HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6c. Review an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision for 1953 Chorro Street (APPL-0512-2021) Item 6c
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 1/11/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
DECISION TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF A SETBACK REDUCTION
REQUEST AT 1953 CHORRO ST. (APPL-0512-2021)
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s
decision to uphold the Community Development Director’s decision denying a request for
a Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback Standards for an Accessory
Structure at 1953 Chorro Street (APPL-0512-2021).”
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
After receiving a Stop Work Order and a Notice of Violation issued by City Code
Enforcement staff, regarding installation of a large accessory structure without permit and
within required setbacks in the southwest corner of the property at 1953 Chorro Street,
the property owner, Todd Miller, filed a Director’s Action application requesting a
reduction in side and rear setback standards to accommodate the structure.
As more fully described below in this report, the application was ultimately denied by the
Community Development Director, on finding that placement of the structure within
setbacks as proposed would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character and
development pattern, with the City’s historical preservation standards for Master List
Historic Resources, and that it would have a dverse visual and scale effects on
neighboring properties, contrary to the intent of the City’s development standards for
setbacks. Furthermore, no apparent site characteristics or improvements making
adherence to setback standards impractical or infeasible could be identified.
Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Director’s decision, disputing the findings upon which the
decision was made. That appeal was considered by the Planning Commission, who
upheld the decision. Subsequently Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Commission’s
decision, which is now being brought to the City Council for consideration.
Page 427 of 466
Item 6c
DISCUSSION
Background
On July 5, 2019, City Code Enforcement staff issued a Notice of Violation to Todd Miller,
the owner of the property at 1953 Chorro Street, and posted a Stop Work Order on the
property, upon observing a large accessory structure installed in the southwest corner of
the property, noting permit requirements and setback standards applicable to the work
(see Notices and Photos, Attachment B, and Neighborhood Overview, Figure 2, below)
The subject property is a residential lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide
and 150 feet deep) located on the west side of Chorro Street, about 125 feet north of High
Street, within a Medium-Low Density Residential (R-2) Zone. It is developed with a single-
family dwelling built between 1890 and 1910, which was relocated to the site (from 40
Prado Road) in 1993. It was included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a
Master List Resource in 1994.1
On September 9, 2019, Mr. Miller filed Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019
requesting an exception to setback requirements, to reduce the required side and rear
setbacks from the standard five feet down to eighteen inches, in order to accommodate
the structure, described as a “pre-fab metal carport” (see Project Plans, Attachment C).
The application was determined to be incomplete on September 27, 2019.
As described in the statement accompanying the Appeal Form (Attachment D), the
appellant had subsequent discussion with various City staff regarding the structure, its
conformance to building and fire safety regulations, and items described in the Incomplete
Letter and on September 29, 2020, Mr. Miller submitted revised plans in response to that
letter. The application was again determined to be incomplete on October 20, 2020,
noting inconsistency with historical preservation policies and standards and a requirement
for review by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee.
In April 2021, Planning staff met on site with Mr. Miller to review the site conditions,
including the placement of the accessory structure on the property. Based on the
observations made at the site visit and the information available in the record file, the
application was denied by the Community Development Director on July 14, 2021 (see
Decision Letter, Attachment E) based on several findings regarding:
1. Inconsistency of the proposed placement of the accessory structure,
within side and rear setbacks, with the neighborhood character and
development pattern as required by Zoning Regulations
§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii);
1 Added to the Inventory as the Oliver House, by Council Resolution 8352, as a good example of “Queen
Anne Victorian” style and for its association with an early farming family of immigrants in the area
Page 428 of 466
Item 6c
2. Inconsistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance due to the size,
scale, and industrial character and appearance of the accessory structure
with the primary dwelling on the site, which is a Master List historic resource;
3. Adverse visual and scale effects on neighboring properties from the
placement of the structure within setbacks, contrary to the intent of setback
standards set out in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (A); and
4. Absence of site characteristics or improvements that make adherence
to Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, according to required
findings.
On August 9, 2021, Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Director’s decision, citing the
Director’s findings for denial and stating disagreement with the Director’s findings. As
discussed below, the Commission upheld the Director’s decision denying the setback
reduction request.
Finally, on September 17, 2021, Mr. Miller filed an appeal of the Commission’s decision
(see Appeal Form, Attachment D), which is the subject of this report.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission considered Mr. Miller’s appeal of the
Director’s decision denying the original setback reduction request. The Commission
discussed the failure of the appellant to secure a construction permit before installing the
structure and considered the character of the site and surroundings as well as the
existence, or lack, of physical constraints or circumstances that might make conformance
to setback standards impractical or infeasible. By a vote of 5-1-1 (with one Commissioner
absent) the Commission voted to uphold the decision of the Director to deny the setback
request (see Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Resolution, Attachment F).
