The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4a. Review of an appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to approve a minor Development Review Application (ARCH-0529-2024) with an exception to a hillside development standard (920 & 930 Rachel Ct) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION TO APPROVE A MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION (ARCH-0529-2024) WITH AN EXCEPTION TO A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (920 & 930 RACHEL COURT [APPL-0027-2026]) PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Ethan Estrada, Assistant Planner 920 & 930 Rachel Court Phone Number: (805) 781-7576 Email: ejestrad@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: APPL-0027-2026 APPLICANT: Mike McCormick FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director approving the Minor Development Review application ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard. SITE DATA 1.0 PLANNING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW As provided by Zoning Regulations Section 17.126.040(A), the Planning Commission will consider an appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director. Applicant Mike McCormick (APPL) Brian Rolph (ARCH) Land Use Designation Medium-Density Residential Zoning Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Site Area Approximately 0.26 acres Environmental Determination Categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Meeting Date: 3/11/2026 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 45 minutes Figure 1. 920 & 930 Rachel Court Page 9 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 2.0 SUMMARY On August 28, 2024, Brian Rolph, property owner and applicant, represented by 4Creeks, Inc., filed a Minor Development Review (MDR) application (ARCH-0529-2024) with a request for several exceptions to development standards, an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) application (USE-0278-2025) for a common access driveway, and a tree removal permit application (TREE-0520-2024) to construct two single-unit dwellings and two multi- unit dwellings - one of each on both properties (Attachment C, Original Project Plans). Staff determined that the project site is subject to the City’s Hillside Development Standards (HDS) as set forth in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) 17.70.090. As required for AUPs, a public hearing was held on April 28, 2025, where the Hearing Officer, after consideration of public comment (Attachment E, April 2 025 Letter from Neighbors) and application materials, referred the project to the Planning Commission with recommendations for project revisions and application materials to demonstrate compliance with City standards (Attachment D, April 2025 Administrative Hearing Decision Letter). On July 24, 2025, the applicant resubmitted their project and withdrew their application for an AUP as it was no longer necessary based on the new project design that removed the common access driveway. The new submittal (Attachment B, Current Project Plans) proposes the construction of four multi-unit structures where each property would contain a duplex and two ADUs attached to one another. All the exceptions originally requested were resolved with this redesign, except for one request to allow several retaining walls to exceed the maximum retaining wall height standards provided by the HDS as authorized by SLOMC 17.70.090(D). Specifically, a portion of one retaining wall subject to a four-foot height maximum to exceed this limit by one foot four inches, and portions of four other retaining walls to exceed this same limit ranging from two to eight inches. Because the project had undergone significant design changes and the AUP, which previously required a public hearing, had been withdrawn, the project was then subject only to Administrative Action without a public hearing, in accordance with SLOMC 17.106.030(B) and 17.70.090(D). As a result, the prior referral of the project by the Hearing Officer to the Planning Commission was no longer applicable to the redesigned project. On January 15, 2026, after consideration of public comment (Attachment G, December 2025 Letter from Neighbors) the application was approved by the Hearing Officer on behalf of the Community Development Director based on findings of consistency with the standards for multifamily residential development subject to HDS (Attachment F, January 2026 Administrative Action Decision Letter). On January 20, 2025, Mike McCormick, owner and resident of adjacent property to the north, appealed the Director’s decision (Attachment I, Appeal Form). This appeal is now before the Planning Commission. Page 10 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION On January 20, 2025, Mr. McCormick filed an appeal of the Administrative Action decision (see Attachment I) that approved ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard (HDS) to allow a portion of one retaining wall subject to a four- foot height maximum to exceed this limit by one foot four inches, and portions of four other retaining walls to exceed this same limit ranging from two to eight inches. The basis of the appellant’s appeal is that not all the findings required for project approval can be made. Specifically, the appellant contests two of the findings. Appeal Finding 1: The first finding contested by the appellant is that “the exceptions granted are necessary for the full development of the site.” This is not a specific finding required under SLOMC 17.70.090(D)(3) for exceptions to HDS, nor is it a required finding for approval of the Minor Development Review application itself. Regardless, the retaining walls, including the five of the eleven walls that would exceed the maximum height limit of four feet by inches (one foot four inches at most), are necessary to maintain an architectural design that is consistent with surrounding properties while maintaining compliance with other applicable development standards. Appeal Finding 2: The second finding contested by the appellant is that “the development (and exceptions) will not be detrimental or injurious to the adjacent properties.” This is in reference to Findings 6 and 13 provided by staff in Attachment F. As described by City staff in both findings in Attachment F, other than the retaining walls that would exceed maximum height limits by two to eight inches for four of the walls and one foot four inches for one wall (discussed below), the proposal is compliant with all other applicable development standards, including HDS. The development is required to comply with all applicable local and state construction standards. Additionally, a development project of this nature is assessed for compliance with local and state construction standards during the Building permit plan check process, which includes the submittal of structural plans, grading plans, and more. Regardless, the plan set (see Attachment B) has been reviewed by both Engineering and Building staff who found the proposal to be compliant with applicable standards and did not identify any safety issues. In review of the appellant’s argument against these specific findings, the basis of their argument is that the retaining wall proposed in the southwest corner of 920 Rachel Court is positioned too close to the existing nonconforming structure located at 2098 Rachel Street. Because of the proximity of the retaining wall to this structure, the appellant holds that “it is clearly detrimental and injurious to the adjacent property”. Page 11 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 The Zoning Regulations do not establish minimum distances between structures and, in fact, allow some structures, such as retaining walls, to be located within the side and rear yard setback up to the property line (SLOMC 17.70.170(C)(2)). City staff reviewed the proposed retaining walls and did not identify any safety or structural concerns affecting the adjacent structure. The applicant has indicated that the design of this retaining wall is necessary to maintain consistency with other development standards and is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood. The City’s Municipal Code contemplates exceptions to standards specifically for Hillside Development Standards, including the retaining wall height standard, given that specific findings outlined in SLOMC 17.70.090(D)(3) are made. These required findings were considered and made by the Director as part of their action to approve the Minor Development Review application on January 15, 2025 (see Attachment F). 3.0 PROJECT HISTORY Initial Proposal & Requested Exceptions On August 28, 2024, Brian Rolph, property owner and applicant, represented by 4Creeks, Inc., filed a Minor Development Review (MDR) application (ARCH -0529-2024), an associated tree removal application (TREE-0520-2024), and an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) (USE-0278-2025) for a common access driveway. This initial proposal included the construction of four buildings in total, with both properties mirroring one another (see Attachment C). The front of each property would have featured a two-story dwelling constructed above a three-car garage, and at the rear, another two-story dwelling consisting of a primary unit and an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). These structures would have been served by a common driveway spanning across both properties; therefore, requiring an AUP to establish the common access driveway. Because the site has an average cross-parcel slope of 16 percent or greater, the project is also subject to the Hillside Development Standards (HDS) provided in SLOMC 17.70.090. Figure 2. Frontage Rendering of Original Project Design Page 12 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 In this initial proposal, several exceptions to development standards and Hillside Development Standards were requested. These exceptions included:  Retaining wall and fence height combinations of up to ten feet.  Reduced setbacks and an increased projection into a required setback for an architectural feature.  110 square feet of upper-level deck area where 50 square feet is allowed and setback reductions for the ADUs at the rear of the properties. As required by SLOMC 12.38.160(A), an application for an Administrative Use Permit requires review by the Director at an Administrative Hearing. Pursuant to SLOMC 17.102.020(E)(2), other associated entitlements (ARCH-0529-2024 and TREE-0520- 2024) are to be processed concurrently and acted upon by the highest review authority designated for any of the applications. Administrative Hearing and Public Comment On April 28, 2025, a public hearing was held and the Hearing Officer acted on the application. Prior to the hearing, Mike McCormick, the appellant, submitted a letter (see Attachment E), signed by himself and neighboring property owners, outlining numerous concerns regarding the proposed development. Primarily, Mr. McCormick asserted that aspects of the proposed design were not in compliance with applicable standards and had not been identified as requiring exceptions. He further contended that the findings necessary to approve the requested exceptions had not been adequately made. Other issues included:  The proposed frontage design did not appear to be consistent with nearby properties. Mr. McCormick stated that surrounding properties maintain 20-foot front yard setbacks with private driveways and similarly designed front porches. The proposed design would have created a 40-foot front yard setback.  The ADU design featured a reduced setback and excess upper -level deck space that would have been constructed at the same elevation as an exterior deck on the adjacent property to the north (Mr. McCormick’s residence), with approximately 11 feet of separation between the deck areas.  Additional concerns regarding architectural compatibility between the proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with respect to the scale of the development, in addition to concerns about the proposed street frontage design. After considering public input and reviewing the staff report and application materials, the Hearing Officer recommended that the project be referred to the Planning Commission, along with several recommendations for project revisions and the submission of additional information to demonstrate compliance with City standards and guidelines (see Attachment D). Page 13 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Resubmittal and Current Design On July 24, 2025, staff received a resubmittal for ARCH-0529-2024 featuring significant project revisions, including the removal of the common access driveway that had triggered the requirement for a public hearing. This revised design (see Figure 3) includes four buildings, with both properties mirroring one another. The front buildings, each se rved by private driveways, would be two-story, multi-unit structures, with the front units located above two- car garages and the rear units consisting of two stories of living space. The rear of both properties would feature two one-story ADUs attached to one another, as permitted under state law. Although included to provide a comprehensive overview of the proposed development, these ADUs were not formally evaluated for compliance with City and state standards, as they are subject to ministerial review pursuant to state law. Nevertheless, the ADU design was reconfigured to address concerns raised in public comments. As demonstrated in an expanded plan set (Attachment B), the proposed development is consistent with all applicable development standards, including density, setbacks, building height, and more, as well as all standards provided in the HDS with the exception of the standard limiting retaining wall height to four feet when the wall is longer than 20 feet. As proposed, a portion of one retaining wall would exceed this limit by one foot four inches, and portions of four other walls would exceed four feet ranging from two to eight inches. Retaining Walls and an Exception Request Project plans (see Attachment B, Sheet C1.0) depict 11 retaining walls of various lengths and heights (measured from grade), most of which are located within the interior of the project site. Two of these retaining walls are located within the side and rear yard setbacks - one in the northeast corner of 930 Rachel Court and the other in the southwest corner of 920 Rachel Court. Figure 3. Proposed Site Plan Page 14 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Pursuant to SLOMC 17.70.090(C)(3), retaining walls on properties subject to the HDS that are 20 feet or less in length are limited to six feet in height (above ground), while walls longer than 20 feet are limited to four feet in height. Such walls are also required to maintain a minimum five-foot horizontal separation from other retaining walls. Of the 11 retaining walls proposed, five exceed 20 feet in length and include port ions that would exceed the four-foot height limit, with a portion of one retaining wall to exceed this limit by one foot four inches, and portions of four other walls to exceed this limit ranging from two to eight inches. As shown in Figure 4, the retaining walls are highlighted, with the red highlighted portions being sections that exceed the four -foot limit (Attachment H, Retaining Wall Height Exception Exhibit) and the green portions being sections that are compliant. Of the five walls, four would exceed the four-foot limit by two to eight inches. The fifth wall would exceed the limit by one foot four inches along eight feet of its total 23 - foot length. The original proposal (see Attachment C, Sheet C1.0) included eight retaining walls throughout the development, with two along a property line and a fence around the perimeter of the project site. The applicant had also originally requested an exception to retaining wall height limits in the HDS. Out of the eight walls, three were identified as requiring an exception, with retaining and fence combination heights reaching up to ten feet. With the current submittal, the project has been designed to minimize the height of these retaining walls while maintaining a lower overall building height, thereby resulting in an architectural design and scale consistent with the surrounding neighborhood . Considering that the height of these retaining walls is below the standard six-foot fence height allowed on such a property, the visual impact would be minimal. Additionally, these walls are located along the side, rear, and interior portions of the property, and the site itself is already surrounded by existing residences with similar features. The structures have also been designed to remain below the maximum permitted building height to maintain consistency with neighboring properties, which include retaining walls that exceed the same standard (discussed further below). The City’s Municipal Code contemplates exceptions specifically for Hillside Development Standards, including the retaining wall height standard, outlined in SLOMC 17.70.090(D)(3). These required findings were considered and made by the Director as part of their action to approve the Minor Development Review application on January 15, 2025 (see Attachment F). Page 15 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Figure 4. Diagram provided in Retaining Wall Height Exception Exhibit. Page 16 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Other Design Changes Other changes to the original design introduced in the applicant’s resubmittal, intended to address issues raised through public comment and/or staff guidance, include: Street Frontage and Overall Architectural Style. One key design change in this resubmittal was the redesign of the proposed street frontage. The original plans had proposed a 40-foot front yard setback, as depicted in Figure 5. This configuration was intended to preserve an existing shed and provide the space needed for a shared driveway. The revised project design (see Figure 3) reduces the proposed front yard setback to 20 feet, and both structures are to be served by individual driveways, consistent with neighboring properties and the request made by the appellant in the letter submitted for the April 28, 2025 Administrative Hearing (see Attachment E). This frontage design issue raised in public comment also included the incompatibility of the proposed architectural style with that of surrounding prope rties. As shown in Figure 2, the original proposal featured a modern architectural style with design elements that were not sufficiently consistent with the surrounding properties. Figures 6 and 7 show that the applicant conducted a comprehensive design overhaul of the entire project, incorporating features such as eave style, wood panel siding, wood shingle siding, roof pitches, and rail styles that are consistent with neighboring properties. The project buildings are shown in color in the below figures. Figure 6. Conceptual rendering of street frontage from Rachel Court (excludes landscaping). Figure 5. Original street frontage design. Page 17 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Rear Unit Design and Adjacent Property. As discussed above, the rear unit design in the original proposal featured an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at the rear of the property, with upper-level deck space oriented toward the adjacent resident’s (appellant, Mr. McCormick) balcony. The appellant raised privacy concerns and contended that upper-level deck space beyond what is allowed for ADUs should not be permitted. Mr. McCormick also asserted that the proposed height of the ADU was inconsistent with height and setback standards. This sp ecific assertion is incorrect, as state law allows attached ADUs to have a height of up to 25 feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks. As previously noted, ADUs are subject only to ministerial review unless exceptions to ADU standards are requested. The applicant is not requesting exceptions to any ADU standards and, pending approval of this project, intends to submit permits for the proposed ADUs for ministerial review as required by state law. Nevertheless, to provide a comprehensive picture of the entire project and to address the concerns raised by Mr. McCormick, the rear unit - originally Unit B - has been redesigned as two attached, one- story ADUs that no longer include upper-level deck space. Figure 7. Conceptual rendering of street frontage from Rachel Street (excludes landscaping) Figure 8. New rear unit design (rear of building) featuring a single-story structure with no upper-level deck space. Page 18 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Administrative Action and Public Comment The revised project design complies with all applicable standards, with the exception of the requested retaining wall height. Because the project had undergone significant design changes and the Administrative Use Permit, which previously required a public hearing, had been withdrawn, the project was then subject only to Administrative Action without a public hearing, in accordance with SLOMC 17.106.030(B) and 17.70.090(D). As a result, the prior referral of the project by the Hearing Officer to the Planning Commission was no longer applicable to the redesigned project. The Director approved the project on January 15, 2026, pursuant to the findings and conditions of approval provided (see Attachment F) Prior to the Administrative Action, the appellant, Mr. McCormick, submitted another letter to the City (see Attachment G, December 2025 Letter from Neighbors), again opposing the project. Mr. McCormick continued to assert that the findings necessary to permit an exception to the retaining wall height standards could not be made for the following reasons:  Two of the retaining walls – one located in the southwest corner of 920 Rachel Court and the other in the northeast corner of 930 Rachel Court - were proposed on top of the property line.  