HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-13-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 13, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of July 23 and July 30, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five 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.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the 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 in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
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.
1.625 Cuesta Street.AP-PC 105-14: Appeal of the Director’s decision to uphold a
Notice to Correct a Code Violation regarding front-yard parking; R-1- zone; Joan
Byrnes, applicant and appellant. (Erik Berg-Johansen)
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
2.2701 Augusta Street.U 97-14: Review of conversion of an existing guest house
to a secondary dwelling unit exceeding 450 square feet, including Class 3
categorical exemption from CEQA for conversion of existing small structures; R-1
zone; Eric and Helen Zeeb, applicant. (Erik Berg-Johansen)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
b. Standard Conditions and Key Performance Indicators
4.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Erik Berg-Johansen
Meeting Date: August 13, 2014
Item Number: 1
2X
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny a appeal request for front yard parking at 625
Cuesta Drive.
PROJECT ADDRESS:625 Cuesta Drive BY:Erik Berg-Johansen, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7573
e-mail: eberg@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: AP-PC 105-14 FROM:Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION:Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1)denying the appeal and supporting
the Director’s decision to uphold the citation.
SITE DATA
Appellant Joan Byrnes, 625 Cuesta Resident
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area 6,000 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
The City’s Neighborhood Services Division discovered the illegal use of a concrete surface in the
appellant’s front yard through proactive enforcement protocol. The surface is currently used as a front
yard parking space, which is not allowed per the City’s Zoning Regulations. Due to the fact that no
curb cut exists to provide access to the subject surface, the appellant has placed wood planks in the
street to allow a vehicle to bypass the curb and access the front yard (see Attachment 3 for relevant
photos). The appellant wishes to continue using the front yard surface for vehicle parking.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to determine if parking on the subject concrete surface is consistent
with the Zoning Regulations.
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
D.D.
PC1 - 1
AP-PC 105-14 (625 Cuesta)
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located in the Highland Neighborhood near Cal Poly’s campus. The
immediate neighborhood consists of older single-family homes, duplexes, and apartments.
According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the three-bedroom residence was
constructed in 1959 and is approximately 1,471 square feet. Please see Attachment 2 for a Vicinity
Map.
Site Size 6,000 Square Feet
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Topography Gently sloping upward from South to North
Access Cuesta Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residences)
South: R-1 (Single-family residences)
East: R-2 (Duplex)
West: R-1 (Cuesta Drive and Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
x April 14, 2014 - The Community Development Department staff inspected the property
and noted that a vehicle was parked in the front yard, in violation of Zoning Regulations
Sections 17.17.055 B.1, B.2 and C.11.
x April 15, 2014 - Staff issued a citation to the property owner. The notice stated that
violations were to be corrected by April 25, 2014.
x April 26, 2014 – Ms. Byrnes submitted a Request for Director’s Review of Code
Interpretation.
x May 9, 2014 - The Community Development Director upheld the citation, finding that the
parking was inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations.
2.2 Appeal
On May 15, 2014 the property owner submitted a letter stating her intention to appeal the
Director’s decision to the Planning Commission. The appeal form indicated that the cement surface
has been used for the past 30 years for parking a motor home, boat/trailer, and personal vehicles.
The appellant also stated that she hopes to continue to use the surface for parking purposes.
1 B.1: Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other approved off-street parking.
B.2: Vehicles may only be parked in areas within the driveway width established to serve approved parking spaces as
defined in City Parking and Driveway Standards. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the
driveway area does not meet the definition of a driveway. Vehicles shall be parked completely within the driveway surface
with all tires completely on the driveway surface. C.1: Vehicles shall not be parked outside the driveway width area leading
to garage spaces or other approved parking or in any other manner inconsistent with 17.17.055.B. Vehicle parking next to
driveways, whether paved or unpaved is prohibited.
PC1 - 2
AP-PC 105-14 (625 Cuesta)
Page 3
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Zoning Regulations:
Sections 17.17.055 B.1, B.2, and C.1 (Front
Yard Parking) of the 2013 Zoning
Regulations states that vehicles shall not be
parked outside the driveway width area, as
shown in the graphic to the right.
The subject property maintains a concrete
surface that does not lead to garage spaces or
other approved parking; parking on this
surface is therefore prohibited by the Zoning
Regulations. Given the fact that the concrete
surface has been present at the site for many years and has been used for parking without any
issues or complaints, staff understands the appellant’s motivation to maintain this surface for
parking. However, the use of this surface for parking is not allowed, and City maintains no record
of a permit that would allow vehicle parking at this location. The City would not have approved a
parking space without an associated curb cut.
In addition, Section 17.17.055 B.2 states that vehicles may only be parked in driveways that serve
approved parking spaces (e.g. garage, carport, side-yard parking pad). The subject concrete surface
does not meet the definition of a driveway, nor does it lead to an approved parking space.
3.2 Other Department Comments
The Public Works Department has commented that placing wood planks within the public right-of-
way (as shown in Attachment 3) creates a number of issues. During storm events the planks could
(1) obstruct water drainage; or (2) be pushed by flowing water to another location further down the
street and create a safety hazard for neighbors. The Public Works Department has additional safety
concerns due to insufficient driver/pedestrian line of sight for backup, paired with the fact that
pedestrians would not expect a car to be entering or exiting the property where no curb cut exists.
The Engineering Division has commented that the sidewalk at this location is not designed to
withstand the weight load of an automobile. If the appellant continues to drive over the sidewalk it
will be damaged over time. While it is the property own er’s responsibility to pay for sidewalk
repairs, and there is no financial effect on the City, a cracked sidewalk can create safety hazards for
pedestrians.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The appellant was issued a citation by the City’s Neighborhood Services Department for illegal
parking within the front yard setback. The existing concrete surface in the front yard at 625 Cuesta
Drive has not been approved for use as a parking space by the City. In order to maintain consistency
with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the citation and
prohibit future parking at this location.
PC1 - 3
AP-PC 105-14 (625 Cuesta)
Page 4
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site Photos
4. Appeal letter from Joan Byrnes, Property Owner and Resident
PC1 - 4
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR FRONT YARD PARKING AS REPRESENTED IN THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
AUGUST 13, 2014 (625 CUESTA AP-PC 105-14)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 13, 2014, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under AP-PC 105-14, Joan Byrnes, appellant.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The subject parking pad does not comply with Section 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking of the
Zoning Regulations because the parking pad does not lead to a garage or other approved
parking.
2. The front yard parking pad is not considered “legal non-conforming” because the parking pad
does not meet the definition of a driveway per Section 17.17.055B, and the City has no record
of a permit to allow front yard parking at this location. It is unlikely that a permit exists because
there is no curb cut to allow access to the pad.
3. The use of wood planks within the public right-of-way to allow access to the pad has a negative
impact on the aesthetic appearance of the streetscape. Use of the planks also creates hazards
related to obstruction of drainage patterns and potential displacement of planks during storm
events.
4. Use of the parking pad creates a safety concern for pedestrians or bicyclists who would not
expect vehicles to enter or exit the property where no curb cut exists.
Environmental Review. Section 15270, Projects which are disapproved, states that CEQA does not
apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application AP-PC 105-14 subject to the
following conditions:
PC1 - 5
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-14
AP-PC 105-14 (625 Cuesta)
Page 2
Planning Division
1. The subject parking pad may not be used for the parking and/or storage of any vehicle, trailer,
or other item of similar size.
