HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2020 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 28, 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/8059915422145977357
➢ Webinar ID: 771-306-019
➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 930-5321; Audio Access Code: 651-628-157
o Note: The City uses GotoWebinar to conduct virtual meetings. Please test your speakers and
microphone settings prior to joining the webinar. If you experience audio issues, check out this
YouTube tutorial to troubleshoot audio connection issues.
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 October 28, 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 October 14, 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 tentative parcel map to create three parcels from one existing lot (SLO 19-0022),
the project includes an exception from the lot frontage requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations for Parcels 1 and 2 which do not provide any direct access to the street but share
access through a private drive. The project includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental review (CEQA); Project address: 281 Broad Street; Case #: SBDV-0159-
2019 & EID-0267-2019; Zone: R-1 & C/OS-20; John Rourke, owner/applicant.
(Kyle Bell – 5 minutes)
Recommendation: Continue the public hearing for the project proposed at 281 Broad Street to
a date uncertain, to allow more time for staff to investigate a discrepancy in relation to the City’s
Urban Reserve Line.
3. Review of a new two-story 23,951-square foot residential care facility with 35 private rooms;
project includes a request for a 20 percent parking reduction, a fence height exception to allow
a fence and retaining wall combined maximum height of 12 feet within portions of the side
yard, where 9 feet is normally allowed, and an increase to the maximum floor area ratio to 0.5
where 0.4 is normally allowed. Project is categorically exempt from environmental review
(CEQA); Project Address: 1691 Fredericks Street; Case #: ARCH-0073-2020, SBDV-0076-
2020, and USE-0203-2020; Zone: R-1; Tim Rhonda, applicant. (Kyle Bell – 60 minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt the Draft Resolution that approves the project subject to findings and
conditions of approval.
Planning Commission Agenda for October 28, 2020 Page 3
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
4. Receive a presentation on the Planning Commission Goal Setting Discussion for 2021-23
(Brigitte Elke, Natalie Harnett, and Tyler Corey – 45 Minutes)
5. Staff Updates & Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting has been rescheduled to Wednesday,
November 1 8, 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, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, October 14, 2020
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 6:02 p.m., via teleconference, by Chair Dandekar.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn, Michelle Shoresman, Vice-
Chair Robert Jorgensen, and Chair Hemalata Dandekar
Absent: Commissioners Nicholas Quincey and Mike Wulkan
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Principal Planner Tyler
Corey, 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 KAHN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners Quincey and Wulkan
absent) to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 23, 2020.
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2020
Page 2 of 5
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Review of a mixed-use development that includes a 17,500 square foot, two-story commercial
structure, 249 residential units that are housed within 18, three-story structures, and a 4,325
square-feet single story clubhouse. The project is consistent with a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Review, adopted on February 5, 2019; Project address: 650
Tank Farm Road; Case #: ARCH-0755-2019; Zone: C-S-SP; Agera Grove Investments,
LLC, owner/applicant.
Contract Planner Brandi Cummings presented the staff report and Transportation Manager
Luke Schwartz presented a traffic analysis addressing pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor
vehicle connectivity for the overall area. Additionally, Schwartz reviewed the transition of
traffic measurement method from LOS (Level of Service) to VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
as required by CEQA update. Commission inquiries were responded to by staff following the
presentation.
Applicant representatives, Pam Ricci, Scott Martin, and Jake Minnick of RRM Design Group,
provided an overview of the project and responded to commission inquiries.
Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
Allan Cooper
Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KAHN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER SHORESMAN, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners Quincey and Wulkan
absent) to adopt a Resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING A CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 14, 2020 (650 TANK FARM
ROAD FILE #ARCH-0755-2019)” with the additional language, underlined below, to be
added to Condition of Approval #14:
• The applicant shall provide a revised Site Plan and Floor Plans that provides as many long-
term bicycle parking spaces for upper floor units at a ground level location as possible.
Ground level long-term bicycle parking shall be located throughout the site, within a
reasonable distance to each residential building (other than the townhome buildings), and
shall be able to accommodate E-bikes (e.g. charging facilities, racks, etc.) to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director. Floor Plans for ground level units shall clearly
demonstrate adequate in-unit space for bicycle storage.
Item 1
Packet Page 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2020
Page 3 of 5
RECESS
The Commission recessed at 8:05 and resumed at 8:20 with all Commissioners present.
3. Review of a mixed-use project consisting of 15 residential units and 1,500 square feet of
commercial space within the Commercial Services (C-S) zone. The project includes a density
bonus of 20% including a request for an alternative incentive to relax development standards
for the creek setback requirement to allow a two foot setback, where 20 feet is normally
required, a request to allow residential uses on the ground floor within the first 50 feet of the
structure along the street frontage, and a request for a 10 percent parking reduction. Project is
categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA); 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
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Charles Ashley of Ashley & Vance Engineering, provided an
overview of the project and responded to questions.
Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
Allan Cooper
Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOPKINS, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
JORGENSEN, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners Quincey and Wulkan absent) to: Continue
the item to a date uncertain with the following direction for staff and the applicant to address:
• Revise the project to provide a comparable mix of affordable units that is more equitable
in comparison to the market rate units.
• Revise the project plans to enhance the creek area as an amenity of the project.
• Consider re-orienting the open space area toward the creek for residential uses rather than
the commercial uses.
Item 1
Packet Page 3
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2020
Page 4 of 5
4. Review of a Mixed-Use Development comprised of 16 one-bedroom dwellings and
390 square-feet of non-residential space. The applicant requests a Density Bonus of 27.5% as
an Affordable Housing Incentive; and exceptions from development standards to reduce the
number of required vehicle parking spaces by one, and to reduce the number of required bicycle
parking spaces for the residential component to one long-term space per unit. The project is
categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA); Project Address: 207 Higuera;
Case # ARCH-0090-2020; Zone C-S-MU; 207 Higuera LLC, applicant.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Commission
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Jessie Skidmore of TenOver Studio, provided an overview of the
project.
Chair Dandekar opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
None
Chair Dandekar closed the public hearing.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOPKINS, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER KAHN, CARRIED 5-0-2 (Commissioners Quincey and Wulkan absent) to
adopt a Resolution entitled:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF SIXTEEN
DWELLINGS AND A 390 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL SUITE IN A THREE-STORY
BUILDING, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS FROM PARKING STANDARDS, TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING
SPACES, FROM THE FRONT SETBACK STANDARD, AND FROM DESIGN
STANDARDS RELATED TO PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, IN THE SERVICE
COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE OVERLAY (C-S-MU) ZONES (APPLICATION
ARCH- 0090-2020),” with staff’s recommended modifications to conditions of approval
#10, #12, and #25:
• Move condition of approval #10 to a Code Compliance Notes section and modify the
language to provide flexibility for the Community Development Director to determine
satisfaction of the City’s standards for Electrical Vehicle Parking;
• Move condition of approval #12 to a Code Compliance Notes section and modify the
language to more generally address compliance with Building Code provisions; and
• Correct condition of approval #25 to state that left turns exiting the site are to be restricted
Item 1
Packet Page 4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2020
Page 5 of 5
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5. Agenda Forecast – Principal Planner Tyler Corey provided an update of upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m. The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, October 28, 2020, via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 1
Packet Page 5
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Packet Page 6
Meeting Date: October 28, 2020
Item Number: 2
Time Estimate: 5 minutes 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a tentative parcel map to create three parcels from one existing lot (SLO 19 -
0022), the project includes an exception from the lot frontage requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations for Parcels 1 and 2 which do not provide any direct access to the street but share access
through a private drive, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review
(CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 281 Broad Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SBDV-0159-2019 & EID-0267-2019 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Continue the public hearing for the project proposed at 281 Broad Street to a date uncertain, to allow
staff additional time to investigate a potential discrepancy in relation to the City’s Urban Reserve
Line.
Item 2
Packet Page 7
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Packet Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a new two-story 23,951-square foot residential care facility with 35 private rooms; project includes a request for a 15 percent parking reduction, a fence height exception to allow a fence and retaining wall with a combined maximum height of 12 feet within portions of the side yard, where 9 feet is normally allowed, and an increase to the maximum floor area ratio to 0.5 where 0.4 is normally allowed.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1691 Fredericks Street BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0073-2020 & FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner USE-0203-2020
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) that approves the project subject to findings and
conditions of approval.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The proposed project consists of a two -story 23,951 square foot residential care facility with 35
private rooms, accommodating up to 40 residents. The project is proposed on a vacant parcel
associated with a separate lot line adjustment application (SBDV-0076-2020) to establish a flag lot
with access from Fredericks Street. The project proposes shared parking facilities with the adjacent
religious facility (Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church) and daycare facility (Love to Learn). The project
includes a request to provide a floor area ratio of 0.5, where 0.4 is normally allowed in the R-1 zone1
and a request for a parking reduction of approximately 15 percent for the shared parking facilities
between this project and the adjacent religious facility and daycare. The proposed site improvements
include parking and site access upgrades, landscaping upgrades, and a new trash enclosure
(Attachment 2, Project Plans).
