottages, etc) to increase housing
options in the City.
New program to implement new
Policy 5.3.
5.5 Housing
Variety
Consider amending the Zoning Regulations to
streamline the permitting process for mixed-used
projects in commercial zones.
Goal 6 - Housing Production. Plan for Facilitate the production of new housing to meet the full range of community
housing needs.
6.1 6.1 Housing
Production
Consistent with the growth management portion
of its Land Use Element and the availability of
adequate resources, the City will plan to
accommodate up to 3,354 dwelling units for the
6th cycle housing element update in accordance
with the assigned Regional Housing Needs
Allocation.1,144 dwelling units between January
2014 and June 2019 in accordance with the
assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Updated to be consistent with the 6th
Cycle RHNA.
6.2 ---- Housing
Production
New commercial developments in the Downtown
Core (C-D Zone) shall include housing, unless
the City makes one of the following findings:
Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety
or welfare of residents or employees; or
The property’s shape, size, topography or other
physical factor makes construction of new
dwellings infeasible.
Updated to be consistent with Zoning
Regulations update. The Zoning
Regulations require housing as a part
of any development within the
downtown.
6.3 6.2 Housing
Production
If City services must be rationed to development
projects, residential projects will be given priority
over non-residential projects. As required by SB
1087, Housing affordable to lower income
households will be given first priority.
6.4 6.3 Housing
Production
City costs of providing services to housing
development will be minimized. Other than for
existing housing programs encouraging housing
affordable to extremely low, very-low and low
income persons, the City will not make new
housing more affordable by shifting costs to
existing residents.
6.5 6.4 Housing
Production
When sold, purchased, or redeveloped for public
or private uses, City-owned properties within the
urban reserve shall include housing as either a
freestanding project or part of a mixed-use
development where land is suitable and
appropriate for housing.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 239
Page 10
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
6.6 ----- Housing
Production
Property located behind the former County
General Hospital shall be designated a “Special
Considerations” zone and may be considered
suitable for residential development after further
analysis and environmental review, provided that
development be limited to site areas with average
slopes of less than 20 percent, that approximately
one-half of the total site area be dedicated for
open space and/or public use, and that an
additional water tank be provided if determined
necessary to serve new development.
Completed as a part of the LUE
update as part of the special focus
areas section; Program 8.6. General
Hospital Site.
6.7 6.5 Housing
Production
Support the redevelopment of excess public and
private utility properties for housing where
appropriately located and consistent with the
General Plan.
6.8 6.6 Housing
Production
Consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate
higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), Upper Monterey,
and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas,, the City
shall consider changes to the Zoning Regulations
that would allow for flexible density standards
that support the development of smaller
apartments and efficiency units.
This policy was updated to encourage
additional residential units not only in
Downtown, but in Upper Monterey
and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas
consistent with the City’s Major City
Goal work program and new Program
2.15.
6.9 6.7 Housing
Production
Encourage and support employer/employee
financing programs and partnerships to increase
housing opportunities specifically targeted
towards the local workforce.
Revised language allows for more
flexibility and creativity to implement
the policy.
6.10 6.8 Housing
Production
To help meet the 6th cycle RHNA production
targets Quantified Objectives, the City will
support residential infill development and
promote higher residential density where
appropriate.
Updated to be consistent with the 6th
Cycle RHNA.
----- 6.9 Housing
Production
Specific plans for any new area identified shall
include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure
sufficient land is designated at appropriate
densities to accommodate the development of
extremely low-, very low- and low-income
dwellings.
Converted Program 6.14 into a policy.
6.11 6.10 Housing
Production
Maintain the General Plan and Residential
Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC
17.88144) exemption for new housing in the
Downtown Core (C-D zone), accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), and new housing in other zones
that is enforceably for deed-restricted for
extremely-low, very low, low- and moderate
income households, pursuant to the Affordable
Housing Standards.
Updated to be consistent with Zoning
Regulations update.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 240
Page 11
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
6.12 6.11 Housing
Production
Continue to allow flexible parking regulations for
housing development, especially in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the
possibilities of flexible use of city parking
facilities by Downtown residents, where
appropriate, and reduced or no parking
requirements where appropriate guarantees limit
occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or
who provide proof of reserved, off-site parking.
Such developments may be subject to
requirements for parking use fees, use limitations
and enforcement provisions.
6.13 6.12 Housing
Production
Continue to develop incentives to encourage
additional housing in the Downtown, Upper
Monterey, and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), particularly in
mixed-use developments. Density based on
flexible density average unit size in a project
should be explored to encourage the development
of smaller efficiency units.
Modified to be consistent with Policy
6.6.
6.14 ---- Housing
Production
Specific plans for any new expansion area
identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land
to ensure sufficient land is designated at
appropriate densities to accommodate the
development of extremely low, very-low and low
income dwellings. These plans shall include sites
suitable for subsidized rental housing and
affordable rental and owner-occupied dwellings,
and programs to support the construction of
dwellings rather than payment of in-lieu housing
fees. Such sites shall be integrated within
neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall
be architecturally compatible with the
neighborhood.
Converted to Policy 6.9.
6.15 6.13 Housing
Production
Consider General Plan amendments to rezone
commercial, manufacturing or public facility
zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed-
use housing where compatible with surrounding
development land development patterns are
suitable and where impact to Low-Density
Residential areas is minimal. For example, areas
to be considered for possible rezoning include,
but are not limited to the following sites:
A. Portions of South Broad Street Corridor and
Little Italy area
B. 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and
underutilized School District property)
C. 1642 Johnson Avenue (vacant School
District property)
D. 4325 South Higuera Street (former P.G.&E.
yard)
E. 4355 Vachell Lane (vehicle storage)
Updated to remove sites that have
been developed and added new sites
that may be considered for additional
housing development.
New language added per the
recommendation of the PC at the June
10, 2020 meeting.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 241
Page 12
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
F. 173 Buckley Road (Avila Ranch)
G. 2143 Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County
Health Department)
H. 3710 Broad Street (Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union)
I. 11950 Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach
High School)
J. 2500 Block of Boulevard Del Campo
(adjacent to Sinsheimer Park)
K. 12165 & 12193 Los Osos Valley Road
(adjacent to Home Depot)
L. 1150 & 1160 Laurel Lane (Atoll Business &
Technology Center)
M. 600 Tank Farm Road (Temporary
Unimproved Parking Area)
6.16 6.14 Housing
Production
Continue to provide resources that support the
SLO County Housing Trust fund’s efforts to
provide below market financing and technical
assistance to affordable housing developers as a
way to increase affordable housing production in
the City of San Luis Obispo.
6.17 6.15 Housing
Production
Encourage residential development through infill
development and densification within City Limits
and in designated expansion areas over new
annexation of land.
6.18 6.16 Housing
Production
Seek opportunities with other public and private
agencies to identify excess, surplus, ans
underutilized parcels for residential development.
and public utilities to identify, assemble, develop,
redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing,
and to convert vacant or underutilized public,
utility or institutional buildings to housing.
Consistent with new State law.
6.19 6.17 Housing
Production
Continue to incentivize affordable housing
development consistent with SLOMC
(Affordable Housing Incentives). with density
bonuses, parking reductions and other
development incentives, including City financial
assistance.
Simplified as the requirements are
outlined in the City’s Municipal
Code. Reference to City financial
assistance was removed because it is
not a “development incentive.”
6.20 6.18 Housing
Production
Continue to financially assist in the development
of housing affordable to extremely low, very-low,
low- or and moderate income households during
the planning period using State, Federal and local
funding sources, with funding priority given to
projects that result in the maximum housing
benefits for the lowest household income levels.
6.21 6.19 Housing
Production
Actively seek new revenue sources, including
State, Federal and private/non-profit sources, and
financing mechanisms to assist with development
of affordable housing affordable to development
for extremely low, very low and low or moderate
income households and first- time homebuyers.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 242
Page 13
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
6.22 ---- Housing
Production
Continue to exempt the rehabilitation or
remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200
square feet each from Architectural Review
Commission review. New multi-unit housing
may be allowed with “Minor or Incidental” or
staff level architectural review, unless the
dwellings are located on a sensitive or historically
sensitive site.
Implemented. Section 17.106.030 has
been added to the 2018 Zoning
Regulations update which references
SLOMC Chapter 2.48 that includes
language that exempts the
rehabilitation or remodeling of up to 4
dwellings of up to 1,200 square feet
each from Architectural Review
Commission review.
6.23 ----- Housing
Production
Assist in the production of affordable housing by
identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned
property suitable for housing, and dedicate public
property, where feasible and appropriate for such
purposes, as development projects are proposed.
Implemented. Staff completed an
inventory of City-owned property and
found that no City-owned properties
are suitable for housing.
6.24 ----- Housing
Production
Community Development staff will proactively
provide information for properties suitable for
housing as identified in the Land Use and
Housing Elements.
Implemented. Staff actively provides
information regarding any land
identified in the Housing Element or
the Land Use Element that may be
suitable for housing development
possibilities.
6.25 ----- Housing
Production
Evaluate and consider amending the General Plan
to designate the 46 acres associated with the
former County General Hospital as a “Special
Considerations” zone, suitable for housing
development on areas of the site of less than 20
percent average slope, provided that open space
dedication and public improvements are part of
the project.
Completed. The Land Use Element
was updated in 2015 to include
Program 8.6 which identified the
General Hospital site as a Special
Planning Area.
6.26 6.20 Housing
Production
Continue to update the Affordable Housing
Incentives (Chapter 17.90140, SLOMC) and
Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus
incentives are consistent with State Law.
Updated to be consistent with Zoning
Regulations update.
6.27 ----- Housing
Production
Evaluate and consider increasing the residential
density allowed in the Neighborhood-
Commercial (C-N), Office (O) and Downtown
Commercial (C-D) zoning districts. The City will
evaluate allowing up to 24 units per acre in the C-
N and O zones, and up to 72 units per acre in the
C-D zone, twice the current density allowed in
these areas.
A detailed analysis of increasing the
residential density allowed in various
zoning districts was considered and
evaluated as a part of the zoning
update and determined that it would
need to be part of a larger update to
the Land Use Element (LUE) and
require additional environmental
review.
6.28 ----- Housing
Production
Evaluate how lot patterns (i.e. size, shape, slope)
in the City’s multi-family zones affect the City’s
ability to meet housing production policies. If
warranted, consider setting a minimum number
of dwellings on each legal lot in the R-2, R-3 and
R-4 zones, regardless of lot size, when other
property development standards, such as parking,
height limits and setbacks can be met.
Implemented. In 2018 the Zoning
Regulations were updated to include
minimum number of dwellings on
each legal lot in the R-2, R-3 and R-4
zones, regardless of lot size as long as
the development can meet all property
development standards, such as
parking, height limits and setbacks.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 243
Page 14
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
6.29 ----- Housing
Production
Continue to pursue incentives to encourage
development of Secondary Dwelling Units
(SDUs). Possible incentives include SDU design
templates, flexible development standards, fee
reductions or deferrals, or other measures to
encourage the construction of SDUs where
allowed by zoning.
Implemented. The City updated the
Zoning Regulations in 2018 and 2020
to be consistent with State law
regarding SDUs (now called ADUs –
Accessory Dwelling Units). In
addition, the City has also eliminated
impact fees requirements for ADUs.
6.30 6.21 Housing
Production
Evaluate and consider updating adopting the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations changes to
support small lot subdivisions, ownership
bungalow court development Eliminate the one
acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning,
and other alternatives to conventional subdivision
design.
The Zoning Regulations were updated
in 2018 and included a revision to the
PD overlay zoning to allow a
minimum of one-half of a contiguous
acre for a PD (as opposed to a one acre
minimum).
6.31 ----- Housing
Production
Consider scaling development impact fees for
residential development based on size, number of
bedrooms, and room counts.
Completed as a part of the AB 1600
and fee schedule update.
6.32 6.22 Housing
Production
Continue to submit annual the Housing Element
Annual Progress Reports (APR) to the State
Department of Housing and Community
Development and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research on or before April 1st of
each year for the prior calendar year, pursuant to
per Government Code Section 65400.
Goal 7 - Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods. encourage neighborhood
stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function and sense of community.
Modified to provide focus on neighborhood quality, amenities, and access and less on specific tenure. Where projects propose
home ownership, Goal 10: Local Preference, outlines policies and programs to support local home ownership.
7.1 7.1 Neighborhood
Quality
Within established neighborhoods, new
residential development should shall be of
compatible design character, size, density and
quality that respects the existing neighborhood
character, to enhance and maintains the quality of
life for existing and future residents.
Reworded for consistency with state
law.
7.2 7.2 Neighborhood
Quality
Higher density housing should maintain high
quality standards for unit design, privacy,
security, on-site amenities, and public and private
open space. Such standards should be flexible
enough to allow innovative design solutions. in
special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-
use developments or in housing in the Downtown
Core.
7.3 ----- Neighborhood
Quality
Within established neighborhoods, housing
should not be located on sites designated in the
General Plan for parks or open space.
Covered by polices within the
Conservation and Open Space
Element and the Land Use Element.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 244
Page 15
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
7.4 7.3 Neighborhood
Quality
Within expansion areas, New residential
developments should incorporate be an integral
part of an existing neighborhood or should
establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian
and bicycle linkages that provide direct,
convenient and safe access to adjacent
neighborhoods, schools, parks, and shopping
areas.
The City no longer has any areas that
are considered “expansion areas.” The
Policy should apply to all new
residential projects.
7.5 7.4 Neighborhood
Quality
Discourage the creation of walled-off or physical
separations between residential enclaves, or of
separate, unconnected tracts to enhance, is
discouraged because physical separations prevent
the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable
neighborhoods.
Reworded for clarity.
7.6 7.5 Neighborhood
Quality
Housing should shall be sited to enhance safety
along neighborhood streets and in other public
and semi-public areas.
7.7 7.6 Neighborhood
Quality
The physical design of neighborhoods and
dwellings should promote walking and bicycling
and preserve open spaces and views.
7.8 7.7 Neighborhood
Quality
Continue to encourage strategies and programs
that increase long-term residency and
stabilization in neighborhoods.
7.8 Neighborhood
Quality
Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e.
setbacks), and overall character and quality of life
of established neighborhoods.
Policy 3.6 was moved to Goal 7 as it
better relates to Neighborhood
Quality than Housing Conservation.
7.9 Neighborhood
Quality
Encourage neighborhood design elements that
improve overall health of residents such as
providing safe and convenient opportunities to
access food outlets and active places for
recreational exercise.
This is a new policy that has been
added as recommended by the
Planning Commission on June 10,
2020, to address public health and
housing.
7.9 7.10 Neighborhood
Quality
Continue to utilize a diverse range of outreach
methoods implement varied strategies, including
such as early notification through email
notifications electronic media, the City’s website
and social media accounts improvements, and
neighborhood outreach meetings, etc., to ensure
residents are aware of and able to participate in
planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods
early in the planning process.
Updated to be consistent with current
requirements and policies.
7.10 7.11 Neighborhood
Quality
Continue to work directly with neighborhood
groups and individuals to address concerns
pertaining to Identify specific neighborhood
needs, problems, trends and opportunities for
physical improvements.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 245
Page 16
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
7.11 7.12 Neighborhood
Quality
Continue to fund neighborhood improvements,
including parks, sidewalks, traffic calming
devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and
street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety and
accessibility.
7.12 ----- Neighborhood
Quality
Continue to develop and implement
neighborhood parking strategies, including
parking districts, to address the lack of on- and
off-street parking in residential areas.
Implemented. The City has a process
where Neighborhood Parking
Districts can be created. The City has
also been working on the creation of
demand-based parking strategies.
7.13 7.13 Neighborhood
Quality
Continue the City’s Neighborhood Services and
proactive enforcement Code Enforcement
programs to support neighborhood wellness.
Goal 8 - Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing
needs.
8.1 8.1 Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage housing development that meets a
variety of special needs, including large families,
single parents, disabled persons, the elderly,
students, veterans, the homeless, or those seeking
congregate care, group housing, single-room
occupancy or co-housing accommodations,
utilizing universal design.
8.2 8.2 Special
Housing
Needs
Preserve manufactured housing or mobile home
parks and support changes in these forms of
tenure only if such changes provide residents
with greater long-term security or comparable
housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability.
8.3 ----- Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage manufactured homes in Specific Plan
Areas by:
A) When the City considers adopting new
specific plans, including policies that support
owner-occupied manufactured home parks with
amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities,
and shopping services within a master planned
community setting. Such parks could be
specifically designed to help address the needs of
those with mobility and transportation
limitations.
B) Establishing lot sizes, setback, and parking
guidelines that allow for relatively dense
placement of manufactured homes within the
master planned neighborhood.
C) Locating manufactured home parks near
public transit facilities or provide public
transportation services to the manufactured home
parks to minimize the need for residents to own
automobiles.
Manufactured homes are allowed in
all residential zones; applicants have
not shown any interest in creating new
manufactured home parks. New,
higher density development is more
efficient and cost effective. The most
recent affordable housing projects
have all been multi-family
apartments.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 246
Page 17
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
8.4 8.3 Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage Cal Poly University to continue to
develop on-campus student housing to meet
existing and future needs and to lessen pressure
on City housing supply and transportation
systems.
8.5 8.4 Special
Housing
Needs
Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by
encouraging Cal Poly University to require
freshmen and sophomore students to live on
campus.
8.6 8.5 Special
Housing
Needs
Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly
University campus. Until that is possible, they
should be located in Medium-High and High-
Density residential zones near the campus.
8.7 8.6 Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage Cal Poly University to develop and
maintain faculty and staff housing, consistent
with the General Plan.
8.8 8.7 Special
Housing
Needs
Disperse special needs living facilities
throughout the City where public transit and
commercial services are available, rather than
concentrating them in one district.
8.9 8.8 Special
Housing
Needs
Support Continue to support regional efforts to
address homelessness implement the document
“The Path Home: San Luis Obispo County’s 10
Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness”.
Revised to be consistent with current
activities and SB 101.
8.10 8.9 Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage a variety of housing types that
accommodate persons with disabilities, and
promote aging in place, and include amenities
such as visiting space, first floor accessibility,
etc.including a goal of “visitability” in new
residential units, with an emphasis on first-floor
accessibility to the maximum extent feasible.
Based on community feedback, this
policy was revised to highlight that
housing for persons with disabilities
or aging in place should include
amenities that support those living
within the units.
8.11 ----- Special
Housing
Needs
Encourage changes to City regulations that would
support the special housing needs of disabled
persons, including persons with developmental
disabilities.
Completed. Regulations have been
updated to address special housing
needs. In addition, the building code
is regularly updated to meet State and
Federal requirements.
8.12 8.10 Special
Housing
Needs
Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming
homeless by supporting shelters, temporary
housing, and transitional housing. and by
facilitating general housing assistance.
The role of the City is not to place
individuals in housing. There are
several local non-profits involved
with helping people find housing. The
City, if contacted, connects people to
these local organizations.
8.13 8.11 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to provide resources that support local
and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the
homeless and continue to support, jointly with
other agencies, shelters and programs, such as
Housing First and Rapid Rehousing, for the
homeless and for displaced individual and
families. women and children.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 247
Page 18
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
8.14 8.12 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to enforce the mobile home rent
stabilization program to minimize increases in the
cost of mobile home park space rents.
8.15 8.13 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to look for Support opportunities in
specific plan areas within the City suitable for
tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative or
limited equity housing, manufactured housing,
self-help housing, or other types of housing that
meets special needs.
8.16 8.14 Special
Housing
Needs
Advocate developing more housing and
refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly
University.
8.17 8.15 Special
Housing
Needs
Work with Cal Poly University Administration to
secure designation of on-campus
fraternity/sorority living groups.