On motion by _______, seconded by _______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of August, 2014.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 6
R-1
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-2
R-1CUESTACOUPERSTANFORD
DARTMOUTH
VICINITY MAP File No. 105-14
625 Cuesta Dr.¯
Attachment 2
PC1 - 7
Attachment 3
PC1 - 8
Attachment 4
PC1 - 9
0HHWLQJ'DWH $XJXVW
,WHP1XPEHU
3/$11,1*&200,66,21$*(1'$5(3257
68%-(&7 5HYLHZRIWKHFRQYHUVLRQRIDQH[LVWLQJSHUPLWWHGJXHVWKRXVHLQWRDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJ
XQLW H[FHHGLQJVTXDUHIHHW ZLWKDFDWHJRULFDOH[HPSWLRQIURPHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZ
352-(&7$''5(66 $XJXVWD6WUHHW%< (ULN%HUJ-RKDQVHQ$VVLVWDQW3ODQQHU
3KRQH1XPEHU
HPDLO HEHUJ#VORFLW\RUJ
),/(180%(5 8 )520 'RXJ'DYLGVRQ'HSXW\'LUHFWRU
5(&200(1'$7,21 $GRSW WKH 'UDIW 5HVROXWLRQ $WWDFKPHQW DOORZLQJ D JXHVW KRXVH
FRQYHUVLRQ WR D VHFRQGDU\ GZHOOLQJ XQLW WKDW H[FHHGV VTXDUH IHHW VXEMHFW WR ILQGLQJV DQG
FRQGLWLRQV
6,7('$7$
Applicant Eric and Helen Zeeb
Representative Bill Isamen, Isamen Design, Inc.
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area 9,800 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15303, which
allows conversion of existing small
structures from one use to
another where only minor
modifications are made in the
exterior of the structure.
6800$5<
7KHDSSOLFDQWKDVUHTXHVWHGWRFRQYHUWDQH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHLQWRDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLW7KH
H[LVWLQJWZRVWRU\VWUXFWXUHLQFOXGHVVTXDUHIHHWRIIORRUDUHDZKLFKH[FHHGVWKHFXUUHQW=RQLQJ
5HJXODWLRQVWDQGDUGWKDWOLPLWVJXHVWKRXVHVWRVTXDUHIHHW7KHJXHVWKRXVHZDVDSSURYHGDQG
FRQVWUXFWHG SULRU WR DGRSWLRQ RI WKH 6HULHV =RQLQJ 5HJXODWLRQ $PHQGPHQWV 2UGLQDQFH 1R
ZKLFKHVWDEOLVKHGWKHVTXDUHIRRWIORRUDUHDPD[LPXPIRUJXHVWKRXVHV7KHJXHVWKRXVHLV
QRZDOHJDOQRQFRQIRUPLQJVWUXFWXUH7KLVDSSURYDOZRXOGDXWKRUL]HWKHLQVWDOODWLRQRIDIXOONLWFKHQ
ZKLFKLVWKHEDVLFGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQDJXHVWKRXVHDQGDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLW
D.D.
PC2 - 1
8 $XJXVWD6WUHHW
3DJH
&200,66,21¶63859,(:
7KH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VUROHLVWRUHYLHZWKHSURMHFWLQWHUPVRILWVFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH*HQHUDO
3ODQ=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQVDQGDSSOLFDEOH&LW\VWDQGDUGV,QSDUWLFXODUWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ¶VUROH
LVWRUHYLHZWKHSURMHFW¶VFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWK=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ+ SDJH ZKLFK
DOORZVWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQWRDXWKRUL]H6HFRQGDU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLWVZKLFKH[FHHGVTXDUHIHHW
E\8VH3HUPLW
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
6LWH,QIRUPDWLRQ6HWWLQJ
Site Size 9,800 Square Feet
Present Use & Development Single-family residential with guest house and accessory office
Topography Slopes upwards from primary residence towards guest house
Access Private driveway connected to Augusta Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residential)
South: PF (Sinsheimer Elementary School)
East: R-1 (Single-family residential)
West: R-1 (Single-family residential)
Lot Coverage Existing: 20%
Allowed: 40%
7KH SURSHUW\ LV DFFHVVHG YLD D SULYDWH GULYHZD\ WKDW VHUYHV WKH DSSOLFDQW¶V KRPH DQG WKH
QHLJKERULQJSURSHUW\WRWKHHDVW7KHKRPHJXHVWKRXVHDUHQRWYLVLEOHIURPWKHSXEOLFULJKWRI
ZD\7KHVXEMHFWSURSHUW\VXSSRUWVDVTXDUHIRRWVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFH EHGURRPV D
VTXDUH IRRW DFFHVVRU\ RIILFH DQG DQ VTXDUH IRRW JXHVWKRXVHDUW VWXGLR 7KH SULPDU\
UHVLGHQFHLVXQGHUJRLQJDUHPRGHOZKLFKLQFOXGHVWKHDGGLWLRQRIDPHGLDURRPPDVWHUEDWKURRP
DQGHQODUJHPHQWRIWKHH[LVWLQJNLWFKHQ DVTIWLQFUHDVHLQIORRUDUHD $OOVWUXFWXUHVRQWKH
SURSHUW\DUHWZRVWRULHV
&RGH(QIRUFHPHQW
$&RGH(QIRUFHPHQWVLWHYLVLWZDVLQLWLDWHGDWWKHSURSHUW\GXHWRDQHLJKERUFRPSODLQWWKDWWKH
JXHVW KRXVH KDG EHHQ FRQYHUWHG WR D VHFRQGDU\ GZHOOLQJ XQLW 7KH ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ 5HSRUW GDWHG
)HEUXDU\VWDWHVWKDWDIXOOVL]HUHIULJHUDWRUDQGPLFURZDYHRYHQZHUHSUHVHQWZLWKLQWKH
VWUXFWXUH7KHSURSHUW\RZQHU0V=HHEJUDQWHGWKH(QIRUFHPHQW2IILFHUIXOODFFHVVWRWKHJXHVW
KRXVHDQGDFFHVVRU\RIILFH:KHQ0V=HHEZDVPDGHDZDUHWKDWWKHUHIULJHUDWRUDQGPLFURZDYH
ZHUHQRWDOORZHGVKHH[SUHVVHGLQWHUHVWLQZRUNLQJZLWKWKH&LW\WRREWDLQWKHQHFHVVDU\SHUPLWVWR
DOORZWKHJXHVWKRXVHWRLQFRUSRUDWHDNLWFKHQ WKXVFUHDWLQJD6HFRQGDU\'ZHOOLQJ8QLW
3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ
7KHDSSOLFDQWLVUHTXHVWLQJWRFRQYHUWDQH[LVWLQJVTXDUHIRRWOHJDOQRQFRQIRUPLQJJXHVWKRXVH
LQWRDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLW $WWDFKPHQW3URMHFW3ODQV 7KHFXUUHQW=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQVOLPLW
VHFRQGDU\ GZHOOLQJ XQLWV WR VTXDUH IHHW XQOHVV D ODUJHU XQLW LV DSSURYHG E\ 3ODQQLQJ
&RPPLVVLRQ8VH3HUPLW DVGLVFXVVHGLQVHFWLRQEHORZ 1RH[WHULRUPRGLILFDWLRQRUUHPRGHO