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020 Table 2 -4: R-1 Zone Development Standards. Maximum FAR 0.4, Maximum
FAR may be increased up to 0.50 if consistent with Section 17.16.030.A (Requirements and Findings for FAR
Increase in R-1 Zone). See also Section 17.70.060 (FAR Measurement and Exceptions)
Applicant Tim Ronda
Zoning R-1 (Low Density Residential)
General Plan Low Density Residential
Site Area ~47,916 square feet.
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines § 15332 (In-Fill
Development Projects)
Meeting Date: October 28, 2020
Item Number: 3
Time Estimate: 60 Minutes
Item 3
Packet Page 9
ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020
1691 Fredericks Street
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s (PC) purview is to review the project for consistency with the General
Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City development
standards and guidelines. PC review is required for projects which include more than 10,000 square
feet of commercial space (ARCH-0073-2020) as well as the associated Minor Use Permit (USE-0203-
2020) requesting to establish a residential care facility within the R-1 zone.
2.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks
North
East
South
West
14
~130
14.5
10
10
10
10
5
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5 0.4
Upper Story Setbacks (FAR)
North
East
South
West
14
~130
14.5
10
13
15
13
8
Maximum Height of Structures 25 feet 25 feet
Max Building Coverage 31% 40%
Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
73 (15% Reduction)
2 EV Ready & 5 EV Capable
4
1
86
2 EV Ready & 5 EV Capable
4
1
*2019 Zoning Regulations
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
On August 3, 2020, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the project plans for
consistency with the CDG. During their review, the ARC recommended that the Planning
Figure 1: Rendering of project design from interior parking lot
Item 3
Packet Page 10
ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020
1691 Fredericks Street
Page 3
Commission find the project consistent with the CDG (6-0) (Attachment 3, ARC Staff Report and
Meeting Minutes).
The Tree Committee (TC) reviewed the project on September 28, 2020 for consistency with the Tree
Ordinance (Municipal Code § 12.24) (Attachment 4, TC Report and Minutes). During their review,
the TC provided three directional items to address specific concerns regarding the replanting plan
(which are identified as Condition No. 13) and recommended that the Planning Commission find the
project consistent with the Tree Ordinance for removal of the 6 trees (4-0-3).
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed improvements must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations
and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable CDG. Staff has evaluated the
project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found it to be in substantial compliance, as
discussed in this analysis.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The Land Use Element designates the subject property as Low Density Residential intended to
provide for low density residential development having locations and forms that provide a sense of
both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. The Housing
Element encourages the creation of housing for those with special housing needs such as facilities for
aging in place in locations where public transit and commercial services are available. The City has
a limited number of residential care facilities and special housing geared toward the elderly . As of
2019, the City had 20 facilities providing housing for the elderly.
4.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
In accordance with Table 2-1 of the Zoning Regulations, residential care facilities require a Minor
Use Permit to be constructed within the R-1 zone. Minor Use Permits require specific findings
regarding General Plan consistency, neighborhood compatibility, findings for health, safety and
welfare, and findings for site suitability regarding design, traffic generation, and public services. The
project design complies with lot coverage, setbacks, and building height requirements for the R-1
zone (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics).
Residential Care Facility: Residential Care Facilities are licensed by the State to provide permanent
living accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for persons in need
of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for sustaining the activities of daily living.
Living accommodations are shared living quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom
facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as
well as those operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including hospices, nursing homes,
convalescent facilities, and group homes for minors, persons with disabilities, and people in recovery
from alcohol or drug addictions.
The project has been designed to provide a physical separation of the facility from the low density
neighborhood by orienting the building toward the rear of the property, which would protect the
privacy between neighboring residential uses and the care facility. The project design incorporates
specific design features to minimize potential impacts to and from adjacent properties by orienting
open areas for residents internal to the project site.
Item 3
Packet Page 11
ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020
1691 Fredericks Street
Page 4
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The project includes a request to provide a floor area ratio of 0.5, where 0.4
is normally allowed in the R-1 zone. Zoning Regulation §17.16.030 stipulate that the maximum FAR
may be increased from 0.4 to 0.5 if the building design provides a second-story step back (upper story
building setback) of at least five feet along the front façade and second-story side setbacks that are at
least three feet greater than the minimum required setback2. The project has been designed to provide
upper story step backs of at least 130 feet along the front façade and second-story side setbacks that
are at least three feet greater than the minimum required setback, qualifying for the greater FAR of
0.5 (see Section 2.0 Project Statistics for setback dimensions).
Fence Height Exception: The project has been designed to cut into the natural slope of the property,
and as a result of the necessary grading for the project, various retaining walls and fences are
necessary for access improvements and privacy between uses. Zoning Regulations §17.70.070 states
the height of the retaining wall shall be considered as part of the overall height of the fence or wall.
Walls or fences must have a minimum spacing of five feet between each other to be considered
separate structures for purposes of measuring overall height. Where fences are located on retaining
walls within interior side or rear setbacks the combined fence and retaining wall height shall not
exceed nine feet from the lower side (Zoning Regulations § 17.70.070.F.3). An exception has been
requested from these standards to allow a fence and retaining wall combined maximum height of 12
feet within portions of the side yard, where nine feet is normally allowed3. The purpose of the
exception request is to accommodate the necessary grading and access improvements to the proposed
project, as well as protect privacy from adjacent properties to the project site. All fences will appear
as six feet in height as viewed from adjacent properties, and the portion of the combined fence and
retaining walls that exceed nine feet are located internal to the project site and are sufficiently
landscaped.
Parking: The project requires 12 vehicle parking spaces; however, the project is proposing to share
parking areas with the adjacent church and daycare, and the total parking required for all intended
uses is 86 parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a 15% parking reduction, to reduce the parking
requirement to 73 parking spaces. The applicant provided a Parking Demand Study (Attachment 5,
Parking Demand Study), which identified that the peak demand of all the combined uses did not
exceed 62 parking spaces, and the project provides 73 parking spaces resulting in a surplus of nine
parking spaces above estimated parking demand. The project qualifies for a shared parking reduction
of up to 20% because the project includes two or more land uses that share common parking areas,
2 Zoning Regulations § 17.16.030 Additional Regulations: These regulations are established to encourage development
and additions that are compatible with neighborhood character in the R -1 zone. The maximum FAR may be
increased from 0.4 to 0.5 if the building design incorporates one of the follow ing: (1) Single-Story. Buildings
limited to one story with a maximum height of 14 feet to top of a flat roof and 20 feet to the ridge or peak of a
sloped roof (with otherwise permitted exceptions allowed). The allowed single story shall not include mezzani nes
or lofts. (2) Small Lots. The property is located on a small lot that is less than 5,000 square feet in size. (3) Greater
Setbacks. A second-story step back (upper story building setback) of at least five feet along the front façade and
second-story side setbacks that are at least three feet greater than the minimum required setback. (4) Garage
Location. Provide a detached garage located behind the main dwelling.
3 Zoning Regulations § 17.70.070.H Fences, Walls, and Hedges. Director’s Action. The Director… may grant
exceptions to standards of this Section… when there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and no other
feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other Zoning Regulations or General Plan policies while
allowing reasonable use of sites. Circumstances where a Director’s Action may be approved include, but are not
limited to, issues related to topography and privacy.
Item 3
Packet Page 12
ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020
1691 Fredericks Street
Page 5
and parking is adequate for the proposed project and provides sufficient parking for all uses that will
not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak parking demand would exceed the total supply of
parking4. Condition No. 7 includes a requirement that the property owner record a parking agreement
that requires the parking to be operated on a nonexclusive basis, to be open and available to the public
for shared use.
4.3 Tree Committee Commission Directional Items
The TC recommended three directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to the PC taking
final action on the project.
TC Directional Item #1: Revise the re-planting plan to replace the parking lot trees from London
Plane to Chinese Pistashe.
TC Directional Item #2: Revise the re-planting plan to replace the driveway trees from Chinese
Pistashe to Tristania or Crape Myrtle.
TC Directional Item #3: Revise the re-planting plan to move the London Planes to a different part of
the site plan to allow a larger planting area.
Response: The applicant has agreed to include these changes as a condition of the project. Consistent
with the TC’s recommendation, Condition No. 13 has been provided to require that: the re-planting
plan replace the London Plane along the parking lot with Chinese Pistashe; replacement of the
Chinese Pistashe along the driveway with Tristania or Crape Myrtle; and all London Planes shall be
accommodated with larger planting areas, subject to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Public
Works Director.
5.0 CONSISTENCY COVID-19 ORDERS AND CURRENT FISCAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
This activity, planning for housing production, 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 th e
guidance of the City’s Fiscal Health Contingency Plan.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it consists of the development of the project site consistent with policies and
standards applicable to development within the residential zone, on a site less than five acres in size,
with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, as described in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development). The site is within City limits and is served by City
4 Zoning Regulations Sections 17.72.050.B Shared Parking Reduction. Where a shared parking facility serving more
than one use will be provided, the total number of required parking spaces may be reduced by up to 20 percent with
Director… if the Director finds that: (1) The peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak
demand for parking spaces from all uses or projects will be greater than the total supply of spaces; (2) The proposed
shared parking provided will be adequate to serve each use and/or project ; (3) A parking demand study conducted
and prepared under procedures set forth by the Director supports the proposed reduction; and (4) In the case of a
shared parking facility that serves more than one property, a parking agreement has been prepared and recorded…
requiring the parking to be operated on a nonexclusive basis, to be open and available to the public for shared use,
short-term parking during normal business hours.