The southwest retaining wall mentioned above is located too close to the existing residence at 2098 Rachel Street.  A canopy attached to the residence at 2080 Rachel Street (same parcel as 2098 Rachel Street) extends over the property line into 920 Rachel Street. The appellant asserted that this structure must be maintained and further noted that it was omitted from the site plan.  A proposed window on the west side of Unit B at 920 Rachel Court would be located seven feet from, and face, the front entrance of the residence at 2080 Rachel Street.  The proposed excavations needed to construct the project buildings would damage adjacent properties. Although the Administrative Action was originally scheduled for December 15, 2025, staff delayed the decision to allow additional time to consider public comments and to meet with the neighbors in person at the project site to discuss the letter and any other concerns. Additional issues identified included questions regarding the legality of the existing lots and assertions that the surrounding properties had been developed in compliance with all applicable standards, including the Hillside Development Standards. This latter point had also been raised by the appellant during the first pub lic hearing. Page 19 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 Prior to a decision on the Administrative Action, staff and the applicant , respectively, provided responses to the issues raised in public comment:  The retaining walls proposed in the northeast and southwest corners of the project site are not located on top of the property lines but are adjacent, as permitted under the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC 17.70.170(C)(2)). The applicant has confirmed that these structures can be constructed without impacting adjacent properties, which would be reviewed and verified by City staff during the Building permit plan check process. City staff did not identify any issues related to drainage or impacts on adjacent properties in review of the proposed retaining walls and excavation/grading work. Condition of Approval 8 provided in the January 2026 decision letter (see Attachment F) requires that the plans submitted for a building permit shall include elevations and detail drawings of all proposed fences and/or walls. Regarding the proximity of the proposed structures to the existing structures at 2080 and 2098 Rachel Street, the City’s Zoning Regulations do not establish minimum required distances between buildings and retaining walls. However, such adjacencies are often subject to applicable building and fire code requirements, with which this project must comply with. City staff did not identify any issues with the proposed development in relation to these existing structures.  Staff confirmed that the existing canopy attached to the residence at 2080 Rachel Street was not shown on the submitted site plan. The applicant was required to provide an updated site plan depicting this structure, which demonstrates that the proposed development is designed around the existing condition. Aside from this covered porch, staff found that the submitted plan set accurately depicts the project site and surrounding conditions sufficiently for the Director to render a decision.  Staff confirmed that the window proposed along the west side of Unit B, adjacent to the front entrance of the residence at 2080 Rachel Street, is consistent with applicable standards because it would be a glazed window, thereby meeting the requirements of Community Design Guideline 5.2(G), which states that windows located ten feet or less from a side lot line, or within ten feet of another dwelling, shall be positioned and/or screened to provide privacy for the residents of both structures (e.g., orientation of windows, offsetting windows, translucent or glazed windows, etc.). Condition of Approval 4 (see Attachment F) requires that the windows in the plans submitted for a building permit shall demonstrate compliance with this standard.  Although a survey of the property is not required at this stage of development review, one will be required during the Building permit plan check process. Per City and County records, the parcels shown in the plan set are legal and sufficient for the purposes of this review. Page 20 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 In addition to the responses described ab ove, the applicant provided an assessment of nearby properties in response to the appellant’s claim that surrounding properties were all constructed in compliance with applicable standards. Figures 9 and 10, included in the plan set (see Attachment B, Sheet A6.0), show retaining walls and wall-and-fence combinations that exceed the four-foot height limit for walls longer than 20 feet. After considering public input and reviewing the staff report and application materials, the Administrative Action was approved ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to retaining wall height limits (see Attachment F). 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In - Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations; is located on a site less than five acres in size; is surrounded by other urban uses; and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, as the site has been previously distur bed and landscaping cleared. Approval of the project will not result in significant effects related to: (a) traffic, because the project would not exceed the trip threshold (i.e., less than 110 daily vehicle trips) anticipated for Small Development Projects per the OPR CEQA Guidelines; (b) noise, because the project would comply with exterior and interior noise limits outlined in Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control); (c) air quality, because construction-related emissions are temporary; and (d) water quality because the project would implement drainage and stormwater improvements. Figure 10. Retaining wall and fence combination at 954 & 960 Rachel Ct Figure 9. Multiple retaining walls and wall and fence combination at 974 Rachel Ct Page 21 of 248 Item 4a APPL-0027-2026; ARCH-0529-2024 Planning Commission Report – 3/11/2026 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission could continue consideration of the item to a future date. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required for the Commission to make a decision. Per Government Code 65905.59(a), a city shall not conduct more than five public hearings in connection with approval of a housing development project. This hearing is the second public hearing regarding this project. 2. The Commission could decide to uphold the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Minor Development Review application, ARCH-0529-2024. Per Government Code 65589.5, the City shall not disapprove a housing development project unless it can make written findings that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Draft PC Resolution (APPL-0027-2026) B - Current Project Plans C - Original Project Plans D - April 2025 Administrative Hearing Decision Letter E - April 2025 Letter from Neighbors F - January 2026 Administration Action Decision Letter G - December 2025 Letter from Neighbors H - Retaining Wall Height Exception Exhibit I - Appeal Form (APPL-0027-2026) Page 22 of 248 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DECISION APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ARCH-0529-2024 WITH AN EXCEPTION TO A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AT 920 & 930 RACHEL COURT (APPL-0027-2026) WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026 the Community Development Director approved Minor Development Review application ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard pertaining to retaining wall heights and an associated tree removal application (TREE-0520-2024) for the construction of a multifamily residential project at 920 and 930 Rachel Court; Brian Rolph, applicant; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, Mike McCormick filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Minor Development Review application with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard; and 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, on March 11, 2026, to consider the appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Minor Development Review application with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and 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 Planning Commission makes the following findings: Minor Development Review 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Land Use Element (LUE) because it is a multifamily residential development consistent with the requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone District. The project is also an infill development near to services and facilities like parks, retail, restaurants, and public transportation, as called for in LUE Policy 2.2.7. The project incorporates design choices, such as the front setback pattern, the scale, and form and architectural style that are compatible with the neighborhood character as called for in LUE Policy 2.3.9. Page 23 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 2 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Housing Element (HE) because the project would result in a higher residential density that contributes to the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA production targets as called for in HE Policy 6.8, and it provides a design compatible with the existing neighborhood character as called for in HE Policy 7.1. 3. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations because multifamily residences are an allowed use in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone. The project is consistent with the development standards outlined in SLOMC 17.18 (Medium-Density Residential), which includes, but is not limited to, density, lot coverage, setbacks, and height of structures. 4. The project is consistent with the policies of the Community Design Guidelines for multifamily and infill development. The design incorporates massing techniques and color palette choices complementary to the neighborhood’s craftsman architectural style. This includes, but is not limited to, wood panel and shingle siding and second-story front balconies. 5. As conditioned, the project provides adequate consideration of potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, visual, and scale, because the development (a) includes sufficient on-site parking; (b) will not result in parked vehicles that encroach to the public right-of-way or hinder line-of-sight requirements at an intersection; (c) incorporates design choices that are compatible with other developments in the surrounding neighborhood; and (d) incorporates building materials and colors consistent with surrounding residences. 6. As conditioned, the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because it includes the construction of four residential units on a lot that allows for multifamily residential development and shall comply with all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements. Retaining Wall Height Exception 1. The proposed retaining wall height exception to facilitate construction of these residential units is consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Regulations and General Plan. The creation of these duplexes as proposed here provides infill residential development that is otherwise permitted by the City’s Zoning Regulations. The proposed design is consistent with every other development standard for multifamily residential development. Such development is also called for in HE Policy 6.8, requiring the City to support residential infill development for the purpose of meeting the 6th Cycle RHNA production targets. The proposed development also provides a design consistent with the existing neighborhood character as called for in HE Policy 7.1. 2. Due to the slope of the property, retaining walls are a necessary feature to maintain site integrity and manage drainage across the sloped site. The project has been designed to minimize the instances in which a retaining wall exceeds the allowed height while still providing the necessary support for the proposed structures and maintaining compliance with other grading requirements. Therefore, the proposed alternative provides a design solution that is equivalent to or better than the standards prescribed for quality, effectiveness, durability, and safety. 3. The instances in which retaining wall height exceeds the maximum allowable height are located within, at the rear, and along the side of the proposed development and will not impact any scenic resources. Additionally, as this is an infill development, the requested exception will not hinder opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. Page 24 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 3 4. The proposed exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the proposed development is consistent with the building pattern of adjacent and surrounding properties. 5. The property’s existing topography, especially areas with significant elevation changes, necessitates the requested exception so that a residential development similar to surrounding properties may be developed on this site. 6. This exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege because adjacent and surrounding properties in this area also feature retaining walls that exceed the maximum allowable height for such structures. 7. This exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area of the project as the current design minimizes the heights of retaining walls to the furthest extent possible while still properly managing site drainage and site integrity as not to impact adjacent properties. The development itself, including the retaining walls, shall comply with all applicable standards as required of similar residential development. 8. A redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. The retaining wall height exception is necessary to allow a development that maintains prevalent design patterns in the surrounding neighborhood while still maintaining site integrity and properly managing site drainage. Requiring a redesign would require a reduction in the number of units that is otherwise allowed in the R-2 zone, therefore, denying reasonable use of the property. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations; is located on a site that is less than five (5) acres in size (0.5 acre); is surrounded by other urban uses (existing restaurants, temporary lodging, etc.); and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species since it has been previously disturbed and landscaping cleared. Approval of the project will not result in significant effects related to (a) traffic because the project would not exceed the trip threshold (i.e., less than 110 daily vehicle trips) anticipated for Small Development Projects per the OPR CEQA Guidelines; (b) noise because the project would comply with exterior and interior noise limits outlined in Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control); (c ) air quality because construction-related emissions are temporary; and (d) water quality because the project would implement drainage and stormwater improvements. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject appeal filed by Mike McCormick, and upholds the Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Minor Development Review application with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard at 920 and 930 Rachel Court, under Minor Development Review application ARCH-0529-2024, based on the above findings, and subject to the following conditions: Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with approved plans. A separate, full-sized sheet shall be included in the working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of approval and Page 25 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 4 applicable code requirements as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where these requirements are addressed in the plans. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director and may be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commissio n, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and materials identified in the Development Review application. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or equivalent shadow variation, and all other details including but not limited to awnings, cornices, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character to the approval of the Community Development Director. 4. Windows proposed throughout the residential development shall comply with Community Design Guideline 5.2(G) where one or more windows proposed ten feet or less from a side lot line, or within 10 feet of another dwelling, shall be located and/or screened to provide privacy for the residents of both structures (e.g., orientation of windows, offsetting windows, translucent or glazed windows, etc.). 5. Plans submitted for the building plan check shall include the locations of all exterior lighting. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly labeled on building elevations and complement the building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut sheets in the submitted plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be consistent with standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.100 (Lighting and Night Sky Preservation). 6. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment, whether located on the ground, roof, or elsewhere on the structure or property, shall be screened from public view with materials that are architecturally compatible with the structures to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public view includes existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (e.g., backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscaping or located in the interior of the residence or property. Please note this requirement applies to the initial construction of the building and any subsequent improvements. 7. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include the landscape and irrigation plans. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. Details on the proposed surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included in the landscaping plan. 8. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include elevations and detail drawings of all proposed fences and/or walls. All proposed fences and walls shall be of high-quality materials such as pressure-treated wood fences, split-face block walls, etc. Fences facing the public right-of-way shall be constructed with the finished side of the fence facing the public right-of- way. For the life of the fence, the owner shall conduct all necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure the fence and associated landscaping, located between the fence and property line, Page 26 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 5 remain in a high-quality and orderly condition to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. All proposed fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.070 (Fences, Walls, and Hedges). Housing Policies and Programs – Community Development Department 9. Per Section 17.138.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, this project is subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. The building permit submittal shall provide an inclusionary housing plan that describes how the project intends to meet the inclusionary housing requirement for this project. If the project is to use the in-lieu fee option, provide calculations on the plans to identify the estimated in-lieu fees. If affordable units are to be provided within the project, identify the specific limits intended to be dedicated and the specific income levels of each unit (e.g., low-income, moderate-income, etc.). Urban Forestry – Community Development Department 10. Trees requested for removal (TREE-0520-2024) include one (1) tree onsite (33-inch DSH Pinus pinea (Italian Stone Pine)) as shown on the Development Review application. The project shall replant, at a minimum, five (5) trees onsite, with three (3) being along the frontage of Rachel Court. These street trees shall be large-canopied trees and sufficient space shall be allocated to accommodate their rootzones to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. All tree species, size, and location adjustments at any time are subject to City Arborist approval. All proposed tree plantings shall be shown on the landscape plan. 11. The new compensatory tree(s) shall be planted per the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting before the final building approval has been completed. Provide photographic evidence to the City Arborist (wgault@slocity.org) that trees have been planted. All trees planted as part of a compensatory plan shall survive and be retained. Any trees that do not survive or establish in good health, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, shall be replanted. 12. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 prevents the removal of trees with active nests. To account for most nesting birds, removal of trees should be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1st and January 31st) and after the young have fledged. If removing trees during the nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), a qualified biologist shall inspect any trees marked for removal that contain nests to determine if the nests are active. If there are active nests, trees shall not be removed and may only be removed once a qualified biologist provides a confirmation memo that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the tree to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or City Biologist. 13. Trees not approved for removal shall be protected in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and Engineering Standards and Specifications. Engineering Division 14. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report for all proposed structures and drainage facilities and a final review letter from the soils engineer. This letter must state that the building plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with recommendations in the report for evaluation of over-excavation and re-compaction depths and verify that structures on adjacent parcels will not be impacted by the over-excavation needed for site retaining walls and building foundations. Any soils engineer special inspection notes and the special inspection program shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Page 27 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 6 15. Prior to building permit issuance, provide a full, Detailed Erosion Control Plan as part of the Building Permit application, per Drainage Design Manual section 10.1.1 Se 3.7, for project areas on slopes greater than or equal to 10%. See Section 10.4 for Detailed Erosion Control Plan Requirements. 16. Prior to request for final inspection, applicant shall install new, preserve existing, or re- establish destroyed survey monuments in accordance with City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standard 1010, Section 9.1. Applicant shall construct all new and replacement monuments per Engineering Standard 9020. 17. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit supporting documentation which demonstrates compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, Drainage Design Manual (DDM), and the Post Construction Stormwater Regulations (PCR’s). Supporting documentation shall at least include: a. A project drainage report b. A completed Stormwater Control Plan – form available on the City’s website (update to show PR2) c. A Stormwater Control Plan (update to show PR2) d. An Operations and Maintenance Manual for all proposed stormwater improvements proposed to comply with Performance Requirements 2. Utilities Department 18. Building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. The plan shall clearly identify any existing utility service infrastructure proposed for demolition, abandonment, or replacement. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards effective at the time the building permit is obtained. Engineer’s calculations shall be provided with the submittal of the building permit to conform water meter size, water service line size, and sewer lateral size. 19. The building permit shall include a final landscape design plan and irrigation plan and shall identify the square footage of landscaping proposed as part of the project. If greater than 500 square feet, applicant shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) calculation. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new ornamental landscaping shall not exceed the project’s maximum applied water allowance (MAWA). 20. The project is located within a capacity constrained area and shall meet the wastewater flow offset requirements per Chapter 13.08.396 of the City’s Municipal Code prior to building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director. The Wastewater Offset Flow Application and a PDF version of the project plans shall be submitted to the Utilities Engineer at wastewateroffset@slocity.org. Page 28 of 248 Resolution No. (2026 Series) Page 7 Indemnification 21. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. Upon motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _______ day of _________, 2026. __________________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission Page 29 of 248 Page 30 of 248 RACHEL CT. DEVELOPMENT This project involves the development of 2080 Rachel St. into separate parcels where parcel 003-661-036 & 037 each shall include two new dwellings and two ADUs. As a result of state law, these ADUs should not count toward the R-2 zoning density maximum of two units—resulting in two units per parcel. The initial development will consist of demolishing an existing 425 sq ft building and re-grading the property. The overall development will consist of (2) single-story two bedroom units, (2) two-story two bedroom units, and (4) ADU units. SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I C I V I L I U T I L I T I E S I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E Page 31 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E Project Address: 2080 Rachel St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 003-661-036 & 037 Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) Construction type VB Number of stories 2 Occupancy R-3 Lot Size: .13 acres (5,585 sq ft) & .13 acres (5,586 sq ft) Max. Density: 12 units per acre ((12 units per acre)(.13 acres) = 1.56 units) Max. Density Allowed: 2 units (min. per R-2) Density Proposed: 2 units per lot (4 total) Max. Lot Coverage: 50% permissible Lot Coverage Proposed: 2,026 sq ft (36.28%) [Refer to A1.3 for Lot Coverage Calc.] Lot coverage calculated excluding sq. ft. of ADUs per Code 17.70.120(B)(5). Allowable Height: 35’ Max Height Proposed: 25’-3” Front Setback: 20’ Side Setback: 5’ (Min.) Rear Setback: 5’ (Min.) Sprinklers Required Yes Sprinklers Proposed Yes Units Proposed on Both Parcels (1) Garage: 1,250 sq. ft. (1) Unit A: 1,064 sq. ft. 1 density unit (1) Unit B: 1,174 sq. ft. 1 density unit (1) ADU A: 419 sq. ft. 0 density unit (1) ADU B: 629 sq. ft. 0 density unit Total New Development sq. ft.: 3,286 sq. ft. 2 density units (per lot) Car & Bicycle Parking Calcs West Parcel Car Parking Required Bicycle Parking Req. (2/unit) Unit A Not Required per AB 2097* 2 Unit B Not Required per AB 2097* 2 ADU A Not Required for ADUs Not Required for ADUs ADU B Not Required for ADUs Not Required for ADUs 0 Req. (2 Provided) 4 Req. (4 Provided) East Parcel Car Parking Required Bicycle Parking Req. (2/unit) Unit A Not Required per AB 2097* 2 Unit B Not Required per AB 2097* 2 ADU A Not Required for ADUs Not Required for ADUs ADU B Not Required for ADUs Not Required for ADUs 0 Req. (2 Provided) 4 Req. (4 Provided) *Refer to Vicinity Map for the location of the Amtrak Station within a 1/2 mile of the project site. A1.0 Demo Site Plan A1.1 Existing Slope Exhibit A1.2 Existing Historical Determination A1.3 Landscape Plan A1.4 Site Plan A1.5 Site Plan A1.6 Grading & Section Cut Exhibit A2.0 West Parcel Floor Plans A2.1 East Parcel Floor Plans A2.2 ADU Floor Plans A3.0 Exterior Elevations West Parcel West Elev. A3.1 West Parcel West Elev. (10’ Dims.) Owner: Brian Rolph Email: brian.a.rolph@gmail.com 1334 Garden Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Architect: Will Ruoff Email: willr@4-creeks.com 605 Santa Rosa Street Phone: 805.235.5333 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Civil Engineer: 4Creeks Contact: Danielle Lauinger 605 Santa Rosa Street Email: daniellel@4-creeks.com San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805.305.8715 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DIRECTORY SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP AGENCIES AND UTILITIES City of San Luis Obispo - Community Development Department Phone: (805) 781-7170 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Building Department Phone: (805) 781-7180 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Planning Department Phone: (805) 781-7170 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Public Works Department Phone: (805)781-7200 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Fire Department Phone: (805) 781-7380 2160 Santa Barbara Ave San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PG&E Phone: (800) 743-5000 1250 Kendall Rd San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 A3.2 Exterior Elevations - West Parcel East Elev. A3.3 West Parcel East Elev. (10’ Dims.) A3.4 Exterior Elevations - East Parcel West Elev. A3.5 East Parcel West Elev. (10’ Dims.) A3.6 Exterior Elevations - East Parcel East Elev. A3.7 East Parcel East Elev. (10’ Dims.) A3.8 Exterior Elevations - South Elevation Unit A A3.9 Exterior Elevations - North Elevation Unit B A3.10 North Elevation Unit B (10’ Dims.) A3.11 Exterior Elevations - South Elevation ADU A3.12 Exterior Elevations - North Elevation ADU A4.0 Colors & Material - East Parcel A4.1 Colors & Materials - West Parcel A5.0 Perspective A5.1 Perspective A5.2 Perspective A6.0 Supporting Documents CIVIL C1.0 PROPERTY INFORMATION C2.0 GRADING & DRAINAGE C3.0 UTILITY PLAN C4.0 PROPOSED EASEMENTS C5.0 STORMWATER COMPLIANCE Page 32 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 27'-11" 13'-11" 25'-0" (E) SHED STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CONCRETE V-GUTTER TO REMAIN (E) AC DRIVEWAY TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) FENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) DRIVE APPROACH TO BE DEMOLISHED RA C H E L C T (E) BUILDING TO BE TREE #1 TREE #2 TREE #3 (E) 12' NEIGHBORING WALL & FENCE HEIGHT DEMOLISHED 425 SQ FT DEMO (E) WATER METER LOCATION. COORDINATE WITH CIVIL DEMO (E) STAIRS PROPERTY LINE DEMO SITE PLAN LEGEND EXISTING TREE TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT IN PLACE TREE #1: 33" ITALIAN STONE PINE TREE #2: "BELOW SIZE LIMIT" VICTORIAN BOX TREE #3: "BELOW SIZE LIMIT" VICTORIAN BOX NOTE: REFER TO ARBORIST REPORT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON TREES TREE DEMO LIST TO BE DEMOLISHED AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE FOUND THE EXISTING 425 SQ FT BUILDING IS CMU, DOES NOT HAVE PLUMBING OR ELECTRICITY, AND SERVED AS A SHED/WAREHOUSE FOR THE PRIMARY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURE IS ACCESSORY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OR ASSOCIATION WITH ANY MASTER ARCHITECTS/BUILDER OR EVENT. EXISTING STRUCTURES A1.0DEMO SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” N (E) SHED STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED [425 SQ FT] REFER TO SHEET A1.1 FOR THE HISTORICAL DETERMINATION ON THE EXISTING 425 SQ FT STRUCTURE. Page 33 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com (E) TOPO SLOPE AREA BREAKDOWN AVG SLOPE 1: 23.33% AREA: 3,162 SQ FT AVG SLOPE 2: 13.86% AREA: 1,460 SQ FT AVG SLOPE 3: 26.26% AREA: 2,248 SQ FT AVG SLOPE 4: 17.49% AREA: 1,870 SQ FT AVG SLOPE 5: 25% AREA: 1,341 SQ FT AVG SLOPE 6: 2.5% AREA: 1,088 SQ FT AVG SLOPE = WEIGHTED AVERAGES = [(3,162x23.33) + (1,460x13.86) + (2,248x26.26) + (1,870x17.49) + (1,341x25) + (1,088x2.5)] / 11,169 =19.88%>16% PARCEL HAS AN AVG NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT GREATER THAN THE 16% SPECIFIED PER §17.106.030(B)(1). DUE TO VARIABLE SLOPES THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY A WEIGHTED AVERAGE WAS THE MORE ACCURATE METHOD OF APPROACH USED TO CALCULATE THE AVERAGE SLOPE. THE PROPOSED SITE DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH MC 17.70.090 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SLOPE EXHIBIT LEGEND A1.1EXISTING SLOPE EXHIBIT SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SLOPE 3 [26.26 % ] SLOPE 4 [17.49%] S L O P E 5 [ 2 5 % ] 3,162 SQ FT AREA 52.5' FT LENGTH 314.75'-302.5' = 12.25' RISE 12.25'/52.5' = 23.33% 1,460 SQ FT AREA 41.5' FT LENGTH 317.75'-312' = 5.75' RISE 5.75'/41.5'=13.86% 2,237 SQ FT AREA 49.5' FT LENGTH 314'-301' = 13' RISE 13'/49.5'=26.26% 1,885 SQ FT AREA 45.75' FT LENGTH 304'-296.5' = 8' RISE 8'/45.75'=17.49% SLOPE 6 [2.5%] SLOPE 6 [2.5%] 1,337 SQ FT AREA 41' FT LENGTH 301.5'-291.25' = 10.25' RISE 10.25'/41'=25% SLO P E 1 [ 2 3 . 3 3 % ] S L O P E 2 [ 1 3 . 