8.18 8.16 Special
Housing
Needs
Jointly develop and implement a student housing
plan and Continue to support “good neighbor
programs” with Cal Poly State University, Cuesta
College, the City and local City residents. The
program would seek to improve communication
and cooperation between all groups the City and
the schools, set on campus student housing
objectives and establish clear, effective standards
for about student housing in residential
neighborhoods.
Revised for clarity.
8.19 8.17 Special
Housing
Needs
Provide public educational information at various
City Offices, on the City website, and other
electronic media platforms the Community
Development Department public counter on
universal design concepts (i.e. aging in place) for
new and existing residential dwellings.
Revised for clarity.
8.20 8.18 Special
Housing
Needs
Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing:
Continue to allow the establishment of
transitional and supportive housing in all zoning
districts where residential uses are allowed.
Amend the Zoning Regulations to allow
homeless shelters, transitional housing and
supportive housing (low barrier navigation
centers) in all residential zones, areas zoned for
mixed-uses, and nonresidential zones permitting
multifamily uses without a conditional use permit
to be alignment with Government Code Section
65660 (AB 101).
Revised to be consistent with State
law.
8.21 8.19 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to look for partnership opportunities
with non-profit housing developers and service
providers to that can be acquire vacant, blighted,
or underutilized properties (land, retail or
commercial space, motels, apartments, housing
units, mobile home parks) for and conversion into
affordable permanent and supportive housing and
Revised to broaden the opportunities
for the City to partner with local non-
profit housing developers.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 248
Page 19
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
permanent supportive housing for homeless
persons and families.
8.22 ----- Special
Housing
Needs
Consider addition of an overlay zone to existing
and future mobile home and trailer park sites to
provide constructive notice that additional
requirements, such as rent stabilization and a
mobile home park conversion ordinance may
apply.
The City’s Municipal Code contains a
Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization
Ordinance that applies citywide to all
mobile home parks. The Ordinance
satisfies this program by protecting
owners and renters of mobile homes
from unreasonable rent increases.
Staff has evaluated that an overlay
zone would not provide any additional
benefit.
8.23 8.20 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to seek State, Federal, and local funding
sources to encourage the creation and financially
assist the development of housing for persons
with developmental disabilities. The City will
seek grantopportunities for housing construction
and rehabilitation specifically targeted for
persons with developmental disabilities.
Consolidated the wording of this
program. No change in the content.
8.24 ----- Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to coordinate with the County, social
services providers and non-profit organizations
for delivery of existing, improved and expanded
services, including case management, drug,
alcohol, detoxification, and mental health
services.
This program is covered in Program
8.21.
8.25 8.21 Special
Housing
Needs
Continue to coordinate engage with the County
Department of Social Services, Homeless
Services Oversight Council (HSOC), social
services providers, and non-profit organizations
and Friends of Prado Day Center (FPDC) to
identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to
reduce the impacts of homelessness on the City.
Updated language to be consistent
with current organizations and
agencies.
8.22 Special
Housing
Needs
Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for
State legislation that would: 1) provide funding to
help Cal Poly University provide adequate on-
campus student housing, and 2) allow greater
flexibility for State universities and community
colleges to enter into public-private partnerships
to construct student housing.
Relocated Program 10.6.
Goal 9 - Sustainable Housing Site, and Neighborhood Design. Encourage housing that is resource conserving, healthful,
economical to live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished.
9.1 9.1 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Residential developments should promote
sustainability consistent with the Climate Action
Plan (CAP) and California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards – Title 24 in their design,
placement, and functionality use. Sustainability
can be promoted through a variety of housing
strategies, including the following:
A) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content,
and recycled materials, and minimize use of
building materials that require high levels of
Updated to be consistent with current
City and State policies. Strategies
were removed because they are
outlined in the CAP and Title 24.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 249
Page 20
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
energy to produce or that cause significant,
adverse environmental impacts.
B) Incorporate renewable energy features into
new homes, including passive solar design, solar
hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation
and cooling.
C) Minimize thermal island effects through
reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and
increased tree shading.
Avoid building materials that may contribute to
health problems through the release of gasses or
glass fibers into indoor air.
D) Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out,
for both the mental and physical health of
residents.
F) Design dwellings economical to live in
because of reduced utility bills, low cost
maintenance and operation, and improved
occupant health.
G) Use construction materials and methods that
maximize the recyclability of a building’s parts.
Educate public, staff, and builders to the
advantages and approaches to sustainable design,
and thereby develop consumer demand for
sustainable housing.
I) City will continue to refer to a sustainable
development rating system, such as the LEED or
GreenPoint programs when evaluating new
development proposals.
9.2 9.2 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Residential units site, subdivision layouts, and
neighborhood designs amenities should be
coordinated to support make residential
sustainable design work. Some ways to do this
include:
A) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access
for each dwelling and site.
B) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor
space with access to both sun and shade.
C) Streets and access ways should minimize
pavement devoted to vehicular use.
D) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify
street runoff prior to its entering creeks. Retention
basins should be designed to be visually attractive
as well as functional. Fenced-off retention basins
should be avoided.
E) Encourage cluster development with
dwellings grouped around significantly-sized,
shared open space in return for City approval of
smaller individual lots.
F) Treat public streets as landscaped parkways,
using continuous plantings at least six feet wide
and where feasible, median planters to enhance,
Examples were removed as
innovative sustainable designs are
extensive.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 250
Page 21
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
define, and to buffer residential neighborhoods of
all densities from the effects of vehicle traffic.
9.3 ----- Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Preserve the physical neighborhood qualities in
the Downtown Planning Area that contribute to
sustainability. Some ways to do this include:
A) Maintain the overall scale, density and
architectural character of older neighborhoods
surrounding the Downtown Core.
B) Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation
of historically designated housing stock.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance
preserves and protects historic
structures and districts. Additionally,
the Conservation and Open Space
Element includes Policies 3.3.4, 3.3.5,
that direct preservation of historic
buildings, districts, and
neighborhoods. Program 3.6.3 directs
construction within historic districts.
9.4 9.3 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
To promote energy conservation and a cleaner
environment, Continue to encourage the
development of dwellings with energy-efficient
designs, utilizing passive and active solar
features, and the use of energy-saving techniques
that exceed minimums prescribed by State law.
9.5 9.4 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Actively Continue to promote water conservation
through housing and site design to help moderate
the cost of housing.
9.6 9.5 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Support programs that provide financing for
sustainable home upgrade projects such as
installation of solar panels, heating and cooling
systems, water conservation and windows to
improve the energy efficiency of the City’s
existing housing stock.
9.7 9.6 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Continue to educate planning and building staff
and citizen review bodies on energy conservation
issues, including the City’s energy conservation
policies and Climate Action Plan. Staff shall
work with applicants to achieve the City’s energy
conservation goals.
9.8 9.7 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Continue to provide assurance of long-term solar
access for new or remodeled housing and for
adjacent properties, consistent with historic
preservation guidelines and revise regulations
found to be inadequate.
9.9 ----- Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Continue to implement the Water Quality Control
Board’s “Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Requirements for Development
Projects in the Central Coast Region”, to reduce
the amount of impermeable surface.
Implemented. All development
projects are required to include Post-
Construction Stormwater
Management Requirements as a part
of a project application, which allows
staff to verify that the project is
consistent with the Regional Water
Board’s Requirements.
9.10 9.8 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Implement Climate Action Plan programs that
increase the production of “green” housing units
and projects and require use of sustainable and/or
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 251
Page 22
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
Neighborhood
Design
renewable materials, water and energy
technologies (such as, but not
limited to solar, wind, or thermal).
9.11 9.9 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Continue to promote building materials reuse and
recycling in site development and residential
construction, including flexible standards for use
of salvaged, recycled, and “green” building
materials. Continue the City’s
construction and demolition debris recycling
program as described in Chapter 8.05 of the
Municipal Code.
9.12 ----- Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Consider incentivizing dwelling units to a
minimum size of 150 square feet, consistent with
the California Building Code, by reduced impact
fees and property development standards.
Implemented. The City has
implemented a reduction in the impact
fees for smaller units with AB 1600
and the fee schedule update.
Additionally, ADU requirements
have been revised to be consistent
with state law and impact fees
removed in order to incentivize the
development of this type of smaller
unit.
9.13 9.10 Sustainable
Housing, Site
and
Neighborhood
Design
Continue to support Consider participating in
financing programs for sustainable home
improvements such as solar panels, heating and
cooling systems, water conservation and energy
efficient windows.
Goal 10 - Local Preference. Maximize affordable housing opportunities for those individuals who are employed in
business that are located in geographic areas that are customarily included in the City’s annual jobs -housing balance
analysis who live or work in San Luis Obispo while seeking to balance job growth and housing supply.
Based on community feedback and a need for more housing for local individuals who work in the City or nearby vicinity, Goal
10 has been updated to focus on providing housing for individuals who are employed in business that are located in geographic
areas that are customarily included in the City’s annual jobs-housing balance analysis.
10.1 10.1 Local
Preference
Administer City housing programs and benefits,
such as First Time Homebuyer Assistance or
affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to
individuals as outlined in Policy 10.2. to: 1)
persons living or working in the City or within the
City’s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in
San Luis Obispo County.
Revised to be consistent with new
Policy 10.2.
10.2 ----- Local
Preference
Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College
should actively work with the City and
community organizations to create positive
environments around the Cal Poly Campus by:
A) Establishing standards for appropriate student
densities in neighborhoods near Campus;
B) Promoting homeownership for academic
faculty and staff in Low-Density Residential
neighborhoods in the northern part of the City;
and
C) Encouraging and participating in the
revitalization of degraded neighborhoods.
This Policy did not address local
preference. Supporting housing for
employees at Cal Poly, Cuesta, CMC,
etc. is covered in Policy 10.2.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 252
Page 23
# New # Goals Policy/Program Reason for Modification
10.2 Local
Preference
Encourage, and where legally allowed, require
new housing development to give preference in
the following order: 1) individuals who are
employed in business that are located in
geographic areas that are customarily included in
the City’s annual jobs-housing balance analysis,
2) individuals residing in the County, and 3)
finally to individuals from outside the County.
This new policy sets preferences for
new, for-sale housing developments
in the initial offering and sales to
improve the City’s jobs-housing
balance, reduce competition from
outside buyers and allow those that
work in the City the opportunity to
live in the City, thereby reducing
commute times.
10.3 Local
Preference
Continue to work with the County of San Luis
Obispo for any land use decisions that create
significant expansion of employment in the
unincorporated areas adjacent to the City to
mitigate housing impacts on the City.
10.4 Local
Preference
Encourage residential developers to sell or rent
their projects to those residing or employed in the
City first before outside markets.
Covered in Policy 10.2.
10.5 Local
Preference
Work with Cal Poly to address the link between
enrollment and the expansion of campus housing
programs at Cal Poly University to reduce
pressure on the City's housing supply.
This program is covered in Program
8.16.
10.6 Local
Preference
Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for
State legislation that would: 1) provide funding to
help Cal Poly University provide adequate on-
campus student housing, and 2) allow greater
flexibility for State universities and community
colleges to enter into public-private partnerships
to construct student housing.
Relocated under Goal 8 as Program
8.22.
Goal 11 - Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose.
Policies and programs within Goal 11 are covered by the other Goals of the Housing Element, the Housing Major City Goal,
the Conservation and Open Space Element, the Land Use Element, and the Safety Element.
11.1 Suitability Where property is equally suited for commercial
or residential uses, give preference to residential
use. Changes in land use designation from
residential to non-residential should be
discouraged.
11.2 Suitability Prevent new housing development on sites that
should be preserved as dedicated open space or
parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as
unmitigable geological or flood risks, or wild fire
dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable
levels of man-made hazards or nuisances,
including severe soil contamination, airport noise
or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or
incompatible neighboring uses.
11.3 Suitability The City will continue to ensure the ability of
legal, non-conforming uses to continue where
new development is proposed.
ATTACHMENT 2Item 4
Packet Page 253
City of San Luis Obispo
Draft Housing Element
July 2020
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 254
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
ii
Community Development Department
MISSION STATEMENT
Our mission is to identify and serve the needs of all people in a positive and courteous manner
and to help ensure that San Luis Obispo remains a healthy, safe, attractive and enjoyable place
to live, work or visit. We help plan the City's form and character, support community values,
preserve the environment, promote the wise use of resources and protect public health and safety.
OUR SERVICE PHILOSOPHY
The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff provides high-quality
service whenever and wherever you need it. We will:
• Listen to and understand your needs;
• Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions;
• Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City's rules;
• Help resolve problems in an open, objective, and fair manner;
• Maintain the highest ethical standards; and
• Work to continually improve our services.
____________________________________
Front Cover Photo: Top left, Iron Works 100 percent affordable apartments (HASLO); Top middle, Noveno single
family homes; Top right, Common single family home (Photo credit: Community Development Department, 2020.
Bottom - Bishop Street Studios (Transitions-Mental Health Association), 33 units of supported housing for adults
living with a mental illness in San Luis Obispo (Photo credit: Dennis Swanson).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 255
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
iii
City of San Luis Obispo
6th Cycle Draft Housing Element
Adopted
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Heidi Harmon, Mayor Carlyn Christianson
Andy Pease Aaron Gomez
Erica A. Stewart
Derek Johnson, City Manager
PLANNING COMMISSION
Hemalata Dandekar, Chair Robert Jorgensen, Vice-Chair
Mike Wulkan Steve Kahn
Michelle Shoresman Nicholas Quincy
Michael Hopkins
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Michael Codron, Director of Community Development
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
Cara Vereschagin, Housing Programs Coordinator
Graham Bultema, Planning Intern
Madison Driscoll, Planning Intern
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 – 3218
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 256
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
iv
FOREWORD
This Housing Element updates the 5th Cycle Housing Element and addresses important changes to
State housing law. Like the previous element, it has been prepared to help San Luis Obispo City
residents’ secure safe housing that will meet their personal needs and financial circumstances, and
to meet State law.
The Housing Element is part of the General Plan and is one of nine “elements” or chapters of that
plan. It sets out the City’s goals, policies, and programs for housing over the next eight years
(2020-2028). It works in concert with the other plan elements to help achieve the broad community
goals as expressed in the General Plan Land Use Element. The other elements are Circulation,
Noise, Safety, Conservation and Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Water and Wastewater.
Housing elements must be updated periodically, according to a State adopted schedule.