Item 3
Packet Page 13
ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020
1691 Fredericks Street
Page 6
utilities and public services. Based on the project existing topography, size, and design, approval of
the project will not result in any significant effects from proximity of Highway 101 related to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including: Planning,
Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, City Arborist, Natural Resources, and Fire. Staff has
not identified any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions .
Other comments have been incorporated into the draft resolutions as conditions of approval.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
8.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
8.2 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, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. ARC Report and Draft Minutes 8.3.20
4. TC Report and Draft Minutes 9.28.20
5. Parking Demand Study
Item 3
Packet Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW TWO-
STORY 23,951-SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY WITH
35 PRIVATE ROOMS; PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A 15
PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION, A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO
ALLOW A FENCE AND RETAINING WALL COMBINED MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF 12 FEET WITHIN PORTIONS OF THE SIDE YARD, WHERE
9 FEET IS NORMALLY ALLOWED, AND AN INCREASE TO THE
MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO TO 0.5 WHERE 0.4 IS NORMALLY
ALLOWED. PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED OCTOBER 28, 2020 (1691
FREDERICKS STREET, ARCH-0073-2020 & USE-0203-2020)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a web based public hearing on August 3, 2020, recommending the Planning
Commission find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a
proceeding instituted under ARCH-0073-2020, Tim Ronda, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based
public hearing on September 28, 2020, recommending the Planning Commission find the project
consistent with the Tree Ordinance with identified directional items, pursuant to a proceeding
instituted under ARCH-0073-2020, Tim Ronda, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on October 28, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0073-
2020, and USE-0203-2020, Tim Ronda, 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 approval to the
project (ARCH-0073-2020, USE-0203-2020), based on the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the Housing Element Goal 8 (Special Housing Needs)
because the project provides housing for those with special housing needs such as facilities
Item 3
Packet Page 15
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 2
for aging in place in locations where public transit is readily available and commercial
services are accessible within half a mile.
2. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for development in
the low-density Residential zone, since the proposed building design complies with all
applicable development standards and associated findings for the requested exceptions.
The project is consistent and compatible with the development in the immediate vicinity.
Minor Use Permit Findings
3. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will
not, in the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the
general welfare of the City because the project has been designed to address noise, glare,
and pedestrian traffic through the orientation of the building and internal pedestrian
connections to the street and adjacent uses. The project is compatible and consistent with
the mix of residential and non-residential uses (religious facilities) in the neighborhood.
4. As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element
for this location since the project proposes to construct a residential care facility that
includes opportunity for housing for the elderly and residential uses that are consistent with
activities envisioned by the Low Density Residential Land Use designation.
5. As conditioned, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning
Regulations as described within the property development standards for the R-1 zone. The
proposed uses are compatible with the project site and with existing and potential uses in
the vicinity which include religious facilities, daycares, and residences.
6. As conditioned, the residential care facility is compatible at this location because the
project is located in an area that has been developed with residential and complementary
religious facility uses to the east and west. The project is compatible with existing and
future land uses in the vicinity because the project has been designed to be oriented toward
the rear of the lot and residential open space areas are located internal to the site.
7. The site is physically suitable in terms of public utilities, traffic generation, and public
emergency vehicle access, because the proposed project is within an existing developed
neighborhood that provides adequate utilities, vehicle parking, and site circulation. The site
is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration, topography, and other applicable
features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to
accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use.
Development Review Findings
8. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for infill
development because the architectural style is complementary to the surrounding
Item 3
Packet Page 16
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 3
neighborhood and is designed consistent with the prevailing building height and setback
pattern of the neighborhood.
9. 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).
10. As conditioned, the project respects the privacy of adjacent residences through appropriate
building orientation and windows that minimize overlook and do not impair the privacy of
the indoor or outdoor living space of neighboring structures.
11. 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.
The project incorporates vertical and horizontal wall plan offsets, which provide a high-
quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural design.
Fence Height Exception Findings
12. As conditioned, the proposed 12-foot combined height for a fence and retaining wall along
the north property line is acceptable because the fence provides adequate privacy and safety
from the adjacent properties due to the grade differential.
13. As conditioned, the proposed fence’s design, placement, and materials are consistent with
the Community Design Guidelines because it is of the same quality as adjacent structures
and fences throughout the neighborhood.
14. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City’s fence height standards
because the retaining walls will not create a visible or tangible obstruction between
properties or the public right-of-way because the retaining walls are predominantly visible
from within the project site toward the rear of the property that provides a tiered retaining
wall with landscaping area between the two walls.
15. As conditioned, the fences will not have any sight distance impacts for vehicles entering
and exiting properties since there is adequate clearance between the fence line and the
entrances to the street.
Floor Area Ratio Findings
16. The project has been designed to provide upper story step backs that exceed the required
thresholds along the front façade and second-story side setbacks that are at least three to
five feet greater than the minimum required setback, qualifying for the greater FAR of 0.5
in accordance with Zoning Regulations 17.16.030.
Parking Reduction Findings
Item 3
Packet Page 17
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 4
17. As conditioned, the project qualifies for a 15 percent parking reduction in accordance with
Zoning Regulations Section 17.72.050.C and the Institute of Transportation Engineers
Parking Demand, where the peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree
that peak demand for parking spaces from all uses or projects will be greater than the total
supply of spaces.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it consists of the
development of the project site consistent with policies and standards applicable to development
within the residential zone, on a site less than five acres in size, with no value as habitat for
endangered, rare, or threatened species, as described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332
(Infill Development). The site is within City limits and is served by City utilities and public
services. Based on the project existing topography, size, and design, approval of the project will
not result in any significant effects from proximity of Highway 101 related to traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality.
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 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-
0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020). 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 Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance
with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is
necessary upon significant change to the project description, approved plans, and other
supporting documentation submitted with this application or in the event of a change in
ownership which may result in deviation from the project description or approved plans.
Minor changes to the description may be approved by the Community Development Director;
substantial modifications shall require modification of the Use Permit.
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 Development Review application.
Item 3
Packet Page 18
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 5
4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or equivalent
shadow variation, 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.
5. The property owners shall be responsible for maintaining and updating the current parking
calculation for the residential and commercial components of the sites that share parking
facilities upon the submittal of Planning and Building permits for tenant changes or
improvements, and/or each business license, to ensure the site does not become under-parked.
6. Prior to building permit issuance, all affected parties must record a Shared Parking Agreement
governing the shared parking to be operated on a nonexclusive basis, to be available to the
public for shared use, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and
long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for construction permits shall
include bicycle lockers or interior space or other area for the storage of long-term bicycle
spaces. 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.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required electric
vehicle (EV) ready and EV capable parking required for residential uses. Sufficient detail
shall be provided about the placement and design of EV equipment and raceway for future
supply, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Community Development
Director.
9. 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
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.
10. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal
of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly
show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any
condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a
building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen
Item 3
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 6
them. 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
11. 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.
12. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with
submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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. The surfaces and
finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. The landscape plans shall
provide mature landscaping along the street frontage of the new structure that is of an
evergreen species and a minimum size of 5 gallons, that complements the buildings
architecture, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
13. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide a revised tree re-planting plan that replaces
the London Plane trees along the parking lot with Chinese Pistashe, replaces the Chinese
Pistashe along the driveway with Tristania or Crape Myrtle, and all London Planes shall be
accommodated with larger planting areas, subject to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and
Public Works Director.
14. 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), except those
identified in the Wall Height Exception attached to the staff report dated October 28, 2020.
Walls and fences should remain as low as possible, long expanses of fence or wall surfaces
shall be offset and architecturally designed to prevent monotony.
15. 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.
16. Any new proposed signage shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to ensure
appropriateness for the site and compliance with the Sign Regulations. Signage shall
coordinate with building architecture and the type of land use. The Director may refer signage
Item 3
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 7
to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the project.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development
17. The existing lot line shall be adjusted or merged prior to building permit issuance unless all
code requirements, access, parking, and easements can be established for the existing
underlying property line to remain.
18. The building plan submittal shall show and label all existing and adjusted property lines for
reference. The plan shall show and label all existing and proposed easements and easement
reservations for reference. The disposition of all public or private easements or easement
reservations shall be resolved prior to building permit issuance.
19. Encroachment into the existing public drainage easement from the abandoned Turner Ave. is
recognized as a development option. The applicant shall verify that the easement has not
been developed with drainage facilities or has been used for public or private drainage
purposes. The easement may be abandoned by the appropriate process or quit-claim deed if
supported by the City. Otherwise, the designed site improvements may need to honor and or
support any existing or future drainage improvements.
20. The existing driveway approach off of Fredericks Street shall be upgraded to comply with
City Standards. Current City and ADA standards require a 4’ level sidewalk extension behind
the driveway approach or the construction of an alternate alley/street type entrance. If an
alternate entrance is proposed or required, the drainage capacity of the curb and gutter shall
be evaluated and shall be shown to comply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan and drainage
report. The plan and report shall consider any run-on from the adjoining upslope properties.