8 6 % ] N Page 34 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A1.2EXISTING HISTORICAL DETERMINATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE FOUND THE EXISTING 425 SQ FT STRUCTURE IS CMU, DOES NOT HAVE PLUMBING OR ELECTRICITY, AND SERVED AS A SHED/WAREHOUSE FOR THE PRIMARY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURE IS ACCESSORY IN NATURE, BEARS NO ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OR ASSOCIATION WITH ANY MASTER ARCHITECTS/BUILDER OR EVENT. TAX RECORDS, PROPERTY DEEDS, AND THE LOCAL RECORD OFFICE PROVIDE NO NOTABLE INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY. A LACK OF REBAR/REINFORCEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE MAKES IT UNOCUPPIABLE AND HAZARDOUS TO ANY POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS. EXISTING STRUCTURE Page 35 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E A1.3LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”N Lot Coverage: 1,250 sq. ft. Garage 776 sq. ft. Unit B (1st Floor) 2,026 sq. ft. Lot Coverage (excluding ADUs) RACHEL COURT RA C H E L S T R E E T GARAGE & STORAGE 1,250 SF GARAGE & STORAGE 1,250 SF 20 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING 5' - 1 " 5' 7'5' 6' 5'-9"6'6'-1"6' (N) STREET TREE (N) STREET TREE 10 ' - 5 " (N) STREET TREE (N) TREE (N) TREE Page 36 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E A1.4SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” RACHEL COURT RA C H E L S T R E E T 4' - 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 4' 10'-0" 5' 5' 20 ' - 0 " 8'-6" 6'-0"8'-6" UNIT B 1ST FLR. 2 BED 776 SF FF: 309.42 UNIT B 1ST FLR. 2 BED 776 SF FF: 304.35 UNIT A 2 BEDROOM 1,064 SF FF: 294.35 UNIT A 2 BEDROOM 1,064 SF FF: 299.42 ADU A 1 BED 419 SF FF: 304.75 ADU B 2 BED 629 SF FF: 308 ADU A 1 BED 419 SF FF: 311.42 ADU B 2 BED 629 SF FF: 314.25 ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING 39 SF DECK 34 SF DECK34 SF DECK 39 SF DECK ADJACENT DWELLING ADMINISTERIAL APPROVAL PER CA STATE LAW ADMINISTERIAL APPROVAL PER CA STATE LAW (E)COVERED PATIO TO REMAIN N W SS GAS For Rent (6%): 3% for Very Low-Income Households (rounded down) per SLOMC 17.138.040(B)(2) (2 Units)(.03) = .06 Units Rounded down to 0 Low-Income Units 3% for Low-Income Households (rounded up) per SLOMC 17.138.040(B)(2) (2 Units)(.03) = .06 Units Rounded up to 1 Low-Income Units In-Lieu Fee: ((Remaining Fractional Inclusionary Req.) X (For Rent In-Lieu Fee))(Habitable Area) ((0.12) X ($21.42 / square foot)) (2,238 sq. ft.) = ($5,752.56 / lot) (2 lots) = Total In-Lieu Fee: $11,505.12 Inclusionary Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Calc. Page 37 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E A1.5SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” RACHEL COURT RA C H E L S T R E E T 10'-0"12'-1"12'-1" 10'-0"5'10'-0"5' 5' 8' 10 ' - 1 12" 10 ' - 1 12" UNIT B 2ND FLR. 2 BED 398 SF UNIT B 2ND FLR. 2 BED 398 SF ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING 10 ' - 0 " 61 ' - 6 " 51 ' - 5 " 61 ' - 1 1 " 50 ' - 1 1 " 26 ' - 5 " SECOND STORY MASS CENTERED ON PROPERTY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE N W SS GAS Page 38 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E A1.6GRADING & SECTION CUT EXHIBIT SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” RACHEL COURT RA C H E L S T R E E T 01A 03A 03E 03E 01C 01C 01A 03A 03B 01B 03B 01B 01E 01E 03D 03D ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING ADJACENT DWELLING A 3.6/7 A 3.0/1 A 3.2/3 A 3.4/5 A 3.8 A 3.11 A 3.9/10 A 3.12 N W SS GAS Page 39 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E WEST PARCEL FLOOR PLANS A2.0SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”N 1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 2 DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN 3 DUPLEX SECOND FLOOR PLAN Page 40 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E EAST PARCEL FLOOR PLANS A2.1SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”N 1 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 2 DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN 3 DUPLEX SECOND FLOOR PLAN Page 41 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E ADU FLOOR PLANS A2.2SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”N 2 ADU FLOOR PLAN (EAST)1 ADU FLOOR PLAN (WEST) ADMINISTERIAL APPROVAL PER CA STATE LAW. ADMINISTERIAL APPROVAL PER CA STATE LAW. Page 42 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.0SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N WEST PARCEL - WEST ELEVATION (DOWNHILL SIDE) 290 300 295 290 305 01A 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 304.75 FF 304.35 FF 294.35 285285 8'-6" FROM PL 15'-0" FROM PL 5'-0" FROM PL 4'-0" FROM PL 20'-0" 18 ' - 7 " 24 ' - 1 " 15 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 24 ' - 2 " 10 ' - 6 " 11 ' - 5 " 9' - 5 " 20 ' - 7 " 8' - 1 0 " 11 ' - 7 " Page 43 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 290 300 295 290 305 01A 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 304.75 FF 304.35 FF 294.35 285285 20'-0" 11 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 5 " 10 ' - 7 " 11 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 2 " 13 ' - 6 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 14 ' - 9 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 9' - 9 " 4'-0" 8' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 6 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.1SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N WEST PARCEL - WEST ELEVATION (DOWNHILL SIDE) DIMENSIONS EVERY 10’ Page 44 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 290 300 295 290 305 03A FF 308 FF 304.35 285 6'-0" FROM PL 5'-0" FROM PL 4'-0" FROM PL 8'-0" FROM PL 5'-0" FROM PL 35' MAX. HEIGHT 20'-0" 13 ' - 9 " 12 ' - 5 " 9' - 1 " 8' - 1 0 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 19 ' - 2 " 3' - 5 " 17 ' - 2 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 5' - 1 1 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 1 1 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N WEST PARCEL - EAST ELEVATION (UPHILL SIDE) Page 45 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 290 300 295 290 305 03A 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 308 FF 304.35 285 20'-0" 18 ' - 1 0 " 10 ' - 2 " 4'-0" 13 ' - 1 0 " 10 ' - 3 " 8' - 1 1 " 8' - 1 0 " 9' - 9 " 8' - 7 " 9' - 1 1 " 9' - 8 " 9' - 5 " 6' - 4 " 18 ' - 1 0 " 18 ' - 8 " 15 ' - 5 " 9' - 4 " 24 ' - 3 " 20 ' - 1 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.3SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N WEST PARCEL - EAST ELEVATION (UPHILL SIDE) DIMENSIONS EVERY 10’ Page 46 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 305 310 295 290 315 295 290 01B 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 309.42 FF 299.42 FF 311.42 8'-6" FROM PL 15'-0" FROM PL 5'-0" FROM PL 4'-0" FROM PL 14 ' - 1 1 " 17 ' - 8 " 20'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 6' - 7 " 12 ' - 1 1 " 6' - 1 " 23 ' - 3 " 8' - 6 " 10 ' - 1 1 " 18 ' - 2 " 8' - 1 0 " 9' - 3 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.4SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N EAST PARCEL - WEST ELEVATION Page 47 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 305 310 295 290 315 295 290 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 309.42 FF 311.42 01B FF 299.42 20'-0" 19 ' - 2 " 4'-0" 9' - 6 " 10 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 1 " 8' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 25 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 9 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 1 0 " 11 ' - 1 " 11 ' - 3 " 9' - 1 0 " 12 ' - 7 " 9' - 2 " 11 ' - 8 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.5SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N EAST PARCEL - WEST ELEVATION DIMENSIONS EVERY 10’ Page 48 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 305 310 295 290 315 295 290 03B 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 314.25 FF 299.42 8'-0" FROM PL 4'-0" FROM PL 6'-0" FROM PL 5'-0" FROM PL FF 309.42 5'-0" FROM PL 16 ' - 4 " 14 ' - 1 1 " 20'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 11 ' - 7 " 2' - 7 " 19 ' - 1 0 " 5' - 7 " 7' - 0 " 14 ' - 1 0 " 9' - 0 " 5' - 1 0 " 9' - 1 1 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.6SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N EAST PARCEL - EAST ELEVATION (UPHILL SIDE) Page 49 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 305 310 295 290 315 295 290 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 314.25 FF 309.42 FF 299.4203B 35' MAX. HEIGHT 20'-0" 14 ' - 1 0 " 14 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 5 " 5' - 1 1 " 15 ' - 4 " 4'-0" 8' - 1 0 " 6' - 8 " 6' - 5 " 9' - 4 " 9' - 2 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 6 " 15 ' - 4 " 8' - 8 " 20 ' - 8 " 23 ' - 7 " 13 ' - 4 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.7SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N EAST PARCEL - EAST ELEVATION (UPHILL SIDE) DIMENSIONS EVERY 10’ Page 50 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 305 310 315 01C 295 290 300 295 290 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 294.35 FF 299.42 5'-0"10'-0" 10'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 5'-0" 8'-0" 17 ' - 1 0 " 14 ' - 1 0 " 8' - 1 0 " 14 ' - 2 " 8'-6"6'-0"6'-0"8'-6" 15'-0" 9' - 1 1 " 17 ' - 9 " 5' - 1 0 " 5'-0" 5' - 3 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.8SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N SOUTH ELEVATION - UNIT A Page 51 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 305 310 315 03D 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 304.35 FF 309.42 5'-0"10'-0"10'-0" 8'-0" 10'-0" 5'-0" 8'-0" 5'-0" 15'-0" 5'-0" 3' - 3 " 12 ' - 3 " 15 ' - 2 " 5' - 1 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 10 ' - 3 " 19 ' - 7 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.9SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N NORTH ELEVATION - UNIT B Page 52 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 305 310 315 03D 35' MAX. HEIGHT FF 304.35 FF 309.42 23 ' - 7 " 5'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0" 5'-0" 8'-0" 5'-0"5'-0" 19 ' - 4 " 11 ' - 5 " 6' - 9 " 19 ' - 4 " 10 ' - 0 " 5' - 2 " 23 ' - 7 " 7' - 6 " 11 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 0 " 10 ' - 3 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.10SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N NORTH ELEVATION - UNIT B DIMENSIONS EVERY 10’ Page 53 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 300 305 310 315 320 01E 16' MAX. ADU HEIGHT FF 304.75 FF 314.25 FF 308 FF 311.42 5' - 5 " 6' - 4 " 6' - 7 " 11 ' - 6 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 11 ' - 2 " 8' - 3 " 5'-0"5'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.11SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N SOUTH ELEVATION - ADU Page 54 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 300 03E 300 305 310 315 320 16' MAX. ADU HEIGHT FF 308 FF 304.75 FF 314.25 FF 311.42 9' - 3 " 7' - 2 " 11 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 11 ' - 3 " 4'-0" 4'-0" 14 ' - 1 1 " EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.12SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N NORTH ELEVATION - ADU Page 55 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com COLORS & MATERIALS - EAST PARCEL A4.0SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”N M3 COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES OWENS CORNING BROWN / DARK BROWN M2 CMU BASE ORCO BLOCK LEGEND M6 VINYL WINDOW MILGARD V250 STYLE LINE SERIES WHITE M7 VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS MILGARD V300 TRINSIC SERIES SLIDING PATIO DOOR - T M5 FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® PLANK “CANVAS BEIGE” M9 FIBER CEMENT SHINGLE SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® SHINGLE “NAVAJO BEIGE” M1 PAINTED FASCIA & DECK EAVE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS “SW 7005 - PURE WHITE” M5: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M6: VINYL WINDOW, TYP. M1: ROOF FASCIA M9: SHINGLE SIDING M5: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M7: VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS M9: SHINGLE SIDING M1: DECK EAVEDECORATIVE ENTRY DOOR AS SELECTED SINGLE GARAGE DOOR M3: COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES Page 56 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A4.1SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0” M4: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M6: VINYL WINDOW, TYP. M1: ROOF FASCIA M4: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M7: VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS M1: DECK EAVEDECORATIVE ENTRY DOOR AS SELECTED SINGLE GARAGE DOOR M3: COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES M8: SHINGLE SIDING M8: SHINGLE SIDING M3 COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES OWENS CORNING BROWN / DARK BROWN M2 CMU BASE ORCO BLOCK LEGEND M6 VINYL WINDOW MILGARD V250 STYLE LINE SERIES WHITE M7 VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS MILGARD V300 TRINSIC SERIES SLIDING PATIO DOOR - T M4 FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® PLANK “SAN PEDRO GREEN” M8 FIBER CEMENT SHINGLE SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® SHINGLE “MOUNTAIN SAGE” M1 PAINTED FASCIA & DECK EAVE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS “SW 7005 - PURE WHITE” COLORS & MATERIALS - WEST PARCEL N Page 57 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A5.0PERSPECTIVE NOT TO SCALE Page 58 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A5.1PERSPECTIVE NOT TO SCALE Page 59 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A5.2PERSPECTIVE NOT TO SCALE Page 60 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A6.0SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT TO SCALE SUPPORTING IMAGERY ADDRESS: 2072 Rachel St. N ADDRESS: 940 Transition to 948 Rachel Ct. ADDRESS: 2072 Rachel St. S ADDRESS: 948 Transition to 954 Rachel Ct. ADDRESS: 2072 Rachel St. N Zoomed In ADDRESS: 954 Transition to 960 Rachel Ct. ADDRESS: 2080 & 2098 Rachel Ct. ADDRESS: 974 Rachel Ct. Page 61 of 248 GARAGE: 294.35 FF92E:GGARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FF2 GGARAGE: 299.42 FF 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FF 1ST FLR 311.42 FF 1ST FLR 304.75 FF304.75 FF SDSD SDSD SD SD SD Page 62 of 248 GARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FF 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF 1. 5 % 111 C 289.842 FL (289.76)899.76)2 C 290.442290 442 C 292.14292.14CC 9922 1114 FL (292.06)FFLL (2FFLL FL (292 06)FFLL C 292.562.56 C29327C29327C29327C 293.27C29327C29327C29327C 293.27C 293.27C 293.27CCCCC C 293.27293 27 FF 294.35FF 2FFFFFFFFFFFFFF F FFFF C 294.27CCCCCCC222229 FF 294.352222222FF59443522229222222222355FF 4.272.2222222222722222C 294CC 29 18 . 5 % %5%5% 888. 1 %%%%% 4. 7 % 4 7% 4 C 294.90 FL (294.82) C 296.07296.070777 FL (295.99) C 295.50 C 296.676.67 C29834C298.34C29834C298.34C298.34C29834C298.34C 298.34C298.34C298.34 C29834C29834C29834C29834C29834C29834C29834C29834C298.34C29834C 298.34C298.34C29834C298.34444444444444444444444CC FF 299.42 C 299.34 FF 299.42FFFF22999FFF C 299.34 FL 313.44FL G 312.592.5 FL 312.499 G (313.49)() G (314.52)G () G (315.6)G (() 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FFT T1ST FLR: 304.35 FF G 314.10 G (313.00)() G (318.3) HP () G 314.21 G (317.5)() G 314.16 G (317.7))() G 314.10 G (317.4)()18.6% 1ST FLR 311.42 FF311.42 FF G 309.30G 308.30 G 306.83GG3 G 306.753000 G 307.33 G 307.25 G 307.53 G 307.77 G 309.00 2. 0 % G (301.92)() (17.5%)(( G (303.63)() G 307.14G 303.78 G 302.85G (302.65)() 1ST FLR 304.75 FFFFF304.75 FF G 303.91 G (303.8)() FL 314.27 FL 314.43 HP G 314.73GGG3314473331 G 314.68 HP 2. 0 % G (310.66)G () G 310.75 C 294 18C 294 18C 294.18C 294 18C 294 18 C 293 0202C 293 02C 293 02C 293 02C 293 02C 293 02C 293 02C 293.02C 293 02C 293.02C 293.02C 293 02C 293.02C 293.02C 293.02C 293.02 C 293 8C 293.58C 293 8C 293 89999 C29327293 27C293.27C29327C 293.27C293.27C29327C293.27CCCCCCCC C 294.27 C299.24299 24C299.24C299.24C 299.24C299.24C299.24C299.24C 299.24C 299.24C 299.24 C 297.363 C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34C 298.34C 298 34C 298 34C 298 34 C 298.34C 298.3488.88 44443333 11 . 1 % 18 . 5 % % C29774C29774C29774C29774C29774C29774C29774C29774C 297.74C29774C29774 C 298 57C 298 57C 298 57C 298 57C 298 57C 298 57C 298 57C 298.57C 298 57C 298 5788888885555555577CCCCCCC 29 C29929C29929C29929C29929C29929C29929C29929C29929C29929C299.29C29929C29929C29929C299.29C299.29C 299.29C299.29C299.29C299.29 C 299.38 C 299.40C 299.4099.2 C 299.50 C 299.499 G 304.4 1. 3 % 2. 0 %2. 0 % 2 0.0 FF 304.35 C 304.33 C 304.333004.33 C 304.22 FF 304.35 C 304.29 0.8 % G 305.42G 300.3500000 G (292.4)() G 298.6GG 2 6666666666666666GG29G 296.888GGGG 296. G (297.0)GGGG (2GG (G ()(G 299.1G299GG229999991G G 229229929999999999GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG FF 309.42 C 309.40 FF 309.42 C 309.38 C 309.38 G 304.3 C 309.36 C 309.30 C 304.44 1. 0 % C 304.44 FF 309.42 C 309.39 FF 309.423309.423 C 309.36 C 309.40 C 309.35C 309.35CC 3C CC C 307.87 C 307.87 C 311.40C 311.32 1.4%.4%.4%.4%C 314314.10314314 C 314.23 1.5%%%%%% C 308.00088.0 C 307.92 0.8%C 307.87C 307CCC 307.95 C 309.3193193193131333 0.5% C 307.87 C 307.80 C 307.80 C 307.7777777 C 307.81FF 304.35 C 304.32CC FF 304.35FFFF 304 35FF C 304.29 CC 30044 229CC 3CCC C 304.453303 1.3%33%%%3%%%%%% C 304.25C 304.25C 33 C 304.73C0004.7 C 304.65 C 304.25C330042C255 C 304.299CCC C 304.242442.22242444CC304C 304.2CC30422C CC C 33 G (303.7)GGG ((303.7() G 304.00GG30 C 307.79 C 307.79 C 304.55 7%77777 0.777 C 304.54 G 295.38 G 314.6 FL 303.33 G (303.98)(3300333998(3((3G 888()( G (303.26)30033 2263333033.26G(2226() G 298.5GG 2998 FL 299.0 20 % 25%% 50 3633 TG 309.28 G 309.2 CC C 307.83 C 304.51 C 293 50C 293 50C 293 50C 293.50C 293 50C 293 50C 293 50 00000000000000000000G 292.502502929292209292.2 5555005G 2292292G22222G (292.0)() LIP 300.95L G (303.0)03() LIP 301.90190 FL 301.65 G (303.83)GG (3 383)33 88() G (302.0)() FL 300.70FLF FL/G 298.65 G 309.92 2. 0 % %%% 2. 0 % 20 % 22 G 307.77 G (307.55)() G (308.47)() G 313.10 G 313.85 G 313.955.0 % 5.0 % CC 30044.2222 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 34353 4. 