The Housing Element is available on the City’s website at www.slocity.org, and copies of the
General Plan are available from the Community Development Department, City of San Luis
Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3218. Phone: (805) 781-7170. Fax:
(805) 781-7173.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 257
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
v
City of San Luis Obispo
6th Cycle Draft Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.10 Purpose 1
1.20 What is a Housing Element 2
1.30 Consistency with State Law 2
1.40 General Plan Consistency 2
1.50 Citizen Participation 4
2. COMMUNITY FACTORS 5
2.10 Community Overview 5
2.20 Demographic Snapshots 5
2.30 Housing Snapshots 6
2.40 Neighborhood Snapshots 7
3. GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS 9
3.10 Overview 9
3.20 Goals, Policies, and Programs 9
3.30 Implementation Tools 24
4. REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING 31
4.10 Overview 31
4.20 Alignment with Regional Compact 31
4.30 Policies 32
4.40 Moving Forward 33
5. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 33
5.10 Overview of Quantified Objectives 33
5.20 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Objectives 33
5.30 Rehabilitation and Preservation of At-Risk Units 35
a) Inventory of At-Risk Units 36
b) Potential Financing for Preserving At-Risk Units 38
c) Preservation Successes from 5th Cycle Housing Element 38
5.40 Quantified Objectives Summary 40
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 258
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
vi
LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 1 Local Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities 22
Table 2 State Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities 24
Table 3 Federal Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities 28
Table 4 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (1/1/19 to 12/31/28) 33
Table 5 RHNA Credit Captured in 2019 (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019) 34
Table 6 At-Risk Units in San Luis Obispo, 2020-2028 35
Table 7 HASLO RAD 175 Conversion Properties 38
Table 8 Summary of Quantified Objectives, January 2021 - December 2028 39
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – COMMUNITY PROFILE A1
1. Population Trends and Characteristics A1
a) Age Composition A3
b) Race and Ethnicity A4
2. Employment Trends A6
3. Household Characteristics A8
a) Household Formation and Type A8
b) Household Income A9
4. Housing Inventory and Market Factors A11
a) Housing Stock Profile and Population Growth A11
b) Unit Type A12
c. Unit Size A13
d) Tenure A14
e) Vacancy Rates A14
f) Age of Housing Stock A15
g) Housing Condition A15
h) Housing Costs and Rents A16
i) Affordability Gap Analysis A17
5. Summary and Conclusions A20
APPENDIX B – HOUSING NEEDS B1
1. Regional Housing Needs Assessment B1
a) Existing Housing Needs B1
b) Housing Needs for 2020-2028 B3
c) Extremely Low-Income Households B5
2. Special Housing Needs B7
a) Elderly Persons B7
b) Large Households B10
c) Female-Headed Households B12
d) Disabled Persons B13
e) Developmental Disabilities B14
f) Homeless Persons and Transitional Housing B15
g) Farm Workers B19
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 259
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
vii
h) Students B20
i) Fraternities and Sororities B21
j) “Shared” Households B22
k) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) B22
3. Conclusions B23
APPENDIX C – HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES C1
1. Governmental Constraints C1
a) Land Use Controls C1
b) Zoning Regulations and Development Standards C3
c) Specific Plans and Area Plans C8
d) Residential Growth Management Regulations C9
e) Architectural Review C12
f) Building, Zoning, and Municipal Code Enforcement C13
g) Processing and Permit Procedures C15
h) Development Fees C18
i) Infrastructure C21
j) Public Services – Police and Fire C23
k) Schools C24
l) Inclusionary Housing Program C24
2. Non-Governmental Constraints C26
a) Land Costs C26
b) Construction Costs C26
c) Availability and Cost of Financing C27
d) Insurance Costs C27
e) Investment Expectations C28
f) Environmental Constraints C28
g) Economic Constraints C30
APPENDIX D – RESIDENTIAL LAND RESOURCES D1
1. Residential Development Capacity Calculation D1
2. Availability of Adequate Sites for Housing D2
a) Vacant Residential Land D2
b) Underutilized Residential Land D3
c) Land Suitable for Mixed-Use Development D3
d) Possible Rezonings D4
e) Accessory Dwelling Units D5
f) “Pipeline” Projects D6
g) Entitled Projects D7
h) Building Permits Issued D8
3. Residential Densities D8
4. Evaluation of Development Capacity: Identifying Adequate Sites D9
5. Existing and Proposed Incentives to Facilitate Housing Development D15
6. Conclusion D17
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 260
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
viii
APPENDIX E – RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY INVENTORY E1
1. Purpose E1
2. Definitions E1
3. Survey Methodology E2
a) Development Constraints E3
b) Survey Assumptions E5
c) Survey Organization E6
4. Summary of Residential Capacity E6
a) Development Capacity by Area E6
b) Development Capacity by Zoning Designation E7
c) Development Capacity by Development Status E8
5. Residential Capacity Tables E8
APPENDIX F – AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO F1
1. Purpose F1
2. Definitions F1
3. Housing Type F2
4. Affordable Unit Inventory F3
APPENDIX G – PUBLIC OUTREACH G1
APPENDIX H – REVIEW OF PREVIOUS HOUSING ELEMENT H1
APPENDIX I – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I1
APPENDIX J – DEFINITIONS J1
APPENDIX K – COUNCIL RESOLUTION K1
APPENDIX L – STATE CERTIFICATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT L1
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 261
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
ix
APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES
Table A - 1 Population Growth, 2011-2019 A1
Table A - 2 Average Annual Population Growth, 2000-2019 A2
Table A - 3 Pop. Growth in Cities of San Luis Obispo County, 2000-2019 A2
Table A - 4 Population Growth Projections for City, County, and State A3
Table A - 5 Age Distribution, 2017 A3
Table A - 6 Racial Composition for the City, County, and State, 2000-2017 A5
Table A - 7 Ethnic Composition for the City, County, and State, 2000-2017 A5
Table A - 8 Projected Change in Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2015-2035 A5
Table A - 9 Employment by Industry for Residents, 2017 A6
Table A - 10 Labor Force and Unemployment, 2010-2019 A7
Table A - 11 Commuting Patterns in the City: 2000, 2010, and 2017 A8
Table A - 12 Number of Households, 2000, 2010, and 2017 A8
Table A - 13 Household Size, 2000, 2010, and 2017 A9
Table A - 14 Estimated Households by Household Type, 2017 A9
Table A - 15 Estimated Households by Household Size, 2017 A9
Table A - 16 Median Household Income, 2000, 2010, and 2017 A10
Table A - 17 Median Family Income, County Comparison, 2010-2017 A10
Table A - 18 Per Capita Income, 2010-2017 A10
Table A - 19 California Income Category Limits A11
Table A - 20 Estimated Households by Income Categories, 2017 A11
Table A - 21 RHNA Progress - Issued Building Permits, 2014–2019 A12
Table A - 22 Net Change from Completed Construction, 2010–2019 A12
Table A - 23 Composition of Housing Stock by Unit Type, 2010-2019 A13
Table A - 24 Housing Size - Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2017 A13
Table A - 25 Estimated Tenure of Occupied Housing Units. 2010-2017 A14
Table A - 26 Housing Vacancy Rates, 2010 & 2017 A14
Table A - 27 Age of Housing Stock, 2017 A15
Table A - 28 Median Residential Real Estate Sales Prices, 2014-2019 A16
Table A - 29 Comparison of Rent Costs, City and County, 2019 A17
Table A - 30 Owner & Renter Vacancy Rates, 2010 & 2017 A17
Table A - 31 Single Family Housing Values, 2017 A17
Table A - 32 Median Monthly Owner Cost, Percent of Household Income, 2017 A18
Table A - 33 Median Housing Costs vs. Median Family Income, 2014-2019 A18
Table A - 34 Median Gross Rent as a Percent of Household Income, 2017 A20
Table A - 35 Affordable Rents by Income Group in San Luis Obispo, 2019 A20
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 262
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
x
APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES, CONTINUED
Table B - 1 Residential Overcrowding, 2017 B3
Table B - 2 Average Household Size by Tenure, 2017 B3
Table B - 3 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for
San Luis Obispo County, Jan. 2019 – Dec. 2028 B4
Table B - 4 Household Problems by Tenure and Income Level, 2015 B5
Table B - 5 Elderly Population in San Luis Obispo, 2010-2017 B7
Table B - 6 Elderly Householders by Tenure & Age, 2017 B7
Table B - 7 Elderly Population with Disabilities, 2017 B8
Table B - 8 Elderly Households by Income & Tenure, 2015 B9
Table B - 9 Special Needs Housing and Residential Care Facilities, 2020 B9
Table B - 10 Number of Units by Bedrooms in San Luis Obispo, 2017 B10
Table B - 11 Household Tenure by Bedrooms in San Luis Obispo, 2017 B11
Table B - 12 Large Households by Tenure in San Luis Obispo, 2017 B11
Table B - 13 Household Size by Income in San Luis Obispo, 2015 B11
Table B - 14 Female-Headed Households in San Luis Obispo, 2017 B12
Table B - 15 Persons Reporting Ambulatory or Self-Care Difficulties, 2017 B13
Table B - 16 Disability by Type and Age in San Luis Obispo, 2017 B14
Table B - 17 Developmental Disabilities by Age and Location, 2019 B14
Table B - 18 Developmental Disabilities by Residence Type, 2019 B15
Table B - 19 San Luis Obispo County Homeless Count by City, 2019 B16
Table B - 20 Emergency Shelters and Supportive Housing Facilities, 2019 B18
Table B - 21 San Luis Obispo County Farm Operations, 2017 B19
Table B - 22 Summary of Housing Needs, 2020 B23
Table C - 1 Land Use Categories Allowing Residential Uses, 2019 C2
Table C - 2 Development Standards in Nonresidential Zones, 2019 C3
Table C - 3 Development Standards in Residential Zones, 2019 C4
Table C - 4 Residential Development Standards & Exceptions, 2019 C5
Table C - 5 Estimated Housing Capacity C8
Table C - 6 Development Fee Comparison in San Luis Obispo County, 2019 C19
Table C - 7 Water Resource Availability in San Luis Obispo, 2019 C22
Table C - 8 Water Usage in San Luis Obispo, 2000-2019 C23
Table C - 9 Current Mortgage Rates C27
Table C - 10 Population Change in San Luis Obispo, 1980-2019 C29
Table D - 1 Specific Plan Development Potential in San Luis Obispo D3
Table D - 2 Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning, 2019 D4
Table D - 3 “Pipeline” Residential Projects in San Luis Obispo, 2019 D6
Table D - 4 Entitled Residential Projects in San Luis Obispo, 2019 D7
Table D - 5 RHNA Credit Captured in 2019 (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019) D8
Table D - 6 Maximum Residential Density & Number of Dwellings
Allowed by Right D9
Table D - 7 Residential Densities of Recent Projects on Small Sites D11
Table D - 8 Residential Capacity of San Luis Obispo D17
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 263
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
xi
APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES, CONTINUED
Table E - 1 Maximum Density by Zone and Slope E5
Table E - 2 Residential Capacity by Parcel and Survey Subarea E9
Table E - 3 Residential Capacity by Parcel and Specific Plan Area E25
Table F - 1 Affordable Housing Units by Income Level, 2020 F2
Table F - 2 Affordable Housing Units by Program, 2020 F2
Table F - 3 Affordable Housing Units by Tenure, 2020 F2
Table F - 4 Inventory of Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Units, 2020 F3
Table H - 1 Housing Element Program Evaluation, 5th Cycle (2014-2019) H1
Table I - 1 Program Implementation Details I2
APPENDIX LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A - 1 San Luis Obispo Population Pyramid, 2017 A4
Figure A - 2 Residential Sales Prices vs. Median Family Income, 2014-2019 A19
Figure C - 1 General Plan Anticipated Housing and Population Growth C9
Figure C - 2 Citywide Capital Facilities Fee Schedule, 2018 C20
Figure D - 1 Small Sites Example, 2062 Price Street D12
Figure D - 2 Small Sites Example, 577 Branch Street D13
Figure D - 3 Small Sites Example, 3085 McMillan Avenue D14
Figure D - 4 Small Sites Example, 3460 Broad Street D14
Figure D - 5 Small Sites Example, 1166 Higuera Street D15
Figure E - 1 Residential Capacity Survey Subareas E2
Figure E - 2 Residential Capacity by Survey Subarea E7
Figure E - 3 Residential Capacity by Zone E8
Figure F - 1 Map of Affordable Housing Units by Tenure, 2020 F7
Figure F - 2 Map of Affordable Housing Units by Income Level, 2020 F8
Figure F - 3 Map of Affordable Housing Units by Program, 2020 F9
***
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 264
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.10 Purpose
The City has prepared this document to help its citizen’s secure adequate and affordable housing,
and to meet State law. In addition, this Housing Element update has the following basic objectives:
• To evaluate and quantify community housing needs, constraints and available resources to
effectively satisfy those needs;
• To increase public awareness and understanding of the City's housing situation and its goals
to encourage public participation in addressing those housing needs;
• To provide a comprehensive document that includes goals, policies and programs to help
guide community efforts to meet housing needs through informed decision-making on land
use and housing choices;
• To help develop more affordable housing, and a wider variety of housing, to meet the City's
housing needs for the 6th cycle planning period;
• To track and document the effectiveness of City programs in meeting housing needs, and
to evaluate opportunities for improving those programs;
• To enable the City to secure financial assistance for the construction of affordable housing
for extremely low, very low-, low- and moderate-income persons; and
• To fully integrate environmental sustainability, “smart growth” and conservation strategies
into the City’s housing policy.
Under State law, cities are responsible for planning for the well-being of their citizens. This
Housing Element sets forth the City’s policies and detailed programs for meeting existing and
future housing needs, for preserving and enhancing neighborhoods, and for increasing affordable
housing opportunities for extremely low, very-low, low and moderate income persons and
households. It is the primary policy guide for local decision-making on all housing matters. The
Housing Element also describes the City´s demographic, economic and housing factors, as
required by State law.
1.20 What is a Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements of the General Plan and is the primary
document that local jurisdictions in California use to plan for current and future housing needs.
State Housing Element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that each local government in California
create a Housing Element to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 265
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
2
all segments of the population. The Housing Element must be consistent with all other elements
of the General Plan and is updated on a regular basis. The law acknowledges that for the private
market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt plans and
regulatory systems that support housing development. As a result, the successful growth of a
community rests largely upon the implementation of local general plans, and in particular, the
Housing Element.
Each jurisdiction’s projected housing need during the Housing Element planning period is
determined through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, which is based on
projected Statewide growth in households as determined by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD). Through the RHNA process, HCD distributes the Statewide
projected housing need among the regions in the State, where each regional council of government
allocates the projected regional growth to local jurisdictions within the region. The total housing
need for each jurisdiction is distributed among income categories, requiring each jurisdiction to
plan to meet the need for housing for households at all income levels. The agency responsible for
distributing the RHNA in San Luis Obispo County is the San Luis Obispo Council of Government
(SLOCOG).
Each city and county in California is required to produce a Housing Element that demonstrates the
jurisdiction’s ability to accommodate the housing need identified in its RHNA during the Housing
Element planning period. This Housing Element covers the 6th cycle Housing Element planning
period, which differs from previous update cycles as a result of recent changes in State Law, which
are discussed below.
1.30 Consistency with State Law
California cities and counties must prepare housing elements as required by State law set forth in
Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government Code. The law mandates that housing
elements include “identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a
statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs for the preservation,
improvement and development of housing.” State housing goals rely on the effective
implementation of housing policies at the local level. To ensure local housing policies are
consistent with State law, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
reviews local housing elements and reports its written findings to the local government. Housing
elements must also be consistent with the jurisdiction’s other general plan elements and must
address several specific requirements regarding the element’s scope and content.
Within the last several years, new state laws have been approved that impacts housing and
specifically the information that must be contained within the Housing Element. Two of these laws
are discussed below.
SB 375
In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with passenger cars, Senate Bill 375
calls for local jurisdictions and regional planning agencies to better coordinate land use plans with
existing and planned transit investments and to plan for a greater proportion of residential and
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 266
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
3
employment growth in areas accessible to transit. One outcome of the effort to coordinate housing
and transit planning has been the eight-year planning period (2020-2028) for the upcoming
Housing Element Update, rather than the five planning period that was used in previous Housing
Element Update cycles, in order to coordinate the timing of the Housing Element Update with the
Regional Transportation Plan.
SB 166 – No Net Loss
SB 166 requires local planning agencies to identify additional low-income housing sites in their
housing element when market-rate housing is developed on a site currently identified for low-
income housing. Appendix E outlines the City’s inventory, including the anticipated location of
affordable and market-rate units. The inventory contains sufficient properties, that if a property is
developed with market rate units instead of low-income units, there are other sites available to
make up the difference. This ensures that there is no net loss of availability of potentially low-
income housing sites.
1.40 General Plan Consistency
The Housing Element is one part of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. State law requires
that general plans contain an integrated and internally consistent set of goals or policies. Although
the Housing Element is the primary source of information on housing policies, programs and
resources, other General Plan documents also address or affect housing. By law, new development
projects must be consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
For example, the Land Use Element and Circulation Element set the City's policies for land use
and transportation, which in turn, affect how, when and where the City's housing needs can best
be met. While housing is important, it is but one of many community goals the General Plan
addresses. The other elements contain policies that seek to preserve and enhance the quality of life
San Luis Obispo citizens enjoy. Clean air and water, open space, parks and recreation, preservation
of natural, historic, and cultural resources, public services and safety are also essential community
attributes. These policies are of equal importance with those of the Housing Element.
City Staff has reviewed the goals, policies, and programs of other General Plan Elements and
determined that the Housing Element is consistent with the City’s other General Plan elements.
Additionally, the policies and programs in the Housing Element reflect policies and programs
contained in other parts of the General Plan. As other elements are updated or amended, the
Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure General Plan consistency is maintained.
1.50 Citizen Participation
The Housing Element expresses the community’s housing priorities, goals, values and hopes for
the future. Preparing the Element is a sizable task that involves extensive community input and the
work of many individuals. Under State law, local governments must be diligent in soliciting
participation by all segments of the community in this effort. During preparation of this Element
Update, citizen participation was actively encouraged through the following forums:
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 267
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
4
• One public workshop focusing on housing needs, issues, and opportunities in the
community.
• Two online public surveys.
• Three public meetings before the Planning Commission and two public meetings before
the City Council.
• Posted the Draft Housing Element on the City’s website.
• Public notices for meetings, outreach events and online surveys were distributed in local
newspapers and public radio, the City’s website, Twitter, and Facebook.
• Regular e-mail updates to a list of interested parties with a link to the City’s website that
contained links to staff reports, draft housing element and housing resources.
• Presentations and discussions with a variety of stakeholder groups including San Luis
Obispo Association of Realtors, Economic Vitality Corporation, Home Builders
Association, and Chamber of Commerce. Participation in the workshops and meetings
from a variety of residents and stakeholders has resulted in an improved understanding of
existing housing programs and housing issues in the community and increased public
participation in the update process. Input from residents and stakeholder groups has been
instrumental in providing information for program modifications and in providing a better
sense of housing issues for the decision-makers when considering new policies or
programs.
Feedback from the workshops, presentations, and meetings, as well as other correspondence, were
used to inform the changes to the Housing Element Goals, Policies and Programs. The most
frequently repeated comments and suggestions regarding housing were the topics of affordability,
higher density and missing middle housing. Updates to the Housing Element include new and
revised policies and programs that address these topics. These changes include pursuing flexible
density in Downtown and Upper Monterey and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas (Program 2.15),
encouraging “missing middle” type housing (Policy 5.4 and Program 5.6) and local preference
(Policy 10.2 and Program 10.4), and updating the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Program 2.13).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 268
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
5
Chapter 2
COMMUNITY FACTORS
2.10 Community Overview
San Luis Obispo is a compact urban community blessed with rich ethnic, cultural, and historical
traditions. Its namesake, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, founded in 1772, stands as the
community’s physical, cultural, and spiritual center. With an estimated 2019 population of 46,802
people, San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and
serves as the County seat. Situated in a valley and framed by rolling hills, the City’s setting and
visual character are distinctive. The “morros”, a series of weathered peaks that are the remnants of
ancient volcanoes, transect the City and create the City’s unique skyline. San Luis Obispo is home
to California Polytechnic State University, Cuesta College and Camp San Luis Obispo (California
Army National Guard), and is the retail, business, governmental, and transportation hub of the
County.
In assessing the City’s housing issues and needs, many factors were considered. These factors
became the foundation for the Element’s preliminary goals, policies, and programs. Preliminary
housing goals and policies were then refined through the public review process. An overview of
these factors is described below, including snapshots of the City’s key demographic, economic
and housing characteristics. An analysis of community factors is provided in Appendix A.
2.20 Demographic Snapshots
❑ San Luis Obispo’s population has grown at a slow, steady pace since 1980. Since 2011, the
City’s population has increased slightly at varying rates. During this period, annual
population change never exceeded one percent, and only four times did it change more than
half a percent (see Table A-1, Appendix A).
❑ When compared with California, the most ethnically diverse state in the nation, the City
and County of San Luis Obispo are less ethnically diverse. The 2017 Census1 found that
72 percent of the City is white, about five percent is Asian, with much smaller percentages
of Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, other single races or persons self-identifying with
two or more races. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified separately under the
2017 Census and can be of any race. About 17 percent of the City’s population is Hispanic,
compared with 22 and 39 percent in the County and State, respectively.
❑ Many segments of the City’s population have difficulty finding affordable housing due to
their economic, physical, or sociological circumstances. These special needs groups may
include the elderly, families, single parent households, people with disabilities, very low
and low-income residents, and the homeless.
❑ In 2017, City households earned less, on the average, than their County and State
1 U.S. Census 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 269
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
6
counterparts. The median household income was $49,640, compared with $67,175for the
County and $76,975Statewide. This reflects the high percentage of student households in
San Luis Obispo. Many students attending California State Polytechnic University (Cal
Poly) and Cuesta College are nominally classified as lower income, although they often
have significant financial resources through parental support.
❑ While median City household incomes were less than many other areas of coastal
California, median City housing costs were higher than both the County and State. Housing
costs in San Luis Obispo have risen sharply in recent years while average household
incomes have risen slowly or remained steady. Despite the housing market’s upturn after
the Great Recession (20078 to 2009), there is a continuing disparity between household
income and housing costs which forces many to seek housing outside the City.
❑ San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the County. During workdays,
the City’s population increases to an estimated 55,733 persons2 (excluding any overnight
visitors); this is an increase of 8,931 persons each workday.
2.30 Housing Snapshots
❑ The City median housing sales price has increased since the previous housing element in
2015. Since 2015 the median real estate sales price has increased steadily from $546,600
to $693,000 in 2019. By comparison, the median sales price in the County in 2015 was
$478,700, and $585,800 in 2019. This pattern in both the City and County was also seen
in the State, which saw a median sales price of $398,300 in 2015 and $500,500 in 2019.
❑ The City has seen a steady number of building permits for new housing units being issued
each year since 2014. From 2014 to 2018 an average of 125 building permits were issued
each year resulting in a total of 600 multi-family dwellings and 377 new single-family
dwellings over the five years.
❑ The City’s housing tenure is approximately 38 percent owner-occupied and 62 percent
renter occupied. From 2010 to 2017 the City saw a one percent decrease in owner-occupied
housing units. In contrast, the County and State saw increases in renter-occupied housing
units of two percent and six percent, respectively.
❑ San Luis Obispo’s housing market is strongly influenced by Cal Poly University and
Cuesta College enrollment. Owner occupied housing units saw a one percent decrease since
2010 even with the large increase of on-campus student housing at Cal Poly. Cuesta
College does not offer on-campus housing. Most of the area’s students live off campus in
single family or multi-family rental units in the City of San Luis Obispo. Students often
live together in a house and share rental costs. Consequently, college students will out-
2 The estimate uses 2017 & 2018 data from SLOCOG; this number takes the total population and subtracts the number
of people who leave the City throughout the day, and adds both the number of people coming into the City of SLO
during the AM peak period (such as people who work in the city) AND the number of people who are entering the
city during off-peak hours and exiting during peak hour (in order to include short-term visits for shopping, part-time
jobs, etc.).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 270
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
7
compete non-student households for rental housing in areas that were historically single-
family residential neighborhoods.
❑ Approximately 63 percent of the City’s housing stock was built before 1980. Despite its
age, the City’s housing stock is generally in fair to good condition, with little outward
evidence of substandard or blighted conditions. Illegal garage conversions and “bootleg”
second units in low- and medium-density residential neighborhoods, lack of property
maintenance, noise and parking have been the focus of citizen complaints and city code
enforcement actions.
❑ While San Luis Obispo City appears mostly “built out,” significant areas of developable
land remain that could help meet existing and future housing needs. A residential capacity
inventory conducted by the City in 2018 (see Appendix E) indicates that the City has
approximately 540 acres of vacant, underutilized, or blighted property that can
accommodate approximately 3,155 dwelling units. Much of this capacity is located within
the new development areas of San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch.