Policy Context
Development of an accessory structure requires approval of a building permit from the
City’s Building & Safety Division (Zoning § 17.70.010 (D) (1)). Additionally, accessory
structures must conform to all applicable Zoning Regulations, including setback standards
(Zoning § 17.70.010 (C) (1)).
Under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019, the Community Development
Director was asked to consider reducing the side and rear setbacks by 3 ½ feet (from
required 5 feet to 18 inches), as provided in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.070 (D) (2), to
accommodate the accessory structure installed in the southwest corner of the site. Such
exceptions may be granted in certain circumstances, upon making the findings for an
individual exception, along with the Required Findings for Dire ctor’s Action set out in
Zoning § 17.108.040 (A).
Page 429 of 466
Item 6c
An excerpt from the City’s Municipal Code describing the required findings for a setback
exception and for approval of a Director’s Action application is provided for convenience
as Attachment G (Required Findings).
As described in the decision letter denying the application (Attachment E), staff was
unable to make three of the required findings for setback reductions, and the structure
itself could not be found to be consistent with the City’s Historical Preservation policies,
therefore the setback reduction could not be granted.
Neighborhood Development Pattern (Finding #1). In order to grant a setback
reduction, the Director must find that, in the case of a detached single -story accessory
structure, the structure is consistent with the traditional development pattern of the
neighborhood (Zoning Regulations § 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (ii) (b)). This neighborhood is
characterized by the placement of primary dwellings at or near the 20 -foot front setback
limit (see Figure 2, above) and, as is common in an R-2 Zone, additional dwelling units to
the rear of a lot, subject to minimum 5-foot side and rear setbacks applicable within the
R-2 Zone (Zoning Regulations § 17.82.20 (A) & (B)).
Figure 1: Neighborhood Pattern (Google Maps)
Page 430 of 466
Item 6c
Likewise, new accessory structures are subject to the same minimum 5-foot side and rear
setback standards (for structures up to 12 feet in height).2 Existing dwellings and
accessory structures in the vicinity are constructed of conventional residential building
materials, such as wood or masonry.
While a limited number of accessory structures in the vicinity may be observed within side
or rear setbacks (Figure 2, above), such accessory structures are of a small scale,
typically single-car garages or storage sheds of limited depth and width, which are most
commonly “legal non-conforming” structures pre-dating the City’s setback standards.
The appellant indicates
that a permitted structure
was located on the
property in about the
same location. Aerial
imagery (Figure 3)
shows a small accessory
structure in the rear of
the property, but no
corresponding permit
record is found in City
records. Nonconforming Provisions in the City’s Zoning Regulations which may have
allowed continued use of a prior nonconforming accessory structure would not apply to
the new carport building, as the prior structure has been demolished and th e new
accessory building is an entirely new structure subject to current setback standards.
2 The depth of a required setback increases with building height above 12 feet (see Zoning § 17.18.020 (B)
Figure 2: "Pre-Fab Carport" Accessory structure (completed, left; under construction, right)
Figure 3: Prior Accessory Structure
Page 431 of 466
Item 6c
At 20 feet in width and 40 feet in depth, the
new accessory structure is about double the
size of typical legal non-conforming
accessory structures in the neighborhood.
Its metal construction also represents a
departure from the predominant wood and
stucco building materials that typify
construction in this neighborhood. The
surrounding neighborhood does not contain
similarly sized accessory structures and
exceptions have not been provided for
reduced setbacks for structures of similar
size or material.
Adverse Effects (Finding #3). Required findings for Director’s Action approval call for
consideration of, and measures to address, any potential impacts to surrounding
properties (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The visual impact from the unusually large size
of the subject accessory structure and its incongruous metal material are made more
noticeable to adjacent properties when placed almost directly against the property’s
boundaries. The structure rises several feet above the boundary fence and no natural
elements such as tall hedges or trees are present to screen the structure from view of
neighboring properties. Setback standards are intended, among other purposes, to help
determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods (Zoning
§ 17.70.170 (A)). Placement of this large metal building closer to neighboring properties
than permitted under current setback standards does not provide adequate consideration
of adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties arising from the pattern and
lack of open area that would result from the proposed setback reduction.