3 . G G 3 299 3 9 GGGGG FF C2949 7 25% GARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FF 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FFT T1ST FLR: 304.35 FF 1ST FLR 311.42 FF311.42 FF 1ST FLR 304.75 FFFF304.75 FF TW 301.00W G 298.0298 TW 300 000TW 300 00TW 300 00TW 300 00TW 300 00TW 300 00TW 300 00TW 300.00TW 300 00TW 300 00 G 299.3 G 298.0G 2988.00 G2980G2980G2980G2980G 298.0G2980G2980G2980G 298.0G 298.0G 298.0 C29857C29857C29857C29857C29857C29857C29857C 298.57C29857C 298.C 298.C29857C 298.8888888 5555555577CCC CCCCC C C 2299 TW 300.67TWT FL 300.00FLF TW 301.33TTTTWWWWTWTTTTTTTWTWWTTTTTTTTWTWWTTTT FL 300.70FLF C 299.34CCC2 TW 303.33 G 303.0GG 3 TW 318.00 G (315.6) TW 318.67 G (318.3) HP TW 318.67 TW 318.00W 33 8. G (317.5)GG (331777 5(331 G 314.68GG 3 TW 318.67 TW 318.00 G (317.7) G 314.16 TW 318.0000 G (317.4) G 314.10 TW 316.67 TW 316.00 G (315.67)TW 314.00 G 313.02 G 307.77 TW 309.33 TW 308.67 G (308.47)TW 308.67 G 307.59 G 313.55 G 312.0 TW 314.67 C 314.23 TW 314.67 C 314.23 TW 3144314.6731314 C 314.10 C 309.35CCC 309.35CCCCCCC C 3CCC TW 312.00 C 311.40 TW 312.00 C 311.32 C 309.3131313131 TW 308.673 C 307.87C 303333 7 TW 311.33 C 307.87 G 309.30G TW 308.33TTWW330 C 307.80C G 306.836. G 306.75G TW 308.33 TW 309.00 G 308.30G3 TW 309.33 G 309.00 33TW 308.3TTTT G 307.81307.GGGG 33330GGGGGGGGGGG3303007 8G G 33330077.8....8111GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG C 304.45040444454.445CCCC330000444444C 330044.433333030404000444 4444445530300400444.4.4.44455555555CCCCCC TW 308.67TW 3 C 307.87 TW 308.67 C 307.95 TW 308.67 C 307.80 C 304.65C30465555 C 304.25CCCC 304.25C44 C 304.7330 TW 297.67TWW229TTWWWWWWTTTWWWWWW W 222977 G (297.0)GG (GG TW 297.00TTWWW2222200 G (292.4)GG ()TW 299.0000299.0000TW9.9..00 C 294.27CCC 222994942222777 G 298.68GG 298888 666292988888G 296.829966.88 TW 298.67T G 295.38 TW 300 00TW 300.00TW 300 00TW 300 00000 C 294 18C 294 18C 294.18C 294 18C 294 188 TW 300.00 C 294.27 TW 300.00 C 299.40 TW 300.00TW 300.00 C 299.24 C29929C 299.29C29929C29929 C 299.38 TW 300.00 C 299.49 TW 304.67 C 304.22 TW 305.33 C 304.44 TW 310.00 C 304.27 C 299.57C 2 7 TW 310.00 C 309.38 TW 310.00TTTW 31 C 309.300 TW 304.67 G 304.3 G 304.4 TW 309.33 G 309.3TW 309.33 C 304.55 C 304.51 TW 309.33 C 307.79 TW 309.333333 G 309.30C 307.79 TW 293.00TTW3 G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5G 292.5G 292 5G 292 5G 292 5GGGGGGGGGGGGGG2292222222222922225555555555555 TW 296.33TTWWW2TTWW 2W 296 3 G (292.5)GG ((2292.5) TW 295.67W29TWWW 229 7 G (292.4)GG ((229 TW 294.333 G (292.1) TW 295.00TTWWW 2 G (292.2)GG ((22(2(292.2 TW 293.677773.67 G (292.0)GGG ((2((92.0922000)0))) TW 297.6799976677777.6677777792979999 TW 297.00WW 297TTTW 2WW G (295.6)GG (22299595995956) G 296.9 C 309.36 G 307.53 8 C29929C29929C29929C29929999 304 27 31 33 C 3 0 3 0 4 9 9 3 5 2.))0)) Page 63 of 248 GARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FF ) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF INV 288.48 FL 288.44 (E) W (E) W W (E) W (E) W W WW W 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FFT T1ST FLR: 304.35 FF 1ST FLR 311.42 FF311.42 FF 1ST FLR 304.75 FF304.75 FF WW SDSD SD SD SD SD S SS ) W SS SS SSS SS SS SSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W WWW W WWW W WWW W W W SD S SDD DD WWWWWWWWWW SDS SDSD RIM 291.92RIM 29RIM 29RIM 29 INV 289.15INV 289NV 289INV 289 INV 287.30287.307I.. INV 287.15N INV 284.40. RIM 294.76 INV 289.04N INV 284.54N4 INV 293.73 FL 293.69 MRIM 295.34MMRIMIRIMRIMRMRIMRIMRR INV 293.75V INV 292.002I INV 289.00 RIM 299.33 INV 294.33 SDSD SDSD SD RIM 299.22 INV 294.15I INV 289.15IN INV 291.75 MIMIMMIIMMR SSSSS SD SD SD SD RACHEL COURT S 344 33 .3 SD S W SSS S DW S 299 3 D WW SDD SS MMMMMMMMIRMMIMMIMMIMMIMMMIMMMMMMMMMII SS Page 64 of 248 GARAGE: 294.35 FFGARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FFGARAGE: 299.42 FF 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF W W 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FF 1ST FLR 311.42 FF 1ST FLR 304.75 FF304.75 FF WW SD SDD SD SD SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSS SS SS SS SSS SD W W W W W WW W W W SD SD DD WWWWW SD SDSD SDSD SD SD SSSSS SD SD SD SDSD SS W SSSSS W SSSSSSS SDDS SS SDS WW SS SSSSSSSSSS SD S SS S WW SSSSS S WW S WW S S WW SS SD SSSSSSSS SSS SD W WW S SD W SSDDSDDS SS SSWW SSSS WWWWWWW WWW SDS SSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSS D S Page 65 of 248 GARAGE: 294.35 FF GARAGE: 299.42 FF 1ST FLR: 308.0 FF1ST FLR: 308.0 FF 1ST FLR: 314.25 FF1ST FLR: 314.25 FF 1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 309.42 FF1ST FLR: 304.35 FFT T1ST FLR: 304.35 FF 1ST FLR 311.42 FF311.42 FF 1ST FLR 304.75 FF304.75 FF SDSD DSD SD SDS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDD DD SDS SDSD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDDDSDD SD SD SD SDSD D S DDDDD SDD SD DD Page 66 of 248 RACHEL CT. DEVELOPMENT This project involves the development of 2080 Rachel St. into separate parcels where parcel 003-661-036 & 037 each shall include two new dwellings and an ADU. As a result of state law, these ADUs should not count toward the R-2 zoning density maximum of two units—resulting in two units per parcel. This is permissible on a site with an average (cross-parcel) slope below the sixteen percent threshold per 17.70.040(A)(2). Please also consider several approved properties within the vicinity with two dwellings and an ADU. The initial development will consist of demolishing an existing 425 sq ft building and re-grading the property while the existing driveway apron will remain. The overall development will consist of (2) single-story two bedroom units, (2) two-story two bedroom units, and (2) ADU units. Through this application we are requesting an exception for setback and height requirements as they occur on the shared property line, on the East edge of the western parcel (003-661-036). Please refer to the Exception Request Letter for further information. SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I C I V I L I U T I L I T I E S I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E Page 67 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E Project Address: 2080 Rachel St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 003-661-036 & 037 Zoning: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) Construction type VB Number of stories 2 Occupancy R-3 Lot Size: .13 acres (5,585 sq ft) & .13 ac (5,586 sq ft) Max. Density: 12 units per acre (12 units per acre / .13 acres = 1.56 units) Max. Density Allowed: 2 units (min. per R-2) Density Proposed: 2 units Max. Lot Coverage: 50% permissible Lot Coverage Proposed: 2,255 sq ft (40.37%) Allowable Height: 35’ Max Height Proposed: 23’-8” Front Setback: 20’ Side Setback: 5’ (Min.) Rear Setback: 5’ (Min.) Sprinklers Required Yes Sprinklers Proposed Yes Units Proposed on Both Parcels (1) Unit A: ~913 sq. ft. = 1 density unit (1) Unit B: ~963 sq. ft. = 1 density unit (1) ADU: ~977 sq. ft. = 0 density unit 2 density units (per lot) Total New Development sq. ft.: 2,853 sq. ft. Car & Bicycle Parking Calcs West Parcel Car Parking Req. (.75 spaces/bed) Bicycle Parking Req. (2/unit) Unit A 2 Beds = 1.5 Spaces 2 Unit B 2 Beds = 1.5 Spaces 2 ADU Not Required for ADUs Not Required 3 Req. (3 Provided) 4 Req. (6 Provided) East Parcel Car Parking Req. (.75 spaces/bed) Bicycle Parking Req. (2/unit) Unit A 2 Beds = 1.5 Spaces 2 Unit B 2 Beds = 1.5 Spaces 2 ADU Not Required for ADUs Not Required 3 Req. (3 Provided) 4 Req. (6 Provided) ARCHITECTURAL A1.0 Demo Site Plan A1.1 Existing Historical Determination A1.2 Site Plan A1.3 Landscape Site Plan A2.0 Unit A Floor Plans A2.1 West Parcel Unit A Elevations A2.2 East Parcel Unit A Elevations A3.0 Unit B & ADU Floor Plans A3.1 West Parcel Unit B & ADU Elevations A3.2 East Parcel Unit B & ADU Elevations Refer to slope calculations on sheet C1.0. Combined lot slope is under 16% which per municipal code allows 2 density units per lot minimum on an R-2 lot. Owner: Brian Rolph Email: brian.a.rolph@gmail.com 1334 Garden Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Architect: Will Ruoff Email: willr@4-creeks.com 605 Santa Rosa Street Phone: 805.235.5333 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Civil Engineer: 4Creeks Contact: Danielle Lauinger 605 Santa Rosa Street Email: daniellel@4-creeks.com San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: 805.305.8715 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT DIRECTORY SHEET INDEX SLOPE CALCS.VICINITY MAP S L O R A I L R O A D & S A F E T Y T R A I L SA N T A B A R B A R A A V E RACHEL CT RA C H E L S T PROJECT LOCATION 1 TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE AGENCIES AND UTILITIES City of San Luis Obispo - Community Development Department Phone: (805)781-7180 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Building Department Phone: (805)781-7180 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Planning Department Phone: (805)781-7180 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Public Works Department Phone: (805)781-7180 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo - Fire Department Phone: (805)781-7380 2160 Santa Barbara Ave San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PG&E Phone: (800) 735-0000 406 Higuera St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 A4.0 Colors & Materials A4.1 Street Elevation A4.2 Building Height Diagram A5.0 Slope ExhibitEX CIVIL C1.0 Property Information C2.0 Grading and Drainage C3.0 Utility Plan C4.0 Proposed Easements Page 68 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 425 SQ FT A1.0DEMO SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” N (E) SHED STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING RETAINING WALLS AND STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, NEW PAINT AND CAULKING WHERE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE EXISTING STRUCTURE. NEW GARAGE DOOR AND HINGES TO BE ADDED FOR EASIER ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THE STRUCTURE. NO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED. (E) BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED [425 SQ FT] REFER TO SHEET A1.1 FOR THE HISTORICAL DETERMINATION ON THE EXISTING 425 SQ FT STRUCTURE. Page 69 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A1.1EXISTING HISTORICAL DETERMINATION SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” AFTER FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE FOUND THE EXISTING 425 SQ FT STRUCTURE IS CMU, DOES NOT HAVE PLUMBING OR ELECTRICITY, AND SERVED AS A SHED/WAREHOUSE FOR THE PRIMARY BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. THE STRUCTURE IS ACCESSORY IN NATURE, BEARS NO ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OR ASSOCIATION WITH ANY MASTER ARCHITECTS/BUILDER OR EVENT. TAX RECORDS, PROPERTY DEEDS, AND THE LOCAL RECORD OFFICE PROVIDE NO NOTABLE INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTY. A LACK OF REBAR/REINFORCEMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE MAKES IT UNOCUPPIABLE AND HAZARDOUS TO ANY POTENTIAL OCCUPANTS. EXISTING STRUCTURE Page 70 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 1 SITE PLAN 5% 2% 1-3% 2% 950 SQ FT 950 SQ FT 1020 SQ FT 968 SQ FT 1020 SQ FT 968 SQ FT 1- 3 % 5% W SS GAS A1.2SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0” N N 2 ENLARGED STAIR PLAN Page 71 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A1.3LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” N Page 72 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E UNIT A FLOOR PLANS 110 SQ FT 115 SQ FT 95.6 SQ FT A2.0SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”N 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN Page 73 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A2.1WEST PARCEL UNIT A ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 4 EAST ELEVATION3 NORTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION1 SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE AREA: 168 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING AREA: 29 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING PERCENTAGE: 17% FIRE SEPERATION DISTANCE: 10’-0” ALLOWABLE OPENING AREA: 45% Page 74 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A2.2EAST PARCEL UNIT A ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 4 EAST ELEVATION3 NORTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION1 SOUTH ELEVATION FACADE AREA: 168 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING AREA: 29 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING PERCENTAGE: 17% FIRE SEPERATION DISTANCE: 10’-0” ALLOWABLE OPENING AREA: 45% Page 75 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only, do not scale drawings 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com SU R V E Y I N G I S T R U C T U R A L I U T I L I T I E S I C I V I L I P L A N N I N G I A R C H I T E C T U R E UNIT B AND ADU FLOOR PLANS 120 SQ FT 125 SQ FT 155 SQ FT 100 SQ FT 100 SQ FT A3.0SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”N 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN Page 76 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com FACADE AREA: 212 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING AREA: 72 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING PERCENTAGE: 34% FIRE SEPERATION DISTANCE: 13’-0” ALLOWABLE OPENING AREA: 45% A3.1WEST PARCEL UNIT B & ADU ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 4 EAST ELEVATION3 NORTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION1 SOUTH ELEVATION Page 77 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com FACADE AREA: 212 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING AREA: 72 SQ. FT. EXTERIOR OPENING PERCENTAGE: 34% FIRE SEPERATION DISTANCE: 13’-0” ALLOWABLE OPENING AREA: 45% A3.2EAST PARCEL UNIT B & ADU ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” 4 EAST ELEVATION3 NORTH ELEVATION 2 WEST ELEVATION1 SOUTH ELEVATION Page 78 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A4.0COLORS AND MATERIALS SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0” M3 COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES OWENS CORNING BROWN / DARK BROWN M2 CMU BASE ORCO BLOCK LEGEND M6 VINYL WINDOW MILGARD “V250 STYLE LINE SERIES - TAN” M7 VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS MILGARD “V300 TRINSIC SERIES SLIDING PATIO DOOR - T” M4 FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® PLANK “SAN PEDRO GREEN” M5 FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® PLANK “CANVAS BEIGE” M6 FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN JAMES HARDIE - HARDIE® PANEL SIDING “CANVAS BEIGE” M1 PAINTED FASCIA & DECK EAVE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS “SW 9111 - ANTLER VELVET” M3: COMPOSITE ROOF SHINGLES M6: FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN PANELS M6: VINYL WINDOW M4: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M4: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M7: VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS M1: ROOF FASCIA M1: DECK EAVE P2: ROOF FACIA M1: ROOF FACIA M7: VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS SOLID WOOD DOOR M5: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING M2: CMU BASE M6: VINYL WINDOW M6: FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN M4: FIBER CEMENT SHIPLAP SIDING SINGLE GARAGE DOOR Page 79 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com 5'-0"SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM 5'-0"5'-0"SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM 5'-0"5'0"SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM 5'-0"5'-0"SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM 5'-0" A4.1STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0” WE S T P L ( S I D E ) SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM UNIT AT FRONT TWO STORY 3 BEDROOM UNIT & ADU AT BACK SINGLE STORY 2 BEDROOM UNIT AT FRONT TWO STORY 3 BEDROOM UNIT & ADU AT BACK RACHEL COURT RACHEL COURT SH A R E D P L EA S T P L ( S I D E ) 10'-0" Page 80 of 248 SET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION For planning purposes only 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.904.4394 info@4-creeks.com www.4-creeks.com A4.2BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE 35 ’ M A X H E I G H T 35’ MAX HEIGHT IMAGINARY PLANE TRANSLATED PARALLEL TO EXISTING GRADE 35 ’ M A X H E I G H T Page 81 of 248 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF GARAGE: 300.5 FF 1ST FLR: 310.0 FF GARAGE:301.0 FF 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF1ST FLR: 309.5 FF 1ST FLR: 314.0 FF Page 82 of 248 296.66 EC 295.43 EC955.43 E 297.62 FS 9 298.14 FS2S98 C 299.08999999999999999299999999999999929999299999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992099 C 300.3600 C 300.28CC3C 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF GARAGE: 300.5 FFGARAGE: 300.5 FF 1ST FLR: 310.0 FF GARAGE: 301.0 FFGARAGE:301.0 FF G 308.3 309.50 FFFFFF 309.46 FSFFSS C 309.37CC 303099.3.377 TW 318.33 G 318.1 FF 314.0040000 C 313.963.9966 C 313.91 C 313.87 C 300.363 C 300.28333 C 300.36 C 300.28C 299.86 C 299.78 C 299.86 C 299.78C C 299.86C 2999..8 C 299.78CCC2 C 300.25C0000000C0 C 299.759.222 77C72 C 299.779.777777..C 2C C 300.77 C 300.25CCC C 300.82 C 300.25 C 300.07 C 299.99C C 300.12CCC33000000CC C 300.02 C 300.03 C 300.25330CC3300 C 300.02C 3C 3CCCCCCC 30CC00 003033 C 300.14333333CFF 309.50FF 3009 0555 C 309.46CCCCCC 330 44 FF 310.00 C 309.96 TW 316.3331W TW 315.67W 3TW 3W33W W 3 G 315.431G3 C 313.933.9933 C 309.90 C 309.40 C 309.38C0800088000C0333CC0CCCC003333C303388C3093839393C330CC C 309.45C C 312.95CC 331122.9955 C 313.000 C 313.28CC 331133.2288 C 313.28 C 308.71C0CC000037777333777733333333333333333333333377C081C0308188700CC700 C 304.62CC 33044..6262 C 306.66 C 313.00313C 1 C 308.76776767.. C 308.673C33CC33330.7C3867678.3C 78630C C 308.90 FF 309.500909995509.550FFFFF3FFFFFFFF 3030999.5950050 C 309.46999446644630C466644CC 3300909.494466444664466 309.67 TW3309966.67 G 306.20GG 20 FF 314.00FFFF 31144.0000 C 313.96CC 331133.9966 C 309.43333303099.4433 C 308.78CC 330088.778888 C 313.91CC 331133.9911 C 308.78808780807788888888787778888888C00888888C3088788708083 C 309.34CC C C 309.40444 C 308.90999CC 330088.9909990C 308 90999C308990 C 308.73 FL 307.8FL 303.0 G 308.0GG G G 310.3GG 331100.33 G 309.3 G 311.2GG G 33111 G 310.8.880000 G 310.1GGG 331100.11 FL 308.5 G 315.5G3GG G 331155.55 G 310.810.88GG 33100..8.88 G 310.9G G TW 315.67 G 315.06G 315.2415155.233242 G 315.393995.39GGG331155.3.99 C 300.273CC333333333333CCCCC333333333307C2770G 300.300000000000000000000303 TW 310.67T0 G 309.83G 3 9 EC 309.595 EC 304.28330044.228EEE88C 299.73CC CCCCCCCCCC 332799399CC TW 304.6766677303030000WT004TW G 300.10GG 3 .101GG111GG1111333333333000000GG0011100000000 TW 300.00W 300.0TW0WW00WWWW000000000000000000000W0003 C 299.35CC229CCCCCCCCCC C 222CCCC 333CC953229 G 299.30G 2GG22222999999GGGG 3GGGGG 33999G90GG32 C 299.87C9C87299C C 298.878.8788888888C8289 C 299.64299999999996464644464949 C 298.6494C9962 C 299.12CCCCCC122C 2CCC229299999.1CCCCCCCCCCC292229CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC1199999999C2CCCCCC99999CCCC TW 300.00TTWWTTTWWW 3300TWTTWWWWW EG 295.469546695.4.6662229995955544466299292995999959555555..4444466666EEGG224444444444444444666666666666444444444444G G 222 TW 300.67TTWTTTTTTWTWWW EG 297.838397. TW 300.00TW000 EG 295.44EEG 295 455 C 309.0000CC3CCCCCCCCC3030330000000C0.00C30000093333CC9030CCCC C 308.97CCC33 C 309.44C 30999CC C 33309009.99.44444 C 308.98CCC C 303088.9.9898 EG 305.133 EG 306.24242244G33006222222222222266666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662222222222222...222222222..66666 2266666666666666666666622666666666666622.2222.2222666666 EG 303.16EEGG 330303..1666 G 308.73333833333388GG3307G087703G. TW 301.33TTW G300.50G 300.50GG 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF1ST FLR: 309.5 FF 1ST FLR: 314.0 FF TW 318.33 G 317.3 FL 315.0 2. 0 % .0.000 2 %%0% 3. 5 % % 3. 5 % %%% 35 3 55555 0.9%%0 3. 6 % %%%%%% 3 %%%%% 3 1. 5 % %% 11. 5 1 5 1. 2 % %%%%%%%22 4.5%%%%%% 4.5%55%%55%%%4 4.5%4 %%%444 554%5%4 5 ± 1.3%± 1.3%3333311111111111111133333% 3%%%%333%1.1%11111%%1%%. 1. 5 % 1 % 11 %% 111111111 5%%%5% 11 1. 5 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ...1 % 11 %%%% 11111 5%5%5% 1 % 5.0% 5.0% 2.0%2 0 2. 2 % %% 22 %%%%222%2 2 %%%22 2.0%00000000000000000000%%22 0%%2 0%2 2.0%0%0%0000000202.%%2 1.4%%%%%%%%1 44%4%414% C 308.8110888111111CC33000088CCCCCC00880000088888088888888383388833888888888888888888888CCC3388C3388888811888833C88338CCCCCCC C 308.81CC 330088.8811 C 308.77CC3CC C 308.7777308 7308C 308.77CCC308.777308.7308.777CCC7777CCCCCC C 308.80333088880008.880000C000308 803330888C3333C333333330000C3088008880C08008888888888880000000000088888 G 310.9GG GG G 3 3100..99 2. 0 % 2. 1. 0 % 0000000%% 1 %00 1 00 2. 6 % 22 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%6 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%66 22 16.5%20.4%22 16 . 7 % 16 . 0 % %% 18 . 5 % %%% 111111 5555555 111 55 8 % 12 . 