2.40 Neighborhood Snapshots
❑ San Luis Obispo became a town in 1856. It has evolved from a small rural village of just
over 2,200 people in 1880 to a vibrant “metropolitan” area. Its diverse neighborhoods
reflect that evolution in terms of land use, population density, street width and appearance,
applicable development codes and architectural style. The oldest neighborhoods are close
to the downtown area, roughly bordered by State Highway 101, the railroad tracks and
High Street. The newest neighborhoods are in the south and southwest areas of the City.
❑ San Luis Obispo has a strong “sense of place.” It began with the founding of Mission San
Luis Obispo De Tolosa in 1772, and before that, was home to a large Chumash settlement,
attracted to the area due to its mild climate and abundant resources. San Luis Obispo has
been shaped by persons of many backgrounds, including: Native Americans, Spanish,
Mexican, Chinese, English, French, German, Irish, Portuguese, Swiss-Italian, Japanese,
Filipino, and many others. The community takes pride in its rich, multi-ethnic, and multi-
cultural heritage, and its many historic homes and commercial buildings. Architectural and
historic preservation are important considerations in many neighborhoods.
❑ San Luis Obispo’s neighborhoods traditionally have been made up mostly of single-family
housing. Low-density, detached single-family housing is still the City’s predominant
residential land use by land area. Of the roughly 8,600 acres of zoned land, residential
zones account for over 41 percent of total zoned land area within City limits. The San Luis
Obispo General Plan provides four residential zones, plus nine zones where housing is
allowed with special approval. Appendix C, Table C-1 shows the land use zones that allow
housing, their existing acreage and the ranges of density allowed.
❑ Code enforcement, neighborhood compatibility and property maintenance complaints in
low- and medium-density residential neighborhoods have remained around the same year
to year. Between 2014 and 2019, Community Development Department staff responded to
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 271
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
8
an average of 253 code enforcement cases per year that included building and zoning code
violations, garage conversions, substandard housing, high-occupancy residential uses,
fence height, trailers, noise disturbances, parking and land use violations. Neighborhood
Services code enforcement cases, which include violations such as visible storage, failure
to screen waste containers, dead or overgrown vegetation and yard parking fluctuated
during the last 5 years with an average of 618 cases per year.
❑ Neighborhood preservation is addressed by several City departments. In 2000, the Office
of Neighborhood Services was established as part of the Police Department to address
parking, property maintenance, and noise violations. Police Department SNAP employees
(Student Neighborhood Assistance Program) conduct enforcement in neighborhoods
during evening hours and will issue warnings and citiations. An average of 2,381 parking
citations for violations in residential parking permit districts and 457 Disturbance Advisory
Cards (DACs) were issued. The Police Department is also a part of the SLO Solutions
Program which offers free conflict resolution and mediation to City residents. The program
has served an average of 1,286 residents over the last 5 years.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 272
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
9
Chapter 3
GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
3.10 Overview
This chapter includes the Housing Implementation Plan for the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) period (2020-2028). The following goals, policies and programs are based on
an assessment of the City’s needs, opportunities, and constraints, and an evaluation of its existing
policies and programs.
3.20 Goals, Policies, and Programs
This chapter describes the City’s housing goals, policies and programs, which together form the
blueprint for housing actions during the Housing Element’s planning period. Goals, policies, and
programs are listed in top-to-bottom order, with goals at the top and being the most general
statements, working down to programs, the most specific statements of intent. Here are how the
three policy levels differ:
❑ Goals are the desired results that the City will attempt to reach over the long term. They
are general expressions of community values or preferred end states, and therefore, are
abstract in nature and are rarely fully attained. While it may not be possible to attain all
goals during this Element's planning period, they will, nonetheless, be the basis for City
policies and actions during this period.
❑ Policies are specific statements that will guide decision-making. Policies serve as the
directives to developers, builders, design professionals, decision makers and others who
will initiate or review new development projects. Some policies stand alone as directives,
but others require that additional actions be taken. These additional actions are listed under
“programs” below. Most policies have a time frame that fits within this Element’s planning
period. In this context, “shall” means the policy is mandatory; “should” or “will” indicate
the policy should be followed unless there are compelling or contradictory reasons to do
otherwise.
❑ Programs are the core of the City’s housing strategy. These include on-going programs,
procedural changes, general plan changes, rezoning or other actions that help achieve
housing goals. Programs translate goals and policies into actions.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 273
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
10
Goal 1: Safety
Provide safe, decent shelter for all residents.
Policies
1.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own.
1.2 Support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that allow equal
housing access for all city residents.
1.3 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement to correct unsafe, unsanitary, or illegal
conditions and to preserve the inventory of safe housing, consistent with City Council’s
code enforcement priorities.
1.4 Assist owners of older residences with information on ways to repair and upgrade older
structures to meet higher levels of building safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
Programs
1.5 Correct unsafe, unsanitary, or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy
efficiency and improve neighborhoods by using Federal, State and local housing funds,
such as Community Development Block Grant Funds
1.6 Continue code enforcement to expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to
eliminate hazardous site or property conditions, and resolve chronic building safety
problems.
1.7 Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding supportive
programs services, and housing solutions.
Goal 2: Affordability
Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City’s Quantified
Objectives.
Policies
2.1 Income Levels for Affordable Housing households. For purposes of this Housing
Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular
income level, as further described in the City’s Affordable Housing Standards. Housing
affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate-income persons or
households shall be considered “deed-restricted affordable housing.” Income levels are
defined as follows:
• Extremely low : 30% or less of County Area median household income
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 274
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
11
• Very low: 31 to 50% of County Area median household income.
• Low: 51% to 80% of County Area median household income.
• Moderate: 81% to 120% of County Area median household income.
• Above moderate: 121% or more of County Area median household income.
2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be based on the City’s Affordable
Housing Standards, updated annually per the County of San Luis Obispo’s Area Median
Income determined by California Department of Housing and Community Development.
2.3 For housing to qualify as “deed-restricted affordable” under the provisions of this Element,
guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable
for the longest period allowed by State law.
2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, as allocated
in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the 6th cycle planning period. The number
of units per income category are: extremely low and very low income, 825 units; low
income, 520 units; moderate income, 604 units; and above moderate income, 1,405 units.
Programs
2.5 Continue to manage the Affordable Housing Fund so that the fund serves as a sustainable
resource for supporting affordable housing development. The fund shall serve as a source
of both grant funding and below-market financing for affordable housing projects; and
funds shall be used to support a wide variety of housing types at the following income
levels: extremely low, very low, low, and moderate, but with a focus on production
efficiency to maximize housing benefits for the City’s financial investment, and to support
high-quality housing projects that would not be feasible without Affordable Housing Fund
support.
2.6 Continue to review existing and proposed building, planning, engineering and fire policies
and standards as housing developments are reviewed to determine whether changes are
possible that could assist the production of affordable housing, or that would encourage
preservation of housing rather than conversion to non-residential uses, provided such
changes would not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such periodic reviews will
seek to remove regulations that have been superseded, are redundant, or no longer needed.
2.7 Continue to prioritize procedures that speed up the processing of applications, construction
permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects. City staff
and commissions shall give such projects priority in allocating work assignments,
scheduling, conferences and hearings.
2.8 Continue to coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of
housing that meets the City’s housing needs.
2.9 Continue to assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or
other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 275
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
12
2.10 Consider updating the Affordable Housing Standards to include Homeowners’ Association
(HOA) fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents and
home sales prices.
2.11 In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies, continue to
provide on-going technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and the
community at large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools to
help them do so.
2.12 In conjunction with housing providers and the residential design community, continue to
provide planning services as requested by the public, builders, design professionals and
developers regarding strategies to achieve affordable housing and density bonuses.
2.13 Update the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Table 2A, based on findings and
recommendations in the 2020 Affordable Housing Nexus Study and conduct further
feasibility analysis in order to evaluate the City’s ability to provide affordable housing in
the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, per Policy 2.4.
2.14 Continue to support increasing residential densities above state density bonus allowances
for projects that provide housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
2.15 Evaluate a flexible density pilot program and initiate an update of the Zoning Regulations
and Community Design Guidelines to incorporate flexible density development options in
Downtown and portions of Upper Monterey and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas to
support the production of smaller residential units (150 to 600 square feet).
Goal 3: Housing Conservation
Conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of
current occupants.
Policies
3.1 Continue to encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable
housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted
where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing
objectives or adopted City goals.
3.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to extremely low, very-low,
low- and moderate income households, and avoid permit approvals, private development,
municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such housing unless
such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be
demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or
physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in
affordability and amenities to those being replaced is provided, or (3) the project will
correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) removal or replacement will not
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 276
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
13
adversely affect housing which is already designated, or is determined to qualify for
designation as a historic resource.
3.3 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels,
group homes, integrated community apartments, and single-room occupancy dwellings.
3.4 Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts
and unique or landmark neighborhood features.
3.5 Encourage and support creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptation and reuse of
residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing.
Programs
3.6 Continue to encourage the creation of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and
the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the “no net housing loss” program, consistent
with Chapter 17.142 (Downtown Housing Conversion Regulations) of the Zoning
Regulations.
3.7 Continue to identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal
historic listing in accordance with guidelines and standards help property owners repair,
rehabilitate and improve properties in a historically and architecturally sensitive manner.
3.8 Continue to monitor and track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market
rate housing annually. Provide resources to support the Housing Authority, and local
housing agencies, purchase and manage at-risk units.
3.9 Working with non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, or the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, the City will encourage rehabilitation of
residential, commercial, or industrial buildings to expand extremely low, very-low, low or
moderate income rental housing opportunities.
Goal 4: Mixed-Income Housing
Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixed-income neighborhoods and seek to
prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status.
Policies
4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic
strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should
be comparable to the relative percentages of extremely low, very-low, low, moderate and
above-moderate income households in the City’s quantified objectives.
4.2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium
projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in size,
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 277
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
14
appearance, and basic quality to market-rate units.
4.3 Extremely-low and very low-income housing, such as that developed by the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo or other housing providers, may be located in any
zone that allows housing, and should be dispersed throughout the City rather than
concentrated in one neighborhood or zone.
4.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall affirmatively
further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all economic
segments of the community.
Programs
4.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise
projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed-income
policies.
4.6 Amend the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to require that affordable units in a
development be of similar size, number of bedrooms, character and basic quality as the
non-restricted units in locations that avoid segregation of such units, including equivalent
ways to satisfy the requirement. Also evaluate adjusting the City’s allowable sales prices
for deed-restricted affordable units per a variety of unit types.
Goal 5: Housing Variety
Provide variety in the type, size, and style of dwellings.
Policies
5.1 Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects in all commercial zones, especially
those close to activity centers.
5.2 New planned housing developments should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes and
styles.
5.3 Encourage the development of a variety of “missing middle” housing types.
Program
5.4 Evaluate opportunities for promoting “missing middle” housing types (e.g. duplex, triplex,
quadplex, cottages, etc.) to increase housing options in the City.
5.5 Consider amending the Zoning Regulations to streamline the permitting process for mixed-
used projects in commercial zones.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 278
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
15
Goal 6: Housing Production
Facilitate the production of housing to meet the full range of community housing needs.
Policies
6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the
availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 3,354 dwelling
units for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update in accordance with the assigned Regional
Housing Needs Allocation.
6.2 If City services must be rationed to development projects, residential projects will be given
priority over non-residential projects. Housing affordable to lower income households will
be given first priority.
6.3 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized. Other than for
existing housing programs encouraging housing affordable to extremely low, very-low and
low income persons, the City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs
to existing residents.
6.4 When sold, purchased, or redeveloped for public or private uses, City-owned properties
within the urban reserve shall include housing as either a freestanding project or part of a
mixed-use development where land is suitable and appropriate for housing.
6.5 Support the redevelopment of excess public and private utility properties for housing where
appropriately located and consistent with the General Plan.
6.6 Consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate higher density infill where appropriate in the
Downtown, Upper Monterey, and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas,, the City shall
consider changes to the Zoning Regulations that would allow for flexible density standards
that support the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.
6.7 Encourage and support partnerships to increase housing opportunities specifically targeted
towards the local workforce.
6.8 To help meet the 6th cycle RHNA production targets, the City will support residential infill
development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
6.9 Specific plans for any new area identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure
sufficient land is designated at appropriate densities to accommodate the development of
extremely low-, very low- and low-income dwellings.
Programs
6.10 Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC
17.144) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core (C-D zone), accessory dwelling
units (ADUs), and new housing in other zones for deed-restricted extremely-low, very low,
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 279
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
16
low- and moderate income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards.
6.11 Continue to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the
Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking
facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking
requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor
vehicles or who provide proof of reserved, off-site parking. Such developments may be
subject to requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions.
6.12 Continue to develop incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown, Upper
Monterey, and Mid-Higuera Special Focus Areas, particularly in mixed-use developments.
Density based on flexible density in a project should be explored to encourage the
development of smaller units.
6.13 Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing, or public
facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed-use housing where compatible with
surrounding development. For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning
include, but are not limited to the following sites:
A) 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized School District property)
B) 1642 Johnson Avenue (vacant School District property)
C) 4325 South Higuera Street (former P.G.&E. yard)
D) 4355 Vachell Lane (vehicle storage)
E) 2143 Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County Health Department)
F) 11950 Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach High School)
G) 2500 Block of Boulevard Del Campo (adjacent to Sinsheimer Park)
H) 12165 & 12193 Los Osos Valley Road (adjacent to Home Depot)
I) 1150 & 1160 Laurel Lane (Atoll Business & Technology Center)
J) 600 Tank Farm Road (Temporary Unimproved Parking Area)
6.14 Continue to provide resources that support the SLO County Housing Trust fund’s efforts
to provide below-market financing and technical assistance to affordable housing
developers as a way to increase affordable housing production in the City of San Luis
Obispo.
6.15 Encourage residential development through infill development and densification within
City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land.
6.16 Seek opportunities with other public and private agencies to identify excess, surplus, and
underutilized parcels for residential development.
6.17 Continue to incentivize affordable housing development consistent with SLOMC
Affordable Housing Incentives.
6.18 Continue to financially assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low,
very-low, low- and moderate income households during the planning period using State,
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 280
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
17
Federal, and local funding sources, with funding priority given to projects that result in the
maximum housing benefits for the lowest household income levels.
6.19 Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit
sources, and financing mechanisms to assist with the development of housing affordable
to extremely low, very low and low or moderate income households
6.20 Continue to update the Affordable Housing Incentives (Chapter 17.140, SLOMC) and
Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law.
6.21 Evaluate and consider updating the Subdivision Regulations to support small lot
subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development and other alternatives to
conventional subdivision design.
6.22 Continue to submit the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research on or before April 1st of each year for the prior calendar year,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65400.
Goal 7: Neighborhood Quality
Maintain, preserve, and enhance the quality of neighborhoods.
Policies
7.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development should be of compatible
design that respects the existing neighborhood character, to enhance the quality of life for
existing and future residents.
7.2 Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy,
security, amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible
enough to allow innovative design solutions.
7.3 New residential developments should incorporate pedestrian and bicycle linkages that
provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools, parks, and
shopping areas.
7.4 Discourage the creation of walled-off or physical separations between residential enclaves,
or of separate, unconnected tracts to enhance, the formation of safe, walkable, and
enjoyable neighborhoods.
7.5 Housing should be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other public
and semi-public areas.
7.6 The physical design of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and
bicycling and preserve open spaces and views.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 281
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
18
7.7 Continue to encourage strategies and programs that increase long-term residency and
stabilization in neighborhoods.
7.8 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life
of established neighborhoods.
7.9 Encourage neighborhood design elements that improve overall health of residents such as
providing safe and convenient opportunities to access food outlets and active places for
recreational exercise.
Programs
7.10 Continue to utilize a diverse range of outreach methods, including email notifications, the
City’s website and social media accounts, and neighborhood outreach meetings to ensure
residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their
neighborhoods early in the planning process.
7.11 Continue to work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns
pertaining to neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for physical
improvements.
7.12 Continue to fund neighborhood improvements, including parks, sidewalks, traffic calming
devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety
and accessibility.
7.13 Continue the City’s Neighborhood Services and Code Enforcement programs to support
neighborhood wellness.
Goal 8: Special Housing Needs
Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs.
Policies
8.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large
families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, veterans, the homeless, or
those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy, or co-housing
accommodations, utilizing universal design.
8.2 Preserve manufactured housing or mobile home parks and support changes in these forms
of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or
comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability.
8.3 Encourage Cal Poly University to continue to develop on-campus student housing to meet
existing and future needs and to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 282
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
19
systems.
8.4 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to require
freshmen and sophomore students to live on campus.
8.5 Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. Until that is possible,
they should be located in Medium-High and High-Density residential zones near the
campus.
8.6 Encourage Cal Poly University to develop and maintain faculty and staff housing,
consistent with the General Plan.
8.7 Disperse special needs living facilities throughout the City where public transit and
commercial services are available, rather than concentrating them in one district.
8.8 Continue to support regional efforts to address homelessness.
8.9 Encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate persons with disabilities and
promote aging in place and include amenities such as visiting space, first floor accessibility,
etc.
8.10 Assist the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless by supporting shelters,
temporary housing, and transitional housing.
Programs
8.11 Continue to provide resources that support local and regional solutions to meet the needs
of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters and programs,
such as Housing First and Rapid Rehousing, for the homeless and for displaced individuals
and families.
8.12 Continue to enforce the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in
the cost of mobile home park space rents.
8.13 Support opportunities within the City suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks,
cooperative or limited equity housing, manufactured housing, self-help housing, or other
types of housing that meets special needs.
8.14 Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly
University.
8.15 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus
fraternity/sorority living groups.
8.16 Continue to support “good neighbor programs” with Cal Poly State University, Cuesta
College, the City and local residents. The programs should continue to improve
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 283
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
20
communication and cooperation between all groups about student housing in residential
neighborhoods.
8.17 Provide public educational information at various City Offices, on the City website, and
other electronic media platforms on universal design concepts (i.e. aging in place) for new
and existing residential dwellings.
8.18 Amend the Zoning Regulations to allow homeless shelters, transitional housing and
supportive housing (low barrier navigation centers) in all residential zones, areas zoned for
mixed-uses, and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses without a conditional
use permit to be alignment with Government Code Section 65660 (AB 101).
8.19 Continue to look for partnership opportunities with non-profit housing developers and
service providers to acquire vacant, blighted, or underutilized properties (land, retail or
commercial space, motels, apartments, housing units, mobile home parks) for conversion
into affordable permanent and supportive housing for homeless persons and families.
8.20 Continue to seek State, Federal, and local funding sources to encourage and financially
assist the development of housing for persons with developmental disabilities.
8.21 Continue to coordinate with the County Department of Social Services, Homeless Services
Oversight Council (HSOC), social service providers, and non-profit organizations to
identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the impacts of homelessness on the
City.
8.22 Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would: 1) provide
funding to help Cal Poly University provide adequate on-campus student housing, and 2)
allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into public-
private partnerships to construct student housing.
Goal 9: Sustainable Housing
Encourage housing that is resource-conserving, healthful, economical to live in,
environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished.
Policies
9.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability consistent with the Climate Action
Plan (CAP) and California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) in their design,
placement, and functionality.
9.2 Residential units, subdivision layouts, and neighborhood amenities should be coordinated
to support sustainable design.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 284
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
21
9.3 Continue to encourage the development of dwellings with energy-efficient designs,
utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy-saving techniques that
exceed minimums prescribed by State law.
9.4 Continue to promote water conservation through housing and site design to help moderate
the cost of housing.