RIWKHH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHLVSURSRVHGDWWKLVWLPH,IJUDQWHGWKLVHQWLWOHPHQWZRXOGDOORZWKH
PC2 - 2
8 $XJXVWD6WUHHW
3DJH
DSSOLFDQWWRLQVWDOODNLWFKHQDQGXVHWKHVWUXFWXUHDVDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWWKDWZLOOEHXVHGLQ
FRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHRZQHURFFXSLHGSULPDU\UHVLGHQFH
3DUNLQJ7KHH[LVWLQJSULPDU\UHVLGHQFHKDVDWZRFDUJDUDJHDQGFDQVXSSRUWWZRDGGLWLRQDOFDUV
LQWKHGULYHZD\$VHSDUDWHSULYDWHGULYHZD\DQGSDUNLQJDUHDH[LVWVWRVHUYHWKHJXHVWKRXVH WZR
RUPRUHYHKLFOHVFDQXVHWKLVGULYHZD\ $WWDFKPHQW3URMHFW3ODQV 6HH$WWDFKPHQWIRUSKRWRV
RIWKHGULYHZD\DQGH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHVWUXFWXUH
352-(&7$1$/<6,6
&RQVLVWHQF\ZLWK=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
7KHH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHZDVDSSURYHGSULRUWRWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQDPHQGPHQWVWKDW
LQWURGXFHGDVTXDUHIRRWVL]HOLPLWRQJXHVWKRXVHVDQGVHFRQGDU\XQLWV:KHQWKHVXEMHFW
JXHVWKRXVHZDVDSSURYHGLQWKHUHZHUHQRUHVWULFWLRQVRQVTXDUHIRRWDJHRUDUHTXLUHGW\SH
RIIORRUSODQOD\RXW7KHH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHEHFDPHQRQFRQIRUPLQJDIWHUDGRSWLRQRIWKH
DPHQGPHQWV
:KLOHWKHVXEMHFWVWUXFWXUHGRHVQRWPHHWWKHPD[LPXPVTXDUHIRRWDJHUHTXLUHPHQWRUWKHVSHFLILF
IORRUSODQOD\RXWRIDVWXGLRDSDUWPHQWVWDIIEHOLHYHVWKDWWKHILQGLQJV DQGDERYH FDQEH
PDGHWRDXWKRUL]HDQH[FHSWLRQ=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV6HFWLRQ+SURYLGHVLQVWDQFHVLQ
ZKLFKDVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWFRXOGH[FHHGVTXDUHIHHW
Size of Secondary Dwelling Unit. The gross floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not
exceed four hundred fifty square feet and shall meet the definition of a studio apartment as
defined by Section 17.100. The planning commission may authorize exception to this standard by
use permit upon finding that:
1.The purpose of this chapter is served;
Strict compliance with the size limitation would (a) require significant structural
modifications that would not be required otherwise; or (b) adversely affect an historic
or architecturally significant building. 3DJH
)LQGLQJ3XUSRVHRI&KDSWHU)LQGLQJFDQEHPDGHEHFDXVHWKHSXUSRVHRI&KDSWHU
LV VXEVWDQWLDOO\ VHUYHG 7KHSURSRVHG SURMHFW PHHWV DOO SHUIRUPDQFH VWDQGDUGV IRU VHFRQGDU\
GZHOOLQJ XQLWV VHW IRUWK E\ WKH =RQLQJ 5HJXODWLRQV 6HFWLRQ 7DEOH EHORZ
VXPPDUL]HVWKHSHUIRUPDQFHVWDQGDUGVDQGLQGLFDWHVLIHDFKLVPHWQRWPHWRUQRWDSSOLFDEOH
Table 1: Summary of Performance Standards - Secondary Dwelling Units
# Performance Standard Status
1 Secondary dwelling units shall conform to all applicable building and construction codes. Met
2
Nothing in this section prohibits applicants from requesting exceptions or variances from
the strict interpretation of Zoning Regulations to the extent allowed by said regulations for
any other use.
Exception
requested
PC2 - 3
8 $XJXVWD6WUHHW
3DJH
# Performance Standard Status
3 Secondary dwelling units shall be designed as to provide separate living conditions and
provide a safe and convenient environment for the occupants. Met
4 Secondary dwelling units should also be architecturally and functionally compatible with the
primary residence. (Ord. 1004 1 (part), 1984; prior code 9930) Met
5
The height of second units should be consistent with surrounding residential structures.
Unless adequate setbacks justify otherwise, secondary dwelling units that result in two-story
construction shall be setback from the first floor to allow for solar access and reduced
overlook.
Met
6
Site planning: Secondary dwelling units should be located behind or above the existing
dwelling on the site. Designs that significantly alter the street appearance of the existing
residence shall be discouraged.
Met
7
Private Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of private open space must be provided
for secondary dwelling units exclusive of a minimum of 250 square feet to be provided for
the primary residence on the property.
Met
8 Significant alterations to landform or removal of native trees or significant landscape trees
shall be discouraged. Met
9
A landscape plan shall be required for new secondary dwelling units. A minimum 5-foot
wide landscape planter with screening shrubs shall separate parking areas from adjacent
properties. Landscape shrubs and trees shall be required for areas between secondary unit
and adjacent properties
Met
10
Parking: Secondary dwelling units that are 450 square feet or smaller shall require 1 parking
space, regardless of zoning district. Parking for secondary dwelling units may be provided in
tandem to allow one parking space in the driveway for the secondary dwelling unit.
Met
11
Alterations to designated historic properties or structures to allow new construction of a
secondary dwelling unit shall be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee for
consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for treatment of a historic property.