Impracticality or Infeasibility of Conformance (Finding #4). Approval of a Director’s
Action application is also subject to finding that, in light of site characteristics or existing
improvements that make strict adherence to the regulations, including setback standards,
impractical or infeasible, a project nonethe less conforms with the intent of Zoning
Regulations (Zoning § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). Here, there are no discernable site
characteristics or existing improvements that render strict adherence to the setback
standards impractical or infeasible, and none had be en described by the Appellant in the
application submittal or in his subsequent correspondence.
With the current appeal, however, the appellant notes the presence of a large Canary
Islands Palm tree that “would prevent egress of vehicles in, and out of the garage” if the
building were sited in conformance to minimum setback standards.
Figure 4: Accessory Structure, right wall
Page 432 of 466
Item 6c
As a rectangular lot measuring 7,500 square feet in area (50 feet wide by 150 feet deep)
and developed only with a modestly-sized single-family dwelling, the property is not of
unusual size or shape and existing improvements present no barrier to adherence to
setback standards. Engineering staff evaluated the plans for siting of the accessory
structure, both in its present position and in a location conforming to setback standards
and found that in both cases the Canary Islands Palm tree did not present a significant
impediment to vehicle access to the structure. Although Engineering Standards call for
turn-around space, allowing cars to exit the property in a forward motion, for deep
driveways (over 100 feet), exceptions from this requirement are commonly made for
residential development where circumstances permit, and such an exception would likely
be made in the case of installation of a properly sited garage structure on this property.
The structure installed is a very large pre-fabricated structure and granting a setback
exception to accommodate a building that was not designed to fit this particular site would
be inconsistent with the intent of setback standards and the exceptions thereto. In addition
to lack of basis for making the required finding that strict adherence to the setback
standards is infeasible or impractical, staff could not find that the requested exception
would be “nonetheless consistent with the intent of setback standards.”
Historical Character (Finding #2)
The Conservation and Open Space
Element (COSE) of the City’s General
Plan sets out policies for the protection
of historical and architectural
resources (see COSE § 3.3),3 and as
described in Section 12.4 of the
General Plan Land Use Element, these
policies are implemented through the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC Ch. 14.01) and supporting
Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (HPPG). 4 The HPPG
provide that construction on properties
that contain listed historic resources shall conform to those General Plan policies and to
the Historic Preservation Ordinance and supporting Guidelines (HPPG § 3.1.1).
3 Relevant policies include Policy 3.3.1: Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified,
preserved and rehabilitated; and Policy 3.3.4: New buildings in historical districts, or on historically
significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The General
Plan can be accessed online at: www.slocity.org/government/department -directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/general-plan
4 Historical Preservation documents available online at: www.slocity.org/government/department -
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation
Figure 5: 1953 Chorro, Primary Dwelling
Page 433 of 466
Item 6c
In particular, new accessory structures are to complement the primary structure’s historic
character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials (HPPG
§ 3.4.1 (c)).
The accessory structure installed on this property does not satisfy this guideline, and
therefore, is inconsistent with General Plan policies for preservation of historic and
architectural resources. It is an unusually large accessory structure, at 800 squ are feet in
area and 40 feet in depth, about 70% of the size of the 1,130 square-foot Oliver house. It
exhibits a functionally-oriented industrial appearance that contrasts with the Oliver
House’s Victorian (Queen Anne) form, detailing, and decoration, and is constructed of a
utilitarian metal material without apparent relation to the wood -sided Oliver House, apart
from the horizontal orientation of its metal siding. For these reasons, the accessory
structure is not seen to complement the Oliver house in form, massing, color, or materials,
and granting a setback exception to accommodate the structure could likewise not be
found consistent with General Plan policies, as implemented through the City’s historical
preservation policies.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this meeting has been provided to owners and occupants of property near
the subject site and published in The New Times and posted on the City’s website. The
agenda for this meeting was posted online, consistent with adopted notification
procedures for development projects.
CONCURRENCE
Staff from the Building & Safety Division, Engineering, and the Fire Department reviewed
plans and materials submitted with the original setback reduction requ est (application
DIR-0599-2019), in terms of conformance to building and fire safety regulations and
Engineering Standards. Building and Fire concluded that, as a metal building, the
structure could conform to applicable building and fire codes. Engineerin g evaluated
maneuverability across the driveway and into the proposed accessory structure and
concluded that the Canary Islands Palm tree was not an impediment to vehicle access to
a garage sited in conformance to setback standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are
Disapproved).