9.5 Support programs that provide financing for sustainable home upgrade projects such as
installation of solar panels, heating and cooling systems, water conservation and windows
to improve the energy efficiency of the City’s existing housing stock.
Programs
9.6 Continue to educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy
conservation issues, including the City’s energy conservation policies and Climate Action
Plan. Staff shall work with applicants to achieve the City’s energy conservation goals.
9.7 Continue to provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing and
for adjacent properties, consistent with historic preservation guidelines.
9.8 Implement Climate Action Plan programs that increase the production of “green” housing
units and projects and require use of sustainable and/or renewable materials, water and
energy technologies (such as, but not limited to solar, wind, or thermal).
9.9 Continue to promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and
residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and
“green” building materials. Continue the City’s construction and demolition debris
recycling program as described in Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code.
9.10 Continue to support programs for sustainable home improvements such as solar panels,
heating and cooling systems, water conservation and energy efficient windows.
Goal 10: Local Preference
Maximize housing opportunities for those individuals who are employed in business that are
located in geographic areas that are customarily included in the City’s annual jobs-housing
balance analysis.
Policies
10.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer Assistance
or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to individuals as outlined in Policy 10.2.
10.2 Encourage, and where legally allowed, require new housing development to give
preference in the following order: 1) individuals who are employed in business that are
located in geographic areas that are customarily included in the City’s annual jobs-housing
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 285
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
22
balance analysis, 2) individuals residing in the County, and 3) finally to individuals from
outside the County.
Programs
10.3 Continue to work with the County for any land use decisions that create significant
expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City to mitigate
housing impacts on the City.
10.4 Continue to work with housing developers to include restrictions in purchase agreements
and CCRs to require for sale units to be restricted to owner-occupants for the first five
years after sale.
3.30 Implementation Tools
Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities
A variety of federal, state, and local programs and resources are available to help implement the
City’s housing goals and activities. These include both financial resources, as well as in-kind
incentives that help address housing needs. Tables 1, 2, and 3 list the financial resources,
incentives, and other tools that have been available to help address housing needs. Availability of
the resources is contingent on legislation; Federal, State, and local priorities; and continued
funding, which are all subject to change. At the time of the completion of this document,
facilitating housing development, especially new deed-restricted affordable housing, and reducing
homelessness, are main funding priorities at all governmental levels as evidenced by State of
California 2020 Budget, 2020-25 San Luis Obispo Region Urban County Consolidated Plan, and
the City’s Housing Major City Goal for 2019-21.The following table displays resources and
incentives currently available for housing activities:
Table 1: Local Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities
3 “Deed-restricted affordable housing developments” includes senior living facilities, transitional/supportive housing
developments, housing for veterans, etc.
Local Resources
Resources &
Incentives Description Eligible Activities
City of San Luis
Obispo Affordable
Housing Fund
(AHF)
In-lieu fees paid by developers to meet inclusionary housing
requirements.
Any expense in support of affordable
housing development, subject to City
Council approval and adopted
criteria (Res. No. 9263, 2001 Series).
Development
Services Fee
Deferrals
Residential development projects that meet City affordable
housing standards for extremely low, very low- and low-
income households are exempt from all fees related to
planning, engineering and building review, processing and
permits, and water and sewer meter hook-ups. Projects with
a combination of market-rate and affordable units receive
the fee waiver on a per-unit basis.
• Housing projects with deed-
restricted affordable housing3
units
• Mixed-use developments with
affordable units
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 286
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
23
Impact Fee
Deferrals
Citywide development impact fees are deferred for
affordable residential units that: 1) exceed the minimum
required under inclusionary housing standards, or 2) are
built, owned and managed by the Housing Authority of the
City of San Luis Obispo, other government agencies, and
non-profit housing agencies.
• Housing projects with deed-
restricted affordable units
• Mixed-use developments with
affordable units
Density Bonus The City allows an increase in residential density which
varies based on the type of affordable housing (extremely
low, very low, low, or moderate income) and the percentage
of total dwellings.
• Housing projects with deed-
restricted affordable units
• Mixed-use developments with
deed-restricted affordable units
Alternative
Incentives
When developers agree to construct extremely low, very
low-, low-, moderate income housing (including senior,
veteran, transitional, etc. housing), the City may negotiate
an alternative incentive of comparable value to the density
bonus, such as exceptions to development standards, direct
financial assistance, or city installation of off-site
improvements.
• Housing projects with deed-
restricted affordable housing
units
• Mixed-use developments with
affordable units
Flexible
Development
Standards
A variety of flexible development standards are available
for deed-restricted affordable housing (including senior
housing, veteran housing, transitional housing, etc.) and for
the preservation and rehabilitation of historic homes and
apartments. These include easing of parking standards and
building setbacks, height and lot coverage exceptions (with
approval of Planned Development rezoning), and
provisions for restoring non-conforming residential
buildings following a fire or other disaster.
• Housing projects with deed
restricted affordable housing
units
• Mixed-use developments with
deed restricted affordable units
• Historic homes and apartments
• Planned residential
developments
• Non-conforming residential
restoration
Human Relations
Commission
Grants-In-Aid
(GIA) Program
The HRC’s GIA program is annually available to
financially support activities addressing homeless
prevention, including affordable and alternative housing,
supportive services, and transitional housing.
• Local non-profit-organizations
including social service and
housing providers
Mills Act Program Reduces property taxes on historic residential and
commercial properties in return for owner’s agreement to
preserve, and in some cases, improve the property.
Minimum 10 years’ participation; up to 10 properties can
be added to the program per year.
• Historic preservation
• Residential rehabilitation
• Mixed-use historic
rehabilitation
San Luis Obispo
County Housing
Trust Fund (HTF)
A nonprofit loan fund created to increase the supply of
affordable housing in San Luis Obispo for very low-, low-
and moderate income households.
• Acquisition of improved or
unimproved sites/buildings
• Construction, conversion, or
rehabilitation
• Project planning and pre-
development
First Time Home
Buyers Program
This program provides down payment assistance to eligible
households through the State of California's BEGIN
program. Under this program, low and moderate income,
first time homebuyers may qualify for a loan in an amount
not to exceed 20% of a property’s purchase price, at 3%
simple interest. Periodic payments are not required during
the term of the loan to insure an affordable monthly
payment for the borrower.
• Low and Moderate-Income
first-time homebuyers
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 287
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
24
Table 2: State Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities
Technical
Assistance from
City of San Luis
Obispo and non-
profit housing
providers
Technical assistance is available to help renters,
homeowners, housing developers, and non-profit housing
developers find, design, fund or build affordable housing.
• Housing projects with deed-
restricted affordable housing
units
• Market-rate housing
developments
• Housing consumers
State Resources
California Department of Housing and Community Development
Resources &
Incentives Description Eligible Activities
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program (AHSC)
The AHSC funds land use, housing, transportation, and
land preservation projects that support infill and compact
development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• Affordable Housing
Developments
• Housing-Related Infrastructure
• Sustainable Transportation
Infrastructure
• Transportation-Related
Amenities
• Program Costs
Calhome CalHOME makes grants to local public agencies and
nonprofit corporations to assist first-time homebuyers
become or remain homeowners through deferred-payment
loans. Funds can also be used to assist in the development
of multiple-unit ownership projects
• Predevelopment, site
development, and site
acquisition for development
projects.
• Rehabilitation and acquisition
and rehabilitation of site-built
housing, and rehabilitation,
repair, and replacement of
manufactured homes
• Down payment assistance,
mortgage financing,
homebuyer counseling, and
technical assistance for self-
help
California
Emergency
Solutions and
Housing (CESH)
The CESH Program provides grant funds to eligible
applicants for eligible activities to assist persons
experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. Eligible applicants
are Administrative Entities (AEs) (local governments, non-
profit organizations, or unified funding agencies)
designated by the Continuum of Care (CoC) to administer
CESH funds in their service area.
• Housing relocation and
stabilization services
(including rental assistance)
• Operating subsidies for
permanent housing
• Flexible housing subsidy funds
• Operating support for
emergency housing
interventions
• Systems support for
homelessness services and
housing delivery systems
• Development or updating a
Coordinated Entry System
(CES), Homeless Management
Information System (HMIS),
or Homelessness Plan
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 288
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
25
Golden State
Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
GSAF was seeded with $23 million from the Department’s
Affordable Housing Innovation Fund. Combined with
matching funds, GSAF makes up to five-year loans to
developers
• Acquisition or preservation of
affordable housing
Home Investment
Partnerships
Program (HOME)
HOME assists cities, counties, and non-profit community
housing development organizations (CHDOs) to create and
retain affordable housing for lower-income renters or
owners. At least 50 percent of the amount is awarded to
rural applicants and 15 percent is set aside for
CHDOs. Funds are available in California communities
that do not receive HOME funding directly from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Housing rehabilitation, new
construction, and acquisition
and rehabilitation, for single-
family & multifamily projects
• Predevelopment loans to
CHDOs
• Must benefit lower-income
renters or owners
Housing for a
Healthy California
(HHC)
HHC provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver
supportive housing opportunities to developers using the
federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations
for operating reserve grants and capital loans.
• NHTF Applicants:
Organization, agency, or other
entity (including a public
housing agency, a for-profit
entity, or a nonprofit entity)
that is an Owner or Developer
as defined by 24 CFR 93.2
• NHTF Uses: Acquisition
and/or new construction
• SB2 Applicants: Counties
• SB2 Uses: Acquisition, new
construction or reconstruction
and rehabilitation,
administrative costs,
capitalized operating subsidy
reserves (COSR) and rental
subsidies
Housing-Related
Parks Program
The Housing-Related Parks Program funds the creation of
new park and recreation facilities or improvement of
existing park and recreation facilities that are associated
with rental and ownership projects that are affordable to
very low- and low-income households.
• Creation of new park and
recreations facilities or
improvement of existing park
and recreation facilitates
Infill
Infrastructure
Grant Program
(IIG)
IIG provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements
for new infill housing in residential and/or mixed-use
projects. Funds are made available through a competitive
application process.
• New construction,
rehabilitation, demolition,
relocation, preservation, and
acquisition of infrastructure
Joe Serna, Jr.,
Farmworker
Housing Grant
(FWHG)
FWHG makes grants and loans for development or
rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing for
agricultural workers with priority for lower-income
households
• Activities incurring costs in the
development of rental housing
for agricultural workers.
Local Early
Action Planning
(LEAP) Grants
The Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) program assists
cities and counties with planning for housing through
providing over-the-counter, non-competitive planning
grants.
• Reimbursement for activities
that include the preparation
and adoption of planning
documents, process
improvements that accelerate
housing production, and
facilitate compliance in
implementing the sixth cycle
of the regional housing need
assessment (RHNA).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 289
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
26
Local Housing
Trust Fund
Program (LHTF)
Helps finance local housing trust funds dedicated to the
creation or preservation of affordable housing.
• Loans for construction of low-
income affordable housing
projects
Mobile home Park
Resident
Ownership
Program
(MPROP)
Funds awarded to mobile-home park tenant organizations
to convert mobile-home parks to resident ownership.
• Mobile-home park acquisition
and development
Multifamily
Housing Program
(MHP)
MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment
permanent loans to developers of affordable multifamily
rental and transitional housing projects for lower income
households.
• New construction,
rehabilitation, or acquisition
and rehabilitation of permanent
or transitional rental housing,
and the conversion of non-
residential structures to rental
housing
National Housing
Trust Fund
National Housing Trust Fund is a permanent federal
program with dedicated source(s) of funding not subject to
the annual appropriations. The funds can be used to
increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with
an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low-income
households (ELI households, with incomes of 30 percent of
area median or less).
• New construction
No Place Like
Home
The No Place Like Home Program will have $2 billion in
bond proceeds to invest in the development of permanent
supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental
health services and are experiencing homelessness, chronic
homelessness, or who are at risk of chronic homelessness.
• To acquire, design, construct,
rehabilitate, or preserve
permanent supportive housing
for persons who are
experiencing homelessness,
chronic homelessness or who
are at risk of chronic
homelessness, and who are in
need of mental health services.
Pet Assistance and
Support (PAS)
Program
Pet Assistance and Support provides funds to homeless
shelters for shelter, food and basic veterinary services for
pets owned by individuals experiencing homelessness.
• Shelter, food, and basic
veterinary services for pets
owned by individuals
experiencing homelessness,
along with staffing and
liability insurance related to
providing those services
Predevelopment
Loan Program
Provide predevelopment capital loans to finance the start of
low income housing projects.
• Construct, rehabilitate,
convert, or preserve low-
income housing
• Site control, acquisition,
technical studies/reports/plans,
and fees
California Housing Finance Agency
Resources &
Incentives Description Eligible Activities
California
Homebuyer’s
Down payment
Assistance
Program
(CHDAP)
Collaboration with lenders to offer below market rate down-
payment loans.
• Down-payment loans to
moderate-, low-, and very low-
income households
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 290
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
27
Affordable
Housing
Partnership
Program (AHPP)
This program allows borrowers to combine a CalHFA first
mortgage loan with down payment and/or closing cost
assistance from an Affordable Housing Program Partner.
• Loans to moderate-, low-, and
very low-income
Housing Enabled
by Local
Partnerships
HELP Program and other below-market-rate financing and
deferred loans for local government and non-profits
producing affordable housing development.
• Low- and moderate income
affordable single- and multi-
family housing
CaHLIF –
California
Housing Loan
Insurance Fund
Provides primary mortgage insurance for hard-to-qualify
borrowers, expanding home ownership opportunities.
• First-time homebuyers
• Low- and moderate- income
homebuyers
• Workforce housing loans
CalHFA
Conventional
Loans
Various programs providing lower cost loans, such as a 30-
year fixed, interest only PLUS, 40-year fixed
• First-time homebuyers
• Low- and moderate- income
home buyers
CalHFA Down-
payment
Assistance
Various programs providing loans for down payments, such
as California Homebuyer's Down-payment Assistance
Program (CHDAP)
• First-time homebuyers
• Low- and moderate- income
home buyers
Section 811
Project Rental
Assistance
Section 811 Project Rental Assistance offers long-term
project-based rental assistance funding from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
through a collaborative partnership among the California
Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Department of Health
Care Services (DHCS), Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD), Department of
Developmental Services (DDS) and California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (TCAC).
• Rental assistance for lower
income households
Self-Help Builder
Assistance
Program
Provides a source of financing to nonprofit 501(c)(3)
corporations who use self-help type construction for
affordable housing
• Site acquisition
• Site development,
• Home construction
Builder-Lock
Program
Builders/Developers may purchase forward commitments
for permanent first mortgage financing for CalHFA-eligible
borrowers tied to their construction/marketing program at
single family new-home developments anywhere in the
state.
• Housing construction
Mortgage Credit
Certificate
Federal tax credit for low- and moderate income
homebuyers who have not owned a home in the past three
years.
• First-time homebuyer's
assistance
Office of the State Treasurer
California Tax
Credit Allocation
Committee
(CTCAC): Low-
Income Housing
Tax Credits
(LIHTCs)
The CTCAC administers the federal and state LIHTC
Programs. Both programs were created to promote private
investment in affordable rental housing for low-income
Californians.
• Persons Seeking Housing
• Developers Building Housing
• Owners and Managers of
Existing Tax Credit Projects
•
California Tax
Credit Allocation
Committee
(CTCAC):
Historic
Rehabilitation Tax
Credits (HRTCs)
CTCAC and the CA Office of Historic Preservation also
administer the HRTC program which provide a 10-20%
one-time, IRS tax credit on eligible rehabilitation costs for
pre-1936 and National Register historic properties.
• Rental housing rehabilitation
• Mixed-use projects
• Seismic strengthening
• Ownership housing ineligible
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 291
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
28
Table 3: Federal Resources and Incentives Available for Housing Activities
California Debt
Limit Allocation
Committee
(CDLAC):
Various Programs
Federal law limits how much tax-exempt debt a state can
issue in a calendar year for private projects that have a
qualified public benefit. This cap is determined by a
population-based formula. CDLAC was created to set and
allocate California’s annual debt ceiling, and administer the
State’s tax-exempt bond program to issue the debt.
CDLAC’s programs are used to finance affordable housing
developments for low-income Californians, build solid
waste disposal and waste recycling facilities, and finance
direct loans used by in-need college students and their
parents.
• Residential Rental Project
Program
• Single-Family First-Time
Homebuyer Program
Home Improvement and
Rehabilitation Program
Federal Resources
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
Resources &
Incentives Description Eligible Activities
Assisted-Living
Conversion
Program (ALCP)
To provide private nonprofit owners of eligible
developments with a grant to convert some or all of the
dwelling units in the project into an Assisted Living Facility
(ALF) for the frail elderly.
• Physical conversion of existing
project units, common and
services space
Community
Development
Block Grants
(CDBG)
Grant awarded to the City annually on a formula basis to
fund housing and economic development for low- and
moderate income persons.
• Affordable housing
construction
• Historic preservation
• Property acquisition for
housing
• Housing rehabilitation
• Public services and facilities
• Code enforcement
• Fair housing activities
• Economic development
Emergency
Capital Repairs
Program
Provides grants for substantial capital repairs to eligible
multifamily projects that are owned by private nonprofit
entities.
• Rehabilitation
• Modernization
• Retrofitting
HOME
Investment
Partnership
(HOME) Program
Grant program specifically for housing. • Single- or multi-family housing
acquisition/rehab/construction
• CHDO Assistance
• Administration
Emergency
Shelter Grant
Program (ESG)
Grant awarded on an annual formula basis for shelter and
services to homeless persons.
• Homelessness prevention
• Continuum of care
• Operating expenses
Housing
Opportunities for
Persons With
AIDS (HOPWA)
Funds available county-wide for supportive services and
housing for persons with HIV/AIDS.
• Rental assistance
• Social services
• Housing
Shelter Plus Care
(S+C)
Grants for rental assistance, in combination with supportive
services from other sources, to homeless people.
• Tenant-based rental assistance
• Sponsor-based rental assistance
• Project-based rental assistance
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 292
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
29
Chapter 4
REGIONAL VISION FOR HOUSING
In early 2020, local agencies adopted a San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact to
establish a united regional framework to unlock our potential to develop an adequate supply of
housing and infrastructure that support our economic prosperity.
4.10 Overview
San Luis Obispo County is a rural coastal county with seven vibrant cities and numerous
unincorporated communities that depend on collaborative relationships between and among
government agencies, community organizations, and residents to solve the region’s significant
issues including inadequate supply of affordable housing and resilient water, wastewater, and
transportation infrastructure and resources.
The County and all seven Cities are working collaboratively to develop the region’s first Regional
Infrastructure and Housing Strategic Action Plan (Regional Plan) that will identify actions to
address these issues. A key component of the Regional Plan is the integration of efforts to address
critical housing and related infrastructure needs. As part of the Housing Element update process,
representatives of the County, seven Cities and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG) developed this Chapter to showcase the ongoing commitment of each agency to this
collaborative effort. This Chapter presents a regional vision and policies focused specifically on
fostering regional collaboration to plan and develop housing and supportive infrastructure.
4.20 Alignment with Regional Compact
This effort is guided by the San Luis Obispo Countywide Regional Compact (Regional Compact).
The Regional Compact, adopted by each jurisdiction in early 2020, outlines six shared regional
goals to guide collaborative resolution of underlying housing and infrastructure needs:
Goal 1. Strengthen Community Quality of Life – We believe that our Region’s quality of life
depends on four cornerstones to foster a stable and healthy economy for all: resilient infrastructure
and resources, adequate housing supply, business opportunities, and educational pathways.
Goal 2. Share Regional Prosperity – We believe that our Region should share the impacts and
benefits of achieving enduring quality of life among all people, sectors and interests.