NA
7KHSURMHFWLVDOVRFRQVLVWHQWZLWK3XUSRVH³'´ 6HFWLRQ IRUVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWV
EHFDXVHWKHSURMHFWH[SDQGVKRXVLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUORZLQFRPHDQGPRGHUDWHLQFRPHRUHOGHUO\
KRXVHKROGVE\LQFUHDVLQJWKHQXPEHURIUHQWDOXQLWVDYDLODEOHZLWKLQH[LVWLQJQHLJKERUKRRGV
)LQGLQJ ± &RPSOLDQFH ZLWK 6L]H /LPLWDWLRQ )LQGLQJ FDQ EH PDGH EHFDXVH VWULFW
FRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKHVL]HOLPLWDWLRQZRXOGUHTXLUHVLJQLILFDQWVWUXFWXUDOPRGLILFDWLRQV GHPROLWLRQ
RIQHDUO\KDOIWKHH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUH WKDWZRXOGQRWEHUHTXLUHGRWKHUZLVH
$SSURYDORIWKLVSURMHFWZLOODOORZIRULQWHQVLILFDWLRQRIUHVLGHQWLDOXVHVRQWKHSURSHUW\ KRZHYHU
WKHUHODWLYHO\ODUJHVL]HRIWKHSDUFHOSURYLGHVVXIILFLHQWVSDFHDQGSDUNLQJWRDFFRPPRGDWH D
VHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLW7KHVXEMHFWSDUFHO VTIW H[FHHGVWKHPLQLPXPORWVL]HLQWKH5
]RQH VT IW E\ PRUH WKDQ 7KH =RQLQJ 5HJXODWLRQV DOORZ IRU VTXDUH IRRW
VHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVWREHFRQVWUXFWHGRQVTXDUHIRRWSDUFHOV ZKLOHWKLVSURSRVDOVWLOO
UHTXLUHVDQH[FHSWLRQWRWKHFRGHGXHWRVL]HRIIORRUDUHDLWLVORJLFDOWRDOORZDODUJHUVHFRQGDU\
XQLWRQDORWWKDWLVVXEVWDQWLDOO\ODUJHUWKDQWKHUHTXLUHGPLQLPXP,WPXVWDOVREHQRWHGWKDWRQ
VLWHVWUXFWXUHVFRYHURQO\aRIWKHSDUFHO ZKHUHWKHPD[LPXPORWFRYHUDJHLVLQWKH5
]RQH
PC2 - 4
8 $XJXVWD6WUHHW
3DJH
&RQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ
7KH*HQHUDO3ODQ¶V+RXVLQJ(OHPHQWGLVFXVVHV$% ZKLFKHQFRXUDJHVWKHFUHDWLRQRI
VHFRQGGZHOOLQJXQLWVE\UHTXLULQJORFDOJRYHUQPHQWWRPLQLVWHULDOO\FRQVLGHUDOODSSOLFDWLRQVIRU
VHFRQG GZHOOLQJ XQLWV 6HFWLRQ 7KH SURMHFW LV DOVR FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK +RXVLQJ (OHPHQW
3URJUDPEHFDXVHLWLQFUHDVHVUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\DWDQDSSURSULDWHORFDWLRQ
&21&/86,21
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGVDSSURYDORIWKHDSSOLFDQW¶VSURSRVDOWRDOORZWKHH[LVWLQJJXHVWKRXVHWRRSHUDWHDVD
VHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLW7KHSURSRVHGVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWGRHVQRWFRQIRUPWRJURVVIORRUDUHD
DQGIORRUSODQOD\RXWVWDQGDUGVVHWIRUWKE\WKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQVKRZHYHUWKHSURMHFWLVFRQVLVWHQW
ZLWKWKH*HQHUDO3ODQDQGWKHXVHZLOOQRWKDYHDQHJDWLYHLPSDFWRQVXUURXQGLQJSURSHUWLHV7KH
VWUXFWXUHDOVRPHHWVDOOSHUIRUPDQFHVWDQGDUGVIRUVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVDVGHILQHGLQWKH=RQLQJ
5HJXODWLRQV 7KH SURMHFW GRHV QRW SURSRVH H[WHULRU LPSURYHPHQWV RU DGGLWLRQV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKH
DHVWKHWLFDSSHDUDQFHRIWKHSURSHUW\ZLOOUHPDLQXQFKDQJHG7KHRQO\FKDQJHWKDWFRXOGRFFXUZLWK
WKLVDSSURYDOLVWKHIXWXUHLQVWDOODWLRQRIDIXOONLWFKHQ
)RU WKH UHDVRQV VWDWHG DERYH VWDII EHOLHYHV WKDW WKLV SURSRVDO LV D ZRUWK\ FDVH IRU WKH 3ODQQLQJ
&RPPLVVLRQWRPDNHDQH[FHSWLRQWRWKHVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWVWDQGDUGVDVSURYLGHGLQ6HFWLRQ
+RIWKH=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV
$/7(51$7,9(6
&RQWLQXHWKHSURMHFWZLWKGLUHFWLRQWRWKHDSSOLFDQWDQGVWDIIRQSHUWLQHQWLVVXHV
'HQ\ WKH SURMHFW EDVHG RQ ILQGLQJV RI LQFRQVLVWHQF\ ZLWK WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ =RQLQJ
5HJXODWLRQVDQGDSSOLFDEOH&LW\SROLF\
$77$&+0(176
'UDIW5HVROXWLRQ
9LFLQLW\0DS
3URMHFW3ODQV
6LWH3KRWRV
General Plan Housing Element Program 6.27: To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential
infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.
PC2 - 5
Attachment 1
5(62/87,21123&;;;;
$5(62/87,212)7+(6$1/8,62%,6323/$11,1*&200,66,21
$33529,1*$6(&21'$5<':(//,1*81,7(;&((',1*648$5()((7
:,7+$&$7(*25,&$/(;(037,21)520(19,5210(17$/5(9,(:$6
5(35(6(17(',17+(3/$11,1*&200,66,21$*(1'$5(3257$1'
$77$&+0(176'$7('$8*867
$8*867$675((78
:+(5($6WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSRFRQGXFWHGDSXEOLF
KHDULQJLQWKH&RXQFLO&KDPEHURI&LW\+DOO 3DOP6WUHHW6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&DOLIRUQLDRQ
$XJXVW SXUVXDQW WR D SURFHHGLQJ LQVWLWXWHG XQGHU 8 (ULF DQG +HOHQ =HHE
DSSOLFDQWV
:+(5($6QRWLFHVRIVDLGSXEOLFKHDULQJZHUHPDGHDWWKHWLPHDQGLQWKHPDQQHU
UHTXLUHGE\ODZ DQG
:+(5($6WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQKDVGXO\FRQVLGHUHGDOOHYLGHQFHLQFOXGLQJWKH
WHVWLPRQ\RIWKHDSSOLFDQWLQWHUHVWHGSDUWLHVDQGWKHHYDOXDWLRQDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVE\VWDII
SUHVHQWHGDWVDLGKHDULQJ
12:7+(5()25(%(,75(62/9('E\WKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQRIWKH&LW\RI
6DQ/XLV2ELVSRDVIROORZV
6HFWLRQ)LQGLQJV%DVHGXSRQDOOWKHHYLGHQFHWKH&RPPLVVLRQPDNHVWKHIROORZLQJ
ILQGLQJV
7KHVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWFRQIRUPVWRSURSHUW\GHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVRIWKH=RQLQJ
5HJXODWLRQVLQFOXGLQJDOORZDEOH]RQHKHLJKW\DUGVSDUNLQJDQGEXLOGLQJFRYHUDJH
7KHVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWLVDUFKLWHFWXUDOO\DQGIXQFWLRQDOO\FRPSDWLEOHZLWKWKHSULPDU\
XQLW 7KH VWUXFWXUH LQFRUSRUDWHV WKH WUDGLWLRQDO DUFKLWHFWXUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI H[LVWLQJ
KRXVHVLQWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
7KHVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWZLOOKDYHGLUHFWDFFHVVWRDWRWDORIVTXDUHIHHWRISULYDWH
RSHQVSDFH
7KHVHFRQGDU\GZHOOLQJXQLWZLOOKDYHDFFHVVWRVHSDUDWHGHGLFDWHGSDUNLQJVSDFHVWKDW
ZLOODOORZGLUHFWDQGFRQYHQLHQWDFFHVVWRWKHXQLW
$VFRQGLWLRQHGWKHSURMHFW¶VSURSRVHGXVHLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ +RXVLQJ
(OHPHQW3URJUDP ZKLFKHQFRXUDJHVKLJKHUUHVLGHQWLDOGHQVLW\ZKHUHDSSURSULDWH