The plan and report shall show how any drainage from the upslope watershed(s) will be
accepted, conveyed, and discharged to an approved outlet in a non-erosive manner.
22. The plans and project drainage report shall show and note compliance with the Drainage
Design Manual and Post Construction Stormwater Regulations. Depending upon the pre vs
post run-off, increased drainage discharges to the Cal Trans right-of-way may require the
written review and approval from Cal Trans.
23. If applicable, an Operation and Maintenance Manual and recorded maintenance agreement
will be required in conjunction with the building permit process.
24. The existing drainage system and conveyance from the existing impervious parking surfaces
shall be evaluated for any upgrades as a condition of the building permit. The applicant or
underlying owner shall repair or maintain any areas where the drainage infrastructure or
outlet(s) to the Cal Trans right-of-way have failed prior to or as a condition of the building
permit.
25. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan showing all existing and
Item 3
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 8
proposed site utilities. The applicant shall verify that a gravity sewer is available to the sewer
main located in Fredericks or to the existing point of connection. All wire services shall be
underground to the new building. The underground services shall be achieved without a net
increase in utility poles unless specifically approved by the Community Development
Department.
26. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the parking and driveway
standards. The paving material for the motorcycle parking and solid waste dumpster truck
apron shall be concrete or other approved material.
27. The solid waste facility shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Utilities
Department, and San Luis Garbage Company. The enclosure area shall be drained to a
suitable outlet to provide for water quality treatment and to control any point source pollution
in accordance with the City Engineering Standards.
28. The building plan submittal shall verify consistency between the architectural site plan, civil
plans, and landscape plans.
29. OSHA Permits, if required for the building construction height and/or excavation depth shall
be presented to the Building Division prior to building permit issuance.
30. Excavations along property lines with existing improvements shall be reviewed and approved
by the project soils engineer regarding the sub-adjacent excavations and slope stability.
Otherwise, the applicant shall provide any required notifications or improvements in
accordance with the California Building Code and prevailing statutes.
31. The City supports the proposed tree removals with compensatory tree plantings to the
approval of the City Arborist.
32. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees, their diameter, species, and
disposition. The plan shall include any off-site trees that may be impacted by the proposed
overhead or underground construction and utility improvements. Trees to remain may require
a tree preservation plan to be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Public
Works Department.
Utilities Department
33. The construction plans for sewer and water services shall be in accordance with the
engineering design standards in effect at the time the building permit is approved.
34. In order to be reused, any existing sewer laterals proposed to serve the project must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV inspection
shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and approval by the
Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
35. Provide calculations for the proposed sewer generations based on Section 7 of the City’s 2018
Item 3
Packet Page 22
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-20
1691 Fredericks, ARCH-0073-2020 and USE-0203-2020
Page 9
Engineering Design Standards.
36. The project includes food preparation, therefore, 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.
37. Building permit submittal shall clarify size of existing and proposed water services and water
meters for the project, including fire service.
38. 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; and per the calculator in Chapter 17.70.220 of the City’s Municipal Code.
39. The building permit submittal shall include solid waste services that follow the City’s
Development Standards for Solid Waste.
Indemnification
40. 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 28th day of October, 2020.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 3
Packet Page 23
Item 3Packet Page 24
Item 3Packet Page 25
338336337335339338337340345344346347348349343341354353352351350EVCS336337338339340339338341337336336337338339340341335334333332336335334333332TRANSFORMER342342341340MSSCOSBENCHBENCHLOCKERSTRAY CARTUPDNUPDWDWREF.MIC.BIKEBDBAFBBBBBBEEEEDDFBBBBBBBBEEEEDDCCCCBBCCCCCCCECCBBABFFFF
EEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFCCCCBBIIBBB7333CCCCCBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE34EEE0000000000000004004004004004004004004003400343434343434343343400EEEFF: 342.5FF: 354FF: 342.5FF: 344.5(N) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT(N) 20' WIDE ACCESS DRIVE(E) PATH(E) MT. CARMEL LUTHERAN CHURCH(SEE SHEET A4.0 FOR ELEVATION)(N) SIDEWALK(N) RETAINING WALLFIRE RISER & F.D.C.DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE BACKFLOW DEVICE20'-0"14'-6"
10'-0"
EASEMENTTRASH ENCLOSURE3666464646464646464646346346343434334334334334334334333333333333(E) PARKING(N) RETAINING WALL(N) RETAINING WALL(N) ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO FREDERICKS STREETFF: 340RECONFIGUREDPARKING60'-1 1/2"(8.6' SPACES)(E) SIDEWALK(E) DRIVEWAY RAMPFREDERICKS STREETFF
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
EEFFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEBEBEEEBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEBCFCFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF(E) FENCE TO REMAIN10'-0"MIN10'-6"MOTORCYCLEPARKINGFF: 342.5FF: 342.5(E) LIGHTPOLETO REMAIN(E) LIGHTPOLE TO BE REMOVED4'-0"TRT(E) TREES TO BE REMOVED(E) CURB TO BE REMOVED10'-0"T4-15"T4-16"T6-24"T6-20"T6-18"T2-22"T2-22"T1-12"T2-22"T2-22"T2-22"T7-40"633383633333737378888888888883883883883833833338333383333833333833333833333333333333333333333773737833373""T5-40"TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT5-32"T4-12"T4-12"T5-27"(E) TREE TOBE REMOVED(E) STORAGE CONTAINER TO BE REMOVED393999999913"14'-1"(E) TREE TOBE REMOVEDEFEBBEEF
EFT6-12"2'-10"20'-0"4'-0"3'-5"SIGNAGE WITH 8" TALL STREET NUMBER. TO BE SUBMITTED SEPERATELY.(E) RETAINING WALLT6-12"(E) CURB TOBE REMOVEDFF00000000000400040004000400044040004440044404440344440344403443434433433333333333334040412"-T33444444444444434443434343433433433433333333344312"-T3T842 5542 5510'-0"MINT4-20"T4-12"33333222"2"""2"22222222222222232232232323323323323332333233333333322233332"2"22223233333334444444444434444434343434333433343333333333333333333333333333333335555555553535353353353353353333333433343333333333433343343333433333334333(E) P22""2NN))RR(E) P22""2EE) PP)R)R))RR))))RRRRRRRRRETETETTTTTTTTTTTATATATAA)RRRRRER))))RR))))))RR)))))) RR)))) R)) R)N) RN)NN) RNNN) RNNN) RNNNN) R)NNNN) )NNNN) )NNNN) )NNNNNN) )NN) )NNN) )NN) )NN) NNNNNNNNN) NNNNNNN)NNN)NNN)NNN)(NNNN))(NNN)(((NNN)((N)N(N)N(N)N(N)N(NN(NN(NN((NN((NN((NN(((NN(((N((((N((((N((((N((((N((((N(((((N((((N(((N(((N((N(((((((((())))))))))))))))))E)((E)NN))PTTTAAATAETATARRRERRRRRNNN)NNNNN)N(E)(N) RETN)PTATGGWGWAWAALALLLLLLLLLLWALALWWWAWWAWWAWWWAWWWAWWWAWWWWAWWWWAWWWWAWWWWAWWWWWAWWAWWAWWAWWAWWWAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGWG WG WGG WGG WGG GG GG GGGGGGGGGGGG WWLLLLLALLAAWWWWWWG WALLWALL3334444444434343434343434343343333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333332222222222222222322232223222322332233233233323332333323333333333333333333333333333333333433333333333333333333233333233333333333GAS METERJUNCTION BOX(E) UTILITY POLECOMMON TRENCHPOWER/PHONE/CATV/GASELECTRICAL/PHONE/CATV ROOMGENERATORWATER METER(E) CANOPY3'-0"3'-0"(E) CANOPY= 28% WALL OPENINGS (SEE A4.0) NO WALL OPENINGS =10% WALL OPENINGS244 SF WINDOWS & DOORS / 870 SF WALL50 SF WINDOWS & DOORS / 495 SF WALL10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"4FC44.540((ET222222T "11111111113133333333333333333"3"3"3""""""""1"BFFEE0RE00CLOSURASH ENTRTTE)22442"222T1TTMEGGG)))EE)EDDESOFSSESSSSSS3434(E22(N) 20 WIDE0AACCESAS DRIVDERRTTLT()KS STEDERICEEFRANTHYDRETRTTOEEOOEEEEE)E)E)E)-EMWASEEEEWFWWWWFEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGGGGGGGGRRGRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWFWWFWWWFFLTLTLTTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSWWWWFWFWFWFWCKCKWKKFCCFWWWWWFWFWFWFFWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFWWWWWWFFWWWWFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFWWWWFWWWWWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFW133TNN)RE)R)))))))))))N)NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN(N((((((NRRNN(TAININTTTNGWAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLALLLLLL6666666610000'0166666-------------11111111116-666666666(E) SEWER LINESERVING CHURCH(E) DRAIN LINE(N) BACKFLOWPREVENTER WITHIN20' OF FRONT PL A2.267A3.0CA3.0EA3.0D(E) FENCE TO REMAIN(E) RETAINING WALL(E) LIGHTPOLE TO REMAINTRANSFORMERGREASE INTERCEPTOR(E) FENCE A3.0FA3.0GA2.25(N) FENCE 1691 1691 1691 1691169116919rededeFredeFredFredeFicksricksricksrickskscStreStreStreStreStreStrSet, Set, Set, Set, Set, Set, San Luan Luan Luan Luan Luan Luis Obis Obis Obis Obis ObOis Oispo,ispo,ispiiCaliCaliCaforniaaEERREERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIAAIIIIIITTIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTNNTTNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDIIDIIIIIIIIIISIISSSSSSEESSEEEEEEEEEERERRRRRRRRRRS SSSSSSSSSKKSSKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCCKKCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIRRIIRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFThese drawings are instruments of service and are the property of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specified project and shall not be used without the expressed written consent of STUDIO DESIGN GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. Sep 11, 2020SITE PLANA1.1SITE PLANFREDERICKS RESIDENTIAL CARENORTH02040SECOND FLOORFIRST FLOOR9/11/204:34:13 PMFredericks Residential Care 091120.vwxEXTERIOR LIGHTING SCHEDULELIGHT NAME MANUF. LIGHT NAME LAMP TYPE WATTAGE SWITCHINGWALKWAYDOWN LIGHTACME LIGHT NAME LED 12 PHOTOCELLWALL SCONCE URBAN WS-W11 LED 16PHOTOCELL ON, TIMEROFF AT 11, MOTIONDETECTOR AT NIGHTSTEP LIGHT KICHLER DECK LIGHT LED 3.9PHOTOCELLRECESSEDDOWNLIGHTLITHONIA L7XLED T24 LED 11 PHOTOCELLWALL PACK ILLUMINATIONSYSTEMSMLB-1 LED 42 MOTION DETECTORLANDSCAPESPOTLIGHTB-K LIGTING AW-LED-E36-27-A1-MIT-12-CPCLED3.9PHOTOCELLNOTE: ALL LIGHTS SHALL BE NIGHT SKY COMPLIANTA WALL PACKB WALL SCONCEC STEP LIGHTD RECESSED DOWNLIGHT(OIL RUBBED BRONZE TRIM NOT SHOWN)E WALKWAY DOWN LIGHTF LANDSCAPE UPLIGHTGENERAL NOTES1. ACCESS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 5 AND APPENDIX D OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC). ACCESS ROADS SHALL HAVE AN UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET AND AN UNOBSTRUCTED VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 13’ 6”. ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSED LOADS OF A 60,000 POUND FIRE APPARATUS AND SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A SURFACE SO AS TO PROVIDE ALL-WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITIES. THE ALL-WEATHER ACCESS ROAD(S) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. THE MAXIMUM ROAD GRADE FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS IS 15%, WITH A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 5%. THE MAXIMUM ANGLE OF APPROACH AND ANGLE OF DEPARTURE IS 10%. 2. WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 507 OF THE CFC. AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE PROTECTION IS REQUIRED. THE FIRE FLOW SHALL BE DETERMINED USING APPENDIX B OF THE CFC. EXISTING TREEST1 - ALEPPO PINET2 - CALIFORNIA PEPPERT3 - COASTAL LIVE OAKT4 - CHINESE EVERGREEN ELMT5 - SILVER DOLLAR GUMT6 - BRISBANE BOXT7 - BLUE GUMT8 - SOUTHERN MAGNOLIANOTE: ALL (E) TREES TO REMAIN UNLESS NOTATED OTHERWISE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TREE REPLACEMENTS & ADDITIONS.TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS6'-0"7'-6"LASER CUT DECORATIVE METAL PANELPL1'-0"6'-0"7'-6"Item 3Packet Page 26
Item 3Packet Page 27
Item 3Packet Page 28
Item 3Packet Page 29
Item 3Packet Page 30
Item 3Packet Page 31
Item 3Packet Page 32
Item 3Packet Page 33
Item 3Packet Page 34
Item 3Packet Page 35
Item 3Packet Page 36
') -+ * . )'
,
',# ) %
') -+ **'
,
-'
) $
%-.................................................
*+ )&%')&'&* , # % )*+ #&&)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
*
+
$+
***********************************************************************************.............................**********************..')&'&* , # % * &% #&&)
$/$/$/$/
$/
$/
$/
$/
$/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$/$/*
+ #
# -
(, '
)&&$*
$/
$/
+
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
+.
+.
+.
+.
+.
+.
+.
+.
+.
************************************************ #+ )# #+ )#******
+
#
+
*
*.
*.
+
*
+
*
+.
+.
+.
+.
+
*
+
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***** ) ) "**+) +%) + % % .##%+&) + % % .##')&' )+0# % ')&' )+0# % ')&' )+0# % ')&' )+0# % ')&' )+0# % ')&' )+0# % ) $&- +) ) $&-
+) ')&+ +%') * )- +) ) $&- +) ) $&- +) ) $&-
+) $+ / *+ % $+ / *+ % ) - .0)$'%.+ )$ + )* )- % ) .+ )# % $+ / *+ % *#&' $/
+#% % *+0'
%*+&)$) %# % %* . )#+ )#%+&) + % % .##&%% ++&
.+ )$ %% ) 0)%+%) + % % .##+ )$ %+ *+&)$) %# % +' )$ # '- )*')&+ +') * )- ,)%,)%&%) + ' *+) %'+ +0'
% #,* ,)%.+ )* )- # % %' )$ # '- )*%' )$ # '- )* * % * ++ !&%,$ )'#&+0 '#&++ >?
>; ?2D9<7<2;5%1
1
$A 2?;5: #BA85?2<1 <79<55?9<71=<4=3@1*855A69:5@ 9C9:1)1
' ',+
4D7 % % )& ) &)+ %&
) - * &%+
).%*!*'
>?9: ) ) "*) * %+ #) ') # $ %)0 ) % ) % ,+ # +0'#% % +
% +
# %')&'&* *' #+'- $ %+')&'&* &%) + ) - .0* .#"')&'&* ' )$ # '- )*) ')&'&* &$'# %+'- )*) *' #+&%) + &- )#0 $ %+&%) + &- )#0#%*' &$ *+ .+ )# % ) .+ )# % *% +)0* . )*+&)$) %# % Item 3Packet Page 37
Item 3Packet Page 38
FREDERICKS RESIDENTIAL CAREFREDERICKS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN8/14/20188881212121212215151514141313171717171717T1-12”T2-22”T2-22”T2-22”T2-22”T2-22”T6-12”T4-12”T4-12”T4-16”T4-15”T8T4-12”T6-18”T6-24”T6-20”T4-20” T5-27”T5-40”T5-32”T6-12”T7-40”1313466107911753CONCEPT NOTES1. PLANT MATERIAL WAS CHOSEN FOR ITS COMPATABILITY WITH THE MACRO/MICROCLIMATIC CONDITIONS OF THE REGION AND SITE; TOLERANCE OF WIND; TOLERANCE OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS; LONGEVITY; SCREENING CAPABILITIES; AND OVERALL ATTRACTIVENESS. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM WATER EFFICIENCY AND SHALL INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER, BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE, AND LOW-GALLONAGE HEADS FOR TURF AND LARGE GROUND COVER AREAS. A DRIP-TYPE SYSTEM SHALL BE USED WHERE APPROPRIATE. TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE BUBBLER SYSTEMS. 3. PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, NARRATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, SITE DETAILS, AND MATERIAL DEFINITIONS WILL BE DETERMINED AND NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENTTHE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONCURRENT WITH THE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLAN INSTALLATION, RELATED SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES, QUALIFIES THIS PROJECT AS ONE WHICH EMBRACES THE FOLLOWING CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGY AND METHODOLOGIES: 1. UTILIZATION OF STATE OF THE ART IRRIGATION CONTROLLER(S) ALLOWING FOR PRECISION INCREMENTAL WATER SCHEDULING IN ALL HYDROZONES. 2. USE OF DRIP-TYPE AND/OR MICROSPRAY SYSTEMS ONLY. 3. INTEGRATED PLANT DESIGN. PLANT PALETTES HAVE BEEN FORMED TO REFLECT PARALLEL WATERING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN EACH HYDROZONE GROUP. 4. PLANTS INSTALLED WITH MOISTURE RETENTIVE SOIL AMENDMENTS, ENABLING STRONG ROOT AND PLANT GROWTH, WITH THE USE OF LESS WATER. 5. 3” DEEP MULCHING OF ALL PLANT BASINS AND PLANTING AREAS, INHIBITING EVAPORATION. 6. USE OF LOW WATER USE PLANTS. L-1KEYNOTE LEGEND1 FRONT ENTRY CONCRETE PAVER PATIO WITH BENCH SEATING, WATER FOUNTAIN AND LANDSCAPE POTS2 ADA RAMP WITH HANDRAILS3 CENTRAL COURTYARD WITH CONCRETE PAVERS4 RECIRCULATING WATER FOUNTAIN5 EXTERIOR GAS FIREPLACE WITH HEARTH6 DINING TABLES7 PATIO FURNITURE SEATING AREA8 PRIVATE PATIO, TYP. 9 SEATING AREA AROUND GAS FIRE PIT10 PRE-FAB BIRD BATH 11 UPPER PATIO WITH CONCRETE PAVERS, SEATING AND LANDSCAPE POTS 12 PERIMETER LANDSCAPING- LARGE SHRUBS AND TREE SCREENING13 NEW AND/OR REMODELED PLANTER AREA14 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, REFER TO ARCH’S PLANS15 LOW-HEIGHT FOUNDATION PLANTING16 SITE FENCING, SEE ALSO ARCH’S PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFO, A. EXISTING WOOD FENCE, REPAIR AS REQUIRED B. EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND FENCE TO REMAIN C. EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN D. NEW 6’ MAX. TALL WOOD FENCE E. NEW STEEL GUARDRAIL ALONG SIDEWALK/RETAINING WALL17 REPLACEMENT TREES, TYP FOR THOSE PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED#141414141414EXISTING RESIDENTIALFREDERICKS STREETEXISTING RESIDENTIALEXISTING CHURCH SITEEXISTING CHURCH SITEHARDSCAPE MATERIALS & LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS16A16C16B16D16EEXISTING TREE LEGEND TREE TO BE REMOVED, DBH NOTEDT1 ALEPPO PINET2 CALIFORNIA PEPPERT3 COAST LIVE OAKT4 CHINESE EVERGREEN ELMT5 SILVER DOLLAR GUMT6 BRISBANE BOXT7 BLUE GUMT8 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIANOTE: ALL (E) TREES TO REMAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEPROPOSED TREE KEY (REFER TO SHEET L-2 FOR TREE SPECIES OPTIONS) PEDESTRIAN SCALE TREE (QTY. +/-31) PERIMETER / SCREENING TREE (QTY. +/-18) PARKING LOT / DRIVE ASILE TREE (QTY. +/-17) Item 3Packet Page 39
FREDERICKS RESIDENTIAL CAREFREDERICKS STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CACONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN8/14/20PROPOSED PLANT PALETTEBOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS* DESCRIPTIONPEDESTRIAN SCALE TREESCERCIS OCCIDENTALIS / WESTERN REDBUD 24” BOX L FLOWERING; FALL COLORGLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS ‘MORAINE’ / MORAINE LOCUST 24” BOX L GREEN LACY FOLIAGELAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CLTVS. / CRAPE MYRTLE 24” BOX L FLOWERINGPYRUS CALLERYANA / ORNAMENTAL PEAR 24” BOX M FLOWERING; FALL COLORSCREENING / PERIMITER TREESARBUTUS ‘MARINA’ / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24” BOX L FLOWERING; REDDISH BARKMELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA / CAJEPUT TREE 24” BOX L UPRIGHT FORM. WHITE BARKOLEA EUROPAEA ‘SWAN HILL’ / FRUITLESS OLIVE 36” BOX VL FRUITLESS VARIETYTRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX 24” BOX M REDDISH BARK; UPRIGHT FORMPARKING LOT TREESPLATANUS x ACERIFOLIA ‘BLOODGOOD’ / LONDON PLANE 15 GAL M CANOPY SHADE TREEPISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE 24” BOX L FALL COLORLARGE SCALE SHRUBSPITTOSPORUM ‘SILVER SHEEN’ / SILVER SHEEN KOHUHU 5 GAL M UPRIGHT FORMPRUNUS ‘BRIGHT N TIGHT’ / CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL 5 GAL L UPRIGHT FORMCOTINUS COGGYGRIA / SMOKE BUSH 15 GAL L BURGUNDY FOLIAGELOROPETALUM CHINESE RUBRUM / RED FRINGE FLOWER 5 GAL L MAGENTA FLOWERSROSA ‘ICEBERG’ / ICEBERG ROSES 5 GAL M VARIOUS FLOWERSSMALL-MEDIUM SCALE SHRUBSAGAVE ATTENUATA / FOXTAIL AGAVE 5 GAL L SUCCULENT; LOW WATER USECALLISTEMON ‘LITTLE JOHN’ / DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL L RED FLOWERS; LOW WATER-USEDIANELLA CAERULEA ‘CASSA BLUE’/ BLUE FLAX LILY 5 GAL M BLUE/GREY STRAP-LIKE LEAVESPHORMIUM CLTVS. / NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL L COLORFUL ACCENTOLEA EUROPAEA ‘LITTLE OLLIE’ / DWARF OLIVE 5 GAL VL DWARF OLIVE; LOW WATER USEWESTRINGIA ‘MORNING LIGHT/ COASTAL ROSEMARY 5 GAL L VARIEGATED LEAVESSALVIA SPS. / SAGE 5 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USEGROUND COVERARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPS. / MANZANITA 1 GAL L PINK/WHITE FLOWERS; CISTUS SALVIIFOLIUS / SAGELEAF ROCKROSE 1 GAL L WHITE FLOWERS; LOW WATER-USEROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS CLTVS. / ROSEMARY 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USEROSA ‘FLOWER CARPET’ / FLOWER CARPET ROSE 5 GAL M FLOWERINGPERENNIALS / ACCENTSACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM ‘MOONSHINE’ / YARROW 1 GAL L YELLOW FLOWERS; LOW WATER-USEANIGOZANTHOS CLTVS. / KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USECORDYLINE VARS. / CABBAGE PALM 5 GAL M GRASS-LIKE ACCENTKNIPHOFIA UVARIA / RED HOT POKER 1 GAL L FLOWERING; LOW WATER-USELAVANDULA SPS. / LAVENDER 1 GAL L PURPLE FLOWERS. LOW WATER-USEORNAMENTAL GRASSESCALAMAGROSTIS ‘KARL FOERSTER’/ FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL M GREEN FOLIAGE WITH TAN STALKSLOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA ‘BREEZE’ / BREEZE MAT RUSH 1 GAL L GREEN FOLIAGEBIOSWALE SPECIESCAREX PRAEGRACILIS / WESTERN MEADOW SEDGE 1 GAL M LOW WATER-USE MEADOW GRASSJUNCUS PATENS / GREY RUSH 1 GAL L CA. NATIVELEYMUS CONDENSATUS ‘CANYON PRINCE’ / WILD RYE 1 GAL L BLUE FOLIAGE*WUCOLS (WATER USE CLASSIFICATIONS OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES) IS A GUIDE TO HELP IDENTIFY IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF PLANT SPECIES. DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 2000.ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPLANT PHOTOSPRELIMINARY MAWA / ETWU CALCULATIONSL-2ABCDEFGHIJKMNOHydrozoneSelect System From the Dropdown List click on cell belowPlant Water Use Type (s) (low, medium, high)Plant Factor (PF)Hydrozone Area (HA) (ft2) Without SLAEnter Irrigation Efficiency (IE)(PF x HA (ft2))/IEZone 1DripVery Low0.10 3920.8148Zone 2DripLow0.20 4,5350.811,120Zone 3DripMedium0.50 1,9450.811,201ETWU = 58,084 GallonsETWU complies with MAWA7,765 Cubic Feet77.65 HCF0.18 Acre-feet0.06 Millions of Gallons75,829Gallons10,136.86Cubic Feet101.37HCF0.23Acre-feet0.08Millions of GallonsSan Luis ObispoName of City43.80ETo(inches/year) 0Overhead Landscape Area (ft2)6872Drip Landscape Area (ft2)0SLA (ft2)6,872LItem 3Packet Page 40
Meeting Date: August 3, 2020
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of a two-story 23,951 square foot residential care facility with 35 private
rooms, accommodating up to 40 residents. The project is proposed on a vacant parcel and is combined
with a lot line adjustment to establish a flag lot with access from Fredericks Street. The project includes
shared parking facilities with the adjacent religious facility (Mt. Carmel Lutheran Church) and daycare
facility (Love to Learn). The project inclu des a request to provide a floor area ratio of 0.5, where 0.4 is
normally allowed in the R-1 zone1 and a request for a parking reduction of approximately 15 percent
for the shared parking facilities between this project and the adjacent religious facility and daycare.
The proposed site improvements include parking and site access upgrades, landscaping upgrades, and
a new trash enclosure (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The project site is located on
an existing 26,759 square foot lot associated
with a lot line adjustment that will increase the
lot area to 47,916 square feet and provide for
direct access off of Fredericks Street. The
property is a downward sloping lot from west to
east, with an average cross slope of less than
10%.
Present Use: Vacant parcel
Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Surrounding Uses:
East: Religious Facility
West: Religious Facility and Daycare
North: Single Family Residences
South: Highway 101
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.020 Table 2-4: R-1 Zone Development Standards. Maximum FAR 0.4, Maximum FAR may
be increased up to 0.50 if consistent with Section 17.16.030.A (Requirements and Findings for FAR Increase in R-1 Zone).
See also Section 17.70.060 (FAR Measurement and Exceptions)
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1691 Fredericks FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0073-2020 & SBDV-0076-2020
APPLICANT: Tim Ronda, Studio Design Group
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Item 3
Packet Page 41
ARCH-0073-2020 & SBDV-0076-2020
1691 Fredericks
Page 2
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary design
Design details: Hip roof system, large eave overhangs, interior courtyard, upper level balconies, floor
to ceiling windows, upper level planters, covered awning entry feature
Materials: Smooth finish stucco, horizontal wood siding, shingle roofing, and metal railings
Colors: Primary rust color stucco, grey and beige accent colors, and dark brown windows & door trim
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its 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
4.0 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), and Chapter 5.3 (Infill Development). The Infill Development
guidelines apply to multi-family structures that are constructed on vacant parcels between existing
residential units.
Highlighted Sections Discussion Items
Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1 - Site Design
The project site is located on a parcel zoned R-1, with nonresidential
uses to the east, west, and south and residential uses to the north. The
CDG state that each project should be designed with careful
consideration of site character and constraints and minimize changes to
natural features. The ARC should discuss how the project fits in with the
best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity
of the site. The ARC should discuss whether the project site activities
are logically oriented so that the project will operate efficiently and
effectively for all users.
Figure 2: Rendering of project design from interior parking lot
Item 3
Packet Page 42
ARCH-0073-2020 & SBDV-0076-2020
1691 Fredericks
Page 3
Chapter 5.3 – Infill Development
§ 3.1.B.2 Neighborhood
Compatibility
The CDG notes that infill development guidelines are intended to
provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that are
compatible with existing development and should be compatible in
scale, siting, detailing and overall character with adjacent buildings,
where infill development occurs adjacent to older homes, the height
and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on
adjacent small scale buildings. The ARC should discuss whether the
development provides sufficient design factors to contribute to
neighborhood compatibility; design theme, building scale/size,
setbacks and massing, colors, textures, and building materials.
5.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks
North
East
South
West
14
~130
14.5
10
10
10
10
5
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.52 0.4
Maximum Height of Structures 25 feet 25 feet
Max Building Coverage 31% 40%
Affordable Housing In-Lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee
Public Art In-Lieu fee On-site or In-Lieu fee
Total # Parking Spaces
Electric Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Motorcycle Parking
73 (15% Reduction)
2 EV Ready & 5 EV Capable
4
1
86
2 EV Ready & 5 EV Capable
4
1
Environmental Status Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project based on consistency with the CDG. An action
recommending approval of the application will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
final action. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address consist ency
2 Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.030: These regulations are established to encourage development and additions that are
compatible with neighborhood character in the R-1 zone. The maximum FAR may be increased from 0.4 to 0.5 if the building
design incorporates one of the following: (1) Single-Story. Buildings limited to one story with a maximum height of 14 feet
to top of a flat roof and 20 feet to the ridge or peak of a sloped roof (with otherwise permitted exceptions allowed). The
allowed single story shall not include mezzanines or lofts. (2) Small Lots. The property is located on a small lot that is less
than 5,000 square feet in size. (3) Greater Setbacks. A second-story step back (upper story building setback) of at least five
feet along the front façade and second-story side setbacks that are at least three feet greater than the minimum required
setback. (4) Garage Location. Provide a detached garage located behind the main dwelling.
Item 3
Packet Page 43
ARCH-0073-2020 & SBDV-0076-2020
1691 Fredericks
Page 4
with the Community Design Guidelines.
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 denying the application should include findings
that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
Item 3
Packet Page 44
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, August 3, 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,
August 3, 2020 at 5:02 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--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1.Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meetings of July 6, 2020 and July 20, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
WITHERS CARRIED 6-0-0, to approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission
meetings of July 6, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SMITH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
PICKENS CARRIED 6-0-0, to approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Commission
meetings of July 20, 2020.
Item 3
Packet Page 45
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 3, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
2.Project Address: 1691 Fredericks; Case # ARCH-0073-2020 & SBDV-0076-2020; Zone
R-1; Tim Ronda, applicant. Review of a new two-story 23,951-square foot residential care
facility with 35 private rooms; project includes a request for a 20 percent parking reduction, a
fence height exception to allow a fence and retaining wall combined maximum height of 12
feet within portions of the side yard, where 9 feet is normally allowed, and an increase to the
maximum floor area ratio to 0.5 where 0.4 is normally allowed. Project is categorically exempt
from environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Tim Ronda with Studio Design Group Architects, responded to
Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DEMARTINI CARRIED 6-0-0, to find the project consistent with the Community Design
Guidelines and recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as presented.
3.Project Address: 207 Higuera; Case # ARCH-0090-2020; Zone C-R-MU; 207 Higuera
LLC, applicant. Review of a Mixed-Use Development comprised of 16 one-bedroom
dwellings and 390 square-feet of non-residential space. The applicant requests a Density Bonus
of eight percent as an Affordable Housing Incentive; and exceptions from development
standards to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces by one, and to reduce the
number of required bicycle parking spaces for the residential component to one long-term
space per unit. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA).
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Jesse Skidmore with Ten Over Studio, responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Harry Hamilton
End of Public Comment--
Item 3
Packet Page 46
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of August 3, 2020 Page 3
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY VICE CHAIR
WITHERS CARRIED 6-0-0, to continue the project to a date uncertain with the following
direction to the applicant:
Enhance the buffer between the street and parking lot and the attractiveness of the
parking area
Consider converting the extra motorcycle space to provide landscape planting area;
Provide design details (including colors and materials) for a low screening wall (about
3 feet in height) at the parking area frontage;
Consider “wrapping” the wall “around the corners” of the frontage to enhance the
attractiveness of the screening and landscape area;
Provide credible design details for the transformer (e.g. dimensions and clear areas
required by PG&E) to inform the landscape plan at the southwest corner of the parking
area
Consider the interface with neighboring property to the north and south (e.g. potential
future fencing neighbors may install)
Utilize alternative paving materials and treatments to enhance the parking area;
Enhance the articulation of the rear (East) elevation;
Consider storefront treatment at ground level, similar to front entry;
Enhance the front (West) elevation;
Provide additional articulation to the stucco wall;
Draw attention to, and provide protection for, the stairwell entry at the southwest
building corner (e.g. by extending awning over the entry area);
Enhance visual interest of the roofline;
Consider additional articulation; and
Develop the mechanical equipment screening.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 08/17/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 47
Item 3
Packet Page 48
Item 3
Packet Page 49
Item 3
Packet Page 50
Item 3
Packet Page 51
DRAFT
Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of September 28, 2020 Page 1
Minutes
TREE COMMITTEE
Monday, September 28, 2020
Special Meeting of the Tree Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee was called to order on Monday,
September 28, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference by Chair Allen Bate.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Scott Loosley, Elizabeth Lucas, Allen Root, Rodney
Thurman, Vice Chair Jane Worthy, and Chair Alan Bate
Absent: Committee Members Scott Loosley, Sean O’Brien, Allen Root
Staff: Ron Combs, City Arborist and Megan Wilbanks, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of the Tree Committee Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2020.
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root
absent), the Tree Committee approved the Minutes of August 25, 2020.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Will Powers
--End of Public Comment--
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
2. 675 Stoneridge Dr.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant, Thor Krichevsky, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
Item 3
Packet Page 52
DRAFTMinutes – Tree Committee Meeting of September 28, 2020 Page 2
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF VICE CHAIR WORTHY, SECONDED BY CHAIR BATE,
CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root absent), to deny the Tree Removal
Application based on insufficient findings to support removal.
3. 4421 Brookpine (HOA Pathway Trees)
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant, Casey Guenther and Christine Noffz with Islay Hill HOA, provided a brief
overview of the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root
absent), allow removal of four Cottonwoods trees and replace 1:1 with 15gal or greater.
4. 529 Hathway Ave.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant, Alvin White, and Ron Rinell with Bunyon Bros provided a brief overview of
the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF CHAIR BATE, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
THURMAN, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root absent), continue
review of this item to the October 26, 2020 Tree Committee meeting.
5. 1348 Alder St.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant, Lisa Ajanel, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
Bill Nevins
Marcia Nevins
Item 3
Packet Page 53
DRAFTMinutes – Tree Committee Meeting of September 28, 2020 Page 3
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, CARRIED 3-1-3 (Vice Chair Worthy dissenting,
Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root absent), to allow removal of the tree and replace it with
a 24-inch box.
6. 880 Leff St.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant’s representative, Ron Rinell with Bunion Bros, provided a brief overview of the
tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, SECONDED BY
CHAIR BATE, CARRIED 3-1-3 (Member Thurman dissenting, Members Loosley, O’Brien,
and Root absent), to deny removal of the tree based on insufficient findings.
7. 1159 Islay St.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The applicant, Chris Knauer, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF VICE CHAIR WORTHY, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root absent), to deny
removal of the tree based on insufficient findings to support removal.
BUSINESS ITEMS
8. New Business: Tree removals at a Mixed-Use project located at 830 Orcutt Road, ARCH-
0764-2019.
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Associate
Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Item 3
Packet Page 54
DRAFTMinutes – Tree Committee Meeting of September 28, 2020 Page 4
The applicant, Bryan Ridley, provided a brief overview of the tree removal project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY
CHAIR BATE, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Vice Chair Worthy abstaining, Members Loosley, O’Brien,
and Root absent), the Tree Committee is in support of the project with the following
recommendations to the Planning Commission:
• Replace the street trees designated as Strawberry Midrones with Chinese Pistache
• Along the creek, incorporate two additional Coast Live Oaks (all oaks 36-inch box), to
bring the number of total replacement trees onsite to 21.
9. New Business: Tree removals for a Residential Care Facility at 1691 Fredericks Street
(ARCH-0073-2020)
City Arborist Combs provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Associate
Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
The applicants, Tim Ronda and Scott Wright, provided a brief overview of the tree removal
project.
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBER THURMAN, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER LUCAS, CARRIED 4-0-3 (Members Loosley, O’Brien, and Root
absent) the Tree Committee is in support of the project with the following recommendations
to the Planning Commission:
• Switch the proposed planting list for the parking lot trees from London Plane to Chinese
Pistash
• Consider changing the proposed planting list for the driveway trees from Chinese Pistach
to Tristania or Crape Myrtle
• Move the London Planes to a different part of the site plan to allow a larger planting area
10. Old Business: Tree Removal Application review process.
ACTION: By consensus, the Committee moved to continue this item to the next Special Tree
Committee meeting on October 26, 2020.
Item 3
Packet Page 55
DRAFTMinutes – Tree Committee Meeting of September 28, 2020 Page 5
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
11. Arborist Report: Tree Committee Goal Setting discussion
• Budget for maintenance of trees
• Budget for a Development Review Arborist staff member
• Update the tree inventory or Urban Forest Master Plan
• Disseminating service request tasks to contracted Arborists and other support staff
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next Special Meeting of the Tree Committee is
scheduled for Monday , October 26, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020
Item 3
Packet Page 56
PO Box 2934 . Prescott, AZ . 86302 . 805-680-1586 . steveoeg57@gmail.com
OEG20Ͳ401
April21,2020
Mr.TimRonda
StudioDesignGroupArchitects
762HigueraStreet,Suite212
SanLuisObispo,CA93401
Subject:1691FredericksStreetAssistedLivingSharedParkingAnalysis
DearMr.Ronda:
OroszEngineeringGroup,Inc.(OEG)ispleasedtoprovideyouwiththisletterreporttoassistinthe
evaluationofthepotentialparkingimpactsthatcouldbeassociatedwiththeproposedresidentialcare
assistedlivingprojectplannedat1691FredericksStreetinSanLuisObispo.Wearefamiliarwithshared
parkingconceptsandtheCityofSanLuisObispoparkingrequirements.
PROPOSEDPROJECT
TheproposedprojectwillshareparkingwiththeexistingMt.CarmelLuthernChurchimmediatelytothe
east.Adaycare/preschoolalsosharesparkingwiththeChurch.Theprojectisrequestingareductionin
therequiredparkingonͲsitewhichisallowedwiththeDirector’sapproval,astheparkingsupplyserves
morethanoneuse.
Theprojectproposesatotalof35livingunitswithshareddiningfacility.Five(5)fullͲtimedaytimestaff
isplannedwithtwostaffmembersworkingovernight.OnͲsiteparkingfor73vehiclesisplannedforthe
assistedlivingfacility,churchandpreͲschool.
PARKINGREQUIREMENTS
TheCityofSanLuisObisporequiresthatasharedparkinganalysisbeconductedtoensurethattheonͲ
streetparkingnearthesiteisnotimpactedbytheparkingrequiredfortheproposedproject.Further
theCityrequiresthatthelandusesthatwillbesharingtheparking,donotimpacttheonͲstreetparking
supply.
CityofSanLuisObispo
BasedontheCity’sparkingrequirementforthethreeusesthatsharetheparking,86parkingspacesare
requiredsummarizedinthetablebelow.Asseeninthistable,theassistedlivingcomponentofthe
projectwouldrequire12parkingspaces,beforeanysharedparkingreductionwasconsidered.Forthe
Churchelement,theparkingrequirementwouldbe65spacesandtheDayCare/PreͲschoolwould
requireeightparkingspaces.ThetotalparkingrequirementsbasedontheCity’sZoningOrdinance
requirementswouldbe85spaces.
Item 3
Packet Page 57
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Packet Page 58
Co
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 2021-2023 Planning Commission Goal-Setting and the Financial Plan / Budget Process.
Review the 2019-2021 Planning Commission (PC) goals, take public testimony, and identify PC
goals and work program items for the 2021-2023 Financial Plan.
FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
DISCUSSION
Bi-annually the City adopts a budget and financial plan. To prepare for the budget process, all City
departments and advisory bodies are asked to identify their goals and major work programs for the
next two years. The City Council then uses this information, along with public comment and other
input, to set community priorities and to allocate resources to accomplish the identified Major City
Goals.
Input from City advisory bodies is specifically solicited, because the advisory body members are
recognized as representatives of the community, that are committed to the long-term best interest of
the City and its residents. Advisory body members are in tune with the “pulse” of the community in
terms of their specific area of interest. Other key points as we embark on this goal-setting process are:
1.The Council is seeking advisory body input focused on the purview area of the advisory body
and is also interested in input on other issues that are important to the community.
2.Advisory body input is highly valued by the Council and City staff.
3.Goals can include completing projects from a previous work program.
4.Identifying priorities implies recommending fewer rather than more goals to the Council.
Advisory bodies are encouraged to only recommend activities that can reasonably be
accomplished during a two-year financial plan cycle.
Objective
This is a public process and citizens participation is welcomed. The results of this process include a
list of PC goals and implementation programs or projects that will be forwarded to the City Council
for consideration as part of the 2021-2023 financial planning and budget cycle.
GOAL SETTING
Current Recommended Goals: 2019 - 2021
The City last revised its goals and work program starting in September 2019 in connection with the
preparation of the 2019-2021 Financial Plan and budget cycle. The PC prioritized the following goals
based on the evaluation of the completion status for the 2017-19 Major City Goals; community need,
and input received over the past 2 years; special and urgent conditions that need to be addressed; and
the availability of City resources to accomplish the identified goals and work programs within the
financial plan timeframe. Below are the goals that the PC recommended during the 2019-2021 budget
cycle:
Meeting Date: October 28, 2020
Item Number: 4
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Item 4
Packet Page 59
2021-2023 Financial Plan Goal Setting Budget Process
Page 2
1. Land Use: Implementation of the Downtown Concept Plan and Revisit Special Focus Areas
Implement the Mission Plaza improvements as identified in the Downtown Concept Plan.
Revisit the Special Focus Area development guidelines for the Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa
Area and Upper Monterey to establish detailed design guidelines that enhance neighborhood
integrity and the diverse community character.
2. Housing: Increase Affordable and Workforce Housing Supply
Emphasize affordable housing programs, encourage flexible use and non-traditional housing
product types to facilitate development of workforce housing. Review existing regulations to
identify cost and time saving measures to promote the development of accessory dwelling
units, while maintaining the owner occupancy requirement to protect neighborhood
compatibility and wellness.
3. Sustainability: Reduce GHG Emissions by Reducing VMT and Improving Residential
Energy Efficiency of Pre-1990 Housing Stock
Update and implement the Climate Action Plan with emphasis on: 1) encouraging project
design that promotes accessible, convenient and safe pedestrian, bicycle and transit access
that reduces project generated vehicle miles traveled by 20-40% below average; 2) developing
standards that support infrastructure improvements for alternative transportation and electric
vehicles; and 3) identify and implement financial incentives for improving energy efficiency
in pre-1990 housing stock.
4. Multi-Modal Circulation: Improve Walkability and Transit
Implement the Multi-Modal objectives identified in the LUCE and the Downtown Concept
Plan by encouraging in-fill development to include non-automobile alternatives. Conduct a
walkable community survey in major neighborhoods to inform the development of the Active
Transportation Plan, and to identify improvements that would encourage and support
pedestrian activities for people with varying degrees of mobility. Implement the Short-Range
Transit Plan to improve transit ridership by exploring operational improvements that could
reduce run times to less than 20 minutes along routes that serve densely populated areas.
Future Recommended Goals: 2021-2023
As the City begins the 2021-2023 financial planning and budget cycle, the PC has the opportunity to
review their current goals, update them as necessary, and identify any new goals, programs and/or
projects.
Goal Setting Process
Staff will present a brief slide show that overviews the City’s budget process and the role of the
advisory bodies. The Commission should then review their 2019-2021 goals, followed by discussion
and consideration of recommended goals, programs, and projects to be included in the 2021-2023
Financial Plan. Typically, during goal setting sessions, the PC has followed the steps below.
Goal-setting Steps:
1. Review and understand goal-setting and City Financial Plan/Budget Process;
2. Evaluate previous goals and work programs. Determine which goals and programs were
accomplished and can be deleted, or which ones are no longer needed;
Item 4
Packet Page 60
2021-2023 Financial Plan Goal Setting Budget Process
Page 3
3. Determine which goals and/or programs have not been completed and should be carried
forward;
4. Identify new goals or programs for possible inclusion in the work program;
5. Prioritize the goals and programs, based on the PC’s adopted goals and General Plan goals,
community needs and input, opportunities, or special or urgent conditions; and
6. Identify activities which may require additional resources to accomplish. This may include
references to possible community partnerships or outside funding sources.
NEXT STEPS
The Commission should take public testimony and identify Commission goals and work program
items for the 2021-2023 Financial Plan. Advisory body goals are due by December 15th, 2020. The
Council will receive the final report with all advisory body recommendations in late December 2020
before they begin the community goal-setting process.
Item 4
Packet Page 61