8 % .8 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 222 8 11 TW 318.33 TW 317.67 G 317.5 TW 317.67 TW 317.000TTWWTWW31 G 316.8GG38 Page 83 of 248 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF GARAGE: 300.5 FFGARAGE: 300.5 FF 1ST FLR: 310.0 FF GARAGE: 301.0 FFGARAGE:301.0 FF RIM 309.255255 INV 305.63363666 SSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSS SSSS SSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSS SS SD ) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) W (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS (E) SS SS SS W WWW W W WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWW WW WWW W WW W W W 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF1ST FLR: 309.5 FF 1ST FLR: 314.0 FF RIM 308.54 INV 305.28 RIM 308.67 INV E 305.17 INV S 297.1NNNV7227VVVVVV222277NN9IVS297729SVVNN7.2SV RIM 299.70RIRIRIIII7M90M INV N/W 294.70INNVW7NVNWW7VVVWWW77999999N9402N INV E 294.10IN444NNNNNNNNNNN.109VN RIM 299.000000 INV 295.400 RIM 296.50 INV 293.35 INV 294.00999VVVVNVNVNVVVN20N02I4 SDSDD SDSDD SDSDSSDD SDSD SDDDDDD SDDDD RIM 299.25 INV E 295.10 INV S 297.00 (E) W (E) W W (E) W (E) W W WW W RACHEL COURT DDD W Page 84 of 248 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF GARAGE: 300.5 FFGARAGE: 300.5 FF 1ST FLR: 310.0 FF GARAGE:301.0 FF SSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SSSS SSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSS SSS SS SD SS SS W WW W W WWWWW WWWWWWWWWWW WW WWWW W WW W W W 1ST FLR: 309.5 FF1ST FLR: 309.5 FF 1ST FLR: 314.0 FF SDSD SDSDD SDSDSSDD SDSD SDDDDDD SDDDD W W Page 85 of 248 Page 86 of 248 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org May 8, 2025 Will Ruoff 605 Santa Rosa St San Luis Obispo CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARCH-0529-2024 & USE-0278-2025 (920 Rachel) Administrative Use Permit for a Common-Access Driveway and Development Review of the construction of four dwelling units and two Accessory Dwelling Units on two parcels. Dear Mr. Ruoff: On April 28, 2028, I conducted a public hearing on your request for an administrative use permit for a common-access driveway, and Development Review of the development of two lots with a total of four new single-unit residences and two accessory dwelling units, including certain requests for exceptions to standards for side setback, height limits for walls and fences, and design standards for the size and setback of deck amenities provided with associated Accessory Dwelling Units. Also included is a request for removal of one tree, with compensatory planting of new trees. After reviewing the information presented, I referred consideration of the applications to the Planning Commission, with the following recommendations for project revisions, and additional information to demonstrate consistency with City standards and guidelines: Community Design Guidelines. You are strongly advised to revise and improve the project design to more directly address the City’s Community Design Guidelines for Infill Development, particularly as described in Sections 5.3 (A)(1) and (A)(2) regarding general compatibility in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood, as well as Section 5.3 (C) regarding visual impacts from building height. Hillside Development Standards. It is advised that a project redesign of the project include moving the development further down the hill toward Rachel Court to lower elevations consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern; and to move the upper units currently closest to the rear property line further down the slope and/or to recess them further into the hillside similar to the current design for the units closest to the Rachel Court frontage. Information Demonstrating Conformance to Standards. Revised project plans should include all the information necessary to confirm conformance to all development standards such as setbacks, building height, and Hillside Development Standards, including clear details about the existing and finished grade and showing how the setback requirements are met at all building elevations. Page 87 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 & USE-0278-2025 (902 Rachel) Page 2 Privacy, Overlook, Neighborhood Consistency. Please provide further analysis of design measures and techniques employed to avoid privacy and overlook issues with respect to neighboring properties, as well as measures taken to ensure the project’s consistency with the character of the existing neighborhood. Visual exhibits, such as massing exhibits and various section cuts that show the proposed project in comparison with existing surrounding development, are encouraged to demonstrate how the project will fit in with the neighborhood pattern and be consistent with the above noted standards and guidelines. My decision to refer this matter to the Planning Commission is not subject to appeal Please contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, at (805) 781-7593 with any questions or concerns you may have with the action described in this letter, or the processing of these applications. Sincerely, Brian Leveille Principal Planner cc: Property Owner Brian Rolph 1334 Garden St San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Page 88 of 248 4/28/25 Timothea Tway Director Community Development City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA RE: 920 Rachel Ct. (ARCH-0529-2024) Administrative Hearing Dear Director Tway, This letter is in response to the staff report about the above application. The staff report recommends approval of this application, but it fails to reach the key findings required to approve the many variances from the City’s zoning regulations required by the approval of this application. While we do not dispute the developer’s right to build two units plus an ADU on each lot, we question the scale of the proposed development. It is every developer’s instinct to “build bigger”, and this one is no different. The building height limits, lot coverage ratios, minimum setbacks, and wall height limitations contained in the City’s zoning regulations are designed to constrain the scale such developments and preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is precisely because of this common instinct to “build bigger” that the City’s zoning regulations must be applied consistently to every developer and every lot in the neighborhood. In this case, the developer is requesting an effective increase in the developable zoning envelope by 40%. This increase is not necessary to fully develop these lots with the housing units that are so desperately needed in the City, and it has not been granted to other developers who have worked on the same street. If this application is approved, it will constitute a privilege given only to this developer, a clear violation of State law. Below is the language from the State Governing Code, Article 3, Section 65906: Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. The City’s zoning regulations recognize the above constraints in State law by listing specific required findings in 17.108.040 (A4) and 17.70.090 (D3), including the following: • Site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical or infeasible. (17.108.040, A4) • There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.090, D3e) Page 89 of 248 • The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege-an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.090, D3f) • Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project or redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. (17.70.090, D3h) To illustrate how this site could be developed with the allowed two residential units plus an ADU on each lot in strict adherence to the City’s zoning regulations, I have listed the variances required by this application, the increase in the buildable zoning envelope associated with each, and an alternative design solution that would adhere to the City’s zoning regulations. 1. Common access driveway (12.38.160) – A minor use permit must be specifically granted for a common access driveway. However, 12.38.160 (C2) specifically prohibits common access driveways serving more than four units, and this one is serving six units (ADU’s are not specifically excluded). Furthermore, the proposed common access driveway is incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Nearly all buildings on Rachel Court have the same front yard setback, a private driveway, and similar entrance porches (see Exhibit 1). This creates a cohesive streetscape that conforms with the best planning practices. Instead, the common access driveway requested for this development creates a 40’ front yard setback, creating a disruption in the streetscape and reducing the buildable area on each lot by 23%. This setback and corresponding reduction in buildable area creates a self- inflicted hardship that is used as a justification for the other variances. o Alternative Design Solution – By simply designing private driveways directly off the street, the minor use permit could be avoided, the front yard setback could be minimized, a cohesive streetscape could be created, and 23% of the buildable area could be preserved. 2. ADU balcony size and setback (17.86.20) – The application requests approval to increase the size of an elevated deck on Unit B and to eliminate the associated setback requirements. The staff report erroneously states that the deck faces the lower garage portion of the adjacent house. The elevations of Unit B included in the application show the deck at exactly the same elevation as the exterior deck of the adjacent house, a mere 11’ away. Exhibit 2 shows the deck of the adjacent house, the primary exterior living space. This kind of invasion of privacy is exactly why the City’s zoning regulations require a larger setback for balconies. Approval of this variance increases the allowable size of the balcony by 120% and by eliminating the setback requirement, it effectively increases the allowed zoning envelope by over 100 SF. o Alternative Design Solution – By simply locating the deck on the west facade of the unit and shifting it south by 5’ this variance could be avoided. 3. Side yard setbacks/height (17.18.020) - The staff memo refers to a variance in the side yard setback only at the interior lot line. However, the same variances are also required for the east and west lots lines which abut existing homes. The staff report also confuses the issue by citing several different building setbacks corresponding to floor plans that are inconsistent with the other drawings. The proposed setbacks are clearly shown on the site plan as 5’ & 6’. Based on the height of the adjacent walls, this would be a 33-45% reduction from the required 9’ on each side of each lot. This side yard setback reduction effectively Page 90 of 248 adds 7’ of buildable width to each site, a 24% increase. Taken across both sides of each lot this represents an increase in the allowable zoning envelope on the second floor by 1800 SF. o Alternative Design Solution – On each lot Unit B could either be a smaller one- story structure, or the upper floor could be stepped back by the required 4’ as shown in the diagram contained within 17.18.020. This might require the elimination of one bedroom from the ADU, but the City’s zoning regulations and State statutes do not guarantee the ADU can be two stories or contain three bedrooms. 4. Rear yard setback/height (17.18.020) – The application and staff report ignore the minimum rear yard setback. With an adjacent wall height of 24’ the minimum rear yard setback should be 10’, rather than the 6’ shown on the site plan. This is especially significant because the rear yard is steeply sloping. Approving this variance would increase the allowable height of the ADU by 60%, in conflict with 17.18.020 B3 iv(a). o Alternative Design Solution – The ADU on each lot could simply be one story. Again, the City’s zoning regulations and State law do not guarantee two stories for an ADU. In fact, zoning regulations state that this is allowed only if the ADU complies with setback regulations. Another option would be to simply move the structures south by eliminating the common access drive, thus creating enough space to adhere to the required minimum setback. 5. Downhill building walls (17.70.090) – The application simply ignores the height limit for downhill walls (west facing walls on each lot). The intent of the City’s zoning regulations is to protect views and prevent new structures from “looming” over adjacent properties. See Exhibit 3 for a photo of the downhill northwest corner of the site, illustrating the impact on adjacent properties. The staff report describes adherence to this regulation as impractical given the width of the site and the requirement for a 10’ setback on the upper floor. This is only true if one assumes that a tall two -story structure must be built. Approval of this variance represents a significant expansion of the buildable zoning envelope by 2300 sf, or 46%. o Alternative Design Solution – The ADU on both lots could be one-story with fewer bedrooms without affecting the overall unit density. This would allow Unit B to comply with this regulation. Unit A could step back at the upper level, simply by orienting both bedrooms to the east side. 6. ADU height (17.86.020-B3) – City’s zoning regulations state the maximum height of a newly constructed ADU can be up to a 25’ if consistent with required minimum setbacks. The height of the proposed ADU is just under 25’, but it is not in compliance with the minimum setbacks, as described above. Granting relief to this regulation represents an increase in the allowable floor area of each ADU of roughly 500 sf. o Alternative Design Solution – The ADU on both lots could be designed to the required height limit of 16’ by eliminating the second floor and elongating the plan. The site has capacity in the north-south direction without the common access drive. In total, the variances listed above increase the total zoning envelope by over 4000 SF, a 40% increase. Exhibit 4 is a diagram that illustrates this increase in total capacity. The approval of this application would clearly privilege this applicant over other similar properties in the vicinity, and it would invite further flaunting of the constraints that are so important to protecting our Page 91 of 248 neighborhoods. This increase in capacity does nothing to increase the project’s unit density or the City’s total number of housing units, it only increases the developer ’s profit by enabling him to charge higher rents for larger units As further evidence these lots can be developed in strict adherence to the City’s zoning regulations, one needs only to look at the adjacent development, SLO Te rrace. The lots in SLO Terrace are nearly identical in width, depth, and topography to the lots in this application. Several lots in SLO Terrace were developed with two separate residential units, and as can be seen in Exhibit 5 there is ample room to add a separate ADU at the rear of the properties. This is the same unit density being sought by the applicant – two units plus an ADU. However, SLO Terrace was developed without the variances requested by this applicant. If it was possible to develop the adjacent lots with the same width, depth, and topography resulting in the same unit density without the requested variances, it is impossible to find that strict adherence to the zoning regulations would make it infeasible or impractical to develop the subject property of this application. Again, the findings required by both State law and the City’s zoning regulations before granting variances to the zoning regulations are: • Site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical or infeasible. (17.108.040, A4) o This finding cannot be made based on the alternative design solutions listed above. • There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.090, D3e) o This finding cannot be made as the adjacent SLO Terrace lots are nearly identical. • The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege-an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.090, D3f) o This finding cannot be made as SLO Terrace was successfully developed without the requested variances • Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project or redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development than indicated by zoning. (17.70.090, D3h) o This finding cannot be made as zoning only allows two residential units plus an ADU. It does not provide for bigger and taller buildings out of compliance with the City’s zoning regulations. It is the responsibility of the Director to enforce the zoning regulations and to preserve their role in protecting our neighborhoods. We understand there is extreme pressure to increase the amount of housing in the community. In fact, I am personally responsible for adding over 2000 new residential units to the community. This letter does not question the need for housing or the unit density. It is simply asking the Planning Department to enforce the City’s zoning regulations, as required by the State enabling law. This developer is seeking to “build bigger” than the City’s zoning regulations allow. He should be held to the same rules adhered to in the development of the adjacent properties. Otherwise, you will be granting a privilege to this developer not afforded to others and in conflict with the intent of the City’s Zoning regulations. Page 92 of 248 We respectfully request that you reject this proposal and ask the applicant for a resubmission that does not require variances from the City’s Zoning Regulations. Yours truly, Mike McCormick, AIA - 2072 Rachel St. Kelly McCormick – 2072 Rachel St. Liza Puccini - 2080 & 2098 Rachel Street Bobbi Primo - 940 Rachel Court Amy Bertorelli, President Terrace Hill Homeowners Association, 947 Rachel Court Jennifer Bowen, 913 Rachel Court Victoria Brien, 925 Rachel Court Nick & Molly Supat, 948 Rachel Court Cheryl & David Litster, 954 Rachel Court Jesse & Joy Sostrin, 971 Rachel Court Rob & Annie Frew, 2125 Rachel Street Page 93 of 248 Exhibit1: Photograph of adjacent buildings on Rachel Court. Note the consistent 20’ front yard setbacks and cohesive streetscape. The subject properties are immediately to the left of these properties, but the proposed buildings are to be set back an additional 20’, creating an unsightly break in the streetscape and a self-imposed hardship by reducing the buildable area. Page 94 of 248 Exhibit 2: Photograph of the adjacent house to the north, taken from the eastern subject lot. Note the exterior living space, which is not indicated on the drawings. The proposed enlarged deck of the ADU is shown in the elevations contained in the application to be at the exact same level as the existing deck and facing directly into it just 11’ away, a significant invasion of privacy that adherence to the zoning regulations would prevent. Page 95 of 248 Exhibit 3: Photograph of the northwest corner of the site. Note the steep slope and height of the adjacent property. The City’s zoning regulations limit the building wall height to 15’, but the application is proposing a 22’ wall height, 50% higher than permissible. The pole shown in the photo is located at the proposed corner of Unit B at the permissible 15’. It should be clear that a wall 50% higher would be detrimental to the adjacent properties. Because of the solar orientation, the increased height would cast a shadow completely across the adjacent properties for most of the day, depriving them of natural light. Page 96 of 248 Exhibit 4: Diagram of the allowable zoning envelope for each of the subject lots. This is not intended to represent the proposed buildings, but rather the developable envelope. The application is requesting variances that eliminate all required second floor setbacks, effectively enlarging the allowed envelope by 40% and eliminating the protection afforded to the adjacent properties. Page 97 of 248 Exhibit 5: Floor plan/site plan of a two-unit development in SLO Terrace (Unit 14N – one lot away from the subject properties). This plan illustrates that two dwelling units (labeled primary residence and SDU) plus a footprint for a 900 SF ADU can be developed without the requested zoning variances. Space for 900 SF ADU Page 98 of 248 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org January 15, 2025 Sent via Email Brian Rolph 1334 Garden Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 4Creeks (Will Ruoff) 605 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARCH-0529-2024 and TREE-0520-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Request for Minor Development Review of a new multifamily project, comprising of two, two-story duplexes located on a site with an average natural slope gradient of sixteen percent or more (subject to the Hillside Development Standards). The project includes the removal of one tree (TREE-0520-2024) and a request for an exception to a Hillside Development Standard regarding retaining wall height. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review (CEQA). Dear Brian Rolph, On April 28, 2025, a public hearing was held at which I reviewed your request for an Administrative Use Permit (USE-0278-2025) for a common access driveway, as required by SLOMC 12.38.160(A). As required by the Municipal Code, the other entitlements - including the Minor Development Review with requested exceptions to Hillside Development Standards and your request for a tree removal - were included for review in the administrative hearing (SLOMC 17.102.020(E)(2), Concurrent Processing). After considering public input and reviewing the staff report and application materials, I made the recommendation to continue this project to the Planning Commission, along with several recommendations for project revisions and additional information to be submitted to demonstrate compliance with City standards and guidelines. On July 24, 2025, the City received your resubmittal for ARCH-0529-2024 featuring significant project revisions, including the removal of the common access driveway that had triggered the requirement for review of the previous project design at an administrative hearing. Because the project has been substantially redesigned and no longer includes a common access driveway, and because the use permit application has been withdrawn, the current project submittal is subject to administrative action without a public hearing, in accordance with the Zoning Regulations (SLOMC 17.106.030(B) & 17.70.090(D)). The continuance and forwarding of the previous project submittal from the administrative hearing to the Planning Commission are no longer applicable to the redesigned project. On January 15, 2026, I reviewed your request for review of the redesigned multi-family project (Minor Development Review). The project includes the construction of two, 2,238-square-foot, Page 99 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 2 two-story residential duplexes and the removal of one tree (TREE-0520-2024), with compensatory planting of five trees (three along the street frontage). The project also includes a request for an exception to allow retaining walls longer than twenty feet to exceed the four-foot height maximum (SLOMC 17.70.090(C)(3), Hillside Development Standard) by one foot and four inches at most. SLOMC 17.70.090(D) allows the Director to grant exceptions to Hillside Development Standards, provided the necessary findings are made. After careful consideration, I have approved your request based on the findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings Development Review 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Land Use Element (LUE) because it is a multifamily residential development that complies with the requirements of the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone District. The project is also an infill development located near services and facilities as called for in LUE Policy 2.2.7. In addition, the project incorporates design choices - such as the front setback pattern, scale, form, and architectural style - that are compatible with neighborhood character, as called for in LUE Policy 2.3.9. 2. The project is consistent with the General Plan’s Housing Element (HE) because it would result in a residential density consistent with the underlying zone and would contribute to the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA production targets, as called for in HE Policy 6.8, toward the market-rate housing category. The project also provides a design compatible with the existing neighborhood character, as called for in HE Policy 7.1. 3. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations because multifamily residences are an allowed use in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Zone. The project is consistent with the development standards outlined in SLOMC 17.18 (Medium-Density Residential), including, but not limited to, standards for density, lot coverage, setbacks, and structure height. 4. The project is consistent with the policies of the Community Design Guidelines for multifamily and infill development. The design incorporates massing techniques and color palette choices that are complementary to the neighborhood’s craftsman architectural style. This includes, but not limited to, wood panel and shingle siding, second-story front balconies, and a maximum structure height that is eleven feet or more below the maximum allowed height. 5. As conditioned, the project provides adequate consideration of potential adverse effects on surrounding properties, such as traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, visual impacts, and scale, because the development (a) includes sufficient on-site parking; (b) will not result in parked vehicles encroaching into the public right-of-way or hindering line-of-sight requirements at an intersection; (c) incorporates design choices that are compatible with other developments in the surrounding neighborhood (e.g., reduced maximum height); and (d) incorporates building materials and colors consistent with surrounding residences. 6. As conditioned, the project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working on the site or in the vicinity because it involves the construction of four residential units on a lot that allows multifamily residential development and will comply with all applicable local and state construction standards. Page 100 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 3 Retaining Wall Height Exception - Hillside Development Standards (SLOMC 17.70.090(D)(3) 7. The proposed retaining wall height exception, which would allow wall heights over four feet above ground for retaining walls longer than twenty feet (SLOMC 17.70.090(C)(3)), is consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning Regulations and General Plan. The proposed residential units provide infill development that is otherwise permitted by the City’s Zoning Regulations. The design is consistent with all other development standards for multifamily residential projects and hillside development, and the majority of the proposed retaining walls remain fully compliant. The use of retaining walls as designed allows the structures to achieve a lower maximum height, creating an architectural design that is consistent with the existing scale and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, as called for in the City’s Community Design Guidelines (Section 5.3 - Infill Development), Land Use Element Policy 2.3.9, and Housing Element Policy 7.1. 8. Due to the slope of the property, retaining walls are a necessary feature to provide a design that is consistent with the scale and development pattern of surrounding residences while achieving the density allowed by the zone. The project has been designed to minimize instances in which a retaining wall longer than twenty feet exceeds four feet in height from above ground, and in most cases where it does, it exceeds four feet by less than half a foot. The visual impact of the retaining walls would be minimal and consistent with surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed alternative provides a design solution that is equivalent to or better than the standards prescribed for quality, effectiveness, durability, and safety. 9. The instances in which retaining wall height exceeds the maximum allowable height are located within, at the rear, and along a side of the proposed development and will not impact any scenic resources. Additionally, because this is an infill project, surrounded on all sides by existing development, the requested exception will not hinder opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. 10. The proposed exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor will it increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, as the proposed development is consistent with the building pattern of adjacent and surrounding properties. 11. Not allowing the minor exception would deprive the property privileges granted to other properties in the surrounding neighborhood that share the same zoning. The site’s existing topography slopes in multiple directions, it is surrounded on all sides by existing development, and the use of retaining walls as designed allows residential development at the density prescribed by the site’s zoning while maintaining a design that reduces the overall height of the project and enhances its compatibility with the existing neighborhood and surrounding properties, as called for by the City’s General Plan (LUE 2.3.9 & HE 7.1) and Community Design Guidelines (Section 5.3 - Infill Development). 12. This exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege because the proposed project is consistent with all other Hillside Development Standards, meets all development standards of the underlying zone, including density, has been designed to reduce height below the maximum height regulations, and consistent with adjacent and surrounding properties in this area, which also feature retaining walls that exceed the maximum allowable wall height standards provided in the Hillside Development Standards. Page 101 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 4 13. This exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area of the project, as the current design minimizes the heights of retaining walls to the greatest extent possible while providing a design that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The development, including the retaining walls, shall comply with all local and state construction standards. 14. A redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. The retaining wall height exception is necessary to allow a development that maintains prevalent design patterns in the surrounding neighborhood. Requiring a redesign would necessitate either a reduction in the number of units otherwise allowed in the R-2 zone or a design that would require other exceptions to the standards, thereby denying reasonable use of the property. Environmental Determination 15. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations; is located on a site less than five acres in size; is surrounded by other urban uses; and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, as the site has been previously disturbed and landscaping cleared. Approval of the project will not result in significant effects related to: (a) traffic, because the project would not exceed the trip threshold (i.e., less than 110 daily vehicle trips) anticipated for Small Development Projects per the OPR CEQA Guidelines; (b) noise, because the project would comply with exterior and interior noise limits outlined in Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control); (c) air quality, because construction-related emissions are temporary; and (d) water quality because the project would implement drainage and stormwater improvements. Conditions Planning Division - Community Development Department 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with approved plans (dated 1/6/2025). A separate, full-sized sheet shall be included in the working drawings submitted for a building permit, listing all conditions of approval and applicable code requirements as Sheet No. 2. References shall be made in the margin of listed items to indicate where these requirements are addressed in the plans. Any changes to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director and may be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those identified in the Development Review application. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details or equivalent shadow variation, as well as other details, including but not limited to awnings, cornices, and railings. Plans shall indicate the types of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features. Additionally, plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural Page 102 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 5 style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4. Windows proposed throughout the residential development shall comply with Community Design Guideline 5.2(G), which states that windows located ten feet or less from a side lot line, or within ten feet of another dwelling, shall be positioned and/or screened to provide privacy for the residents of both structures (e.g., orientation of windows, offsetting windows, translucent or glazed windows, etc.). Plans submitted for a building permit shall demonstrate compliance with this standard. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the locations of all exterior lighting. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly labeled on the building elevations and shall complement the building architecture. The lighting schedule shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and accompanying cut sheets in the submitted plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be consistent with the standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.100 (Lighting and Night Sky Preservation). 6. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment, whether located on the ground, roof, or elsewhere on the structure or property, shall be screened from public view with materials that are architecturally compatible with the structures, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public view includes existing views from all public streets and sidewalks. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (e.g., backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view using approved architectural features and/or landscaping or shall be located in the interior of the residence or property. This requirement applies to both the initial construction of the building and any subsequent improvements. 7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include the landscape and irrigation plans. The legend for the landscaping plan shall list the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees, with corresponding symbols for each plant material indicating their specific locations on the plans. Details regarding the proposed surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall also be included in the landscaping plan. 8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include elevations and detail drawings of all proposed fences and/or walls. All proposed fences and walls shall be constructed of high- quality materials. Fences facing the public right-of-way shall be constructed with the finished side facing the public right-of-way. For the life of the fence, the owner shall perform all necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure that the fence and any associated landscaping located between the fence and property line remain in high-quality, orderly condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. All proposed fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.070 (Fences, Walls, and Hedges). Housing Policies and Programs – Community Development Department 9. Per Section 17.138.070 of the City’s Municipal Code, this project is subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. The building permit submittal shall include an inclusionary housing plan describing how the project intends to meet these requirements. If the project will use the in-lieu fee option, calculations shall be provided on the plans to identify the estimated in-lieu fees. If affordable units are to be provided within the project, the plans shall identify Page 103 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 6 the specific units intended to be dedicated and the corresponding income levels for each unit (e.g., low-income, moderate-income, etc.). Urban Forestry – Community Development Department 10. Trees requested for removal (TREE-0520-2024) include one (1) onsite tree (33-inch DSH Pinus pinea, Italian Stone Pine), as shown on the Development Review application. The project shall replant a minimum of five (5) trees onsite, with three (3) located along the frontage of Rachel Court. These street trees shall be large-canopied, and sufficient space shall be provided to accommodate their rootzones, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. All tree species, size, and location adjustments at any time are subject to City Arborist approval. All proposed tree plantings shall be shown on the landscape plan. 11. The new compensatory tree(s) shall be planted in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting prior to final building approval. Photographic evidence demonstrating that the trees have been planted shall be provided to the City Arborist (wgault@slocity.org). All trees planted as part of the compensatory plan shall survive and be retained. Any trees that do not survive or fail to establish in good health, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, shall be replanted. 12. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 prohibit the removal of trees with active nests. To account for most nesting birds, tree removal should be scheduled during the fall and winter (between September 1st and January 31st) and after the young have fledged. If trees must be removed during the nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), a qualified biologist shall inspect any trees marked for removal to determine if they contain active nests. Trees with active nests shall not be removed and may only be removed once a qualified biologist provides a confirmation memo verifying that breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or City Biologist. 13. Trees not approved for removal shall be protected in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and Engineering Standards and Specifications. Engineering Division 14. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report for all proposed structures and drainage facilities, along with a final review letter from the soils engineer. This letter must state that the building plans have been reviewed and found to be in general conformance with the recommendations in the report regarding evaluation of over- excavation and re-compaction depths and verify that structures on adjacent parcels will not be impacted by the over-excavation required for site retaining walls and building foundations. Any soils engineer special inspection notes, and the special inspection program shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 15. Prior to building permit issuance, a full Detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be provided as part of the Building Permit application, in accordance with Drainage Design Manual Section 10.1.1, Se 3.7, for project areas on slopes greater than or equal to 10%. See Section 10.4 for Detailed Erosion Control Plan Requirements. 