'XHWRWKHODUJHVL]HRIWKHSDUFHODQGWKHIDFWWKDWWKHVXEMHFWVWUXFWXUHDOUHDG\H[LVWVRQ
WKH SURSHUW\ DV D JXHVW KRXVH WKH SURSRVDO ZRXOG QRW QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFW DGMDFHQW
SURSHUWLHVDQGWKHQHLJKERUKRRG
PC2 - 6
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ5HVROXWLRQ1R3&;;;;
8 $XJXVWD&RXUW
3DJH
(QYLURQPHQWDO5HYLHZ&DWHJRULFDOO\H[HPSWXQGHU&ODVV 1HZ&RQVWUXFWLRQRU&RQYHUVLRQ
RI6PDOO6WUXFWXUHV RIWKH&(4$JXLGHOLQHVEHFDXVHWKHSURMHFWLQFOXGHVWKHFRQYHUVLRQRI
H[LVWLQJVPDOOVWUXFWXUHVIURPRQHXVHWRDQRWKHUZKHUHQRPRGLILFDWLRQVDUHPDGHLQWKHH[WHULRU
RIWKHVWUXFWXUH
$FWLRQ7KH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQGRHVKHUHE\ DSSURYHDSSOLFDWLRQ8 VXEMHFWWRWKH
IROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQV
3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ
$EXLOGLQJSODQFKHFNVXEPLWWDOWKDWLVLQIXOOFRQIRUPDQFHZLWKVXEPLWWHGSURMHFWSODQV
DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDQGLQFRUSRUDWLQJWKHIROORZLQJFRQGLWLRQVRIDSSURYDOVKDOOEH
VXEPLWWHG IRU UHYLHZ DQG DSSURYDO RI WKH &RPPXQLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW $
VHSDUDWHIXOOVL]HVKHHWVKDOOEHLQFOXGHGLQZRUNLQJGUDZLQJVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJ
SHUPLWWKDWOLVWVDOOFRQGLWLRQVRISURMHFWDSSURYDO5HIHUHQFHVKDOOEHPDGHLQWKHPDUJLQ
RIOLVWHGLWHPVDVWRZKHUHLQSODQVUHTXLUHPHQWVDUHDGGUHVVHG
3XUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRIWKH&LW\RI6DQ/XLV2ELVSR0XQLFLSDO&RGHHLWKHUWKH
SULPDU\ XQLW RU VHFRQGDU\ XQLW PXVW EH RZQHU RFFXSLHG DW DOO WLPHV DV WKH RZQHU¶V
SULPDU\ UHVLGHQFH $ ³&RQGLWLRQV RI 8VH IRU 6HFRQGDU\ 8QLW´ DJUHHPHQW VKDOO EH
UHFRUGHGSULRUWRRFFXSDQF\RIWKH6'8WRHQVXUHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKWKLVUHTXLUHPHQW,I
RZQHURFFXSDQF\FHDVHVWKHXVHRIWKHVHFRQGXQLWZLOOWHUPLQDWHDQGWKHVWUXFWXUHFDQ
QRORQJHUEHXVHGDVDQLQGHSHQGHQWGZHOOLQJXQLW
$VVKRZQLQWKH3ODQQLQJVXEPLWWDOSODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOFOHDUO\
LQGLFDWH D SDUNLQJ SODQ VKRZLQJ GHVLJQDWHG SDUNLQJ VSDFHV IRUERWK WKH VHFRQGDU\
GZHOOLQJXQLWDQGH[LVWLQJVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQFH
3ODQVVXEPLWWHGIRUDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWVKDOOLQFOXGHDILQDOODQGVFDSLQJSODQLQFOXGLQJ
LUULJDWLRQGHWDLOV7KHOHJHQGIRUWKHODQGVFDSLQJSODQVKDOOLQFOXGHWKHVL]HVDQGVSHFLHV
RIDOOJURXQGFRYHUVVKUXEVDQGWUHHVZLWKFRUUHVSRQGLQJV\PEROVIRUHDFKSODQWPDWHULDO
VKRZLQJWKHLUVSHFLILFORFDWLRQVRQSODQV
7KHDFFHVVRU\RIILFHVWUXFWXUHVKDOOQRWEHXVHGDVDQDGGLWLRQDOGZHOOLQJXQLW
7KLV8VH3HUPLWVKDOOEHUHYLHZHGDWD3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQKHDULQJLIWKH&LW\UHFHLYHV
VXEVWDQWLDWHGZULWWHQFRPSODLQWVIURPDQ\FLWL]HQ&RGH(QIRUFHPHQW2IILFHURU3ROLFH
'HSDUWPHQW HPSOR\HH ZKLFK LQFOXGHV LQIRUPDWLRQ DQGRU HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ D
FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW D YLRODWLRQ RI WKLV 8VH 3HUPLW RU RI &LW\ RUGLQDQFHV RU UHJXODWLRQV
DSSOLFDEOHWRWKHSURSHUW\RUWKHRSHUDWLRQRIWKHEXVLQHVVKDVRFFXUUHG$WWKHWLPHRI
WKH8VH3HUPLWUHYLHZWRLQVXUHRQJRLQJFRPSDWLELOLW\RIWKHXVHVRQWKHSURMHFWVLWH
FRQGLWLRQV RI DSSURYDO PD\ EH DGGHG GHOHWHG PRGLILHG RU WKH8VH 3HUPLW PD\ EH
UHYRNHG
7KH DSSOLFDQW VKDOO GHIHQG LQGHPQLI\ DQG KROG KDUPOHVV WKH &LW \ DQGRU LWV DJHQWV
RIILFHUVDQGHPSOR\HHVIURPDQ\FODLPDFWLRQRUSURFHHGLQJDJDLQVWWKH&LW\DQGRULWV
PC2 - 7
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ5HVROXWLRQ1R3&;;;;
8 $XJXVWD&RXUW
3DJH
DJHQWVRIILFHUVRUHPSOR\HHVWRDWWDFNVHWDVLGHYRLGRUDQQXOWKHDSSURYDOE\WKH&LW\
RIWKLVSURMHFWDQGDOODFWLRQVUHODWLQJWKHUHWRLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRHQYLURQPHQWDO
UHYLHZ ³,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPV´ 7KH&LW\VKDOOSURPSWO\QRWLI\WKHDSSOLFDQW RIDQ\
,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPXSRQEHLQJSUHVHQWHGZLWKWKH,QGHPQLILHG&ODLPDQG&LW\VKDOOIXOO\
FRRSHUDWHLQWKHGHIHQVHDJDLQVWDQ,QGHPQLILHG&ODLP
2QPRWLRQE\BBBBBBBVHFRQGHGE\BBBBBBBDQGRQWKHIROORZLQJUROOFDOOYRWH
$<(6
12(6
5()5$,1
$%6(17
7KHIRUHJRLQJUHVROXWLRQZDVSDVVHGDQGDGRSWHGWKLVWKGD\RI$XJXVW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'RXJ'DYLGVRQ6HFUHWDU\
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ
PC2 - 8
PF
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4
PF
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-2-PD
R-1-PD
R-4AUGUSTAGRETAREBAJOHNSON
SYD
N
E
Y
GER
D
A
SAN
M
A
R
C
O
SSYDNEY
VICINITY MAP File No. 97-14
2701 AUGUSTA ST ¯
$WWDFKPHQW
PC2 - 9
Attachment 2
No.DateSheetDate:Revision1ST SUBMITTAL105/12/14 SIGNATURE DATEIsaman design, Inc.1027 marsh street ste. 200san luis obispo, ca 93401pf.805.544.5672.805.544.5642ARCHITECT22ND SUBMITTAL06/24/1433RD SUBMITTAL07/28/14A1.0ZEEB RESIDENCE
2701 AUGUSTA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
SITE PLAN_11X17JULY 28, 20146'-6"5'-0
"5'-0
"9'X18'PARKING SPOT5'-0" WIDELANDSCAPEPLANTER10210110210111" BIRCH4" BIRCH6" BIRCH7" BIRCH16" REDWOOD14" PINE14" PINE8" PINE9" PINE16" IRONWOOD5'-0" WIDE LANDSCAPEPLANTER WITH SCREENINGSHRUBS & TREES BTWN.SECONDARY UNIT ANDADJACENT PROPERTIESPRIVACY FENCETO FOLLOWPROPERTY LINEFRUITORCHARDFENCE& GATEFENCE& GATEPRIVACY FENCETO FOLLOWPROPERTY LINE3'-0" WIDE LANDSCAPEPLANTER WITH SCREENINGSHRUBS & TREES BTWN.SECONDARY UNIT ANDADJACENT PROPERTIES3'-0"20'-0"10'-6
1
/4
"
8'-4 1/16"6" AVOCADOEXISTING RESIDENCE004-781-034EXIST
ING
GUEST
HOUSEPROPOSEDSECONDARYDWELLING
EXIST
INGOFFICE N89°30'00"W 157.99'N
53
°
35
'00"
E
80.00
'N36°25'00"W 79.31'N36°25'00"W 93.91'S36°23'30"E 26.00'S00°29'00"W 65.51'
S
53
°
36
'30
"W 7.