Goal 3. Create Balanced Communities – We believe that our Region should encourage new
development that helps to improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the Region,
providing more opportunities to residents to live and work in the same community.
Goal 4. Value Agriculture & Natural Resources – We believe that our Region’s unique agricultural
resources, open space, and natural environments play a vital role in sustaining healthy local
communities and a healthy economy, and therefore should be purposefully protected.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 293
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
30
Goal 5. Support Equitable Opportunities – We believe that our Region should support policies,
actions, and incentives that increase housing development of all types, available to people at all
income levels.
Goal 6. Foster Accelerated Housing Production – We believe that our Region must achieve
efficient planning and production of housing and focus on strategies that produce the greatest
impact.
4.30 Policies
It will take regional collaboration and local actions to realize the vision and goals outlined in the
Regional Compact. Below is an initial list of aspirational regional policies that further the Regional
Compact vision, in addition to local policies. By listing these below, it does not mandate any
individual agency to implement actions, but rather offers ways that the County, cities, SLOCOG,
and other partners can consider moving forward, together. In addition, and consistent with each
Housing Element cycle, each of the seven cities and the County has the opportunity to choose to
implement local policies and programs that help to support their achievement of its RHNA, and if
an agency chooses to, can also support the Regional Compact vision and goals in a way that works
for its jurisdiction and community. See Chapter 3 above for Local Policies and Programs for The
City of San Luis’ anticipated actions during this Housing Element cycle.
R-1: Promote awareness and support of regional efforts that further housing and infrastructure
resiliency by utilizing community engagement, and consistent and transparent communication.
R-2: Encourage an adequate housing supply and resilient infrastructure, services, and resources to
improve the balance of jobs and housing throughout the Region.
R-3: Develop inter-agency partnerships as appropriate to implement goals and policies related to
housing and infrastructure.
R-4: Coordinate State, Federal, and other funding opportunities for housing and infrastructure
development throughout the Region.
R-5: Encourage developers to sell newly constructed housing units to individuals residing or
employed within the area of the development (a city or the County) first before selling to
individuals from outside the County, to promote local preference.
R-6: Encourage rental units be prioritized for long term residents rather than short term users or
vacation rentals.
R-7: Support housing development that is located within existing communities and strategically
planned areas.
R-8: Encourage regional collaboration on a menu of housing types, models, and efforts to support
streamlined approvals for such developments (i.e. Accessory Dwelling Units, etc.).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 294
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
31
4.40 Moving Forward
The County, cities, SLOCOG, and other partners engaged in housing and infrastructure
development will continue to collaborate on efforts moving forward – recognizing the benefits of
working together to achieve an enduring quality of life among the region’s people, sectors and
interests. This ongoing collaboration will include learning from each other and sharing possible
tools, policies and actions that can allow the collective region to move towards our adopted
Regional Compact vision. Ongoing collaborative efforts will be described in the Regional Plan,
anticipated to be complete in 2021, and related regional efforts will live outside of each individual
agency’s Housing Element.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 295
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
32
Chapter 5
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
5.10 Overview of Quantified Objectives
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction identify the number of housing units that will be
planned, built, rehabilitated, and preserved during the Housing Element’s planning period. These
projections are termed “quantified objectives.” Quantified housing objectives allow the
community to evaluate its progress toward meeting key housing needs and help prioritize planning
and funding efforts. They are based on the jurisdiction’s regional housing needs assessment and
corresponding regional housing needs allocation. However, San Luis Obispo cannot guarantee
these objectives will be met, given limited financial resources, costs to provide public facilities to
serve new development, and the growing, statewide gap between housing costs and incomes.
Meeting the City’s quantified housing objectives will depend, in part, upon real estate market
forces, developer & lender financial decisions, and availability of local, State and Federal funding.
5.20 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Objectives
As noted in Chapter 1, Section 2.20, under State law, each city and county in California is required
to develop programs designed to meet their share of the surrounding region's housing needs for all
income groups, as determined by the region’s council of governments. The Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) process seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility,
within its physical and financial capability to do so, for the housing needs of its residents and for
those people who might reasonably be expected to move there. State housing law recognizes that
housing need allocations are goals that jurisdictions seek to achieve; however, they are not
intended as production quotas. These allocations are then included in each jurisdiction’s Housing
Element so that plans, policies, and standards may be created to help meet housing needs within
the element's planning term.
The City participated in regional discussions facilitated by the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) and negotiated allocating the region’s 6th Cycle RHNA distribution of
10,810 housing units amongst all 8 local jurisdictions, as shown in Table 4 below.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 296
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
33
Table 4: 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (1/1/19 to 12/31/28)
Very
Low
Income
24.6%1
Low
Income
15.5%1
Moderate
Income
18.0%1
Above
Moderate
Income
41.9%1
Totals
Percent
Jurisdiction
RHNA to Total
RHNA Number of Units
Arroyo Grande 170 107 124 291 692 6%
Atascadero 207 131 151 354 843 8%
Grover Beach 91 57 66 155 369 3%
Morro Bay 97 60 70 164 391 4%
Paso Robles 356 224 259 607 1,446 13%
Pismo Beach 113 71 82 193 459 4%
San Luis Obispo 825 520 603 1,406 3,354 31%
Unincorp. County 801 505 585 1,365 3,256 30%
Totals 2,660 1,675 1,940 4,535 10,810 100%
Source: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), 2019
1Percent of total housing need in each jurisdiction.
The City has a new total RHNA allocation of 3,354 housing units to plan for in the new 6th Cycle
Housing Element. The transition from a 5-year to an 8-year cycle, HCD has allowed the City 10
years to meet the new 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. This means that the City is allowed to count all
issued building permits from January 1, 2019 until December 31, 2028 as credit towards achieving
the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation. These units are then subtracted from the City’s total RHNA
allocation to determine the balance of site capacity that must be identified for housing.
To credit units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households toward the RHNA
requirement, a jurisdiction must demonstrate the units are affordable based on at least one of the
following:
• Subsidies, financing, deed restrictions or other mechanisms that ensure affordability (e.g.,
MHP, HOME, LIHTC financed projects or deed-restricted inclusionary units);
• Actual rents; and
• Actual sales prices.
Table 5 shows the number of new housing units that have been issued a building permit between
January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. These units are credited toward meeting the City’s RHNA
during the eight-year planning period from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2028. The City
has prioritized housing production as a main focus and has a goal to issue building permits to
satisfy all remaining 2,817 housing units left for this 6th RHNA Cycle, as displayed in the Table 5.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 297
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
34
Table 5: RHNA Credit Captured in 2019 (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2019)
Income Level
(% of County
Median
Income)
6th Cycle
RHNA
Building Permitted Units Issued by
Affordability Total Units by
Income Level
Total Units
Remaining
by Income
Level
Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Years 3 – 10
(2021 - 2028)
Extremely Low
& Very Low 825 0 n/a n/a 0 825
Low 520 6 n/a n/a 6 514
Moderate 603 8 n/a n/a 8 595
Above Moderate 1,406 523 n/a n/a 523 883
Total Units 3,354 537 n/a n/a 537
Total Remaining for RHNA
Period: 2,817
Source: Community Development Department, 2019
5.30 Rehabilitation and Preservation of At-Risk Units
Dwellings built with some form of government assistance or subsidy typically must remain
affordable to extremely low, very low, low, or moderate-income households for a specific period.
As part of the housing element update, State law requires an analysis of assisted housing
developments that may lose their affordability provisions during the next 10 years due to
termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. These
units are said to be at-risk of conversion to market-rate housing. In addition, jurisdictions also must
describe measures to prevent at-risk from converting to market rate. There are several reasons why
government-assisted housing might convert to market-rate housing, including expiring subsidies,
mortgage prepayments, or most commonly, expiration of affordability and resale restrictions.
The analysis applies to “assisted housing developments”, or multi-family rental housing that was
developed with or that receives governmental assistance under a number of Federal, State or local
housing programs. Such developments may include units receiving funding under a variety of
government programs, such as HUD Section 8, HUD Section 202, IRS Section 42 (Tax Credit
projects), Community Development Block Grants, and local programs using inclusionary housing
requirements, in-lieu fees, and density bonuses.
Appendix F includes an inventory of subsidized or assisted housing developments in San Luis
Obispo. Nevertheless, Housing Element program 3.9, and quantified objectives have been
incorporated into the Housing Element to discourage affordable housing removals and to help
track and preserve these affordable units. Program 3.10 calls for the City to work with the Housing
Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, non-profit housing agencies and community housing
development organizations to help preserve at-risk units and rehabilitate residential and compatible
commercial buildings to expand affordable housing opportunities and prevent the loss of
affordable housing.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 298
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
35
a) Inventory of At-Risk Units
Based on information provided by the City’s Housing Authority, local non-profit housing
providers, and the State Housing and Community Development Department, there are three
affordable housing developments at risk of losing its affordability restrictions and converting to
market rate between January 2021 and January 2028: the Anderson Hotel and Adriance Court,
further discussion is provided below.
Table 6: At-Risk Units in San Luis Obispo, 2020-2028
Project Housing Type Owner/Property
Manager
Expiration
Date
Assisted
Units
Adriance Court
Low and Moderate
Income, Supportive
Housing
Access Support
Network
(formerly AIDS
Support
Network)
May 2026 9
Anderson Hotel Very Low Income,
Senior, Disabled HASLO March 2021 68
Poinsettia Street
Apartments Low Income HASLO January 2020 20
Total Assisted Units 97
Source: HASLO, City of San Luis Obispo
Adriance Court
Nine units comprise the Adriance Court community, owned and managed by Access Support
Network (ASN). The units were designed specifically to allow Persons Living With AIDS
(PLWA) to remain as independent as possible during the course of their illness while continuing
to reside in the City. All units are affordable to low- and moderate-income individuals, whether
or not they have been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. For those residents that have been diagnosed
with HIV/AIDS, ASN provides supportive services throughout the course of their illness. In 1996,
the City loaned ASN Community Development Block Grant funding to acquire and operate the
property for no less than 30 years. The affordability covenant is due to expire in May of 2026, but
it is anticipated that this property could be eligible for a tax credit award for rehabilitation, thus
preserving the units.
Anderson Hotel
The Anderson Hotel was remodeled in the 1970’s to convert the original hotel rooms to small
efficiency apartments, each with a bathroom and kitchenette, designed for one or two persons. The
units were made affordable utilizing an ongoing HUD grant program. HASLO master leased the
Anderson Hotel in 2001 to provide affordable rental housing for very-low income persons,
primarily elderly and disabled persons.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 299
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
36
Rents at the Anderson Hotel are made affordable to very-low income elderly and disabled residents
through HUD Section 8 Rental Assistance Vouchers. These vouchers, along with tenant rent
payments (30 percent of their income), and the commercial rent collected on the street level, help
pay for on-going operating costs, and the master lease payments to the property owner, 995
Partnership. Several items place this affordable housing at risk: 1) the property is privately owned
and there is no regulatory
agreement on the property or
long-term commitment assuring
its ongoing use as affordable
housing, 2) the HUD operating
grant funding is awarded
annually, and could be
discontinued or the owner could
opt out, 3) under the master lease
terms, HASLO’s required
payments to the owner, 995
Partnership, are increasing at a
rate that exceeds increases in
grant and tenant rental revenue,
jeopardizing financial
sustainability, 4) the property is
a 1926 building in need of
substantial long-term capital
improvements which are not
covered under the HUD grant,
and not paid by the property
owner under the terms of the
master lease.
However, HASLO anticipates
they can exercise a friendly
eminent domain to acquire the
property at the appraised fair
market value, in order to
continue operating the units as
affordable. HASLO also
anticipates that this process will
have a limited impact for the
current tenants because of HUD
Protection Vouchers already
being utilized by the residents.
Poinsettia Street Apartments
Poinsettia Street Apartments is an older, well-maintained Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) property consisting of 20 units, managed by HASLO. It had a 30-year LIHTC affordable
regulatory agreement, that expired January 1, 2020; however, the current Section 8 Rent Subsidy
Figure 2: Poinsettia Street Apartments
Source: Community Development Department, 2020
Figure 2: Anderson Hotel
Source: Community Development Department, 2014
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 300
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
37
protections were extended to the residents until January 1, 2021. To preserve these units as
affordable, HASLO anticipates applying for another LIHTC award in 2020 to rehabilitate the
property and thus extend the affordability covenant for an additional 55-years. HASLO also
anticipates that they might be able to build more units on this site due to recent state law changes.
b) Potential Financing for Preserving At-Risk Units
Funding sources that could be used for acquisition and rehabilitation of these properties include:
A) City Affordable Housing Funds
B) Countywide Housing Trust Fund
C) Urban County CDBG Funds (City and County of San Luis Obispo funds)
D) Urban County HOME Investment Partnership funds (HOME Program)
E) Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and Historic Housing Tax Credits
F) State Multi-Family Housing Program (low-interest loans and grants)
G) Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program grants
Some of the methods for addressing this challenge will be further addressed through Policies and
Programs 2.9, 2.11, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.9 that focus on preserving affordable dwellings.
c) Preservation Successes from 5th Cycle Housing Element
A total of 279 affordable housing units were successfully preserved during the past 5th Cycle
Housing Element planning period and are discussed below:
1. Judson Terrace Homes – This affordable housing community is comprised of 107 studio
and one-bedroom apartments exclusively for seniors. The development offers a variety of
resources for their tenants including meals, health services, and educational classes
operated by American Baptist Homes of the West (ABHOW). The owners of the facility
had an expiring 40-year affordability covenant through HUD; thus in 2018, the City
worked with the California Municipal Finance Agency (CMFA) to issue a tax-exempt loan
to help a new owner acquire and rehabilitate the 107-unit property. In doing so, a new 55-
year affordability covenant was executed, and the units were successfully rehabilitated and
preserved.
2. “RAD 175” Conversion Project – In 2019, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis
Obispo (HASLO) successfully rehabilitated 14 existing public housing sites, thus
preserving a total of 172 affordable housing units and creating 3 new units. HASLO
utilized HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, which is a program
created to give public housing authorities (PHAs) a powerful tool to preserve and improve
public housing properties and address the $26 billion-dollar nationwide backlog of deferred
maintenance. This RAD 175 Conversion allowed HASLO to leverage public and private
debt and equity in order to reinvest in San Luis Obispo’s public housing stock. The 14
properties that were renovated and preserved included:
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 301
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
38
Table 7: HASLO RAD 175 Conversion Properties
Current Name of
Facility Location of Property Number of Rental
Housing Units
King-South-Branch 448 South Street, 441 Branch Street, and
2173 King Street 8
Toro Gardens 1600 Toro Street 20
Hathway Apartments 508-520 Hathway Street 22
Highland Apartments 478-480 High Street 11
Palm View Apartments 11650-11690 Los Osos Valley Road 20
Leff Street Apartments 456-493 Leff Street 20
High Street 228 High Street 6
Loma Vista Apartments 2929 Augusta Street 16
Harris 2126 Harris Street 3
Royal Way 1497 Royal Way 8
Southwood 1240 Southwood Drive 3
Upham 711 Upham Street 3
Puerta Del Sol 4280 South Higuera 15
Arbor Place 1172 Leff Street, 1175 Islay Street and
1635 Toro Street 20
TOTAL 175
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2020
5.40 Quantified Objectives Summary
Quantified objectives describe number of units, by income category, to be built, rehabilitated,
preserved (at-risk housing), and conserved; and the number of housing units to receive financial
assistance to ensure affordability. During the Housing Element's 6th cycle planning period, the City
will accommodate a net increase of 3,354 dwellings. The quantified objectives promote the
development of housing that meets affordability standards for the income groups in the same
proportion as the RHNA allocation, and emphasize production of multi-family, higher density
housing, where appropriate. Although not counted toward meeting the City’s RHNA allocation
because it is located just outside city limits, housing developed by Cal Poly University on and
adjacent to the campus on State land has helped and will continue to help meet City housing needs.
Table 6 summarizes all the City’s quantified housing objectives for the eight-year planning period.
Although the quantified objectives are theoretically achievable, they are not specific development
quotas. The City intends to use the financial, planning, and administrative resources at its disposal
to accomplish these objectives, but cannot guarantee they will be achieved given limited financial
resources, economic uncertainty, independent financial decisions regarding housing development,
and the large gap between housing cost and median County residents’ incomes. Achieving the
quantified objectives will hinge largely upon private development decisions and the City’s ability
to leverage additional Federal, State or local funding to meet extremely low, very-low, low- and
moderate-income housing needs.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 302
City of San Luis Obispo Draft Housing Element, July 2020
39
Table 8: Summary of Quantified Objectives, January 2021 - December 2028
Activity Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Total
RHNA PROGRESS
New Construction 825 514 595 883 2,817
REHABILITATION & PRESERVATION
At-risk units rehabbed
& preserved 68 20 9 - 97
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Grant Funds (e.g.
CDBG, HOME) & City
Affordable Housing
Fund (in-lieu fees)
39 67 110 216
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2019.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 4
Packet Page 303
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For Plan No. EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
1.Project Title: General Plan Housing Element Update
2.Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3.Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7574
4.Project Location:
Citywide, City of San Luis Obispo
5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6.General Plan Designations:
N/A
7.Zoning:
N/A
8.Description of the Project:
The project consists of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, an eight-year plan which explains the City’s housing
goals, policies, and programs. It updates the current Housing Element which was adopted in 2015. Once adopted,
the Housing Element becomes part of the General Plan, which guides public and private decisions regarding
housing, development review, land use, City budgets and capital improvement programs. The Draft includes
policies and programs intended to increase housing opportunities for extremely low, very-low, low- and moderate-
income households, while accommodating growth in a manner consistent with goals and policies contained in the
Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan. The content of housing elements is prescribed und er
State housing law, and this draft has been prepared to include the required sections and information.
The draft update addresses changes in State housing law and in regional housing needs. State, regional and local
housing costs, supply and needs have changed since 2015, as evidenced by current information on real estate prices,
affordable housing, and the widening “gap” between rental and purchase housing costs and consumers’ incomes.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 304
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 2
Although the update retains many of the same policies and programs in the 2015 Housing Element, there are also
new policies and programs that address these changing conditions.
9. Project Entitlements:
General Plan Amendments approving the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Citywide.
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) supplied a list of local Native America individuals
and/or groups with interests and knowledge about the area. The City did not receive any requests for consultation
from contacted individuals.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Update must be referred to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) for a determination of consistency with State housing law.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☒
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 305
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 3
☐ The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
☒ This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife , Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 306
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE ~ DECLARATION will be prepared .
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment , there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project D
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL D IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the D
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE D
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
s~ Date I
For: Michael Codron
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 307
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when t he determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Sign ificant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sourc es for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 308
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 6
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, w ould the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
14, 15 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) Policies in the Draft Housing Element Update encourage the development of housing in urbanized areas within the City’s
limits and sphere of influence. The Draft Housing Element policies are consistent with Land Use Element (LUE) policies in
directing growth into those areas and sites that can accommodate residential development based on size, shape, topography,
zoning and environmental sensitivity, as well as consistent with the Circulation Element and the Conservation Open Space
Element that outline scenic roadways and vistas. New residential development would be guided by existing development
standards regarding building height, creek and property line setbacks, and avoidance of important site and environmental feat ures
such as historic features or buildings, rock outcroppings, open space, and heritage trees.
c) The General Plan contains goals and policies that address the visual character and quality of new development. Within the
Community Design Guidelines, General Principle 2.1, Site Design, states that each project should be designed with careful
consideration of the site character and constraints and minimize changes to natural features rather than altering a site to
accommodate a stock building plan. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) uses this, among other policies and
guidelines, to determine if new development is designed in a manner that is consistent with its surrounding structures and
environment. The ARC and the development review process ensure, through required project modifi cations, conditions of
approval or mitigation measures, that development plans are consistent with visual character and quality guidelines prior to
project approvals.
d) Residential development projects are subject to the Night Sky Ordinance, which include s operational and development
standards that mitigate light or glare impacts to a less than significant level.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 309
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 7
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are signifi cant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmlan d. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the Californi a
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?