Page 434 of 466
Item 6c
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ $0 $ $0
Consideration by the City Council of an appeal of a decision made by the Planning
Commission does not directly result in expenditure of funds and thus has no fiscal impact
to the City. Staff resources committed to the review of appeals are included in the annual
budget appropriation for the Comm unity Development Department.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold the appeal and adopt a resolution granting a Discretionary Exception from side
and sear setback standards, reducing the required setback to 18 inches to
accommodate the accessory structure. This action is not recommended since the
appeal provides no justification for granting a setback exception or any basis for
making the required findings necessary to approve a setback exception. Staff could
not uncover any basis on which to find that the structure could comply with Historic
Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, which require
the structure to be complementary to the primary structure in form, massing, color,
and materials. In the case that the appeal is upheld, construction of a large accessory
structure on the property remains subject to review by the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC), who would provide a recommendation to the Community
Development Director (for Minor Development Review), to provide a basis for required
CEQA findings and findings of conformance with the City’s General Plan and Historic
Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines.
2. Continue consideration of the item to a future date, with relevant guidance to staff and
applicant including an opportunity for review by the CHC so that the project may then
return to the appropriate decision maker for final action (as described in Alternative 1
above).
Page 435 of 466
Item 6c
ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution denying an Appeal for a property located at 1953 Chorro St.
B – Code Enforcement Notices and Photographs
C – Project Plans (1953 Chorro)
D – Appeal Form and Statement (APPL-0512-2021)
E – Decision Letter (DIR-0599-2019)
F – Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Resolution (Sept. 8, 2021)
G – Required Findings (Zoning Regulations – Excerpts)
Page 436 of 466
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR
A DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK
STANDARDS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO
STREET (APPL-0512-2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory
structure located at 1953 Chorro Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action
application DIR 0599 2019; Todd Miller, applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from
Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing by teleconference from San Luis Obispo,
California, to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision, and
upheld the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the request for a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, On September 17, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s decision upholding the Community Development Director’s decision to
deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side & Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing via teleconference from
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on January 11, 2022 for the purpose of
considering the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from
Side and Rear Setback standards, and has duly considered all evidence, including the
record of the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present
at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
Page 437 of 466
Resolution No. ____ (2022 Series)
R _____
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested
is neither consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional
development pattern of the neighborhood (Zoning
§§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of an excessive scale,
being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor area
than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and subordinate
to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal
exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and
design for a residential building of this size and scale. As such, its placement
directly against the property line without building setback is not consistent with
the prevailing pattern of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger
structures are set back from side and rear property lines in conformance to
Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.
2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consider ation of
potential adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning
Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale
and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made more
noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly
adjacent to the side and rear property line without setback.
3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or
observed which would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out
in Zoning Regulations impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually
large proposed accessory building directly against the side and rear property
lines without setbacks does not conform with the intent of Setback Standards
to determine the pattern of building masses and open space (Zoning
Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The property is of a conventional rectangular
shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without
constraining topographical features such as creeks or unusual slope
characteristics, and existing property improvements are limited to one modestly
sized single-family dwelling.
4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of
historical and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and
Open Space Element of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines
(Land Use Element § 12.4). The industrial character and metal construction of
the accessory building for which the setback exception is proposed is not
consistent with, and does not complement, the historical character of the
primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
§ 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a
Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Contrary to
the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory
structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface
material and industrial character are not stylistically appropriate for the
character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional residential character
through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.
Page 438 of 466
Resolution No. ____ (2022 Series)
R _____
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that
this application is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmen tal Quality Act
(CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will disapprove, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal filed
by Todd Miller and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision upholding the
Community Development Director’s decision to deny a Discretionary Exception from Side
and Rear setback standards for an Accessory Structure, under Director’s Action
application DIR-0599-20201.
On motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member
___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ____ day of ___________ 2022.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Page 439 of 466
Page 440 of 466
Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of Violation
(Courtesy Warning Prior to Issuance of Administrative Citation)
July 5, 2019
Kimberly Miller
816 Clearview Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT ADDRESS: 816 Clearview Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 003-644-011
Code Case #: CODE-493-2019
Dear Property Owner,
On July 5, 2019, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff noted the
following violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or other relevant codes at the above listed
address:
1. Permit Required (SLOMC 15.02.010, California Building Code A105.1)
“Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move,
demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter,
repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the
installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first
make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”
2. Development Standards (SLOMC 17.16.020[B])
The interior side and rear setback standards for the R-1 zone shall be as set forth in Table 2-5.
Officer Comments: A Stop Work Order was posted at the property due to a structure under
construction in the rear yard. The structure is being built without a permit and within required
setbacks.
Corrective Action: A permit will be required for the structure. Once a permit is issued please
ensure to schedule necessary inspection(s).
A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE ATTACHED TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR A PERMIT.
ALL REQUIRED WORK MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE.
Page 441 of 466
We request that you voluntarily take action to correct the above noted violation(s) no later than August
4, 2019. These violations constitute a public nuisance and must be abated. Failure to correct the
violation(s) by the specified date will result in the issuance of an Administrative Citation requiring
payment of FINES in accordance with SLOMC Chapter 1.24. For Municipal Code violations that
remain uncorrected after issuance of an Administrative Citation, the City may seek enforcement by other
civil or criminal remedies.
Any person having a title interest in the property may request a Director’s review of this Notice by
completing the enclosed Request for Director’s Review Form and submitting it to the Community
Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406, within five (5) days of the date
of this Notice. This Notice shall be deemed final unless you timely file a Request for Director’s Review.
We look forward to working with you to resolve these violations and would like to thank you for your
efforts to maintain your property and to help preserve the safety and beauty of our community. If you
have questions, please contact the undersigned Officer at (805) 783-7841 or ssheats@slocity.org.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Steve Sheats, Code Enforcement Officer
Cc: File
Enclosures: Request for Directors Review
Page 442 of 466
Page 443 of 466
Page 444 of 466
Page 445 of 466
Page 446 of 466
Page 447 of 466
Page 448 of 466
Page 449 of 466
Page 450 of 466
Page 451 of 466
Page 452 of 466
Page 453 of 466
Page 454 of 466
Page 455 of 466
Page 456 of 466
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
July 14, 2021
Todd Miller
1953 Chorro St
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
SUBJECT: Application DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)
Request for reduction of side and rear setbacks to accommodate a single-story
accessory structure
Dear Mr. Miller:
On July 14th, 2021, I reviewed your request for a reduction of side and rear setbacks to
accommodate a single-story accessory structure at 1953 Chorro Street. After careful
consideration, and pursuant to Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (B) (Director’s Action –
Required Findings), I have denied your request because one or more of the required findings
for approval of a Director’s Action application could not be made, as described below:
Findings:
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither
consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern
of the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It
is of an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total
enclosed floor area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and
subordinate to a single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal
exterior material which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design
for a residential building of this size and scale. As such its placement directly against
the property line without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern
of building masses in the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and
rear property lines in conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.
2. The industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the
setback exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the
historical character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation
Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House),
designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Contrary to the guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory
structures) provided in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Property, the accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial
character are not stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which
exhibits a conventional residential character through wood exterior materials and
decorative detailing.
Page 457 of 466
DIR-0599-2019 (1953 Chorro)
Page 2
3. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential
adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties. The accessory building’s
perceived scale and the incongruity of its metal surface material are amplified and made
more noticeable to neighboring properties by placement of the building directly adjacent
to the side and rear property line without setback.
4. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which
would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations
impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory
building directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not
conform with the intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses
and open space. The property is of a conventional rectangular shape, and of dimensions
exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining topographical features
such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property improvements are
limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.
5. Denial of a reduction in Setback Standards is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects Which Are
Disapproved).
My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone
may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department
within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission
meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the
hearing.
If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Walter Oetzell,
Assistant Planner at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at woetzell@slocity.org).
Sincerely,
Tyler Corey
Deputy Director
Community Development
Page 458 of 466
1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 2021, 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar
Planning
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar, Commissioner Michael
Hopkins, Commissioner Steve Kahn, Commissioner Michelle
Shoresman, Commissioner Mike Wulkan, Chair Bob Jorgensen
Planning
Commissioners
Absent:
Vice Chair Nick Quincey
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant City Attorney Markie
Jorgensen, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to
order on September 8, 2021, at 6:07 p.m.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Jorgensen opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
Chair Jorgensen closed the public hearing.
Page 459 of 466
2
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 25, 2021, PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
Approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 25, 2021.
Motion By Commissioner Wulkan
Second By Commissioner Shoresman
Ayes (6): Commissioner Dandekar, Commissioner Hopkins,
Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Shoresman, Commissioner Wulkan,
and Chair Jorgensen
Absent (1): Vice Chair Quincey
CARRIED (6 to 0)
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a 1953 CHORRO (APPL-0512-2021) AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO DENY A DIRECTOR’S
ACTION APPLICATION (DIR-0599-2019) REGARDING A REQUEST
FOR SETBACK EXCEPTIONS TO ACCOMMODATE AN 800 SQUARE-
FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded
to Commission inquiries. Additional input was supplied by Steve Sheats,
Code Enforcement Officer, and Senior Planner Brian Leveille.