00
'SECONDARYDWELLINGPARKING PRIVATE
OPENSPACE520 SFAUGUSTA STREETLA
U
R
E
L
LA
N
E SAN MARCOSCOURTSOUTHWOOD DRIVEJOHNSON AVE.NPROJECT SITE2701 AUGUSTA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA101 - PROPERTY LINE102 - SETBACK LINETREE (EXISTING TO REMAIN)GRAPHIC SYMBOLPROPOSED/NEWN1SITE PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"VICINITY MAPA.P.N.: 004-781-034PROJECT DESCRIPTION:EXISTING PERMITTED GUEST HOUSE (FEB. 28, 2006 - PERMIT#050924) TO BE CONVERTED TO A SECONDARY DWELLINGPER ZONING REGULATION EXCEPTION 17.21.030 - H - 2.SITE STATISTICS:PROJECT ADDRESS: 2701 AUGUSTA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ZONING: LOT AREA: 9,800 SFBUILDING STATISTICS:EXISTING GUEST 1ST (CONDITIONED): 596 SFEXISTING GUEST 2ND FLOOR (COND): 289 SF EXISTING CONDITIONED: 885 SFOCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-BNUMBER OF STORIES: 2BUILDING HEIGHT: 22'-2"FIRE SPRINKLERS: EXISTINGPROJECT DATAKEYNOTESLEGENDZEEB GUEST HOUSE/SECONDARY DWELLING CONVERSIONSAN LUIS OBISPO, CAEXISTING LANDSCAPE AERIAL VIEWAttachment 3
PC2 - 10
No.DateSheetDate:Revision1ST SUBMITTAL105/12/14 SIGNATURE DATEIsaman design, Inc.1027 marsh street ste. 200san luis obispo, ca 93401pf.805.544.5672.805.544.5642ARCHITECT22ND SUBMITTAL06/24/1433RD SUBMITTAL07/28/14A1.1ZEEB RESIDENCE
2701 AUGUSTA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
EXISTING GUEST HOUSE
11X17JULY 28, 20140" F.F.22'-2" RIDGE16'-11 1/2" T.P.8'-10 3/4" F.F.1 GUEST HOUSE FLOOR PLAN2 GUEST HOUSE FLOOR PLAN3 GUEST NORTH ELEVATION4 GUEST EAST ELEVATION5 GUEST WEST ELEVATION6 GUEST SOUTH ELEVATION02'1'4'6'10'GRAPHIC SCALE:SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"FKITCHENLIVING ROOMBATHBEDROOMLOFT/STORAGESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"Attachment 3
PC2 - 11
Attachment 4
Front view of the existing guest house and private courtyard
View of fence along eastern property line and landscaped yard
PC2 - 12
View of private parking area, driveway, and existing accessory structures in background.
View of private parking area in relation to primary residence (under renovation).
PC2 - 13
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 23, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent:Commissioners William Riggs and John Fowler
Staff:Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Housing
Programs Manager Tyler Corey, Assistant City Attorney Jon
Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:Minutes of June 11, 2014, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Stephanie Teaford, Community Liaison for Cal Poly, introduced herself and stated that
she will be attending Planning Commission meetings.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Deputy Community Development Director Murry introduced Jon Ansolabehere, the new
Assistant City Attorney.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.City-Wide.GPI/ER 15-14: Housing Element Update: Review of proposed General
Plan Housing Element policies and programs. City of San Luis Obispo –
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Tyler Corey)
Housing Programs Manager Corey presented the staff report, recommending review of
the proposed policy and program changes to Chapter 3 of the Housing Element and the
provision of comments or direction as appropriate.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Steve Delmartini, SLO, stated he has concerns regarding the term “affordable by
design” because the housing market is what determines the price of a unit. He noted
that developers will always prefer to build more expensive housing with its greater profit.
He stated that he has noticed that those working near the airport tend to be younger so
smaller housing options may be appropriate in that area. He supports proposed
program 9.12, which considers incentives for the development of smaller dwelling units.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2014
Page 2
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari complimented staff on a good job in soliciting and responding to public
input. He asked if the City has any way of documenting housing that is “affordable by
design” and noted that the term probably refers to smaller housing size. He stated that
proposed program 9.12 is a good program and the City should try to encourage smaller
housing but questioned whether “affordable by design” is the right term because it
implies that the units meet identified lower or moderate income housing. He expressed
concern with the proposed rental inspection program because expanding what is
inspected may drive up rental costs, making rental housing less affordable. He stated
he would like to see any future rental inspection program focus on life/safety issues and
items that do not increase rents.
Commr. Draze agreed with focusing on life/safety issues.
Commr. Multari asked about whether deed restrictions would be required for “workforce
housing”.
Housing Programs Manager Corey responded that the goal is to get some of the newer
units in the hands of those who work here and/or are first-time buyers.
Commr. Multari noted that the language in 3.10 could be misinterpreted and, therefore,
delay projects because it appears to state that a housing unit cannot be removed
without replacing it.
Commr. Draze, noting the deletion of the 2004 baseline in 3.10, stated that he can see
a rationale for adding a new baseline.
Commr. Multari stated that more discussion and direction is needed before taking out
the 2004 baseline.
Commr. Dandakar agreed with Commr. Multari and added that the intent and discussion
in the LUCE Task Force was about increasing the amount of residential occupancy in
the inner core to make a lively downtown.