16. Prior to the request for final inspection, the applicant shall install new, preserve existing, or re- establish destroyed survey monuments in accordance with City of San Luis Obispo Page 104 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 7 Engineering Standard 1010, Section 9.1. The applicant shall construct all new and replacement monuments in accordance with Engineering Standard 9020. 17. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, Drainage Design Manual (DDM), and Post-Construction Stormwater Regulations (PCR’s). Supporting documentation shall at least include: a. A project drainage report. b. A completed Stormwater Control Plan – form available on the City’s website (update to show PR2). c. A Stormwater Control Plan (update to show PR2). d. An Operations and Maintenance Manual for all proposed stormwater improvements proposed to comply with Performance Requirements 2. Utilities Department 18. The building permit submittal shall include a site utility plan showing the size of existing and proposed sewer and water services. The plan shall clearly identify any existing utility infrastructure proposed for demolition, abandonment, or replacement. All proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards in effect at the time the building permit is obtained. Engineer’s calculations shall be submitted with the building permit to verify water meter size, water service line size, and sewer lateral size. 19. The building permit submittal shall include a final landscape design plan and irrigation plan and shall identify the square footage of landscaping proposed as part of the project. If the landscaping exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) calculation. The project’s estimated total water use (ETWU) to support new ornamental landscaping shall not exceed the project’s MAWA. 20. The project is located within a capacity-constrained area and shall meet the wastewater flow offset requirements of Chapter 13.08.396 of the City’s Municipal Code prior to building permit issuance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works & Utilities Director. The Wastewater Offset Flow Application and a PDF version of the project plans shall be submitted to the Utiliti es Engineer at wastewateroffset@slocity.org. Indemnification 21. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. Page 105 of 248 ARCH-0529-2024 (920 & 930 Rachel Court) Page 8 My action is final unless appealed within ten 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 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, contact Ethan Estrada, Assistant Planner, by phone at (805) 781-7576 or by email at ejestrad@slocity.org. Sincerely, Brian Leveille Principal Planner Community Development Page 106 of 248 12/12/25 Tyler Corey Deputy Director Community Development City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA RE: 920 Rachel Ct. Minor Development Application (ARCH-0529-2024) Dear Tyler, Thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday. It is clear that you have been working with the developer to reduce the height of the proposed development in general compliance with the hillside development standards. However, there are still exceptions to the hillside development standards required, which means you must make the following flndings: • There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the sam e zoning • The exceptions will not constitute a grant of special privilege-an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning • The exceptions will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other properties in the vicinity. As we have pointed out previously, the lots in question are no different than the other lots on Rachel Court – same size, same topography - and the other lots were developed without the exceptions and concerns we are seeing with this application. Even as modifled, this application represents a development that would be detrimental to public welfare and injurious to the adjacent properties. Below are some examples of why you cannot make the required flndings: • Retaining walls directly on the property lines: It is physically impossible to construct retaining walls of the proposed height with appropriate backflll and drainage on the property line without damaging the adjacent properties. To construct these walls without excavating on the other side of the property line, they need to be 3-4 feet inside the property. While it is tempting to think of this as a minor technical issue, because the proposed development is pushing the zoning envelop so much on every property line, this is a signiflcant planning issue. • Proximity to adjacent structures on the west side of the development: Minimum setbacks from the west property line are shown on the drawings. However, this property line was created by the developer as part of a subdivision less than 2’ away from the adjacent structures. As a result, the proposed retaining wall at the southeast corner of the site (one that requires an exception due to its height) is approximately 1’ away from the existing house. A retaining wall of this height simply cannot be built in this location without damaging the existing house. Furthermore, the second house on the same property has a canopy that extends across the property line and would therefore be damaged or demolished entirely by the proposed development. No agreement exists between the Page 107 of 248 developer and the adjacent property owner that would allow this. Because the property line was created as part of this development, it is the developer’s responsibility to protect the adjacent houses The development as proposed will certainly cause signiflcant damage to both houses. • Privacy of adjacent properties: As proposed, Unit B on the west lot sits less than 7 feet away from the main entrance to the existing house with a flnished fioor level at almost exactly the same height. The proposed windows on the flrst fioor of Unit B face directly into the living space of the adjacent house, a clear violation of the City’s Design Standards for Residential Projects (17.69). • Deep excavations in close proximity to adjacent properties: Foundation excavations shown on the drawings indicate excavation with depths of 7’, 10’, and 17’ less than 5’ away from the east property line and a depth of 11’ less than 5 feet away from the adjacent house on the southwestern corner. It is not possible to construct these deep cuts without damaging the adjacent properties unless carefully engineered commercial techniques such as steel soldier piles or vertical sheet piling are employed. The adjacent property owners need to be assured that the appropriate engineering is done and that the construction process will be monitored. I want to repeat the concern expressed in our previous letter. The City’s zoning regulations are designed to constrain developments and preserve the safety and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Recent State laws have increased density, expanded lot coverage, and reduced parking, and this letter is not an argument about the merits of adding housing to our community. However, State laws and the need for additional housing do not relieve the City’s obligation to enforce zoning regulations that protect the community. We rely on the Planning Department to protect us. You simply cannot make the required flndings that would allow you to approve this development in accordance with the City’s Zoning Regulations (17.108, 17.70) and State Law (State Governing Code, Article 3, Section 65906). Because there is no public hearing on this matter, we would like to meet with you on site to review these comments and illustrate the lack of attention that is being paid to the adjacent properties. Please let me know when we can schedule this. In the meantime, we respectfully request that this application be denied or tabled. Yours truly, Mike McCormick, AIA - 2072 Rachel St. Kelly McCormick – 2072 Rachel St. Amy Bertorelli, President Terrace Hill Homeowners Association, 947 Rachel Court Liza Puccini, 2080 & 2098 Rachel Street Bobbi Primo, 940 Rachel Court Jennifer Bowen & Michelle Raiche, 913 Rachel Court Victoria Brien, 925 Rachel Court Page 108 of 248 Nick & Molly Supat, 948 Rachel Court Cheryl & David Litster, 954 Rachel Court Kris & Steve Roberts, 965 Rachel Court David & Patti Bosken, 983 Rachel Court Rob & Annie Frew, 2125 Rachel Street David Rose, 2064 Rachel Street Page 109 of 248 Page 110 of 248 As additional information for the director to review, we have provided an exhibit showing which walls are above the hillside development standards. All walls were designed to be as low as possible and impact the neighbors as little as possible. Legend: Wall height falls below max. height Wall height exceeds max. height & are detailed below for exception Page 111 of 248 • Wall #1: The length of the wall exceeds 20 linear feet and therefore needs to be no more than 4’-0” exposed in height. In this case, 11’-0” linear feet of the total 29’-2” wall is a maximum 4’-7 ½” exposed height. This is due to the existing grade of the property to the west. • Wall #2: The length of the wall exceeds 20 linear feet and therefore needs to be no more than 4’-0” exposed height. In this case, 16” linear feet of the total 22’-6” wall is a maximum 4’-3” exposed height. This height is required to maintain the existing drain box and concrete valley gutter along the eastern property line. • Wall #3: The length of the wall exceeds 20 linear feet and therefore needs to be no more than 4’-0” exposed height. In this case, 26’-4” linear feet of the total 58’-9” wall is a maximum 4’-8” exposed height. This is to maintain the existing topography along the eastern wall. This face will only be seen by those living in the ADU and therefore should not affect the residences around the development. • Wall #4: The length of the wall exceeds 20 linear feet and therefore needs to be no more than 4’-0” exposed height. In this case, 8’-4” linear feet of the total 23’-4” wall is a maximum 5’-4” exposed height. This is to maintain access to the doorway on the southern building as well as the northern building. This face will only be seen by those living in the ADU & Residence and therefore should not affect the residences around the development. • Wall #5: The length of the wall exceeds 20 linear feet and therefore needs to be no more than 4’-0” exposed height. In this case, 12’-9” linear feet of the total 18’-9” wall is a maximum 4’-2” exposed height. This is to maintain access to the doorway on the southern building as well as the northern building. This face will only be seen by those living in the ADU & Residence and therefore should not affect the residences around the development. Page 112 of 248 APPEAL OF DIRECTOR DECISION Community Development Department, Planning Division 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 T805.781.7170 E planninq@slocitv.orq Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.126, any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except those administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar davs of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. lf the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall state the grounds for appeal. All Director Decisions will be appealed to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions are appealed to the City Council and require the submittal of an Appeal to the City Councl form and can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office or on the Citv Clerk's website. Fee Payment. Fee amounts for this application can be found online within the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule based on the level or Tier of the decision (see below). The fee must be paid at the time of the submittal of this form. Mike McCormick (and the Terrace Hill Homeowners Association) 2072 Rachel Street Emai 1. michael.mccormick.206@gnrcltJ, c41'{ Address: APPELLANT INFORMATION Name phone: 206-595-9325 APPEAL REQUEST ln accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the (select one of the following): Tier 2: n Zoning Hearing Officbr (e.g., Minor Use Permit (MUP), Variance, Tentative Parcel Map, Creek Setback ExcePtion, etc.) or Z Community Development Director (e.g., Minor or Moderate Development Review) Tier 3: n Community Development Director (e.9., Director's Actions.) Tier 4: ! Community Development Director (e.g., Home Occupation Permit, Non-profit Special Event, Tree Removals, etc.) Page 1 Page 113 of 248 SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL Date the decision being appealed was rendered . January 15,2026 Project address:920 & 930 Rachel Court Application number:ARCH -0529-2024 Explain speci1cally what action(s) you are appealing and gfy you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary, See attached memo and section drawing Page 2 Page 114 of 248 We are appeating the approvat by Brian Leveitte of the minor devetopment plan ARCH- OS2g-2024 made on Janua ry 15, 2026. Grounds for this appeaI a re the inappropriate required findings specified by the ZoningOrdinance. The required findings simp[y cannot be made based on the information submitted. The two specific f indings in question are: 1 , The exceptions granted are necessary for the fu[t devetopment of the site. White the approvat letter discusses in generaI terms how retaining watts "are a necessaryfeature" because of the s[oped site, a detaited examination of the ptans does not supportthis position. A particutarty egregious exampte is the retainingwat[ at the southwest corner of the site. The cross section betow ittustrates that this retaining watl, with a height of atmost 5' is not intended to deaI with the stoping site at att, but rather to ho[d back unnecessary infitt being added by the devetoper. The desired finished fl.oor height adjacent to the existing house at 2089 RachelStreet is Less than 2' abovethe existing grade, which easity can be accomptished without a retaining wal.t. We ask you to caref utl,y Look at the civit engineering ptans and the survey (notthe architecturat pl,ans), and you witl.seethatthis condition exists for atmost the entire Length of the retaining watt. One simpty cannot conctude that this retainingwatl, is necessaryto devetop the site. .-t,l 1, // '4= A t ,;, ?f rr- it' 31 ' i4'1.,1 i -.---. t" i.h - 7/,/.. v"i i.r'i '-.1-.....-.-.-. Page 115 of 248 2. The devetopment (and exceptions) witt not be detrimental or iniurious to the adjacent properties. The approva[ letter discusses impacts such as parking and buitdingmateriats,butitdoesnotaddressthefactthatthesameretainingwa[[ shown in the cross section above is not onty unnecessary, but it is a mere 12" away from the adjacent house. lt is cl.earty detrimental. and injurious to the adjacent property. The proposed retaining watl, wiit pa rtial,ty bl,ock the view f rom adjacent windows, and it atmost comptetel,y impedes access to the existing house for simpte maintenancesuchaspaintingthecLapboardsidingorcteaningoutthedryervent. lt is importantto notethat the proposed retainingwatt runs the entire tength of the house. This is not a simpte "pinch point". Coupl,ed with the fact that it is not even necessary, it is easyto assume the harm introduced to this property is intentionat. White we understand issues rel,ated to the property tine tocation are not within the jurisdiction of this review (the property Line was recorded bythis devetoper and not disctosed to the current owner), it is stitl, impossibl.e to find that this retaining wat[ wil,t not be injurious to the adjacent property. We need to be ctea r, this a ppeaI is not questioning the need for housing or the proposed density. We atso recognize that the State has passed a number of laws that essentiatty override some of the City's zoning regutations. However, this does not $ive housing devetopers carte btanche to simpl,y ignore the City ordinances. We need the Ptanning Commission to protect us. Forthis development, we have reviewed muttipte iterations, numerous requests for exceptions, and outright viotations of our locaI ordinances. We respectful.ty requestthat you have the devetoper revise these drawings to comptywith Zoningand resubmit, so we can have a chance to review them again beforethis matter is atlowed to move forward. Page 116 of 248 Review of an Appeal of the CDD Director’s Decision to Approve a Minor Development Review Application with an Exception to a Hillside Development Standard (920 & 930 Rachel Court, APPL-0027-2026) March 11, 2026 Staff Recommendation 2 Adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director approving the Minor Development Review application ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard. Site Information Project Site: 920 & 930 Rachel Court Zone: R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) Site Size: approx. 0.26 acres (11,300 SF) •Predominantly surrounded by residential uses ARCH-0529-2024 Proposed residential development includes: •Construction of two, multi-story duplexes •Construction of four ADUs (pending ministerial review) •Tree removal and compensatory planting Exception Request SLOMC 17.70.090(C)(3), limits the height of retaining walls longer than 20 feet to 4 feet above grade. Proposal includes 11 retaining walls, of which 5 would exceed this height limit: •A portion of 1 retaining wall would exceed the limit by 1 foot 4 inches •Portions of 4 retaining walls would exceed the limit by 2 inches to 8 inches SLOMC 17.70.090(D) allows exceptions to these standards. Appeal January 20, 2026, the appellant, Mr. McCormick, filed an appeal of the Development Director’s decision. The appeal contests two findings made for this approval: •“the exception granted is necessary for the full development of the site” •“the development [and exception] will not be detrimental or injurious to the adjacent properties” Appeal Southwest retaining wall Staff Recommendation 8 Adopt the draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Community Development Director approving the Minor Development Review application ARCH-0529-2024 with an exception to a Hillside Development Standard. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ORIGINAL DESIGN PROPOSED DESIGN STREET ELEVATION NEIGHBORING HILLSIDE SLOPE WATER FLOW EXHIBIT Wall #1 – Total Wall Length: 29’-2” Wall Height over 4’: 11’-0” Max Heigh 4’-8” Wall #2 – Total Wall Length: 22’-6” Wall Height over 4’: 1’-4” Max Heigh 4’-3” Wall #3 – Total Wall Length: 58’-9” Wall Height over 4’: 26’-4” Max Heigh 4’-8” Wall #4 – Total Wall Length: 23’-4” Wall Height over 4’: 8’-4” Max Heigh 5’-4” Wall #5 – Total Wall Length: 22’-2” Wall Height over 4’: 12’-9” Max Heigh 4’-2” Wall #4 and #5 are not visible from the street or anywhere else around the site. WALL HEIGHT EXHIBIT SLOPE DIAGRAM