Appellant Todd Miller provided rebuttal comments to items presented in
the staff report.
Chair Jorgensen opened the public hearing.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
Chair Jorgensen closed the public hearing.
Page 460 of 466
3
Motion By Commissioner Hopkins
Second By Commissioner Dandekar
Adopt a Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an Appeal and upholding
the Community Development Director’s decision denying a request for a
discretionary exception from Side and Rear Setback Standards for an
Accessory Structure at 1953 Chorro Street (APPL 0512 2021)."
Ayes (5): Commissioner Dandekar, Commissioner Hopkins,
Commissioner Kahn, Commissioner Shoresman, and Commissioner
Wulkan
Noes (1): Chair Jorgensen
Absent (1): Vice Chair Quincey
CARRIED (5 to 1)
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.
via teleconference.
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: 09/22/2021
Page 461 of 466
RESOLUTION NO. PC-1045-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A DISCRETIONARY
EXCEPTION FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK STANDARDS FOR AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1953 CHORRO STREET (APPL-0512-
2021)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director denied a request for a Discretionary
Exception from Side and Rear Setback standards for an accessory structure located at 1953 Chorro
Street, on July 14, 2021, under Director’s Action application DIR-0599-2019; Todd Miller,
applicant; and
WHEREAS, On August 9, 2021, Todd Miller filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the request for a Discretionary Exception from Side and
Rear Setback standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo meeting was
conducted via teleconference from San Luis Obispo, California, on September 8, 2021, to consider
the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The proposed accessory structure for which the setback reduction is requested is neither
consistent with, nor an improvement to, the character or traditional development pattern of
the neighborhood (Zoning §§ 17.70.170 (D) (2) (d) (2) (b) & 17.108.040 (A) (2)). It is of
an excessive scale, being significantly deeper and wider and greater in total enclosed floor
area than structures which are typically considered to be accessory and subordinate to a
single-family dwelling, and it is constructed with an exclusively metal exterior material
which is inconsistent with conventional building materials and design for a residential
building of this size and scale. As such, its placement directly against the property line
without building setback is not consistent with the prevailing pattern of building masses in
Page 462 of 466
Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)
Page 2
the vicinity, in which larger structures are set back from side and rear property lines in
conformance to Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations.
2. The proposed setback reduction does not provide adequate consideration of potential
adverse visual and scale effects on surrounding properties (Zoning Regulations
§ 17.108.040 (A) (3)). The accessory building’s perceived scale and the incongruity of its
metal surface material are amplified and made more noticeable to neighboring properties
by placement of the building directly adjacent to the side and rear property line without
setback.
3. No site characteristics or existing improvements have been identified or observed which
would make strict adherence to the Setback Standards set out in Zoning Regulations
impractical or infeasible, and placement of the unusually large proposed accessory building
directly against the side and rear property lines without setbacks does not conform with the
intent of Setback Standards to determine the pattern of building masses and open space
(Zoning Regulations § 17.108.040 (A) (4)). The property is of a conventional rectangular
shape, and of dimensions exceeding minimum standards for the zone, without constraining
topographical features such as creeks or unusual slope characteristics, and existing property
improvements are limited to one modestly sized single-family dwelling.
4. The proposed setback reduction is not consistent with policies for protection of historical
and architectural resources set out in § 3.3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element
of the General Plan, or their implementing guidelines (Land Use Element § 12.4). The
industrial character and metal construction of the accessory building for which the setback
exception is proposed is not consistent with, and does not complement, the historical
character of the primary structure on the property (Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines § 3.4.1 (d)), a Victorian Queen Anne Cottage (Oliver House), designated as a
Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Contrary to the
guidance for Related New Construction (including new accessory structures) provided in
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property, the
accessory building’s austere metal surface material and industrial character are not
stylistically appropriate for the character of Oliver House, which exhibits a conventional
residential character through wood exterior materials and decorative detailing.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This application is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It involves a request that a public agency will
disapprove, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15270 (Projects which are disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject appeal
filed by Todd Miller, and upholds the Community Development Director’s decision to deny a
Discretionary Exception from Side and Rear setback standards for an Accessory Structure, under
Director’s Action application DIR-0599-20201.
Page 463 of 466
Resolution No. PC-0512-21
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro St.)
Page 3
Upon motion of Commissioner Hopkins, seconded by Commissioner Dandekar, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Hopkins, Kahn, Shoresman, and Wulkan
NOES: Chair Jorgensen
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Vice-Chair Quincey
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 8th day of September, 2021.
____________________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 464 of 466
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
17.70.170 Setbacks.
A.Purpose. This section establishes standards for the measurement of setbacks and required setback areas.
These provisions, in conjunction with other applicable provisions of the zoning regulations, are intended to
help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within neighborhoods. They also provide
separation between combustible materials in neighboring buildings. Setback areas are further intended to help
provide landscape beauty, air circulation, views, and exposure to sunlight for both natural illumination and use
of solar energy.
D.Exceptions to Setback Requirements.
2.Discretionary Exceptions. Discretionary exceptions to setback requirements shall require a director's
action and meet the findings required for a director's action (Chapter 17.108), as well as any findings
indicated below for an individual exception.
d.Other Setback Variations in Previously Subdivided Areas. Upon approval of a director's action,
the director may allow side and rear setbacks to be reduced to zero under either of the following
circumstances:
i.When there exists recorded agreement, to the satisfaction of the city attorney, running with
the land to maintain at least ten feet of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels and the
development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element Policy 4.5.1; or
ii.When the reduction is for either a minor addition to an existing legal structure that is
nonconforming with regard to side and rear setback requirements or for a detached single
story accessory structure; provided, that all such minor additions and new accessory structures
shall comply with applicable provisions of Title 12, Building and Construction (see also
Chapter 17.92, Nonconforming Structures) and the director makes the following findings:
(a)In the case of a minor addition, that the minor addition is a logical extension of the
existing nonconforming structure;
(b)In the case of a detached single-story accessory structure ( either new or replacing a
previously approved nonconforming structure), that the accessory structure is consistent
with the traditional development pattern of the neighborhood and will have a greater front
and/or street side setback than the main structure;
(c)That adjacent affected properties will not be deprived ofreasonable solar exposure,
and the development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation
and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1;
( d)That no useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full setback;
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
https:/
/
sanlui
sobis
po.mu
nicipa
l.code
s/
Code/
17.10
8
https
://
sanl
uiso
bisp
o.mu
nicip
al.co
des/
Cod
e/17.
92
htt
ps
://
sa
nl
ui
so
bi
sp
o.
m
un
ici
pa
l.c
od
es
/
C
od
e/
15
Page 465 of 466
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
(e)That no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy, or security impacts are
likely from the addition; and
(f)That it is impractical to obtain a ten-foot separation easement in compliance with
subsection (D)(2)(d)(ii)(a) of this subsection.
17.108.040 Director's Action -Required findings.
A.Required Findings. The director may approve a director's action application only after first making all of
the following findings. The proposed interpretation, determination, or modification to standards:
1.Is consistent with the intent of these zoning regulations and applicable general plan policies;
2.Is consistent with or an improvement to the character of the neighborhood or zone;
3.Provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any potential adverse effects on
surrounding properties such as, but not limited to, traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, noise, visual
and scale, and lighting.
With regard to cases of granting exceptions to the strict application of development standards, the following
additional finding shall be made:
4.While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations
impractical or infeasible, the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of these regulations.
B.Failure to Make Findings. The director shall deny the application if any one or more of the required
findings cannot be made. (Ord. 1650 § 3 (Exh. B), 2018)
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users
should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: www.slocity.org
City Telephone: (805) 781-7100
Code Publishing Company
The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 1700, passed July 6, 2021.
https://www.slocity.org/
https://
www.codebook.com/
Page 466 of 466
APPL-0512-2021 (1953 Chorro)Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision regarding a setback exception request to accommodate a large accessory structure
Zoning Ch. 17.12 - Appeals
RecommendationDeny the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission to deny a setback exception request to accommodate a large accessory structure
July 2019: Stop Work OrderSeptember 2019: Application Filed (Incomplete Oct 2019)September 2020: Response to Oct 2019 Incomplete LetterOctober 2020: Determined to Remain IncompleteApril 2021: Applicant Contact, Site Visit ArrangedJuly 2019: Stop Work OrderSeptember 2019: Application Filed (Incomplete Oct 2019)September 2020: Response to Oct 2019 Incomplete LetterOctober 2020: Determined to Remain IncompleteApril 2021: Applicant Contact, Site Visit Arranged
FindingsRequired findings for a setback exception under Director’s Action application, which could not be made in the case of the proposed large accessory structure:
Appeal
RecommendationDeny the appeal, upholding the decisions denying a setback exception request to accommodate the proposed accessory structureAlternatives
End of Presentation
Required Findings
Required Findings
1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obisp,
(805) 546-8208 . FAX (805)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Luis Obispo,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party interested in the
above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of the New Times, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and published
weekly in the City of San Luis Obispo, County
of San Luis Obispo, and which has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, under the date of
February 5, 1993, Case number CV72789: that
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to -wit:
—D-e,ae.K cc 30
in the year 2021.
I certify (or declare) under the the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Luis Obispo, Calif rnia, this day
of Qa4fM'��l�, Xr 2021.
va &:_ 14ZZ�
Patricia Horton, New Times Legals
Proof of I
s; SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
IW NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons
to attend a public hearing on Tuesday. January 11, 202Z in 690
p.m. held via tele"Afiro rice. Pursuant to Executive Orders
N-60-M and N-08-21 executed by the Governor of California,
and subsequently Assembly Bill 361, enacted in response to the
sUte of emergency relating to novel coronavous disease 2019
(COVID-19) and enabling teleconferencing accommodations
by suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph
M. Brown Act fGowooment Code § 54950 at seq.), Council
Members and the public may participate in tons meeting by
teleconference. Meetings can be viewed on Government
Access Channel 2D or streamed live boom the Curs YouTube
channel at h[1pV/youlube.clo.city. Public comment prior to the
.an of the meeting, may be submitted in writing vid U.S. Mail
delivered to the CM Clerk's office at 99n Palm Street San Luis
Obispo, CA 93QI or by email to ann icouni lsislit itv
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
• The CM Council will consider adopting a Resolution to uphold
the Planning Commission's decision be uphold the Community
Development Directors decision to deny a requested setback
reduction for a Property located at 1953 Choon Street Denial
of a reduction in Setback Standards is net subject to the
California Enalude mail Dan* Act (CEGA), as descrbed in
CEOA Guidelines§ ISM 'Projects Which Are Disappmved'
11953 them Street APPL-0512-2021).
Farmore information, you are invited [o contact Walter Disney
order City's Community DevelopmentDapammeM at
(805)781-75Aiar by email at weetajok2sloeftep
• A Public Hearing to review a Common Interest Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VITM No. 3136) for a 192-i n t Mixw-
Use Development Project 93581113584 Bullock Lane, including
7 Live/Work Units, a 50bsgwm [am Commercial Unit on -
she parking, and other residential community amenities on
a 10.M3 acre site located within the 231-acre Onat Area
Specific Plan, a rec onto allow live/work units on the ground
floor within the first 50 het of floor area measured from
the building face adjacent to a street a Sign Program, the
summary abandonment of 30 feet offer of dedication for public
street and u[ilhy purposes. The project also includes review
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project underthe
Caltomia Environmema]DualhyAct (CEDA((358VJW Bullock
Lane,ARCH-LH89-2019, SBDV`Dd9U2019, EID-0345-M).
For more information, you are invited to contact Rachel Cohen
of the Cif y's Community Development Department at
(8051781-7574 arbyemaila[ mahavogisjoix,
• As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, the
City Council will consider adopting a Resolution to add the
property located at 211 Charm Street to the Master List
of Historic Resources as •The Muller-Noggle House and
Garage." This project is categorically exempt from the
provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CE13A).
Inclusion of the subject property on the city's Inventory of
Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing
a significant effect on the environment and is covered by the
general rule described in fl51)(11b)(3) older CEGA Guidelines
(211 Chorro Street, HIST-O608-20211.
For more information, you are invited to caMeet Walter Derrell
of the City's Community Development Department at
(805)781-7593 or by email at woepeloclo dv
• A Public Hearing to introduce an Ordinance to amend This
10 (Vehicles and Traffic), Chapter 10.36 ]Stopping, Standing
and Parking for Certain Purposes or in Certain Places],
of the Municipal Code to revise the City's Parking Permit
Program. This amendment will allow commercial properties
to participate in the parking district formation process.
For more information, you are earned to corhtactAlawmater
Fuchs of the City's Parking Division atf 195)781-7553
or by email at aftechwitfmgre,v
the City Council may also discuss other hearings or business
tams before or after the hems listed above. If you challenge
he proposed project in court, you may be limbed to raising only
hose issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
]ascribed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
o the Crry Council at or priorto, the public hearing.
;mncil Agenda Reports for this meeting will be available for
eview in the City Clerk's Office and online at wwwslorm ore
tna week in advance of the meeting date. Please call the
:iffy Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100 for more information. The
:dY Council meeting will be televised live on Charter Cable
:hannel 20 and live streaming on the City's YouTube channel
rtmsl/ uWb 1 rtv.
AJ,N„ x n«,,.,,x/-N rAC Ad — IN Mc o1emraUSINFssr Posit. I December 30, 2021