Commr. Multari expressed concern about the idea of requiring that affordable units in a
development be of similar size, etc., as stated in 4.6. He asked for a definition of
“similar” and noted that requiring similar size does not seem to capture the intent. He
added that it is sensible that affordable could mean smaller or lower quality but the
intent was that the unit not be distinguishable in a way that would stigmatize those living
in the affordable unit.
Commr. Dandakar agreed and stated that requiring the same amenities for affordable
units may make it difficult for builders to provide lower income housing at a reasonable
cost.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that 4.6 is a program that requires
subsequent implementation, and that any code amendments addressing comparability
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2014
Page 3
between affordable and market rate units would come back to the Planning Commission
for review and consideration.
Commr. Multari suggested that Goal 6 make some reference to housing wholly or
partially financed by employer/employee programs and partnerships.
Commr. Multari stated that using general funds to reduce or offset impact fees for
especially attractive affordable housing projects should be considered.
Commr. Multari noted that the assertion that owner-occupied housing is superior to
rental housing is contradictory to housing policy history. He stated that increasingly the
ideal of owning is not as compelling to younger generations and renting may be their
preferred option. He stated that perhaps Program 7.13 is more about property owners
trying to protect their neighborhoods.
Commr. Draze stated that he also had a concern with Program 7.13 . He noted that
the program may be in response to a worry about students living in neighborhoods. He
stated he supports the need to push for affordable housing but not necessarily owner-
occupied housing.
Commr. Multari noted that rentals are, by nature, more affordable housing and that he is
uncomfortable with Program 7.13 as proposed.
Commr. Multari asked staff to research Laura’s Law and its applicability to the County
because it broadens the circumstances where mentally ill individuals may be evaluated
for services He noted that this could divert disruptive homeless individuals from jail to a
treatment program for evaluation. He added that it has been adopted in San Francisco,
Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
Commr. Dandakar asked if there is a way to incorporate strategies used by nonprofits to
provide housing for the homeless and mentally ill. She added that perhaps tax
incentives could be considered.
Commr. Multari noted that San Mateo County has contracted with nonprofits for these
services and that studies have indicated that those most resistant to help are substance
abusers and the mentally ill which Laura’s Law is designed to address.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that statistics about the developmentally
disabled are estimates based on population from the U.S. Administration on
Developmental Disabilities.
Commr. Dandakar asked if there is any interest in developing information to better
understand the magnitude of those with developmental disabilities residing in the City.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that it would be challenging due to privacy
laws to develop this information and the City does not have the financial resources or
time to complete a special survey.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2014
Page 4
Commr. Draze stated that it is not really relevant whether the number of
developmentally disabled is 400 or 800 because the City is required to have programs
in place to help this group and he does not see benefit in a special survey.
Commr. Larson and the other Commissioners thanked staff for the excellent report.
Commr. Larson noted that there is a large amount of technical compliance
documentation backing up the report. He suggested that the introductory statement for
Goal 9 be edited to be of similar length to the other goals. He added that the policies
and programs under Goal 9 should be reviewed for consistency with the updates to the
California Building Code.
Housing Programs Manager Corey stated that staff will take Commission comments
and those from last Wednesday’s workshop and do more research and editing before
finalizing the Draft Housing Element and transmitting to the State for review and
comment. He added that the Draft Housing Element will come back to the Commission
in the fall with any edits or changes based on input from the State.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
x July 30, 2014: special meeting dedicated to Chevron project
x August 13, 2014: tentative - LUCE update, 625 Cuesta--appeal of a
director’s decision about a code violation, 2701 August—an appeal of a
guesthouse conversion, and review of standard conditions.
x August 27, 2014: LUCE update, 500 Mountain View—appeal of an RV
used as a dwelling, 3080 Rockview—review of a 9-lot subdivision, and 43
Prado – review of a request for Safe Parking facility
x Tentative: August 28 and September 4 have been proposed for special
meetings for the LUCE and Commissioners should respond with their
availability.
3.Commission –Commr. Draze will be absent for the August 27
th and 28th meetings.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 30, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent:None
Staff:Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Community
Development Deputy Director Kim Murry, Senior Planner Phil
Dunsmore, Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Assistant
City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane
Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The agenda forecast was moved to the
beginning of the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.276 Tank Farm Road.SPA 92-08: Review of amendments to Chapter 8, Public
Facilities Financing Plan, of the Airport Area Specific Plan; Chevron, applicant.
(Phil Dunsmore)
Commr. Draze recused himself from the meeting. He owns property near the Airport
Area Specific Plan boundary.
Senior Planner Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of amendments to Chapter 8 of
the Airport Area Specific Plan, amending the Public Facilities Financing Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
C. M. Florence, SLO, representing a commercial property being developed in the Airport
Area, supported the recommendation.
John Wallace, SLO, owner of land in the Airport Area noted that the reduced fees would
still be very high. He recommended the consultant and staff reconsider the allocation of
percentages to future projects and give further consideration to a Community Facilities
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 2014
Page 2
District because it would allow payments to be paid over time. He also asked that
revising the fee structure be considered if the City gets unanticipated grants.
Bill Almas, SLO, representing the Chevron remediation and development project, stated
that staff is making a sincere effort to develop infrastructure but the problem is almost
unsolvable because the sources of financing are missing and the basis for allocation of
fees is not explained. He noted that Chevron will incur significant excess costs beyond
the fees and it is essential that the fees be reliable and known. He asked the
Commission to uphold its recommendation taken in May 2014 to support certification of
the EIR to allow the project to move forward.
Ty Safreno, SLO, stated that developers in the airport area will be paying for Tank Farm
Road improvements which benefit all of San Luis Obispo and portions of the County. He
indicated that benefits from the improvements are far less than the cost burden
assigned to future development.
Charlene Rosales, SLO Chamber of Commerce, supported the staff recommendation
as a step toward clarity and help in identifying new tools. She stated that the Chamber
wants a more feasible fee structure and better financing opportunities, and would look
favorably upon relieving some of the burden on the Airport Area developers.
Bill Thoma, SLO, supported the comments of all previous speakers. He noted that the
Airport Area is an economic engine for the City and there is a need to further reduce
fees and that, if Chevron does not move forward, neither will other businesses.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Larson stated that forwarding the Chapter 8 Financing Plan to the Council and
finalizing the EIR for the Chevron property are not necessarily linked. He added that all
of the public speakers noted that this is a difficult task. He noted that other
infrastructure, specifically fire service, is not included in the plan.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that, following adoption of the
Margarita Area and Airport Area Specific Plans, the Fire Department adopted a fire
master plan which identified response time deficiencies in the southern annexation
areas. Since the specific plans were adopted prior to the master plan, the plans were
not designed to accommodate enhanced emergency response, therefore this issue was
identified as an impact in the FEIR.
Commr. Multari stated that improvements required for airport area development are
primarily to support new development with circulation and other infrastructure. He noted
that it is an important political policy question for the Council as to whether the City
wants this development and, if the message from property owners is that fees are too
high and the community does want it, then the City has to pay for the difference. He
added that there are several ways to pay: cash from the general fund, grants, and/or
city-wide fees or by spreading the cost out among future owners in a Community
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 2014
Page 3
Facilities District which would require a two-thirds vote in support. He stated that, short
of that, the fees would have to be subsidized and the City would have to come up with
$17 million to complete the necessary infrastructure and that is the part that benefits the
community city-wide.