5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a), c), d), e) The City of San Luis Obispo is in the central portion of the County's coastal agricultural region. The City is, for the
most part, urbanized with only a few small areas still engaged in agricultural production and forest land limited to areas zoned
in the City as Open Space. Land Use Element Policy 1.8.1 calls for the preservation of prime agricultural land, productive
agricultural land, and potentially productive agricultural land within the Urban Reserve and City limits. The Draft Housing
Element follows the Land Use Element in terms of where housing should be developed and promotes compact urban form to
reduce urban sprawl and loss of productive agricultural or forest lands. Agricultural and Conservation/Open Space designated
lands allow limited residential use at very low densities of one dwelling per five or more acres, which is only suitable for rural
housing. The Draft Housing Element Update will not result in the conversion of prime or unique farmland or forest land or
involve other changes that would lead to conversion of farmland to non -agricultural uses or loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use because it does not identify any new land that is subject to urbanization, rezoning from agricultural
or forest land use to residential use or expansion of the City’s Urban Reserve Line beyond that already anticipated in the General
Plan.
b) The City has established an Agricultural land use designation (AG) in its General Plan to help preserve important agricultural
land. The General Plan has allocated sufficient land for urban uses to achieve housing goals and meet the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation without expanding the current Urban Reserve Line into agricultural lands in the unincorporated County area.
Draft Housing Element Policy 6.15 states the City will encourage residential development focused on infill development and
densification within City Limits and designated expansion areas over new annexation of residential land to maximize housing
potential in the City. There are no properties within City limits under Williamson Act contracts.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 310
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 8
Conclusion
No impact.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
1, 5, 12,
13 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
12 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 1, 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located in the South Central Coast Air Basin (the basin), which includes San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura Counties. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Dis trict
(SLOCAPCD). As the local air quality management agency, SLOCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure
that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. D epending
on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, San Luis Obispo County is classified as being in “attainment” or “non -
attainment.” Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for whi ch the
district is in non-attainment. San Luis Obispo County is designated as non -attainment for the state standards for suspended
particulate matter (PM10) and ozone (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2017 ). San Luis Obispo County is designated as
attainment or unclassified for all other federal and state standards.
In March 2002, SLOCAPCD adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan. In July 2005, SLOCAPCD adopted a Particulate Matter Report
in order to update the jurisdiction’s control measures for particulate matter, as required by S.B. 656. In 2015, SLOCAPCD
adopted an Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment in order to identify and analyze its historic and current air monitoring
sites. The Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment was updated in June 2019. In September 2019, SLOCAPCD adopted
an Ozone Emergency Episode Plan, in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act, in order to provide the basis for taking actions
when ambient ozone concentrations reach a level that could endanger public health in San Luis Obispo County.
a), b) A significant impact would only occur if the project resulted in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. The Draft Housing Element Update will not conflict or obstruct
implementation of SLOCAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The CAP calls for building compact communities to limit urban
sprawl, mix complementary land uses, such as commercial services with higher density housing, increasing residential and
commercial densities along transit corridors, and increase pedestrian-friendly and interconnected streetscapes, helping to make
alternative means of transportation more convenient. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with this plan. Policies
9.1 through 9.5 promote sustainable development that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Housing Element policies 7.4,
7.5, and 7.7 support walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, connected to shopping, schools and other neighborhoods. The
Community Design Guidelines and Noise Element policies requi re setbacks and the installation and use of HVAC systems for
residences located along high traffic corridors. These mitigations also serve to separate residences from potential exposure to
vehicle-related pollutants.
c) The project will not result in a significant impact to air quality. The Housing Element Update anticipates population and
housing growth consistent with the Land Use Element based on household size and dwelling unit potential for this planning
period. The Draft has numerous policies and programs designed to promote compact urban growth, encourage mixed use,
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 311
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 9
promote housing within walking or biking distance of employment, and encourage downtown housing close to jobs, services,
government, recreation and cultural opportunities.
d) The Draft Housing Element would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people because it does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project .
Individual residential development projects, especially those within a mixed-use project, would be required to comply with the
City’s odor ordinance (SLOMC Chapter 8.22) and be subject to review based on the local Air Pollution Control District regarding
the acceptability of adjacent land uses and addresses compatibility of land uses in mixed-use developments.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a)b)c) The General Plan Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Elements guide the preservation of biological resources.
These resources include creeks and adjacent riparian corridors, vernal pools, marshes, endangered species or species of special
concern, hillsides, open space and park areas, and Laguna Lake. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy
7.3.3 says that wildlife habitat and corridors that provide continuous wildlife habitat shall be preserved. The Draft Housing
Element Update is consistent with those documents and anticipates new dwellings only in those areas suitable for residential
development, with adequate guarantees to preserve natural and biological resources as part of new development. It says housing
should be prevented on sites that are unsuitable for development due to the presence of open space resources, or natural or
manmade hazards.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 312
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 10
Individual development projects will be subject to development review by City staff and advisory bodies to ensure compliance
with pertinent creek and wetland policies. Zoning Regulation Section 17.70.030 (Creek Setbacks) says that projects shall be
consistent with the General Plan and require the protection of scenic resources, water quality and natural creekside habitat
including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement; therefore, all new residential development must comply wi th
the Creek Setback Ordinance and must avoid sensitive site resources. New projects are evaluated for compliance with the Creek
Setback Ordinance and modifications are required through the development review process, conditions of approval or mitigation
measures, as appropriate to ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.
d) Development projects will be subject to applicable City standards and guidelines, the State and Federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other local, state and federal regulatory programs to ensur e significant impacts have
mandated mitigation measures. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.7.8 ensures the protection of wildlife corridors.
The City conditions development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors
for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Important featured corridors include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake
shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water.
e) Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 7.5.1 states that significant trees making substantial contributions to natural
habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size or rarity shall be protected and their removal will be subject to specific
criteria and mitigation requirements. Additionally, Municipal Code Chapter 12.24 outlines the City’s Tree regulations. Any
housing projects proposed on sites with significant trees will be subject to these regulations and Conservation and Open Space
Element policy and mitigation.
f) The Draft Housing Element does not conflict with any adopted Conservation Plan.
Conclusion
No Impact.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ?
14, 15,
16 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 5, 14 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 5, 14 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a) Preservation of cultural resources is an important General Plan goal. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
Chapter 3 includes policies and programs for the preservation of cultural resources. COSE Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.5 discuss that
significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated and that the City shall identify
and protect neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master Lis t
historic properties. The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with COSE and any new residential development, additions,
or rehabilitation will have to be reviewed to be consistent with these policies. In addition to compliance with the General Plan,
new residential projects are evaluated for compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01)
and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines through the development review process, conditions of approval or mitigation
measures, as appropriate to ensure that any potential impacts are less than significant.
b) The City has established criteria to identify significant archeological resources and encourage the preservation of these
archaeological resources and sites. The City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines are used to determine significant
resources. These guidelines support General Plan COSE Policy 3.5.1 which says the City shall protect known and potential
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 313
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 11
archaeological resources. Meeting the community’s housing needs is also a key community goal, and the Draft Housing Element
Update seeks to balance these sometime competing needs. It contains policies addressing the need to rehabilitate rather than
demolishing housing and states that new residential development is to be compatible design with established neighborhoods. As
new housing is developed, the Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines state that those features or characteristics that
create or reinforce San Luis Obispo’s “sense of place” are to be preserved. Individual residential development projects will be
evaluated for site-specific cultural resources and where necessary, appropriate mitigation included to protect those resources.
b), c) The City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include specific criteria that address the discovery of unique
resources or human remains during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on sensitive sites, which are mapped,
requires a Phase 1 study to determine the likelihood of discoverin g resources during construction. These existing measures,
which are in place for development city-wide, are sufficient to prevent impacts to archeological or paleontological resources, or
any discovered human remains.
Conclusion
No Impact.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 3, 34 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency? 1, 3, 24 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October of 2018 ,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and since January 2020, MBCP is the
City’s primary electricity provider. MBCP provides 100 percent carbon -free electricity.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvemen t, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards (CALGreen) for residential and nonresidential structures, the
most recent version includes the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart
residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exter ior
and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non-residential lighting requirements.
The City is currently developing local amendments to the 2019 CBC to encourage all -electric new buildings. When paired with
Monterey Bay Community Power's carbon free electricity supply, all electric new buildings are carbon free and avoid health and
safety issues associated with fossil fuels and GHGs. At its meeting on Tuesday, September 3, 2019, the City Council introduce d
the Clean Energy Choice Program and in June 2020 they voted to adopt the ordinance. Unlike other cities that are banning natural
gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program provide s options to people who want to develop new buildings with
natural gas. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher performing buildings and
offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same
purpose.
The City COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and local ly
controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non-
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 314
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 12
procurement, use and production, energy -efficiency improvements, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design, fostering
alternative transportation modes, compact, high-density housing, and solar access standards.
The City Climate Action Plan also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resource s in
order to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of
renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and
increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs.
a) Energy conservation is an important General Plan goal and, as noted above, the COSE outlines goals and policies to achieve
energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally controlled energy sources. The Draft Housing Element
Update is consistent with COSE and includes Policy 9.1 which supports that new residential projects are consistent with the
City’s CAP and the State’s CalGreen requirements. The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose
the development of any specific project that would require energy to ope rate or an increase in vehicle trips that would result in a
substantial increase in off-site energy consumption. Individual residential development projects will be evaluated for site-specific
compliance with the CBC, CalGreen, and any other requirements included as part of the City’s Municipal Code, CAP and General
Plan.
b) The Draft Housing Element would not conflict with goals and policies set forth in the City’s CAP or General Plan associated
with renewable energy or energy efficiency and would not res ult in a conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency. The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by the City Council
in 2012. The CAP promotes pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, diverse transportation options, energy efficiency,
reduction in waste and increased recycling, protection of open space, and quantifies the estimated greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions savings of such programs. Draft Housing Element Policy 7.4 supports new residential developments that incorporate
pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provides direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools, parks, and
shopping areas and Policy 9.1 states that that residential developments should promote sustainability consistent with the Climate
Action Plan (CAP) and CALGreen in their design, placement, and functionality.
Conclusion
No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
6, 35, 36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 6, 35 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Landslides? 6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 315
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 13
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological res ource
or site or unique geologic feature? 14, 36 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a)b)c)d)e) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the prono unced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
The City Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the potential to affect
the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of
California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna faults are considered
potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and the offshore
Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producin g
a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposited
by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These are typically in valleys.
Faults capable of producing strong ground shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Oso s, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Riconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the Department of Conservation
Fault Activity Map and the City Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or
within the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone.
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the Safety Element and the 2019 San Luis Obispo County Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) which includes policies to prevent development on sites with natural hazards,
such as geological or seismic risks, including soil erosion, landslides, or liquefaction. The Draft Housing Element itself does not
establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project , however individual residential development projects
will be evaluated for site-specific compliance with City policies and regulations. City policies and development standards
encourage housing where appropriately zoned land exists with the necessary public services and infrastructure (or can be served),
and where the land is physically and environmentally suited for residential development. Community Development Department
(planning and building) review of projects will ensure they are developed in a manner that is safe and consistent with City
standards, guidelines and policies.
e) The City maintains a sewer system that has adequate capacity to meet current housing needs, plus residential growth
anticipated during the planning period.
f) The City’s Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines include specific criteria that address the discovery of un ique
resources or paleontological resources during construction excavation. Development that is proposed on sensitive sites, which
are mapped, requires a Phase 1 study to determine the likelihood of discovering resources during construction. The Draft Hous ing
Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project, however individual reside ntial
development projects will be evaluated for site-specific paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature and where
necessary, appropriate mitigation included to protect those resources.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 316
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 14
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 3, 12, 24 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a), b) Greenhouse gases (GHG) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria
pollutants discussed in Section III, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of
human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City of San
Luis Obispo established a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve
the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In addition, the City is currently developing a plan for achieving
carbon neutrality by 2035. The City of San Luis Obispo 2005 Community Wide GHG emissions inventory showed that 50% of
the city’s GHG emissions came from transportation, 22% came from commercial and industrial uses, 21% came from residential
uses, and 7% from waste.
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate B ill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals and required the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG
emissions include AB 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building codes, and the California Solar Initiative.
Plans, policies, and guidelines have also been established at the regional and local levels to address GHG emissions and clim ate
change effects within the city. In March 2012, the SLOAPCD approved thresholds for Greenhous e Gas (GHG) emission impacts,
and these thresholds have been incorporated into the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and updated in 2017 with a clarification
memorandum. The Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year (MT CO2e/year) is the most applicable GHG
threshold for most projects. Table 1-1 in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (updated November 2017) provides a list
of general land uses and the estimated sizes or capacity of those uses expected to exceed the GHG Bright Line Threshold of
1,150 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide per year (MT CO2/year). Projects that exceed the criteria or are within ten percent of
exceeding the criteria presented in Table 1-1 are required to conduct a more detailed analysis of air quality impacts. It is important
to note the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2/year was developed to meet the state goal of reducing GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 2020.
As described in the 2012 CAP, State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use would reduce anticipate d
emissions associated with future development projects. In addition, the City’s General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and
Zoning Regulations include policies and standards that reduce energy use from buildings and equipment, including design
standards that maximize passive ventilation and cooling systems and use of natural lighting within buildings, and energy
efficiency performance standards for proposed buildings taller than 50 feet. Development projects within the Draft Housing
Element Update planning period would be required to comply with these existing policies and standards.
The Draft Housing Element Update would result in development consistent with the anticipated growth under the inventory and
assumptions of the 2012 CAP and the 2014 Land Use Element. The Draft includes policies and programs designed to promote
compact urban growth, encourage mixed use, promote housing within walking or biking distance of employment, and encourage s
housing in the Downtown and the Mid-Higuera and Upper Monterey Focus Areas close to jobs, services, government, recreation
and cultural opportunities. Draft program 6.1 5 states the City will encourage residential development focused on infill
development and densification. Policies 9.1 through 9.5 promote sustainable development that will help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Policies 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7 support walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, connected to shopping, schools and other
neighborhoods.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 317
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 15
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1, 2, 6,
26 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
26 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
26, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 3, 6, 26 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a)b)c)d) The General Plan Land Use and Safety Elements are the primary policy documents addressing hazards and hazardous
materials. Within the Safety Element, Policy 5.2 states that new residential projects should minimize people’s exposure to
hazardous materials and substances. Policy 5.3 says the City should avoid using hazardous materials in its own operations to the
greatest extent practical and will follow all established health and safety practices when they are used. In addition, the 2019 San
Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) addresses all hazards applicable to the City
including: earthquakes, wildland fires, adverse weather, hazardous materials events, floods, and landslides. The MJHMP also
addresses mitigation strategies to best reduce negative effects from these identified hazards. The Draft Housing Element Update
is consistent with these documents.
e) Airport compatibility issues are of special concern because much of the City’s vacant residential land is located in the southern
part of the City, near the San Luis Obispo County Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission adopted the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) to guide where and what types of land uses are compatible with airport operations.
Generally, residential development is not appropriate within flight approach and take-off areas, and where safety or noise
considerations dictate greater spacing between housing and airport activities. As a part of the 2014 Land Use Element, certain
areas of the City became a part of an Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) that allows for different residential densities than are outlined
in the ALUP. Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.64 ensures that land uses and development within the airport overlay zone (AOZ)
are compatible with existing and future airport operations, consistent with State Aeronautics Act, State law, Federal Aviation
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 318
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 16
Administration Regulations, and guidance of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook . Individual developments are
evaluated for their consistency with the ALUP or the AOZ depending on where the project site is located . The anticipated
residential growth, outlined is the Draft Housing Element, is located outside of airport hazard areas, or wi thin areas where
residential use is allowed with appropriate design and safety considerations. There are no private airstrips within the City’s Urban
Reserve line.
f) Fire Code regulations, emergency response and evacuation plans are reviewed with any new residential development to ensure
the safety of the community.
g) Safety Element Policy 3.0 addresses adequate fire services and Policy 3.1 addresses housing and wildland fire safety. It sa ys
that developments should be approved only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available. Maintaining
consistency with Fire Department standards will ensure the safety and well -being of the community and exclude development
from areas of “very high” wildland fire hazards. In 2019 the City implemented the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
The CWPP provides a citywide strategic planning level framework for hazardous fuel assessment and reduction within the City
of San Luis Obispo so that structures and assets are provided additional protection, reducing the potential of ignitions and contains
goals of improving fire prevention and suppression efforts, reducing hazardous fuels, restoring fire -adapted ecosystems, and
promoting community assistance. In addition, Chapter 15.04.100 of the City’s Municipal Code (Construction and Fire Prevention
Regulations) provides amendments to the California Fire Code stating specific development standards required for fire safety
and prevention within the City of San Luis Obispo.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
1, 5, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
9, 27 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
22, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 28 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 22 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 319
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 17
Evaluation
a), b) Per Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) Policy A 2.2.1, the City utilizes multiple water resources to
meet its water supply needs. Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available
during a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. The City has five water sources, including Salinas & Whale
Rock Reservoirs, Nacimiento Reservoir, Recycled Water, and Groundw ater, achieving the goal of diversifying its water supply
portfolio to meet current and future community needs. Per WWME Policy A 3.2.3, the City will continue to use limited amounts
of groundwater for domestic purposes when available, but will not conside r this source of supply as part of its water resources
availability due to limitations for the use of groundwater resources.
c)(i-iv), d) The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s
adopted Post Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary
objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum
extent practicable and preventing storm water discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality
standards in all applicable development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued.
New development projects will be in accordance with NPDES as well as Chapter 12.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, which
includes Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control, and State, and Federal standards relating to drainage,
runoff, water quality and flood zones. The City’s development review process will ens ure future residential developments will
be in accordance with all applicable standards and requirements.
d) Current code requirements include designing for various FEMA defined flood elevations. Individual projects would require
consistency with these regulations, based on the FIRM, and show that hazardous materials beyond standard cleaning products
would be securely stored in a fully enclosed area per FEMA Flood Plain Management Criteria for Flood Prone Areas. Based on
the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the City of San Luis Obispo site is not located in an area with potential
for inundation by a tsunami. The City of San Luis Obispo is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water with
the potential for a seiche to occur.
e) The project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge because the Draft
Housing Element is a policy document and does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project.
However individual residential development projects will be evaluated for compliance with stormwater treatment and storage
facilities that do not conflict with the Central Coastal Basin Plan, or other water quality control plans. The Draft Housing Element
would not conflict with SGMA, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater
supplies.
Conclusion
No Impact.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a)b) The Draft Housing Element Update includes numerous programs to implement its goals and policies. For example, policies
in the Draft encouraging higher density, infill housing close to jobs and employment centers are consistent with existing pol icies
in the Land Use Element that encourage compact urban form. A few programs that identify non -residential sites as potential
areas to consider residential zoning would be implemented, in part, through changes to the General Plan Land Use Map and
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 320
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 18
Zoning Map but do not involve activities that would conflict with a regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an
environmental effect. Sites that may be appropriate for multi-family housing are identified in the Draft, with subsequent review
and action needed to evaluate and implement the change, however, no circumstance can be envisioned where an encouraged
project would physically divide an established community.
Conclusion
No Impact.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a), b) There are no known mineral resources of value to the region identified in the General Plan, specific plan or other land
use plan. The Draft Housing Element Update would not result in the loss of a locally -important mineral resource.
Conclusion
No impact.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
7, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? 7, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
4, 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) The General Plan Noise Element establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise -sensitive uses from stationary
and mobile noise sources. Noise attenuation measures identified in the General Plan include land use limitations, separation
between land uses (i.e. noise buffers), earth berms, and where appropriate and no other feasible measure exists, sound attenuation
walls. New residential development must be consistent with the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance standards. Noise Element
Policy 1.1 says that the City will work to minimize noise exposure based on the established numerical noise standards, or
thresholds, contained in the document. The Draft encourages the production of affordable housing through the development of
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 321
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 19
non-conventional housing, including mixed residential-commercial housing and high-density housing above commercial uses in
Downtown and Mid-Higuera and Upper Monterey Special Focus Areas. In these types of housing, special attention must be paid
to use compatibility.
Per the City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between weekday
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or any time on Sundays or holidays, is strictly prohibited, except for emergency work of pu blic
service utilities or by exception issued by the Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states that
construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum
noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 dBA at single-family residences, 80 dBA at multi-family residences, and
85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City Municipal Code, operating any device that creates vibration
which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or
right-of-way is prohibited (9.12.050.B.7).
Advancements in construction methods, coupled with energy conservation practices, have had a vast performance impact on the
way buildings are constructed today. Interior noise levels are substantially reduced through compliance with existing buildin g
code requirements. At the most conservative level, a typical structure covered with siding will have a Sound Transmission Class
(STC) rating of 39 dBa based on current methods. Basic dual-pane vinyl windows will achieve an STC rating of 28 dBa.
Averaged out, this comes to a combined STC rating of about 33, meaning a typical exterior wall assembly will reduce 33dB of
sound transfer. These numbers are based off of a 2x4 wall cavity with insulation and the rating improves with increased wall
thickness and/ or stucco or other siding materials. In using the example of the previous Noise Element and Noise Guidebook
standards from the 1990s, compliance with current required conventional building standards would double, or even triple, the
noise reduction requirements.
Individual housing projects would be evaluated to ensure compliance with applicable Noise Element policies and the Noise
Ordinance standards.
c) The City’s General Plan and Zoning Regulations are consistent with the standards contained in the San Luis Obi spo County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) and the Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ), which is consistent with State Aeronautics Act,
State law, Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, and California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. These standards
ensure that uses near the airport are developed in a manner that is safe and compatible with aircraft operations. Noise levels are
one of the key considerations and all development with the Plan area must be developed in a manner that eliminates noise
exposure in excess of the standards, including through the imposition of noise attenuation measures where necessary. There are
no private airstrips within the City’s Urban Reserve line.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
1, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The City of San Luis Obispo currently has a population of 46,802 residents, and 21,403 housing units (Department of Finance,
2019). The City currently has a residential density of 2.44 persons per household.
Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 322
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 20
a) General Plan policies seek to achieve a sustainable level of growth through the City’s planned buildout of 2 5,762 dwellings
and 57,200 persons, anticipated to occur by 2035. Land Use Element Policy 1.11.2 says that the City’s housing supply is to grow
no faster than one percent per year, averaged over 5 year increments, based on thresholds established by Land Use Element Table
3, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very low or low incomes as defined by the Housing Element ,
new dwellings in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, and legally established accessory dwelling units (SLOMC, Section
17.144.020). This rate of growth may continue so long as the City's basic service capacity is assured. Table 3 shows the
approximate number of dwellings and residents which w ould result from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate
over the planning period. Approved specific plan areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted by each
specific plan provided thresholds established by Table 3 are not exceeded. The City Council shall review the rate of growth on
an annual basis in conjunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure consistency with the City’s gradual assimilation
policy. This will assure population growth does not exceed the City’s ability to assimilate new residents and ensure municipal
services are available for new and existing residents.
As required by State law, the Draft Housing Element Update includes Quantified Objectives showing the number of units the
City expects to accommodate in each income group during the 6th Cycle planning period. Under the Draft, the City would expect
to accommodate up to 3,354 new, in-city dwellings, based on the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). Of the
total, 58%, or 1,949 units, will be affordable to extremely low, very-low, low- and moderate-income households. The remaining
1,405 units can be constructed within the allowed average residential growth rate and will be credited towards meeting RHNA
by 2028. Regional Housing Needs Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo’s RHNA
during the planning period is 3,354 dwellings as shown in the table below.
Income Category RHNA need, #
of dwelling units
Extremely Low/Very Low
(<31% - 50% of AMI*) 825
Low
(51% - 80% of AMI) 520
Moderate
(81% - 120% of AMI) 604
Above Moderate
(over 121% of AMI) 1,405
Total 3,354
* Area Median Income
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
b) San Luis Obispo has evaluated its ability to accommodate the 3,354 dwelling units by 2028 and determined it has sufficient
zoned land, water and infrastructure to accommodate its assigned RHNA without the need to rezone property or annex new land
to the City. New State housing laws have placed greater responsibility on local government to addr ess housing needs, including
SB 166 which does not allow a net loss of housing units. The Draft Housing Element includes updated information, policies and
programs to address new state law regarding housing. Individual housing development projects would be reviewed for
consistency with the Draft Housing Element and state law, and include mitigation, if required, for the displacement of signif icant
number of existing people or housing.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 323
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 21
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 1, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 1, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 1, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 1, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project that
would require public services. The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the
city which consists of 85.5 employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station
which is located at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and U.S. Highway 101.The City of San
Luis Obispo is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District and public parks and recreation trails within the city
are managed and maintained by the City of San Luis Obispo Department of Parks and Recreation. All new residential and non -
residential development within the City is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees, which are administered by and paid
through the Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees provide funding for maintaining City emergency
services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for projects such as the r enovation
of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment.
Draft Housing Element Update policies and programs call for the City to utilize Federal, State, and local funding sources to assist
in the development of affordable housing. The City has an Affordable Housing Fund that can be used to offset costs and provide
infrastructure and services to affordable housing developments. City utilities, parking and recreation facilities and program s, and
public schools are funded by service users and new development. City fees on new development, including water, wastewater,
traffic, park, affordable housing, and school are collected at the time of construction permit issuance to offset the costs b orne by
the City to meet the service needs of new development.
Fire protection: The City of San Luis Obispo is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. While the Draft Housing
Element would not directly result in the need for construction of new fire service facilities, new residential would result i n a
marginal cumulative increase of demand on City services, including fire protection. Individual residential development would
be required to participate in the City’s system of required developer impact fees and dedications established to address dire ct
demand for new facilities associated with new development.
Police protection: The City of San Luis Obispo is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. The Draft Housing
Element would not result in a direct increase in residents within the City and would b e consistent with the projected population
growth outlined in Section 1.11 of the Land Use Element. Individual residential development projects would be subject to the
developer impact fees and dedications established to address direct demand for new facil ities associated with new development.
Schools: The City is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). The Draft Housing Element itself
does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project that wou ld require schools. However
individual residential development projects would be subject to payment of SLCUSD developer fees to offset the potential
marginal increase in student attendance in the district’s schools as a result of the project. These fees wo uld be directed towards
maintaining sufficient service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 324
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 22
Parks: The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project.
However individual residential development projects would be subject to park development impact fees, which would offset the
project’s contribution to increased demand on park and recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation Element of the General
Plan also requires new, large development areas to allocate 10 acres of developed park land for every 1000 residents to ensure
that sufficient parkland is developed along with new residential development.
Other public facilities: The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any
specific project that would require other public facilities. However individual residential development projects could result in a
marginal increase in use of other City publ ic facilities, such as roadways and public libraries and that project would be subject
to transportation development impact fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased use of City roadways.
Conclusion
Less than significant.
16. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) The General Plan Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 says the City shall develop and maintain a park system at a
rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City monitors the adequacy of its recreational facilities and evaluates each
new residential development to determine if additional service capacity is needed. New development is responsible for providing
funding or facilities in proportion to the need generated by the development project. This w ould help to ensure sufficient open
space and recreational areas are allocated for the community . In addition, each residential development project that includes
recreation facilities would be required to evaluate any adverse impacts the facilities would have on the environment.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
4, 29, 30, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
1, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 325
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 23
Evaluation
The City Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways and identifies transportation go als
and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future conditions. Goals included in
the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, reducing use of cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools, promotion of the safe operation of all modes of
transportation, and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause
no significant, long-term environmental problems.
The City’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s official policies for the design and development of bikeways
within the City and in adjoining territory under County jurisdiction but within the City’s Urban Reserve and includes specific
objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes. SLO Transit operates transit service in the City of Sa n Luis
Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County
and adjacent areas.
In 2013, Senate Bill 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of c ongestion management
with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction o f
greenhouse gas emissions” and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resource s
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of Senate Bill 743 and identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as
new metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3 [b]).
On June 16, 2020, the City Council adopted resolutions to replace Level of Service (LOS) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
as the City’s performance measure for CEQA analysis of transportation impacts, and approved revisions to the City’s Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. Beginning July 1, 2020, the newly adopted VMT criteria for determining significance
of transportation impacts will be implemented.
a) Using alternative means of transportation is a key way to minimize congestion and reduce health and environmental impacts.
The City’s General Plan discusses transportation with goals that are supported by specific policies to encourage alternative modes
of travel throughout the City. Goal 6 of the Circulation Element includes policies that focus directly on the development and
maintenance of a circulation system that supports all modes of transportation , like complete streets (Policy 6.1.1). Through this
and many other transportation-related policies, transportation impacts due to level of service, vehicle miles traveled, road damage
and traffic capacity can be successfully mitigated.
b) In June 2020, the City Council adopted VMT Thresholds. As t he Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land
uses or propose the development of any specific project , the project does not trigger new VMT. However individual residential
development projects would be subject to the City’s VMT thresholds . SFR, multi-family and mobile home park projects would
have a threshold of 14.25 VMT per capita. Consistent with State technical guidance, this threshold represents a value 156 percent
below the existing regional (Countywide) average residential VMT per capita. The existing average residential VMT per capita
within the City is 8.51, approximately 40 percent below the City’s adopted residential VMT threshold. Thus, it is likely that most
residential development proposals consistent with the City’s currently adopted land use plans will result in a less-than-significant
VMT impact under CEQA. Mixed-use projects would be evaluated per each use independently. The new Thresholds provide
exceptions for affordable housing. Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs -housing balance, in turn
shortening commutes and reducing VMT. A project consisting of a high p ercentage of affordable housing (greater than 50%)
may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Other affordable housing projects, or mixed -use projects with
affordable housing components may be screened from detailed VMT analysis if supp orting evidence is provided demonstrating
low VMT-generating characteristics of similar affordable housing sites within the City.
c) The Draft Housing Element does not change the City’s process for evaluating new residential development projects to ensur e
that vehicle circulation is accomplished without creating design hazards or conflicts with incompatible use. Individual resid ential
development projects would be evaluated to ensure that hazards due to design features are reduced or eliminated.
d) Emergency access to a new residential development project would be reviewed through the development review process.
Safety Element Policy 10.1 and Program 10.3 states that the Fire Department has set a response -time objective of four (4)
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 326
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 24
minutes. Safety Element Policies 9.20 through 9.23 lists the precautionary measures the City will take when evaluating a
development plan. The City conducts safety inspections for fire safety, including enforcement of fire lanes, for multi -family
residential developments.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
5, 16 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
5 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
On February 25, 2020, NAHC supplied a list of local Native American individuals and/or groups with interests and knowledge
about the area. On April 2, 2020, local Native American tribal groups that have a cultural and traditional affiliation to the area
of the City of San Luis Obispo were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental Review was being completed for
the update of the City’s Housing Element. None of the noticed Tribal Groups requested consultation or identified any Tribal
Cultural Resource (TCR) that would be impacted by the Draft Housing Element.
a) b) The 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element update does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific
project. As such, the Draft would not have an impact on any known tribal cultural resources that have been listed or been found
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
PRC Section 5024.1. No specific site is under consideration.
Conclusion
No Impact.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1, 9 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 327
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 25
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
9, 27 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
9, 13 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled wa ter
to the community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City is served by four
primary water sources, including the Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for
irrigation), with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source. As of June 2020, both the Salinas Reservoir and Whale
Rock Reservoir are above 82% storage capacity, and Nacimiento is at 48% storage capacity. The City’s Water Treatment Plant
is designed to produce up to 16 million gallons daily.
The City Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the City, Cal Poly, and the County airport.
The WRRF treated an average of 3.57 million gallons of wastewater per day in 2019. During times of wet weather, the City’s
wastewater collection system and WRRF experience a significant increase in volume due to storm-related flows. Though not
intended to be conveyed or treated by the wastewater system, stormwater enters wastewater pipes directly through improperly
plumbed drains (inflow) and/or as groundwater that seeps through cracked wastewater pipes (infiltra tion). Significant inflow and
infiltration (I/I) in the collection system can result in sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Under these conditions, peak flows to the
City’s WRRF have exceeded 20 million gallons a day (mgd) in a 24 -hour period, where normal flows are under 4 mgd in a 24-
hour period.
A comprehensive flow study completed by the City in 2012 identified multiple locations in the collection system that experience d
flows at a rate of 20 to 30 times of normal flow during wet weather events, with the highest area experiencing flow at a rate of
36.3 times normal flow, due to I/I. These capacity constrained areas are identified in the City’s General Plan Water and
Wastewater Management Element. A wastewater flow offset program was approved in 2019 to mitigate potential environmental
impacts of new or intensified development in capacity constrained areas.
Construction of major upgrades to the WRRF began in 2019 to meet stringent discharge requirements and replace aged
infrastructure. The project will take approximately four years to complete and will increase treatment capacity to 5.4 million
gallons per day (mgd) during average flows.
a) The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project that
would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Individual projects relocation or expansion of the above-mentioned utilities would be reviewed through
the development review process for environmental effects. Any projects located within an area that has capacity constraints
would be required to comply with offset requirements.
b) Per Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) Policy A 2.2.1, the City utilizes multiple water resources to meet
its water supply needs. Having several sources of water avoids dependence on any one source that may not be available during
a drought or other water supply reduction or emergency. The City’s primary water supply is defined as the amount of water
needed to serve the build-out population identified in the General Plan, Land Use Element (2014). Table 3 in the Land Use
Element identifies an urban reserve capacity of 57,200 people. The quantity of water needed for the p rimary water supply is
calculated per WWME Policy A 5.2.2, using 117 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The City’s 2019 Water Resources Status
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 328
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 26
Report states that the City maintains a robust water supply portfolio with greater than five years of water avail able. Per capita
water use (obtained from adding up all water used by visitors, residents, commercial uses, etc.) decreased during the 2019 Wa ter
Year to 91 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) from 100 gpcd during the 2018 Water Year .
c) Per Water and Wastewater Management Element Policy B 2.2.3, new development will only be permitted if adequate capacity
is available within the wastewater collection system and/or WRRF. The City’s current wastewater treatment facility has a design
capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day and will have a design capacity of 5.4 mgd when the construction of the WRRF Project
is complete in 2023. According to the City’s Utility Department, this is adequate capacity to meet current needs, plus residential
growth anticipated during the planning period.
d, e) City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 states the City’s Construction Debris Diversion and Recycling
Ordinance which requires that all new development include a recycling plan to reduce the amou nt of debris disposed of at the
Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the City. The City’s development review process will ensure future residential development s
will be in accordance with these standards. Cold Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accom modate the City’s anticipated
build-out population.
Conclusion
Less Than Significant Impact.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the proje ct:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 1, 40 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 3, 31 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
4, 9 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 6 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Draft Housing Element covers the area with the City limits of San Luis Obispo and sphere of influence which is almost all
urbanized. Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and
activities they contain. Additional factors are access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters.
Based on the Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where
development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within one mile of a designated High or
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.
The City Safety Element identifies four policies to a ddress the potential hazards associated with wildfire, included approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of Wildland fire hazard
severity zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard
severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 329
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 27
a) Implementation of the Draft Housing Element Update would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any
adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service would occur as a result of adoption
of the updated element. Individual residential development projects would be evaluated for impact on emergency services and
would be required to prepare and implement the necessary plans to significantly reduce the safety risks in and around the project
site during construction activities and/or emergency events.
b) The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project that
would change the existing topography of the area covered by the document. Individual projects would be evaluated during the
development review process for any project elements that would expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Projects would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention
within the California Building Code and California Fire Code.
c) The Draft Housing Element itself does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project t hat
would require the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and
connections to City infrastructure. Any new infrastructure components would occur as part of a specific project; the individual
project would be reviewed for compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations.
d) The Draft Housing Element would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes because it does not establish new land
uses or propose the development of any specific project. Individual projects would be reviewed for design elements that would
expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The Draft Housing Element would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of natural, biological, and cultural
resources because it does not establish new land uses or propose the development of any specific project. Individual developm ent
project would be reviewed for impacts on natural and cultural resources and evaluated and mitigated, consistent with CEQA and
with all General Plan policies. The proposed Draft Housing Element Update does not include any policies or programs that
conflict with City policies on protecting and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achieving
resource protection goals.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The Draft Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 3,354 in-city dwelling units in an eight-year period. Over half of
these units are targeted to be affordable to extremely low, very-low, low and moderate income households and are exempt from
the Residential Growth Management Regulations. The Draft is consistent with General Plan Land Use policies regarding
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 330
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 28
residential growth. Cumulative impacts of General Plan policies and anticipated growth are addressed in the Land Use Element
Final EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
The Draft Housing Element Update will meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the planning p eriod. There is
no evidence that the Draft Element’s policies and programs will have significant, adverse impacts on humans, either directly or
indirectly.
22. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify
the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Final Environmental Impact Report, Land Use and Circulation Element Updates; available online at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan or at the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Resolution No. 10567 (2014 Series) summarizes the environmental impact, mitigation, monitoring and overriding considerations
for the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element update:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=26033&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk .
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions of the project.
The Draft Housing Element Update is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and must also be guided by the
mitigation that applies to that document.
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Draft Housing Element Update, City of San Luis Obispo, July 2020 .
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, October 2018.
3. California Building Code, 2019.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element and Final EIR, last revised December 2014.
5. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element, 2006.
6. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, July 2000.
7. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
8. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, 2001.
9. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Element, 2018.
10. Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996
11. Community Design Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, June 2010 .
12. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001.
13. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012.
14. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, October 2009 .
15. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, November 2010 .
16. Historic Preservation Ordinance, City of San Luis Obispo, December 2010 .
17. Regional Housing Needs Plan for San Luis Obispo County, SLOCOG, June 2019.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 331
EID-0218-2020 & GENP-0217-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 PAGE 29
18. Building Blocks: A Comprehensive Housing Element Guide, HCD, Accessed June 2020 at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml
19. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
20. American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018.
21. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System, current database
22. City of San Luis Obispo Stormwater website, accessed June 2020 at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/engineering-development-review/stormwater
23.
24. City of SLO 2012 Climate Action Plan, August 2012.
25. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan dated May 18, 2005.
26. San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019 (adopted June 2, 2020).
27. 2019 Water Resources Status Report, October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=25195
28. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FIRM, Novem ber 16, 2012.
29. 2019 Regional Transportation Plan, June 2019.
30. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013
31. Municipal Code, City of San Luis Obispo
32. Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements, HCD, 2019
33. General Plan Guidelines, State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2019
34. City of San Luis Obispo Website Community Choice Energy; Accessed November 18, 2019. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice-energy
35. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.
36. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004
37. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Luis Obispo Webpage, 2019.
38. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2015-2019
39. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018.
40. Diablo Canyon Emergency Planning Zone Map, accessed November 2019
Attachments
1. 2020 Draft Housing Element
ATTACHMENT 4Item 4
Packet Page 332