Commr. Riggs commended the presentation and agreed with Commr. Multari about a
CFD being unlikely to achieve. He noted that the City faces a paradox about wanting
growth but imposing fees that would suppress that growth.
Commr. Fowler noted that a discrepancy between the staff report and the Goodwin
report that shows up in the chart on page 1-24.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated the chart will be updated to match the latest Goodwin
report and that the numbers will continue to evolve and may not be what will actually be
charged to a project. He added that this effort is a snapshot in time that estimates
costs.
Commr. Fowler commended the plan but noted it is a moving document and his
inclination is to support this but recognize that more work needs to be done.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum noted that a request for a change on the part
of a large project could cause changes in land use and impact circulation. He added
that circulation issues arise due to incoming regional traffic and the best resolution is to
go after grants and/or to the County for funding.
Director Johnson stated that it is important to remember that when the LUCE update
concludes, we will need to revise the city-wide impact fee program based on a new
policy framework. He noted that there are many different factors that go into
consideration of development fees and how to finance infrastructure. He added that
one big question is whether fees are barriers to development and that ultimately the
marketplace will drive the demand and determine development because, as adjacent
areas in the County are built out, there will be more demand in the Airport Area.
Commr. Multari pointed out that a Mello-Roos District would impose fees immediately
even if building does not happen for 20 years. He stated that he thought the Goodwin
report made gross assumptions and did not consider factors like pace of development,
and that those assumptions do not reflect a very accurate picture of what might really
happen. He noted that the proposed development agreement with Chevron is another
issue and that information has not been provided regarding the terms of what the City is
giving Chevron and vice versa but that any requirements associated with remediation
and mitigation should not be counted as a public benefit since Chevron is required to
provide those improvements.
Commr. Multari stated he does not think Chapter 8 is particularly well written and that
the section on City financing policy could be an appendix. He noted that cost estimates
are not discussed until page 1-18, there is a need to include other components such as
storm drainage improvements, and that sewer and water are only included near the
end. He concluded by saying these are not substantive problems.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 2014
Page 4
Commr. Larson stated he is not sure it is not substantive. He noted that staff tried to
update parts of a document written years ago, which makes the chapter somewhat
awkward.
Commr. Fowler noted that a correction is needed on page 1-15 under Factors Favoring
Pay-As-You-Go Financing where “are” or “will” should be inserted, and on page 1-17,
second paragraph, third line, it should say “market driven development cycles.”
Commr. Larson summarized the issues: there is infrastructure to build, mostly roads;
water and sewer facilities are not explicitly addressed; it will cost a lot of money; there
are only a few ways to pay; fairness is important; fees need to be collected either city-
wide or in just this area; the public speakers all had the same concerns; it is clear more
work is necessary; information about using a CFD was provided but not recommended
although only the property owners would be voting to accept or reject it. He added that
privately negotiated development agreements are possible and the only way to reduce
fees is to throw out some improvements or come up with alternatives for funding. He
noted that staff will continue identifying alternatives but there will not be any resolution
until the development community is organized enough to cooperate with staff in finding
solutions. He concluded that this report does not resolve anything but it is better than
the reports in 2005 and last May.
Commr. Fowler stated that it is easier to have development pay rather than try to help
out by finding grants or using city-wide financing.
Commr. Dandakar stated that during discussions at the LUCE Task Force meetings,
members were supportive of development, especially in areas with specific plans, but
that costs should not be passed on to other neighborhoods or city-wide, and that
development was not considered helpful if it negatively impacts quality of life or cost of
living. She noted that the Task Force supported densification and a pedestrian and bike
friendly model for the City and that people were willing to think about special grants and
fees to make the City more accessible but that fees for development should be paid by
the developers. She questioned whether this development should be done if it results in
city-wide fees.
Commr. Multari asked Commr. Riggs if he had any thoughts about how transportation in
the future might be different from now.
Commr. Riggs stated that he thinks we will see self-driving cars in less than five years
because the technology is there and that the current model based on the EIR is from
the 1970s. He noted that with the LUCE update, we are dealing with the community
wanting a softer future with walkability, bike-ability and a future of health.
Commr. Multari stated that he has had similar thoughts that in the future the concern
about widening roads might not be as acute as it is in the way we look at things now.
Director Johnson stated that this is ultimately a policy decision for the Council and that,
over the next year, staff can look at strategies for funding and figure out where the City
should be making investment to get the kind of growth wanted. He noted that the
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 2014
Page 5
numbers create a feasibility question for developers. He stated that staff would like to
move forward with the Chevron EIR to start remediation, which will take years, and
hope to resolve fee issues by the time Chevron turns to development.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that the LUCE update could result in a
fundamental and profound shift toward bikeways and pedestrian paths.
Commr. Riggs stated that this has been one of the most honest conversations he has
seen with the Commission and staff. He noted that staff is dealing with changing factors
and he is willing to approve this resolution and forward it to Council.
Commr. Malak stated that he appreciates the report but that it does not really have any
recommendations. He added that he is supportive of moving it forward but stated that
he will vote no if the resolution is not amended in section 1, finding 3, which he
interprets as giving funding priority to bike infrastructure and he has concerns about
other special interests coming in to push for what they want.
After a discussion, it was decided that finding 3 would be amended and finding 4 would
be deleted.
Commr. Riggs made a motion to adopt the Resolution and the following discussion
ensued.
Commr. Dandakar asked if the Commission is going to endorse the way suggested by
Commr. Multari to separate things that are specific to this plan and those that are more
city-wide.
Commr. Larson stated that the financing plan, though far from complete, is at the point
where it allows focus on policy issues, so it is appropriate to send it forward but staff
should continue to work on it. He noted that it is likely this will be revisited after the city-
wide changes to the General Plan so he approves the staff recommendation as
amended for finding 3 and deleting finding 4.
Commr. Multari stated he supports the motion but is disappointed with the Goodwin
report.
Commr. Malak expressed concern about the effect not sending it forward would have on
the EIR which he stated he wants to see move forward. He asked if the LUCE update
would result in radical changes in the financing plan.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that it will do so and that there are
fundamental policy level decisions that will need to be made due to this shift. He added
that moving this forward freshens up the document which is ten years old and that the
changes in costs and fees will mean projects will pay the new fees between the time the
AASP is updated and when city-wide fee discussions occur subsequent to the LUCE.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that the City needs to have policy in
place to start negotiations with Chevron.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 30, 2014
Page 6
Commr. Fowler stated he will support the motion and agrees with Deputy Director
Bochum’s statement.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council adopt a resolution approving amendments to Chapter 8 of the Airport Area
Specific Plan, amending the Public Facilities Financing Plan with finding 3 to read “will
provide funding necessary for the anticipated development in the airport area plan and
will help finance the improvements to key circulation features in the plan area” and
deleting finding 4.
AYES:Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari and Riggs
NOES:None
RECUSED:Commr. Draze
ABSENT:None
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2.Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Kim Murry
x August 13, 2014: 625 Cuesta--appeal, 2701 August--review of conversion
of a secondary dwelling, review of standard conditions
x August 27, 2014: LUCE update, 500 Mountain View--appeal, 43 Prado
Road--parking program, 3080 Rockview--subdivision
3.Commission
x Commr. Riggs not available for meetings the last week of August.
x Commr. Draze will be absent from meetings the last week of August.
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary