HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRR26109 Ruda Emails1
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 4:01 PM
To:
Cc:CityClerk; City_Attorney
Subject:Records Request Response - PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence
Attachments:PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence.pdf
John Ruda,
Documents responsive to your recent Public Records Act Request are hereby produced. This production was
reviewed by Eric Wooten, Paralegal, and Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney. Architectural drawings were withheld in
accordance with Gov. Code, § 7927.705 and Health & Safety Code, § 19851. These documents may be personally
inspected at the City’s Community Development Department. Copies of the architectural drawings will require written
approval of the architect and the current owner of the subject property, which could take up to 60 days. Personal
contact information and utility account numbers were redacted as the public interest in nondisclosure clearly
outweighs the public interest in disclosure (Govt. Code 7922.000.) Official information was withheld in accordance with
Evid. Code, § 1040.
- CityClerk\Public Records Request\2024\09-06-2024 PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave
correspondence\Responsive Records
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
SVEB-!!!!!KPIO 1:0203135
o
o
o
o
List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as:
subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc.
QvstvbouupuifQvcmjdSfdpsetBdu)DbmHpwDpefTfd7361*-
JxpvmemjlfupnblfuijtqvcmjdsfdpsesfrvftugpsbozboebmmdpssftqpoefodfcfuxffoKjnEvnnju
4211KpiotpoBwf-TboMvjtPcjtqp*boeuifdjuzpgTboMvjtPcjtqppwfsuifqbtu28npouit/
JodmvejohCVUOPUMJNJUFEUPdpssftqpoefodfsfhbsejohefwfmpqnfouqspkfdubu4271Kpiotpo
Bwf-TboMvjtPcjtqp/
Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
sfdpseebufsbohf50203134.:0203135
2
From: <
Sent:Monday, September 16, 2024 4:17 PM
To:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea; msred805-law@yahoo.com
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Records Request DETERMINATION – PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Thank you.
-------- Original message --------
From: "Colunga-Lopez, Andrea" <AColunga@slocity.org>
Date: 9/16/24 3:15 PM (GMT-08:00)
To:
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: Records Request DETERMINATION – PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence
John Ruda,
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act
delivered via email on September 6, 2024. Based on current staffing constraints and the number of records
to review, we expect to have an initial response to you by Friday, September 20, 2024.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
3
From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea
Sent:Friday, September 6, 2024 3:33 PM
To:
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence
Attachments:PRR24262 Ruda - 3160 Johnson Ave correspondence.pdf
John Ruda,
The City is in receipt of your public records request as of September 06, 2024, and will begin searching for responsive
documents. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Best,
Andrea Colunga-Lopez
pronouns she/her/hers
Administrative Assistant II
City Administration
E AColunga@slocity.org
T 805.781.7105
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
SVEB-!!!!!KPIO 1:0203135
o
o
o
o
List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as:
subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc.
QvstvbouupuifQvcmjdSfdpsetBdu)DbmHpwDpefTfd7361*-
JxpvmemjlfupnblfuijtqvcmjdsfdpsesfrvftugpsbozboebmmdpssftqpoefodfcfuxffoKjnEvnnju
4211KpiotpoBwf-TboMvjtPcjtqp*boeuifdjuzpgTboMvjtPcjtqppwfsuifqbtu28npouit/
JodmvejohCVUOPUMJNJUFEUPdpssftqpoefodfsfhbsejohefwfmpqnfouqspkfdubu4271Kpiotpo
Bwf-TboMvjtPcjtqp/
Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
sfdpseebufsbohf50203134.:0203135
4
From:Pacific Law Group, LLC <
Sent:Thursday, September 5, 2024 6:07 PM
To:CityClerk
Subject:public record request
Attachments:Form - Public Records Request.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
please find the attached request for submission.
Thank You
Updated 09/2022
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Public Records
The California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250. et set.) was enacted to ensure public
records are available for inspection by members of the public. Completion of this form will assist staff
in identifying related records to accurately complete your request.
Requested records will be distributed to the email address that is listed on this form, unless directed
otherwise by City staff. Requests for printed records will require payment subject to the City’s
Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Payment must be rendered prior to production of printed materials.
Name: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Last First
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
Street & Unit # City State Zip
Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Release Forms
Requests for certain public records legally require release forms to be submitted for records to be
distributed to the requestor. To help expedite your request, please read below and ensure additional
information is submitted along with this public records request form.
Personal health information
Records containing personal health information require a HIPAA Release Form. Examples
include fire incident reports, worker’s compensation claims, etc.
o HIPAA Release Form
Printed residential and/or commercial building plans
The Public Records Act does not allow the release of printed copies of this material without the
permission of the architect/engineer copyright owner. The public records requestor is
responsible for obtaining said authorization by completing all three release forms listed
below. You may call the Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170 to find out
the name of the copyright owner. In-person viewing of plans do not require release forms.
o Copies of Plans Affidavit
o Plan Request Architect/Engineer Authorization
o Plan Request Owner Authorization
Continued
Record Information: List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as:
subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc.
Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
Questions may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114.
Submit Completed Forms To:
cityclerk@slocity.org
OR
City Clerk’s Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
YOUR REQUEST WILL BE PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA). California
Government Code Section 6253 (c). An Agency shall notify the requestor within 10 days from receipt of request with a
Determination which states if the Agency is in possession, in whole or in part, of the requested documents, and possible legal
exemptions which prohibit the release of non-disclosable documents, as outlined per the PRA. In some instances, an Agency
may require an extension of up to 14 days to provide a Determination, as authorized by the PRA. A notice will be provided to
the requestor setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a Determination is expected to be supplied.
5
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:38 AM
To:Building
Cc:Hanh, Hannah; MATT CEBULLA; rudadc
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
Hello Hannah,
Regarding Comment 4, do you have any suggestions for articulation by the patios? Also, are you suggesting
additional articulation on all four patios? We are also open to discussing ideas post permit issuance since this
is subjective.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 10:12 AM Building <building@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Hannah,
See attached 4th review comments. Let us know if you need anything further.
Thank you,
Erin Stanley
Permit Technician I
Community Development
E EStanley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7159
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Building <building@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
6
@Building – Good morning, when you have a moment could you please send comments from the fourth review to all
on the thread?
All reviews have been completed for PLBLDG-0012-2024.
Thank you,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
When you send the comments this morning, please send them to this thread. Matt will update them and send
the updated plans back to you.
Thank you,
7
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
8
From:Building
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:12 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah; Jordan Knauer
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; rudadc
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
Attachments:PLBLDG-0012-2024_Review_v4.docx; PLBLDG-0012-2024-CSG BLDG REVIEW V4.pdf
Hi Hannah,
See attached 4th review comments. Let us know if you need anything further.
Thank you,
Erin Stanley
Permit Technician I
Community Development
E EStanley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7159
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Building <building@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
@Building – Good morning, when you have a moment could you please send comments from the fourth review to all
on the thread?
All reviews have been completed for PLBLDG-0012-2024.
Thank you,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
9
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
When you send the comments this morning, please send them to this thread. Matt will update them and send
the updated plans back to you.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
Date: August 9, 2024
Plan Check Review # 4
Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees)
Applicant Response:
Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from
this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans.
Check one: _____yes ______no
Print Name:
If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans:
Project Address 3160 Johnson Ave.
Project Name 3160 Johnson Ave.
Application Number PLBLDG-0012-2024
Review of 4 single family residences
Occupancy Class Click or tap here to enter text.
Construction Type Click or tap here to enter text.
Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text.
Sprinklers Click or tap here to enter text.
1 2 3 4
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 2
Engineering Development Review
Phil Dowty
pdowty@slocity.org Phone (949) 283-2270
☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
(3rd P/C) Please contact Phil Dowty with any questions regarding remaining comments, or for
further discussion.
The following items are required prior to building permit issuance:
1. Provide a written response to each comment referencing sheet number, detail or other pertinent
information so that modifications can be easily found.
2. Based on the SWCP submitted, add the following Stormwater Compliance Block to the cover sheet
and fill in the appropriate information:
STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY :
The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality
Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:
PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______
PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______
PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________
City Field Verification. Prior to final acceptance, contact the City for field verification of
installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the
project Stormwater Control Plan.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged however please add the Certification Block to
the cover sheet of the building plans.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
3. Please add Application Number to “Project Information” and remove reference to “Building Pad”
under Requirement 1, for minimized compaction.
(2nd P/C) Applicants response acknowledged; however the Application Number was not found
on SWCP.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 3
Response: __________________________________________________________________
4. There is significant amount of color line-work on the plans. If plans are plotted in black/white the
different line-types will be lost. Provide a response to explain if all printing will be in color, if not,
replace color lines with unique line types that will come through with black/white printing.
5. Add Conditions of Approval to plans, include tentative map and any other planning/Architectural
Review COA. Also, provide a list on the cover sheet of other related entitlement permits, including
tentative map, that relate to this application.
(2nd P/C) No response provided and information not found, comment remains.
The following items need correction on the construction plans:
6. The following notes shall be included on the cover sheet of the building plans, the architectural site
plan, and/or grading plans as appropriate:
a. All work located within the public right-of-way or within the jurisdiction of the Utilities and
Public Works Departments shall comply with the most current edition of the Engineering
Standards and Standard Specification. (The current adopted Standards are dated August 2020.)
b. A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in the public right-of-way, within city
easements, or for connections to public utilities. Work requiring an encroachment permit
includes but is not limited to demolitions, utilities, water, sewer, and fire service laterals, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk underdrains, storm drain improvements,
street tree planting or pruning, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian protection or
construction staging in the right-of-way.
c. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk, or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
d. Contact the Public Works inspection hotline at 781-7554 with at least a 48-hour notice for any
required encroachment permit inspection or final inspection.
e. The adjoining street shall be cleaned by sweeping to remove dirt, dust, mud and construction
debris at the end of each day.
f. A traffic and pedestrian control plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to encroachment permit issuance.
g. Any existing survey monuments shall be protected in place or shall be tied out by a licensed land
surveyor prior to disturbance and then replaced prior to occupancy in accordance with Section
8771 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 4
h. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Building
Official and Public Works Director during all demolitions, construction and ground disturbing
activities.
General
7. Add the Surveyor to the “Project Team”.
8. Add a Vicinity Map to the cover sheet show the project location.
9. Provide a letter from the soils engineer, or signed statement on the plans, stating that the project
plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in conformance with recommendations in the
report.
Sheet E
10. Add available existing contours and spot elevations to the existing topography .
(2nd P/C) Elevations have been added however they are not legible, please clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
11. Provide lot line dimensions and parkway dimensions (distance from face of curb to property line).
(2nd P/C) information has been added however the dimensions are difficult to read, please
clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
12. Label existing above ground facilities in parkway, or add legend for symbols used.
(2nd P/C) Legend has been added but symbols on plan are difficult to read, please clarify
drafting
Response: __________________________________________________________________
13. Identify a dashed line within the driveway/utility/drainage easement:
3
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, however this line does not show on sheet 1, it is shown
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 5
on the TTM but not identified.
(3rd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, however the information is not shown on the
TPM
Response: __________________________________________________________________
Utility Plan
14. Proposed utilities and some existing services are provided, however show and identify all existing and
proposed wet and dry utilities. Identify pipe size and material for existing sewer and water mains in
Johnson Avenue – Water Main is 10” PVC-C900; Sewer Main is 6” VCP. Identify existing water
meter size (5/8” meter).
15. Call out the existing 3/4” water meter size on the site plan. Verify the existing water service lateral
will support the new meters and sprinklers – it will likely need to be replaced.
16. Existing sewer lateral is 4” and will need to be replaced with a 6” lateral.
17. Identify appropriate City Standard Drawings for new water meters/services, new sewer lateral.
18. Show pipe material for new private sewer and water services.
19. Note on the utility plan that the water service piping and water meter shall be sized in accordance
with the approved fire sprinkler plans.
20. Address removal, capping of existing utilities services as appropriate. Add contact information for
utility companies.
Sheet 1.2 – Wall Profiles
21. Add a clear note on the plan to indicate that no work is to be performed on adjacent property.
22. Based on available images there is an existing pool in the proximity of the rear property line where a
7ft vertical cut is proposed. Provide a note on the plan for the contractor to notify adjacent owners of
excavations for retaining walls 10 days prior to excavation. See CBC 3307.1 for noticing
requirements.
23. Wall sections graphically show property line however please add a dimension from face of wall to
property line.
24. Some top of wall (TW) elevations are shown in profile, add a note to indicate all steps are 8”, or 6”
or add TW elevations for all steps so finish grades can be verified on grading plan.
(2nd P/C) Top of wall elevations, and profile, for East Retaining wall show TW above existing
grade behind wall. Provide adequate drainage measures to avoid standing water behind
retaining wall, also see soils report section 6.9.10 – see image below:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 6
(3rd P/C)
o The applicant’s response addresses perched/infiltrated moisture and does not address
surface runoff. Surface water is not to be introduced to the retaining wall backfill.
o The redline marked on the snippet above was intended to show the condition on the
plan vs the section provided (detail 2). This does not conform to recommendations in
the soils report section 6.9.10 (see snippet from report below). Provide a concrete ditch
behind the wall to convey water to the low point behind the common drive aisle, the
runoff should be collected in an inlet and conveyed through the wall to the paved drive
aisle or other acceptable non-erosive outlet. Or, provide a memo, or email from Beacon
Geotechnical to confirm the current backfill design is acceptable.
o Add a clear note to indicate that no work is to be performed on adjacent property
without written consent.
25. Add wall stations shown in plan view to profiles. Show all beginning/end of wall stations and
horizontal angle points.
Sheet C-1 Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Provide grading and drainage information to include the following information:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 7
Add a general drainage and grading note to indicate exposed earth adjacent to foundation to be 8” (min)
below finish floor, or untreated wood (CBC2304.12.1.2 & CRCR317.1.2). Improved surface to be 2”
below weep screed (CBC2512.12 & CRC 703.12.2); minimum slope away from foundation to be 5%
(dirt), or 2% (improved surface) (CBC1804.4 & CRCR401.3).
Finish grade elevations are provided at foundation, however many are too high relative to finish floor per
above requirements.
Show landings at all doors with FS elevations.
Minimum requirements for finish grading at foundation:
26. Identify minimum slope for earth swales; add top of grate and pipe invert elevations for all drain inlets.
27. Controlled overflow in needs to be identified for ponding basins. Overflow should not discharge over
sidewalks and City Standard under sidewalk drain to be identified.
28. Provide construction note or detail for end of pipe discharge to basins. Provide velocity dissipation.
29. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas
or swale.
30. Clearly identify removal of existing site walls (construction note “10”) for all frontage walls shown
in red.
(2nd P/C) Please clarify of existing retaining walls at front PL are to be removed, or portions
removed for new entry walks. The previous removal note “10” has been deleted.
31. It is not clear what the circled numbered notes refer to:
32. Each unit has a new concrete walk identified, this is not identified on the landscape plans, please
confirm:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 8
33. A site-specific detail for the driveway apron may be required, or an easement for public pedestrian
use on private property provided. I did not find an existing easement that addresses this:
(2nd P/C) A final map was not received with the electronic submittal; the TTM shows a PUE
and Street Tree Easement, an easement for public access/pedestrian purposes was not found.
Please provide a response, or provide a copy of the final map, to verify public access behind
driveway apron within public property.
(3rd P/C) Applicant’s response references to “see sheet 1 of 1”, which is the Tentative
Parcel Map. An easement is not shown to accommodate the public sidewalk on private
property – comment remains.
34. Damaged and broken sidewalk along property frontage to be replaced, City Standard Dwg 4110.
Limits of repair to be determined by field inspection by City. Add note to plan indicating limits of
sidewalk repair to be determined by City Inspector.
Trees Regulations
35. Sheet E shows existing trees and species and identifies some for removal, other trees are shown but
not addresses. Clearly identify all existing trees and sizes, species and indicate “remove” or
“protect”. Reference City Standard Specifications (section 77-1.03(2)(a) for trees to be protected.
You may visit the City’s website at to review the tree removal requirements:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30726/637616938097600000
Also, contact the City Arborist, Anthony Whipple 805.781.7023 Walter Gault 805.781.7578 for
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 9
additional information on a whether a Tree Removal Permit will be required.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, but the information is difficult to read. There
appears to be an 8” tree in the rear that will need to be removed, in addition to the 2 identified
in the front. Please coordinate with Walter Gault (805).781.7578, to verify a tree removal is not
required. Verification will be needed prior to approval of this application.
(3rd P/C) Drafting and tree call-outs have been clarified. Verification from the City
Arborist, as indicated above, is required prior to plan approval.
Please contact Phil Dowty (949.283.2270; pdowty@slocity.org) with questions regarding
these engineering comments.
Fees / Addressing
Vanessa Nichols
vnichols@slocity.org Phone 805-781-7588
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Address for new lots will be provided at map recordation. New address will need to be added to plans.
Currently no action required.
2. Note a separate building permit will be issued for each residence. No action required.
3. Please provide total linear feet of retaining walls.
4. Please note the location and size of water meters and water services for each parcel.
5. Final fees pending other department reviews.
Utilities Department
Ryan Beech
Rbeech@slocity.org and (805) 781-7033
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
If you have questions on the above items, please contact Wastewater Collection Supervisor, Ryan Beech, 805-781-
7033, or by e-mail: Rbeech@slocity.org
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 10
The existing sewer lateral shall be replaced or repaired per Chapter 13.08.610. Private Sewer Laterals -
Required Repairs.
1. Upon receipt of the lateral inspection report pursuant to subsection 13.08.590, Paragraph 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.,
the City will determine whether the lateral inspection report indicates any deficiencies in the operation of the
private sewer lateral and, thereafter, shall provide the owner a determination on required repairs. The City
shall provide the determination of required repairs within seven business days after receipt of the inspection
report. Required repairs may include a requirement that the lateral be replaced altogether and may include the
installation of cleanouts and backwater valves if those devices are otherwise required by City Engineering
Standards and Specifications. Such work shall be done according to standards in the latest edition of the
Unified Plumbing Code and City Engineering Standards and Specifications.
2. Obligations of the Owner. The owner shall complete all corrective action to the satisfaction of the City, and
if a building permit is required for the repairs, the owner shall obtain the requisite building permit and a final
permit inspection and approval of the relevant building official.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 11
Planning
Hannah Hanh
(805) 781-7432 | hhanh@slocity.org
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Under the “Project Data” section of the plans, please identify the two associated Planning Applications
for this project – (1) ARCH-0361-2023 (Development Review for the single-family residences) and (2)
SBDV-0362-2023 (Tentative Parcel Map for the flexible lot subdivision).
2. Please note that the associated Planning Applications are pending review and final decision. If approved,
address the following comments:
a. Include copies of the approval letters as sheets in the construction drawings. In addition, provide
written responses to each of the conditions, code requirements, etc. in the margins of the
requirements.
b. Plans submitted for this building permit application shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans and tentative map approved for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-0362-2023, respectively.
Second Review: Comment remains. The Development Review (ARCH-0361-2023) and Tentative
Parcel Map (SBDV-0362-2023) were approved at the Joint Administrative/Subdivision Hearing on
June 17, 2024. Please update the plans for consistency with the project approval and provide written
responses to each condition of approval as part of the building permit resubmittal. Additionally,
provide the updated Arborist Report as a supporting document.
Third Review: Comment remains. Please include the actual copy of the signed resolution with the
correct numbering for the findings and conditions in sequential order. Contact Planning
(hhanh@slocity.org) for a copy if needed. Provide responses to all conditions of approval (COA) in
the margins as well.
Fourth Review: Comment remains. See instructions from third review.
In addition, please submit a copy of the latest Arborist Report as a supporting document for the
building permit submittal.
3. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on final approvals for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-
0362-2023.
Second Review: Comment remains. Update the plans for consistency with the project approval.
4. Third Review: Per COA #3, the plans shall incorporate additional articulation for the residences
through the use of architectural detailing, different paint colors (natural colors), or other features
on building elevations facing the adjacent neighbors as directed by the ARC. Please revise the plans
to address this comment.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 12
Fourth Review: Direction provided by the ARC is to provide additional articulation on elevations
facing the adjacent neighbors. As such, incorporate additional elements for the rear elevations,
where the covered patios are located.
5. Third Review: Per COA #4, please provide clear cutsheets of the selected exterior lighting fixtures.
6. Third Review: Per COA #5, all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Please
clarify where the equipment (e.g., condenser units) would be located on the proposed site plan and
provide screening as appropriate.
7. Third Review: Please pay the outstanding fee for the Minor Development Review (ARCH-0361-
2023) application here.
8. Third Review: Provide a site plan that shows the tree protection measures such as the tree protection
zones (TPZs), changes in fencing type, limits of over-excavation, etc. (similar to what was provided
as part of the Development Review application).
Fourth Review: Comment remains. Sheet FP (referenced in the written response) was not included
as part of this resubmittal.
9. Third Review: For Parcels 3 and 4, please confirm that the combined height of the wood fence and
retaining walls do not exceed nine (9) feet. There appears to be conflicting information between
details on sheets for the retaining wall (Sheet 1.2) and landscaping (Sheet L-1). Note – if the
combined fence/retaining wall height is over nine (9) feet, then a Fence Height Exception is required.
Fourth Review: Comment remains based on response to #8 above. It appears information on
Sheet 1.2 would accompany Sheet FP, which was not included.
10. Third Review: For the floor plans, please include labels to clearly identify which house floor plan
(i.e., Plan A or B) correlates with which Parcel (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4). For example, Sheets A-1 through
A-3 and A-5 through A-10 should have references to being the Plan A for Parcels 1 and 2.
Letter of Transmittal
930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com
phone 1.888.794.2016
To:City of San Luis Obispo Date:August 12, 2024 Review No:4th
919 Palm Street CSG No.:440967
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
Attn:Building Department Job Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024, BLDG-0066-
2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list.Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following:
Architectural Energy
Structural CalGreen
Mechanical Wildland Urban Interface
Plumbing Certified CASp
Electrical Other:
We have reviewed the following documents
(Digital):
X Plans X Energy Compliance Documents
X Structural Calculations CalGreen Checklist – Not Applicable
X Geotechnical Report Specifications
X Geotechnical Review Letter Wildland Urban Interface
X Truss Calculations CASp Documents
Truss Review Letter X Response to Comments
Special Inspection Form X Other:SWCP
Special items to note:
Plans have been stamped by CSG.
Environmental Health Services approval required.
Special Inspection is required.
Structural Observation is required.
Valuation
X Please collect a plan review fee for 5.5 hour(s) of plan check. Amount:$742.50
Remarks:
From:Christine Uhalde & Don Price, S.E.
CSG Consultants
440967 Page | 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
Date:August 12, 2024 Phone: 1.888.794.2016
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New
Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024,
BLDG-0066-2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Email: planreview@csgengr.com
Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW
Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the
comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit
complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of
San Luis Obispo Building counter.
In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and
agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Fire Prevention, etc.).
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
The following comments remain outstanding from the previous plan review. Please provide response to the
comments in bold below.
1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every
resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review
process.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any
additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting
documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Structural Plan Check Comments by |Don Price, donp@csgengr.com|
S9. Calculations. Provide calculations for the shear walls on the first floor as well as the second floor. 2nd Review
(and 3rd Review): Comment remains in part. Provide the calculations for the second-floor framing connecting
to the first floor. Provide the floor diaphragm analysis for the loads that transfer onto the first-floor top plate.
Refer to Residential Code R301.1.3 for residential design limits and designs required per the CBC.
4th Review. Comment remains. Provide calculations for the load path from the roof to the foundations. The
calculations would be for vertical and lateral loading. An example is the B-3 shear wall as shown on Sheet B-7
at the second floor. On the same sheet, at the first floor, under the second floor B3 shear wall, there is no
first floor shear wall. There would be a 14” LVL beam at the second floor per the framing plan. The
calculations for Building B, pages 19 and 20, indicate the second floor B-3 shear wall will anchor to a concrete
foundation rather than the LVL beam. Revise the calculations. This is only one example. Provide calculations
for the full load path. Refer to the Residential Code R301.1 and R301.1.3. R301.1.3 will lead to the CBC and
then to ASCE 7-16.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S16. Strapping. Provide strapping details to connect the second story to the first story. Verify the load path from the
440967 Page | 2
roof to the foundations. Provide strapping and drags for the out of plane conditions at the wall lines.
2nd Review (and 3rd Review): Comment remains. A vertical strapping plan was not found. Please provide.
The out-of-plane load transfer values were not found. Provide the drag loads. Provide the horizontal
strapping at the out-of-plane load conditions.
4th Review: Comment remains. Per this design, there would be vertical strapping connecting the first floor to
the second floor. Calculations and details for drag loads and strapping were not found. Out-of-plane load
transfers were not found. Provide for the complete transfer of loads from the roof to the foundations. Refer
to the Residential Code R301.1 and R301.1.3 as noted in comment S9.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S24.2nd Review (and 3rd Review). Calculations. Both plans. Provide the calculations for the posts (columns). For
example, the 6x6 post on line 4 at the patio on Sheet B-4. Another example, the 4x6 post under the 2-14” LVL
on line 3. Please provide calculations for all vertical elements.
4th Review: Comment remains. Calculations for the vertical elements were not found. Please provide.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S25.2nd Review (and 3rd Review). Calculations. Both Plans. Provide calculations for the load bearing walls.
4th Review: Comment remains. Calculations for the load bearing walls were not found. Please provide the
calculations and design details. Include the design details for the walls supporting the truss loads.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Energy Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
EN10. Sheet E-2: The Title-24 documents indicate a 6:12 roof rise; however, the elevation view on sheet B-3 shows
4:12. Please revise accordingly.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
PC3: The above comment was not addressed, please see above comments and revise accordingly.
PC4: The energy documents now indicate a roof rise of 2.5:12, please revise to 4:12 for the next review.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
(End of Building Comments)
10
From:Building
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:12 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah; Jordan Knauer
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; rudadc
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
Attachments:PLBLDG-0012-2024_Review_v4.docx; PLBLDG-0012-2024-CSG BLDG REVIEW V4.pdf
Hi Hannah,
See attached 4th review comments. Let us know if you need anything further.
Thank you,
Erin Stanley
Permit Technician I
Community Development
E EStanley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7159
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Building <building@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
@Building – Good morning, when you have a moment could you please send comments from the fourth review to all
on the thread?
All reviews have been completed for PLBLDG-0012-2024.
Thank you,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
11
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
When you send the comments this morning, please send them to this thread. Matt will update them and send
the updated plans back to you.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
Date: August 9, 2024
Plan Check Review # 4
Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees)
Applicant Response:
Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from
this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans.
Check one: _____yes ______no
Print Name:
If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans:
Project Address 3160 Johnson Ave.
Project Name 3160 Johnson Ave.
Application Number PLBLDG-0012-2024
Review of 4 single family residences
Occupancy Class Click or tap here to enter text.
Construction Type Click or tap here to enter text.
Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text.
Sprinklers Click or tap here to enter text.
1 2 3 4
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 2
Engineering Development Review
Phil Dowty
pdowty@slocity.org Phone (949) 283-2270
☒ Ready for Action ☐ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
(3rd P/C) Please contact Phil Dowty with any questions regarding remaining comments, or for
further discussion.
The following items are required prior to building permit issuance:
1. Provide a written response to each comment referencing sheet number, detail or other pertinent
information so that modifications can be easily found.
2. Based on the SWCP submitted, add the following Stormwater Compliance Block to the cover sheet
and fill in the appropriate information:
STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY :
The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality
Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:
PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______
PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______
PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________
City Field Verification. Prior to final acceptance, contact the City for field verification of
installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the
project Stormwater Control Plan.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged however please add the Certification Block to
the cover sheet of the building plans.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
3. Please add Application Number to “Project Information” and remove reference to “Building Pad”
under Requirement 1, for minimized compaction.
(2nd P/C) Applicants response acknowledged; however the Application Number was not found
on SWCP.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 3
Response: __________________________________________________________________
4. There is significant amount of color line-work on the plans. If plans are plotted in black/white the
different line-types will be lost. Provide a response to explain if all printing will be in color, if not,
replace color lines with unique line types that will come through with black/white printing.
5. Add Conditions of Approval to plans, include tentative map and any other planning/Architectural
Review COA. Also, provide a list on the cover sheet of other related entitlement permits, including
tentative map, that relate to this application.
(2nd P/C) No response provided and information not found, comment remains.
The following items need correction on the construction plans:
6. The following notes shall be included on the cover sheet of the building plans, the architectural site
plan, and/or grading plans as appropriate:
a. All work located within the public right-of-way or within the jurisdiction of the Utilities and
Public Works Departments shall comply with the most current edition of the Engineering
Standards and Standard Specification. (The current adopted Standards are dated August 2020.)
b. A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in the public right-of-way, within city
easements, or for connections to public utilities. Work requiring an encroachment permit
includes but is not limited to demolitions, utilities, water, sewer, and fire service laterals, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk underdrains, storm drain improvements,
street tree planting or pruning, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian protection or
construction staging in the right-of-way.
c. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk, or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
d. Contact the Public Works inspection hotline at 781-7554 with at least a 48-hour notice for any
required encroachment permit inspection or final inspection.
e. The adjoining street shall be cleaned by sweeping to remove dirt, dust, mud and construction
debris at the end of each day.
f. A traffic and pedestrian control plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to encroachment permit issuance.
g. Any existing survey monuments shall be protected in place or shall be tied out by a licensed land
surveyor prior to disturbance and then replaced prior to occupancy in accordance with Section
8771 of the California Business and Professions Code.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 4
h. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Building
Official and Public Works Director during all demolitions, construction and ground disturbing
activities.
General
7. Add the Surveyor to the “Project Team”.
8. Add a Vicinity Map to the cover sheet show the project location.
9. Provide a letter from the soils engineer, or signed statement on the plans, stating that the project
plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in conformance with recommendations in the
report.
Sheet E
10. Add available existing contours and spot elevations to the existing topography .
(2nd P/C) Elevations have been added however they are not legible, please clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
11. Provide lot line dimensions and parkway dimensions (distance from face of curb to property line).
(2nd P/C) information has been added however the dimensions are difficult to read, please
clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
12. Label existing above ground facilities in parkway, or add legend for symbols used.
(2nd P/C) Legend has been added but symbols on plan are difficult to read, please clarify
drafting
Response: __________________________________________________________________
13. Identify a dashed line within the driveway/utility/drainage easement:
3
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, however this line does not show on sheet 1, it is shown
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 5
on the TTM but not identified.
(3rd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, however the information is not shown on the
TPM
Response: __________________________________________________________________
Utility Plan
14. Proposed utilities and some existing services are provided, however show and identify all existing and
proposed wet and dry utilities. Identify pipe size and material for existing sewer and water mains in
Johnson Avenue – Water Main is 10” PVC-C900; Sewer Main is 6” VCP. Identify existing water
meter size (5/8” meter).
15. Call out the existing 3/4” water meter size on the site plan. Verify the existing water service lateral
will support the new meters and sprinklers – it will likely need to be replaced.
16. Existing sewer lateral is 4” and will need to be replaced with a 6” lateral.
17. Identify appropriate City Standard Drawings for new water meters/services, new sewer lateral.
18. Show pipe material for new private sewer and water services.
19. Note on the utility plan that the water service piping and water meter shall be sized in accordance
with the approved fire sprinkler plans.
20. Address removal, capping of existing utilities services as appropriate. Add contact information for
utility companies.
Sheet 1.2 – Wall Profiles
21. Add a clear note on the plan to indicate that no work is to be performed on adjacent property.
22. Based on available images there is an existing pool in the proximity of the rear property line where a
7ft vertical cut is proposed. Provide a note on the plan for the contractor to notify adjacent owners of
excavations for retaining walls 10 days prior to excavation. See CBC 3307.1 for noticing
requirements.
23. Wall sections graphically show property line however please add a dimension from face of wall to
property line.
24. Some top of wall (TW) elevations are shown in profile, add a note to indicate all steps are 8”, or 6”
or add TW elevations for all steps so finish grades can be verified on grading plan.
(2nd P/C) Top of wall elevations, and profile, for East Retaining wall show TW above existing
grade behind wall. Provide adequate drainage measures to avoid standing water behind
retaining wall, also see soils report section 6.9.10 – see image below:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 6
(3rd P/C)
o The applicant’s response addresses perched/infiltrated moisture and does not address
surface runoff. Surface water is not to be introduced to the retaining wall backfill.
o The redline marked on the snippet above was intended to show the condition on the
plan vs the section provided (detail 2). This does not conform to recommendations in
the soils report section 6.9.10 (see snippet from report below). Provide a concrete ditch
behind the wall to convey water to the low point behind the common drive aisle, the
runoff should be collected in an inlet and conveyed through the wall to the paved drive
aisle or other acceptable non-erosive outlet. Or, provide a memo, or email from Beacon
Geotechnical to confirm the current backfill design is acceptable.
o Add a clear note to indicate that no work is to be performed on adjacent property
without written consent.
25. Add wall stations shown in plan view to profiles. Show all beginning/end of wall stations and
horizontal angle points.
Sheet C-1 Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Provide grading and drainage information to include the following information:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 7
Add a general drainage and grading note to indicate exposed earth adjacent to foundation to be 8” (min)
below finish floor, or untreated wood (CBC2304.12.1.2 & CRCR317.1.2). Improved surface to be 2”
below weep screed (CBC2512.12 & CRC 703.12.2); minimum slope away from foundation to be 5%
(dirt), or 2% (improved surface) (CBC1804.4 & CRCR401.3).
Finish grade elevations are provided at foundation, however many are too high relative to finish floor per
above requirements.
Show landings at all doors with FS elevations.
Minimum requirements for finish grading at foundation:
26. Identify minimum slope for earth swales; add top of grate and pipe invert elevations for all drain inlets.
27. Controlled overflow in needs to be identified for ponding basins. Overflow should not discharge over
sidewalks and City Standard under sidewalk drain to be identified.
28. Provide construction note or detail for end of pipe discharge to basins. Provide velocity dissipation.
29. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas
or swale.
30. Clearly identify removal of existing site walls (construction note “10”) for all frontage walls shown
in red.
(2nd P/C) Please clarify of existing retaining walls at front PL are to be removed, or portions
removed for new entry walks. The previous removal note “10” has been deleted.
31. It is not clear what the circled numbered notes refer to:
32. Each unit has a new concrete walk identified, this is not identified on the landscape plans, please
confirm:
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 8
33. A site-specific detail for the driveway apron may be required, or an easement for public pedestrian
use on private property provided. I did not find an existing easement that addresses this:
(2nd P/C) A final map was not received with the electronic submittal; the TTM shows a PUE
and Street Tree Easement, an easement for public access/pedestrian purposes was not found.
Please provide a response, or provide a copy of the final map, to verify public access behind
driveway apron within public property.
(3rd P/C) Applicant’s response references to “see sheet 1 of 1”, which is the Tentative
Parcel Map. An easement is not shown to accommodate the public sidewalk on private
property – comment remains.
34. Damaged and broken sidewalk along property frontage to be replaced, City Standard Dwg 4110.
Limits of repair to be determined by field inspection by City. Add note to plan indicating limits of
sidewalk repair to be determined by City Inspector.
Trees Regulations
35. Sheet E shows existing trees and species and identifies some for removal, other trees are shown but
not addresses. Clearly identify all existing trees and sizes, species and indicate “remove” or
“protect”. Reference City Standard Specifications (section 77-1.03(2)(a) for trees to be protected.
You may visit the City’s website at to review the tree removal requirements:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30726/637616938097600000
Also, contact the City Arborist, Anthony Whipple 805.781.7023 Walter Gault 805.781.7578 for
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 9
additional information on a whether a Tree Removal Permit will be required.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, but the information is difficult to read. There
appears to be an 8” tree in the rear that will need to be removed, in addition to the 2 identified
in the front. Please coordinate with Walter Gault (805).781.7578, to verify a tree removal is not
required. Verification will be needed prior to approval of this application.
(3rd P/C) Drafting and tree call-outs have been clarified. Verification from the City
Arborist, as indicated above, is required prior to plan approval.
Please contact Phil Dowty (949.283.2270; pdowty@slocity.org) with questions regarding
these engineering comments.
Fees / Addressing
Vanessa Nichols
vnichols@slocity.org Phone 805-781-7588
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Address for new lots will be provided at map recordation. New address will need to be added to plans.
Currently no action required.
2. Note a separate building permit will be issued for each residence. No action required.
3. Please provide total linear feet of retaining walls.
4. Please note the location and size of water meters and water services for each parcel.
5. Final fees pending other department reviews.
Utilities Department
Ryan Beech
Rbeech@slocity.org and (805) 781-7033
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
If you have questions on the above items, please contact Wastewater Collection Supervisor, Ryan Beech, 805-781-
7033, or by e-mail: Rbeech@slocity.org
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 10
The existing sewer lateral shall be replaced or repaired per Chapter 13.08.610. Private Sewer Laterals -
Required Repairs.
1. Upon receipt of the lateral inspection report pursuant to subsection 13.08.590, Paragraph 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.,
the City will determine whether the lateral inspection report indicates any deficiencies in the operation of the
private sewer lateral and, thereafter, shall provide the owner a determination on required repairs. The City
shall provide the determination of required repairs within seven business days after receipt of the inspection
report. Required repairs may include a requirement that the lateral be replaced altogether and may include the
installation of cleanouts and backwater valves if those devices are otherwise required by City Engineering
Standards and Specifications. Such work shall be done according to standards in the latest edition of the
Unified Plumbing Code and City Engineering Standards and Specifications.
2. Obligations of the Owner. The owner shall complete all corrective action to the satisfaction of the City, and
if a building permit is required for the repairs, the owner shall obtain the requisite building permit and a final
permit inspection and approval of the relevant building official.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 11
Planning
Hannah Hanh
(805) 781-7432 | hhanh@slocity.org
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Under the “Project Data” section of the plans, please identify the two associated Planning Applications
for this project – (1) ARCH-0361-2023 (Development Review for the single-family residences) and (2)
SBDV-0362-2023 (Tentative Parcel Map for the flexible lot subdivision).
2. Please note that the associated Planning Applications are pending review and final decision. If approved,
address the following comments:
a. Include copies of the approval letters as sheets in the construction drawings. In addition, provide
written responses to each of the conditions, code requirements, etc. in the margins of the
requirements.
b. Plans submitted for this building permit application shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans and tentative map approved for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-0362-2023, respectively.
Second Review: Comment remains. The Development Review (ARCH-0361-2023) and Tentative
Parcel Map (SBDV-0362-2023) were approved at the Joint Administrative/Subdivision Hearing on
June 17, 2024. Please update the plans for consistency with the project approval and provide written
responses to each condition of approval as part of the building permit resubmittal. Additionally,
provide the updated Arborist Report as a supporting document.
Third Review: Comment remains. Please include the actual copy of the signed resolution with the
correct numbering for the findings and conditions in sequential order. Contact Planning
(hhanh@slocity.org) for a copy if needed. Provide responses to all conditions of approval (COA) in
the margins as well.
Fourth Review: Comment remains. See instructions from third review.
In addition, please submit a copy of the latest Arborist Report as a supporting document for the
building permit submittal.
3. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on final approvals for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-
0362-2023.
Second Review: Comment remains. Update the plans for consistency with the project approval.
4. Third Review: Per COA #3, the plans shall incorporate additional articulation for the residences
through the use of architectural detailing, different paint colors (natural colors), or other features
on building elevations facing the adjacent neighbors as directed by the ARC. Please revise the plans
to address this comment.
Plan Check Review #4
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 12
Fourth Review: Direction provided by the ARC is to provide additional articulation on elevations
facing the adjacent neighbors. As such, incorporate additional elements for the rear elevations,
where the covered patios are located.
5. Third Review: Per COA #4, please provide clear cutsheets of the selected exterior lighting fixtures.
6. Third Review: Per COA #5, all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view. Please
clarify where the equipment (e.g., condenser units) would be located on the proposed site plan and
provide screening as appropriate.
7. Third Review: Please pay the outstanding fee for the Minor Development Review (ARCH-0361-
2023) application here.
8. Third Review: Provide a site plan that shows the tree protection measures such as the tree protection
zones (TPZs), changes in fencing type, limits of over-excavation, etc. (similar to what was provided
as part of the Development Review application).
Fourth Review: Comment remains. Sheet FP (referenced in the written response) was not included
as part of this resubmittal.
9. Third Review: For Parcels 3 and 4, please confirm that the combined height of the wood fence and
retaining walls do not exceed nine (9) feet. There appears to be conflicting information between
details on sheets for the retaining wall (Sheet 1.2) and landscaping (Sheet L-1). Note – if the
combined fence/retaining wall height is over nine (9) feet, then a Fence Height Exception is required.
Fourth Review: Comment remains based on response to #8 above. It appears information on
Sheet 1.2 would accompany Sheet FP, which was not included.
10. Third Review: For the floor plans, please include labels to clearly identify which house floor plan
(i.e., Plan A or B) correlates with which Parcel (i.e., 1, 2, 3, and 4). For example, Sheets A-1 through
A-3 and A-5 through A-10 should have references to being the Plan A for Parcels 1 and 2.
Letter of Transmittal
930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com
phone 1.888.794.2016
To:City of San Luis Obispo Date:August 12, 2024 Review No:4th
919 Palm Street CSG No.:440967
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
Attn:Building Department Job Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024, BLDG-0066-
2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list.Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following:
Architectural Energy
Structural CalGreen
Mechanical Wildland Urban Interface
Plumbing Certified CASp
Electrical Other:
We have reviewed the following documents
(Digital):
X Plans X Energy Compliance Documents
X Structural Calculations CalGreen Checklist – Not Applicable
X Geotechnical Report Specifications
X Geotechnical Review Letter Wildland Urban Interface
X Truss Calculations CASp Documents
Truss Review Letter X Response to Comments
Special Inspection Form X Other:SWCP
Special items to note:
Plans have been stamped by CSG.
Environmental Health Services approval required.
Special Inspection is required.
Structural Observation is required.
Valuation
X Please collect a plan review fee for 5.5 hour(s) of plan check. Amount:$742.50
Remarks:
From:Christine Uhalde & Don Price, S.E.
CSG Consultants
440967 Page | 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
Date:August 12, 2024 Phone: 1.888.794.2016
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New
Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024,
BLDG-0066-2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Email: planreview@csgengr.com
Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW
Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the
comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit
complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of
San Luis Obispo Building counter.
In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and
agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Fire Prevention, etc.).
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
The following comments remain outstanding from the previous plan review. Please provide response to the
comments in bold below.
1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every
resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review
process.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any
additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting
documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Structural Plan Check Comments by |Don Price, donp@csgengr.com|
S9. Calculations. Provide calculations for the shear walls on the first floor as well as the second floor. 2nd Review
(and 3rd Review): Comment remains in part. Provide the calculations for the second-floor framing connecting
to the first floor. Provide the floor diaphragm analysis for the loads that transfer onto the first-floor top plate.
Refer to Residential Code R301.1.3 for residential design limits and designs required per the CBC.
4th Review. Comment remains. Provide calculations for the load path from the roof to the foundations. The
calculations would be for vertical and lateral loading. An example is the B-3 shear wall as shown on Sheet B-7
at the second floor. On the same sheet, at the first floor, under the second floor B3 shear wall, there is no
first floor shear wall. There would be a 14” LVL beam at the second floor per the framing plan. The
calculations for Building B, pages 19 and 20, indicate the second floor B-3 shear wall will anchor to a concrete
foundation rather than the LVL beam. Revise the calculations. This is only one example. Provide calculations
for the full load path. Refer to the Residential Code R301.1 and R301.1.3. R301.1.3 will lead to the CBC and
then to ASCE 7-16.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S16. Strapping. Provide strapping details to connect the second story to the first story. Verify the load path from the
440967 Page | 2
roof to the foundations. Provide strapping and drags for the out of plane conditions at the wall lines.
2nd Review (and 3rd Review): Comment remains. A vertical strapping plan was not found. Please provide.
The out-of-plane load transfer values were not found. Provide the drag loads. Provide the horizontal
strapping at the out-of-plane load conditions.
4th Review: Comment remains. Per this design, there would be vertical strapping connecting the first floor to
the second floor. Calculations and details for drag loads and strapping were not found. Out-of-plane load
transfers were not found. Provide for the complete transfer of loads from the roof to the foundations. Refer
to the Residential Code R301.1 and R301.1.3 as noted in comment S9.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S24.2nd Review (and 3rd Review). Calculations. Both plans. Provide the calculations for the posts (columns). For
example, the 6x6 post on line 4 at the patio on Sheet B-4. Another example, the 4x6 post under the 2-14” LVL
on line 3. Please provide calculations for all vertical elements.
4th Review: Comment remains. Calculations for the vertical elements were not found. Please provide.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S25.2nd Review (and 3rd Review). Calculations. Both Plans. Provide calculations for the load bearing walls.
4th Review: Comment remains. Calculations for the load bearing walls were not found. Please provide the
calculations and design details. Include the design details for the walls supporting the truss loads.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Energy Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
EN10. Sheet E-2: The Title-24 documents indicate a 6:12 roof rise; however, the elevation view on sheet B-3 shows
4:12. Please revise accordingly.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
PC3: The above comment was not addressed, please see above comments and revise accordingly.
PC4: The energy documents now indicate a roof rise of 2.5:12, please revise to 4:12 for the next review.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
(End of Building Comments)
12
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2024 10:07 AM
To:Jordan Knauer; Building
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; rudadc
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
@Building – Good morning, when you have a moment could you please send comments from the fourth review to all
on the thread?
All reviews have been completed for PLBLDG-0012-2024.
Thank you,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Planning Comments
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
When you send the comments this morning, please send them to this thread. Matt will update them and send
the updated plans back to you.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
13
DRE#: 02041698
14
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Thursday, August 22, 2024 9:56 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; rudadc
Subject:3160 Johnson Planning Comments
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
When you send the comments this morning, please send them to this thread. Matt will update them and send
the updated plans back to you.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
15
From:Stanley, Erin
Sent:Thursday, July 11, 2024 10:56 AM
To:
Cc:Matt Cebulla;
Subject:3160 Johnson PLBLDG-0012-2024 Comments
Attachments:PLBLDG-0012-2024_Review_v2.docx; PLBLDG-0012-2024-CSG REVIEW V2.pdf
Good morning,
Please see attached comments for 3160 Johnson (PLBLDG-0012-2024). To answer the counter question of status on
this: currently waiting for your resubmittal for review #3. Please be sure to email that to us when you have it ready.
Thank you,
Erin Stanley
Permit Technician I
Community Development
E EStanley@slocity.org
T 805.781.7159
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
Date: February 19, 2024
Plan Check Review # 1
Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees)
Applicant Response:
Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from
this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans.
Check one: _____yes ______no
Print Name:
If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans:
Project Address 3160 Johnson Ave.
Project Name 3160 Johnson Ave.
Application Number PLBLDG-0012-2024
Review of 4 single family residences
Occupancy Class Click or tap here to enter text.
Construction Type Click or tap here to enter text.
Occupant Load Click or tap here to enter text.
Sprinklers Click or tap here to enter text.
1 2 3 4
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 2
Engineering Development Review
Phil Dowty
pdowty@slocity.org Phone (949) 283-2270
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
The following items are required prior to building permit issuance:
1. Provide a written response to each comment referencing sheet number, detail or other pertinent
information so that modifications can be easily found.
2. Based on the SWCP submitted, add the following Stormwater Compliance Block to the cover sheet
and fill in the appropriate information:
STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY :
The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality
Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:
PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______
PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______
PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______
Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________
City Field Verification. Prior to final acceptance, contact the City for field verification of
installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the
project Stormwater Control Plan.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged however please add the Certification Block to
the cover sheet of the building plans.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
3. Please add Application Number to “Project Information” and remove reference to “Building Pad”
under Requirement 1, for minimized compaction.
(2nd P/C) Applicants response acknowledged; however the Application Number was not found
on SWCP.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 3
4. There is significant amount of color line-work on the plans. If plans are plotted in black/white the
different line-types will be lost. Provide a response to explain if all printing will be in color, if not,
replace color lines with unique line types that will come through with black/white printing.
5. Add Conditions of Approval to plans, include tentative map and any other planning/Architectural
Review COA. Also, provide a list on the cover sheet of other related entitlement permits, including
tentative map, that relate to this application.
(2nd P/C) No response provided and information not found, comment remains.
The following items need correction on the construction plans:
6. The following notes shall be included on the cover sheet of the building plans, the architectural site
plan, and/or grading plans as appropriate:
a. All work located within the public right-of-way or within the jurisdiction of the Utilities and
Public Works Departments shall comply with the most current edition of the Engineering
Standards and Standard Specification. (The current adopted Standards are dated August 2020.)
b. A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in the public right-of-way, within city
easements, or for connections to public utilities. Work requiring an encroachment permit
includes but is not limited to demolitions, utilities, water, sewer, and fire service laterals, curb,
gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk underdrains, storm drain improvements,
street tree planting or pruning, curb ramps, street paving, and pedestrian protection or
construction staging in the right-of-way.
c. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk, or driveway approach shall be
repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
d. Contact the Public Works inspection hotline at 781-7554 with at least a 48-hour notice for any
required encroachment permit inspection or final inspection.
e. The adjoining street shall be cleaned by sweeping to remove dirt, dust, mud and construction
debris at the end of each day.
f. A traffic and pedestrian control plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to encroachment permit issuance.
g. Any existing survey monuments shall be protected in place or shall be tied out by a licensed land
surveyor prior to disturbance and then replaced prior to occupancy in accordance with Section
8771 of the California Business and Professions Code.
h. Erosion control measures shall be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Building
Official and Public Works Director during all demolitions, construction and ground disturbing
activities.
General
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 4
7. Add the Surveyor to the “Project Team”.
8. Add a Vicinity Map to the cover sheet show the project location.
9. Provide a letter from the soils engineer, or signed statement on the plans, stating that the project
plans have been reviewed and have been found to be in conformance with recommendations in the
report.
Sheet E
10. Add available existing contours and spot elevations to the existing topography .
(2nd P/C) Elevations have been added however they are not legible, please clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
11. Provide lot line dimensions and parkway dimensions (distance from face of curb to property line).
(2nd P/C) information has been added however the dimensions are difficult to read, please
clarify drafting.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
12. Label existing above ground facilities in parkway, or add legend for symbols used.
(2nd P/C) Legend has been added but symbols on plan are difficult to read, please clarify
drafting
Response: __________________________________________________________________
13. Identify a dashed line within the driveway/utility/drainage easement:
3
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, however this line does not show on sheet 1, it is shown
on the TTM but not identified.
Response: __________________________________________________________________
Utility Plan
14. Proposed utilities and some existing services are provided, however show and identify all existing and
proposed wet and dry utilities. Identify pipe size and material for existing sewer and water mains in
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 5
Johnson Avenue – Water Main is 10” PVC-C900; Sewer Main is 6” VCP. Identify existing water
meter size (5/8” meter).
15. Call out the existing 3/4” water meter size on the site plan. Verify the existing water service lateral
will support the new meters and sprinklers – it will likely need to be replaced.
16. Existing sewer lateral is 4” and will need to be replaced with a 6” lateral.
17. Identify appropriate City Standard Drawings for new water meters/services, new sewer lateral.
18. Show pipe material for new private sewer and water services.
19. Note on the utility plan that the water service piping and water meter shall be sized in accordance
with the approved fire sprinkler plans.
20. Address removal, capping of existing utilities services as appropriate. Add contact information for
utility companies.
Sheet 1.2 – Wall Profiles
21. Add a clear note on the plan to indicate that no work is to be performed on adjacent property.
22. Based on available images there is an existing pool in the proximity of the rear property line where a
7ft vertical cut is proposed. Provide a note on the plan for the contractor to notify adjacent owners of
excavations for retaining walls 10 days prior to excavation. See CBC 3307.1 for noticing
requirements.
23. Wall sections graphically show property line however please add a dimension from face of wall to
property line.
24. Some top of wall (TW) elevations are shown in profile, add a note to indicate all steps are 8”, or 6”
or add TW elevations for all steps so finish grades can be verified on grading plan.
(2nd P/C) Top of wall elevations, and profile, for East Retaining wall show TW above existing
grade behind wall. Provide adequate drainage measures to avoid standing water behind
retaining wall, also see soils report section 6.9.10 – see image below:
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 6
25. Add wall stations shown in plan view to profiles. Show all beginning/end of wall stations and
horizontal angle points.
Sheet C-1 Grading and Drainage Plan
1. Provide grading and drainage information to include the following information:
Add a general drainage and grading note to indicate exposed earth adjacent to foundation to be 8” (min)
below finish floor, or untreated wood (CBC2304.12.1.2 & CRCR317.1.2). Improved surface to be 2”
below weep screed (CBC2512.12 & CRC 703.12.2); minimum slope away from foundation to be 5%
(dirt), or 2% (improved surface) (CBC1804.4 & CRCR401.3).
Finish grade elevations are provided at foundation, however many are too high relative to finish floor per
above requirements.
Show landings at all doors with FS elevations.
Minimum requirements for finish grading at foundation:
26. Identify minimum slope for earth swales; add top of grate and pipe invert elevations for all drain inlets.
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 7
27. Controlled overflow in needs to be identified for ponding basins. Overflow should not discharge over
sidewalks and City Standard under sidewalk drain to be identified.
28. Provide construction note or detail for end of pipe discharge to basins. Provide velocity dissipation.
29. Show roof downspouts outlets and show non-erosive discharge (splash blocks) to landscaped areas
or swale.
30. Clearly identify removal of existing site walls (construction note “10”) for all frontage walls shown
in red.
(2nd P/C) Please clarify of existing retaining walls at front PL are to be removed, or portions
removed for new entry walks. The previous removal note “10” has been deleted.
31. It is not clear what the circled numbered notes refer to:
32. Each unit has a new concrete walk identified, this is not identified on the landscape plans, please
confirm:
33. A site-specific detail for the driveway apron may be required, or an easement for public pedestrian
use on private property provided. I did not find an existing easement that addresses this:
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 8
(2nd P/C) A final map was not received with the electronic submittal; the TTM shows a PUE
and Street Tree Easement, an easement for public access/pedestrian purposes was not found.
Please provide a response, or provide a copy of the final map, to verify public access behind
driveway apron within public property.
34. Damaged and broken sidewalk along property frontage to be replaced, City Standard Dwg 4110.
Limits of repair to be determined by field inspection by City. Add note to plan indicating limits of
sidewalk repair to be determined by City Inspector.
Trees Regulations
35. Sheet E shows existing trees and species and identifies some for removal, other trees are shown but
not addresses. Clearly identify all existing trees and sizes, species and indicate “remove” or
“protect”. Reference City Standard Specifications (section 77-1.03(2)(a) for trees to be protected.
You may visit the City’s website at to review the tree removal requirements:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30726/637616938097600000
Also, contact the City Arborist, Anthony Whipple 805.781.7023 Walter Gault 805.781.7578 for
additional information on a whether a Tree Removal Permit will be required.
(2nd P/C) Applicant’s response acknowledged, but the information is difficult to read. There
appears to be an 8” tree in the rear that will need to be removed, in addition to the 2 identified
in the front. Please coordinate with Walter Gault (805).781.7578, to verify a tree removal is not
required. Verification will be needed prior to approval of this application.
Please contact Phil Dowty (949.283.2270; pdowty@slocity.org) with questions regarding
these engineering comments.
Fees / Addressing
Vanessa Nichols
vnichols@slocity.org Phone 805-781-7588
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Address for new lots will be provided at map recordation. New address will need to be added to plans.
Currently no action required.
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 9
2. Note a separate building permit will be issued for each residence. No action required.
3. Please provide total linear feet of retaining walls.
4. Please note the location and size of water meters and water services for each parcel.
5. Final fees pending other department reviews.
Utilities Department
Ryan Beech
Rbeech@slocity.org and (805) 781-7033
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
If you have questions on the above items, please contact Wastewater Collection Supervisor, Ryan Beech, 805-781-
7033, or by e-mail: Rbeech@slocity.org
The existing sewer lateral shall be replaced or repaired per Chapter 13.08.610. Private Sewer Laterals -
Required Repairs.
1. Upon receipt of the lateral inspection report pursuant to subsection 13.08.590, Paragraph 1.a., 1.b., and 1.c.,
the City will determine whether the lateral inspection report indicates any deficiencies in the operation of the
private sewer lateral and, thereafter, shall provide the owner a determination on required repairs. The City
shall provide the determination of required repairs within seven business days after receipt of the inspection
report. Required repairs may include a requirement that the lateral be replaced altogether and may include the
installation of cleanouts and backwater valves if those devices are otherwise required by City Engineering
Standards and Specifications. Such work shall be done according to standards in the latest edition of the
Unified Plumbing Code and City Engineering Standards and Specifications.
2. Obligations of the Owner. The owner shall complete all corrective action to the satisfaction of the City, and
if a building permit is required for the repairs, the owner shall obtain the requisite building permit and a final
permit inspection and approval of the relevant building official.
Plan Check Review #1
3160 Johnson Ave.
PLBLDG-0012-2024
Page 10
Planning
Hannah Hanh
(805) 781-7432 | hhanh@slocity.org
☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check
☒ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module)
1. Under the “Project Data” section of the plans, please identify the two associated Planning Applications
for this project – (1) ARCH-0361-2023 (Development Review for the single-family residences) and (2)
SBDV-0362-2023 (Tentative Parcel Map for the flexible lot subdivision).
2. Please note that the associated Planning Applications are pending review and final decision. If approved,
address the following comments:
a. Include copies of the approval letters as sheets in the construction drawings. In addition, provide
written responses to each of the conditions, code requirements, etc. in the margins of the
requirements.
b. Plans submitted for this building permit application shall be in substantial conformance with the
plans and tentative map approved for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-0362-2023, respectively.
Second Review: Comment remains. The Development Review (ARCH-0361-2023) and Tentative
Parcel Map (SBDV-0362-2023) were approved at the Joint Administrative/Subdivision Hearing on
June 17, 2024. Please update the plans for consistency with the project approval and provide written
responses to each condition of approval as part of the building permit resubmittal. Additionally,
provide the updated Arborist Report as a supporting document.
3. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on final approvals for ARCH-0361-2023 and SBDV-
0362-2023.
Second Review: Comment remains. Update the plans for consistency with the project approval.
Letter of Transmittal
930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com
phone 1.888.794.2016
To:City of San Luis Obispo Date:April 11, 2024 Review No:2nd
919 Palm Street CSG No.:440967
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
Attn:Building Department Job Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024, BLDG-0066-
2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list.Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following:
Architectural Energy
Structural CalGreen
Mechanical Wildland Urban Interface
Plumbing Certified CASp
Electrical Other:
We have reviewed the following documents
(Digital):
X Plans X Energy Compliance Documents
X Structural Calculations CalGreen Checklist – Not Applicable
X Geotechnical Report Specifications
X Geotechnical Review Letter Wildland Urban Interface
X Truss Calculations CASp Documents
Truss Review Letter X Response to Comments
Special Inspection Form X Other:SWCP
Special items to note:
Plans have been stamped by CSG.
Environmental Health Services approval required.
Special Inspection is required.
Structural Observation is required.
Valuation
Please collect a plan review fee for hour(s) of plan check. Amount:$
Remarks:
From:Christine Uhalde & Don Price, S.E.
CSG Consultants
440967 Page | 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION
Date:April 11, 2024 Phone: 1.888.794.2016
Job Description:
4 new single family homes with attached ADU´s - New
Subdivision (each SFD has own permit #: BLDG-0065-2024,
BLDG-0066-2024, BLDG-0067-2024, BLDG0068-2024)
Email: planreview@csgengr.com
Address:3160 Johnson Ave.
Jurisdiction No.:PLBLDG-0012-2024
INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW
Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the
comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit
complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of
San Luis Obispo Building counter.
In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and
agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Fire Prevention, etc.).
PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every
resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review
process.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any
additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting
documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Architectural Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
A32. Sheet B-3, B-3.1: Demonstrate how the project will comply with community at risk of wildfire for ignition
resistant construction per local ordinance.
“R337.1.1 Establishment of limits. The City of San Luis Obispo is considered a “Community at Risk” due to the
threat of wildfire impacting the urban community. The City shall continue to enhance the fire safety and
construction codes for new buildings to reduce the risk of urban fires that may result from wildfires. New
buildings citywide shall incorporate the following construction methods and materials: Ignition resistant exterior
wall coverings; Fire sprinkler protection in attic areas (at least one “pilot head”); Ember resistant vent systems
for attics and under floor areas, protected eaves, and Class ‘A’ roof coverings as identified in the California
Building Code Chapter 7A.”
PC2: A corresponding note was not found on B-3. Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Structural Plan Check Comments by |Don Price, donp@csgengr.com|
S6. Wind Speed. Clarify the source of the wind speed used in the calculations.
2nd Review. Comment remains. Clarify the source of the wind load chart used in the calculations on page 6a.
Identify the document where the chart was obtained. The V basic wind speed value at 110 mph is okay. For
440967 Page | 2
the City of SLO the exposure category would be C rather than B. Provide a wind speed chart for Exposure C.
Provide revised calculations based on C exposure.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S9. Calculations. Provide calculations for the shear walls on the first floor as well as the second floor.
2nd Review. Comment remains in part. Provide the calculations for the second floor framing connecting to
the first floor. Provide the floor diaphragm analysis for the loads that transfer onto the first floor top plate.
Refer to Residential Code R301.1.3 for residential design limits and designs required per the CBC.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S16. Strapping. Provide strapping details to connect the second story to the first story. Verify the load path from the
roof to the foundations. Provide strapping and drags for the out of plane conditions at the wall lines.
2nd Review. Comment remains. A vertical strapping plan was not found. Please provide. The out-of-plane
load transfer values were not found. Provide the drag loads. Provide the horizontal strapping at the out-of-
plane load conditions.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S17. Truss Calculations. Provide the engineer’s stamp on the truss calculations.
2nd Review. Comment remains in part. Plan B calculations are to be stamped by the registered design
professional responsible for the truss calculations. Show the drag loads and the drag trusses on the truss
layout for Plan B. Clarify all double, triple, and combined trusses. Verify the connectors for the combined
trusses to the structure.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S21. Provide roof sheathing plans.
2nd Review. Comment remains in part. Provide the minimum thickness for the roof sheathing per the
requirements of the Residential code R803 and Table R803.1
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S22. Initiate the City of San Luis Obispo - Special Inspections Form that is available on their website.
Special Inspections include soils and subgrade inspection. Special Inspection appears to include the strong wall
anchors pending a review of sheet SSW2.
2nd Review. Comment remains. Please provide a copy of the form for review. Strong wall inspection is
required. Soils is required. There may be others pending the final design.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
New Comments:
S23. Calculations – plan A. Pages 6a, 6b and possibly other pages are missing or are blank pages. Please verify that
all pages of the calculations are provided.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S24. Calculations. Both plans. Provide the calculations for the posts (columns). For example the 6x6 post on line 4
at the patio on Sheet B-4. Another example, the 4x6 post under the 2-14” LVL on line 3. Please provide
calculations for all vertical elements.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
S25. Calculations. Both Plans. Provide calculations for the load bearing walls.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Electrical Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
440967 Page | 3
E22. B-2: Please show installation of the required weather protected GFCI exterior receptacle outlet at the front of
the residence in accordance with CEC Article 210.52(E)(1).
PC2: A receptacle is required at the front of the dwelling. Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
E24. B-2.1: Please show the additional required receptacles in the ADU to comply with the outlet spacing
requirements of CEC Article 210.52(C).
PC2: Please show an outlet on the wall adjacent to the laundry closet.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
CalGreen Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
CG1. Sheets CG-1 & CG-2: Please provide the 2022 CalGreen Residential Mandatory Measures checklist and indicate
Y, N/A, and the Responsible Party for each applicable measure on the Residential CalGreen Checklist.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
Energy Plan Check Comments by |Christine Uhalde, christineu@csgengr.com|
EN1. Sheet E-1: The square footage on the Title-24 documents is not consistent with the data on the cover sheet. The
Title-24 indicate 2217 SF for the main dwelling and 542 SF for the ADU for a total of 2759 SF; however, the cover
sheet indicates 2529 SF for the main dwelling and 530 SF for the ADU for a total of 3059 SF. Please revise
accordingly.
PC2: Revise the ADU bedroom count to 1.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
EN2. Sheet E-1: The Title-24 documents show 3-coat stucco for the exterior; however, the elevation plan shows
Hardie board and bat siding, please coordinate exterior finishes with the energy report.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
EN6. Complete and submit the energy choice acknowledgement form for all dwellings:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/34343/638237130475430000
PC2: The form was not found in the submitted files, please submit the energy choice acknowledgement form
for the next review.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
EN8. Sheet E-2: The Title-24 documents show 3-coat stucco for the exterior; however, the elevation plan shows
Hardie lap siding, please coordinate exterior finishes with the energy report.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
EN10. Sheet E-2: The Title-24 documents indicate a 6:12 roof rise; however, the elevation view on sheet B-3 shows
4:12. Please revise accordingly.
PC2: Comment remains outstanding.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
440967 Page | 4
New Comments:
EN12.PC2: Sheet E-1: The ‘Fuel Type’ states all electric; however, the floor plan has gas appliances. Please revise the
fuel type to natural gas.
Response: ______________________________________________________________________
(End of Building Comments)
16
From:Wilbanks, Megan
Sent:Friday, May 24, 2024 3:05 PM
To:
Cc:CityClerk
Subject:RE: Public Records Request Form
Attachments:Form - Public Records Request.pdf
Corrected email.
Megan Wilbanks
Deputy City Clerk
City Administration
990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E mwilbank@slocity.org
T 805.781.7103
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Wilbanks, Megan
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2024 10:01 AM
To:
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>
Subject: Public Records Request Form
Hello,
As we discussed on the phone, attached is the Public Records Request Form for the City of San Luis Obispo. Please
complete the form in as much detail as possible to assist staff in locating potentially responsive records. Once
completed, the form and any attachments may be emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org or dropped off at the City Clerk’s
Office Monday – Thursday, 8am – 5pm, or Fridays by appointment only.
Note, City offices will be closed on Monday, May 27th in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.
Megan Wilbanks
Deputy City Clerk
City Administration
990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E mwilbank@slocity.org
T 805.781.7103
slocity.org
17
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
Updated 09/2022
City of San Luis Obispo
Request for Public Records
The California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250. et set.) was enacted to ensure public
records are available for inspection by members of the public. Completion of this form will assist staff
in identifying related records to accurately complete your request.
Requested records will be distributed to the email address that is listed on this form, unless directed
otherwise by City staff. Requests for printed records will require payment subject to the City’s
Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Payment must be rendered prior to production of printed materials.
Name: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Last First
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
Street & Unit # City State Zip
Email: _____________________________________________ Phone: _______________________
Release Forms
Requests for certain public records legally require release forms to be submitted for records to be
distributed to the requestor. To help expedite your request, please read below and ensure additional
information is submitted along with this public records request form.
Personal health information
Records containing personal health information require a HIPAA Release Form. Examples
include fire incident reports, worker’s compensation claims, etc.
o HIPAA Release Form
Printed residential and/or commercial building plans
The Public Records Act does not allow the release of printed copies of this material without the
permission of the architect/engineer copyright owner. The public records requestor is
responsible for obtaining said authorization by completing all three release forms listed
below. You may call the Community Development Department at (805) 781- 7170 to find out
the name of the copyright owner. In-person viewing of plans do not require release forms.
o Copies of Plans Affidavit
o Plan Request Architect/Engineer Authorization
o Plan Request Owner Authorization
Continued
Record Information: List the records you are requesting. Specify relevant information such as:
subject, title, incident number, location/address, person(s) involved, project name, etc.
Date and Time: Specify the incident date or date and time range of the requested records
Questions may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114.
Submit Completed Forms To:
cityclerk@slocity.org
OR
City Clerk’s Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
YOUR REQUEST WILL BE PROCESSED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA). California
Government Code Section 6253 (c). An Agency shall notify the requestor within 10 days from receipt of request with a
Determination which states if the Agency is in possession, in whole or in part, of the requested documents, and possible legal
exemptions which prohibit the release of non-disclosable documents, as outlined per the PRA. In some instances, an Agency
may require an extension of up to 14 days to provide a Determination, as authorized by the PRA. A notice will be provided to
the requestor setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a Determination is expected to be supplied.
18
From:John Ruda <
Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 10:34 PM
To:Jordan Knauer; Hanh, Hannah
Subject:Re: ARCH-0361-2023 / SBDV-0362-2023 (3160 Johnson)
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Thanks for the heads up.
Walter, had explained that also, so he had us rope off the appropriate area for this demo permit not to go into.
The house demo may be completed tomorrow and is inclusive of the foundation, plumbing and drive, correct?
Of course, none of this work is in or near the tree zone concern and we are careful not to deal with the neighbors tree
encroachment in the course of demolition.
Also this flexible lot design is categorically exempt from CEAQA, correct?
Thanks, JOHN RUDA
On Wednesday, May 22, 2024 at 09:02:47 PM PDT, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Jordan and John,
I wanted to follow up on the construction work that is occurring on your property at 3160 Johnson.
Please be informed that the demolition permit allows removal of the existing residence – specifically the above ground structure.
Any other site disturbance such as grading, excavation, trenching, tree removal, etc. is not part of the scope of this permit. These
additional activities would require separate building and/or grading permit review and approval once a decision has been made for
your Planning Applications (i.e., ARCH-0361-2023, Development Review and SBDV-0362-2023, Flexible Lot Design Subdivisio n).
It is pertinent that there are no further changes to the property as that would affect staff’s review for the active Planning
Applications. Please adhere to the following:
1. The property owner, including anyone acting on behalf of or as an agent of the owner, shall not take any action
in the course of this demolition that would compromise or otherwise undermine the City Arborist’s professional
judgment and instruction as to necessary tree protection measures in the course of the demolition.
2. The City Arborist’s discretionary professional opinion as to the tree protection measures required in the course
of the demolition to ensure compliance with applicable local rules and regulations is not intended to interfere or
affect the respective property rights of the owner or any neighboring property.
19
3. The property owner, including anyone acting on behalf of or as an agent of the owner, shall take no further
action beyond that allowed pursuant to the demolition permit that falls within the scope of the Development
Review (ARCH-0361-2023) and Flexible Lot Design Subdivision (SBDV-0362-2023) applications until such
time that applications have been fully reviewed, heard, and decided upon by the City through the discretionary
process.
Lastly, in accordance with Chapter 12.24 (Tree Regulations) of the Municipal Code, please note that tree protection measures
would be conditioned as part of any project approval to ensure that existing trees on adjacent properties are protected and not
willfully injured or intentionally destroyed.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
20
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 9:03 PM
To:Jordan Knauer; rudadc
Subject:ARCH-0361-2023 / SBDV-0362-2023 (3160 Johnson)
Jordan and John,
I wanted to follow up on the construction work that is occurring on your property at 3160 Johnson.
Please be informed that the demolition permit allows removal of the existing residence – specifically the above ground
structure. Any other site disturbance such as grading, excavation, trenching, tree removal, etc. is not part of the scope
of this permit. These additional activities would require separate building and/or grading permit review and approval
once a decision has been made for your Planning Applications (i.e., ARCH-0361-2023, Development Review and
SBDV-0362-2023, Flexible Lot Design Subdivision). It is pertinent that there are no further changes to the property as
that would affect staff’s review for the active Planning Applications. Please adhere to the following:
1. The property owner, including anyone acting on behalf of or as an agent of the owner, shall not take any action
in the course of this demolition that would compromise or otherwise undermine the City Arborist’s professional
judgment and instruction as to necessary tree protection measures in the course of the demolition.
2. The City Arborist’s discretionary professional opinion as to the tree protection measures required in the course
of the demolition to ensure compliance with applicable local rules and regulations is not intended to interfere or
affect the respective property rights of the owner or any neighboring property.
3. The property owner, including anyone acting on behalf of or as an agent of the owner, shall take no further
action beyond that allowed pursuant to the demolition permit that falls within the scope of the Development
Review (ARCH-0361-2023) and Flexible Lot Design Subdivision (SBDV-0362-2023) applications until such
time that applications have been fully reviewed, heard, and decided upon by the City through the discretionary
process.
Lastly, in accordance with Chapter 12.24 (Tree Regulations) of the Municipal Code, please note that tree protection
measures would be conditioned as part of any project approval to ensure that existing trees on adjacent properties are
protected and not willfully injured or intentionally destroyed.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
21
From:rudadc <
Sent:Friday, May 17, 2024 9:51 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Subject:3160 Johnson project
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Want to thank you for meeting with Jordan and myself yesterday to determine if we are required or not to include
any comments are construction plans regarding protection for the neighboring tree encroachment for which
were entitled to cut all the way back to the property line according to my attorney and California civil code.
I'm hoping it'll be helpful to have confirmation from your City attorney as to our right to not offer any protection
for The Neighbors tree encroachment from private property.
As discussed, we made modifications to our building plans to accommodate and my intentions are still to be
reasonably mindful over the potentially sensitive of area in the NE corner as discussed, even though we are
obligated to do so.
Coincidentally, the KSBY news article yesterday, featuring Walter Gault, also stated " California code allows
property owners to cut encroaching Neighbors tree limbs and Roots up to the property line"
So the takeaway from the meeting was that you will consult with the city legal people to determine whether we
are somehow MANDATED to include tree protection for my neighbors encroachment in my construction docs.
Right?
Because if we elected to just Abate the entire tree encroachment of Limbs and roots to the property line it
wouldn't even be an issue going forward.
Happy to work with protection with the neighbor's help civilly which is independent of our flexible lot design
entitlement.
Thank again,
John Ruda.
22
From:Pacific Law Group, LLC <
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 11:34 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Subject:Fw: 3160 johnson tree encroachment abatement
Attachments:Johnson tree encroachment abatement notice.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Pacific Law Group, LLC <
To: wgault@slocity.org <wgault@slocity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 at 11:31:54 AM PDT
Subject: 3160 johnson tree encroachment abatement
Walter, thanks for meeting with Jordan and I a few weeks ago at the property in attempt to mitigate damage to the neighbors
encroaching trees.
As you are probably well aware that in such instances, we are entitled to remove the nuisance tree encroachment to the property
line.
The attached attorney letter/notice was forwarded to Mr Dummit to make it absolutely clear that we are entitled to simply remove
all the tree encroachment to our property line, however as an act of good faith, we are going to leave up to 5 ft of tree
encroachment providing it doesn't become a burden.
That way all branch and root encroachment will not be an issue, nor are we under anyway legally obligated to allow or protect the
neighbors illegal encroachment.
This is just everyday common tree issues and confirmed with the attached legal notice from my attorney.
As noted in the legal notice, the fence perimeter modification, patio footing modification and preserving and using the existing
foliage and fence is still part of our plan as a neighborly gesture, I feel that this will give a clear path forward without the nuisance
of any "tree protection zone".
This abatement can be completed prior to the next hearing so it will not be of issue if you like, and without any further unn ecessary
impeding issues we anticipate moving forward with building per the flexible lot design guidelines.
Look forward to meeting with you tomorrow.
John Ruda
.
May 10, 2024
Fax 805-544-7700
Ogden & Fricks LLP
Attn: Shae Luchetta, Esq.
656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 2B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Shae Luchetta: Re: John Ruda
Your Client: James Dummit
Issue: Root Encroachment
Our File No.: CA1-BRY-3JB
Mr. John Ruda has recently consulted with our office in order to assist him in attempting to resolve
the above-captioned issue.
Mr. Ruda advises our office that his development project is being impacted by your tree
encroachment and he has every right to abate the nuisance. Furthermore, Mr. Ruda advises our
office that he has made a neighborly gesture to make significant voluntary modifications to his
project plans to minimize impact to Mr. Dummit's tree encroachment, However, also wanted to
make it abundantly clear that he has every right to abate such nuisance.
The encroachment constitutes a trespass or a nuisance. Should the encroachment actually rest on
the adjoining land, it would constitute a permanent trespass. See Rankin v. DeBare, (1928) 205
Cal. 639, 641. When the encroachment intrudes into the airspace on the adjacent property, the
encroachment may constitute a nuisance when said encroachment infringes upon the owner’s right
to a peaceful use and enjoyment. See Barnes v. Berendes, (1902) 139 Cal. 32, 39; see also Kafka
v. Bozio, (1923) 191 Cal. 746, 750. Thus, a party bringing an encroachment action should consider
an action for trespass and/or nuisance along with a claim for declaratory relief and injunctive
relief. An owner of an easement may also seek relief and protection against the interference or
encroachment on the easement. See City of Dunsmuir v. Silva, (1957) 154 Cal. App. 2d 825, 827.
California Civil Code section 833
When the trunk of a tree grows entirely on one side of a property line, but the branches cross over
the boundary line and into the property of another, the portion of the branches that cross over the
boundary line belong to the individual who owns the property upon which the branches
encroach.27 20. See infra Section IV. In the past, property owners had an “absolute right” to utilize
21. Anderson v. Weiland, 55 P.2d 1242, 1242–43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). 22. Scarborough, 93 P. at
Parker Stanbury LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
NINETEENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2901
TELEPHONE (213) 622-5124
FAX (213) 622-4858
E-Mail: la@parkstan.com
DOUGLASS H. MORI
JOHN D. BARRETT, JR. *
J. LUIS GARCIA †
DAVID E. COWAN
GEORGE A. HUNLOCK
RICARDO A. MERCADO
MATTHEW W. DAVIS
REYNALDO C. SANTOS
B. PETER LEE
MARCUS BASTIDA
ROSEMARIE MERRILL
DAVID C. LANE
MATHEW L. MAY
ALEX L. SHIA
GLENN M. HABAS
JAMES L. WOLFSEN
KELLY A. SHERIDAN
HANS W. CHEN
AARON U. FREEMAN
GREGORY T. FONG
JOSEPH R. SERPICO
ROCCO A. PAPALIA
MELANIE M. BUTLER
CLAUDIA M. PALENCIA
KRISTOFFER M. GARRISON
MICHAEL COMPTON
CARL H. STARRETT II
SHARIE ZAHAB
ALEXIS MOORE
LINDA IRELAND
BRIDGET ESQUIBIAS
GABRIELA CARRILLO
JEFF H. GREEN
MATTHEW T. SALABEN
IAN G. STERLING
OF COUNSEL:
SANAM NAVAB
MEGAN E. GALLAGHER
LARS F. KUSHNER
PATRICIA MILLER
KYLE C. BENKIE
LINDA H. MUCHAMEL
LAURIE HOWELL
ANTHONY F. SGHERZII
* ASSOCIATE IN AMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES
† MEMBER OF AMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES
HARRY D. PARKER (1891-1976)
RAYMOND G. STANBURY (1904-1966)
May 10, 2024
Page 2
383–84. 23. Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 164 P. 35, 36–37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917); see
CAL. CIV. CODE § 831 (2013) (“An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to
own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.”); see also infra Section V.B
(regarding care for publicly owned trees). Altpeter, 164 P. at 36–37. (“[I]f a person injures such
trees without lawful right or authority, such owner may maintain an action for damages for the
injury so inflicted and recover such damages as he may be able to show that he has suffered by
reason of any depreciation in the value of his property which has been occasioned by such injury
. . . .”). Grandona v. Lovdal, 21 P. 366, 368–69 (Cal. 1889); see also CAL. CIV. CODE § 829
(2013) (“The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently
situated beneath or above it.”). West Northwest, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2015 118 self-help to cut
off encroaching branches. A property owner could “take the law into [their] own hands” and cut
off encroaching branches on their own, as long as they did not trespass across their neighbor’s
boundary line or cut off any part of the tree that was located on their neighbor’s property. The
antecedents of these rules are derived from English Common Law30 and “as a matter of historic
tradition, courts have simply treated trees growing on or near borders as unique conditions and
provided adjoining landowners with absolute protection from damage that arises from their natural
encroachment.” However, in cases where encroaching branches do constitute a nuisance, courts
recommend that injunctive relief is a preferable and “more orderly” remedy than self -help.
Furthermore, the roots and branches will only constitute a nuisance if the encroachment interferes
with economic interests that exist at the time of the encroachment. In most circumstances, roots
and branches will constitute a nuisance.
Courts have found that roots and branches encroaching trees can constitute a nuisance when it
encroaches as well as this debris clogs storm drains and litters a neighbor’s property.. Booska, 30
Cal. Rptr. 2d at 244–45 (internal citations omitted); CAL. CIV. CODE § 3501 (2013). For
example, in Bonde v. Bishop, the California Court of Appeal held that a “continual dropping of
branches”. Grandona, 21 P. at 368; accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 621 (holding that an individual can
obtain an injunction after proving a nuisance).. Bonde, 245 P.2d at 621. Grandona, 21 P. at 368 –
69. 40. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3479 (2013). Grandona, 21 P. at 368–69. 42. Id. . Parsons v. Luhr,
270 P. 443, 444 (Cal. 1928) (holding that falling branches and leaves constituted a nuisance
because they littered gutters and caused the aggrieved party to fear for their safety and granting an
injunction to abate such nuisance); accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 618–19, 621. . Parsons, 270 P. at
444; accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 618–19, 621. West Northwest, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2015 120
constituted a nuisance.
With reference to California law which imposes a responsibility to prevent such harm, if action is
not taken by you once a problem has been brought to your attention you are otherwise in violation
of California law and Mr. Ruda is entitled to take action under California Civil Code of Procedure
§ 731, which states in part: “An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously
affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by a nuisance… A civil action or self-help
abatement may be brought to remedy the situation.
To consider this matter resolved John Ruda requests the following:
1. Allow the project to go forward unimpeded;
May 10, 2024
Page 3
2. While Mr. Ruda has made significant modifications to his plans as a neighborly gesture.
These changes are to minimize potential impact to the neighbors’ tree encroachment by
removing perimeter concrete retaining walls in that area, removing the planned patio
footing, allowing some of branch and root encroachment, and maintaining foliage on
existing wooden fence. Since the exploratory trenching revealed no significant root
intrusion in our construction area, Mr. Ruda sees no need to install a root barrier at the
property line.
All of above has been proposed to voluntarily reasonably accommodate Mr. Dummit's concerns
and willing to do so providing it doesn't become an excessive nuisance or economic burden.
As a reply is requested, within ten days as of the date of this letter, please send it to the following
address:
John Ruda
Please respond to the above address in writing within ten (10) days and you may send a copy to
LA@parkstan.com attention (File No. CA1-BRY-3JB) to avoid further legal action.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PARKER STANBURY LLP
By
MATHEW L. MAY
MLM:bvc
Encl.
cc: Mr. John Ruda (via e-mail)
23
From:Pacific Law Group, LLC <
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 11:32 AM
To:Gault, Walter
Subject:3160 johnson tree encroachment abatement
Attachments:Johnson tree encroachment abatement notice.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Walter, thanks for meeting with Jordan and I a few weeks ago at the property in attempt to mitigate damage to the neighbors
encroaching trees.
As you are probably well aware that in such instances, we are entitled to remove the nuisance tree encroachment to the property
line.
The attached attorney letter/notice was forwarded to Mr Dummit to make it absolutely clear that we are entitled to simply remove
all the tree encroachment to our property line, however as an act of good faith, we are going to leave up to 5 ft of tree
encroachment providing it doesn't become a burden.
That way all branch and root encroachment will not be an issue, nor are we under anyway legally obligated to allow or protect the
neighbors illegal encroachment.
This is just everyday common tree issues and confirmed with the attached legal notice from my attorney.
As noted in the legal notice, the fence perimeter modification, patio footing modification and preserving and using the existing
foliage and fence is still part of our plan as a neighborly gesture, I feel that this will give a clear path forward without the nuisance
of any "tree protection zone".
This abatement can be completed prior to the next hearing so it will not be of issue if you like, and without any further unn ecessary
impeding issues we anticipate moving forward with building per the flexible lot design guidelines.
Look forward to meeting with you tomorrow.
John Ruda
.
May 10, 2024
Fax 805-544-7700
Ogden & Fricks LLP
Attn: Shae Luchetta, Esq.
656 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 2B
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Shae Luchetta: Re: John Ruda
Your Client: James Dummit
Issue: Root Encroachment
Our File No.: CA1-BRY-3JB
Mr. John Ruda has recently consulted with our office in order to assist him in attempting to resolve
the above-captioned issue.
Mr. Ruda advises our office that his development project is being impacted by your tree
encroachment and he has every right to abate the nuisance. Furthermore, Mr. Ruda advises our
office that he has made a neighborly gesture to make significant voluntary modifications to his
project plans to minimize impact to Mr. Dummit's tree encroachment, However, also wanted to
make it abundantly clear that he has every right to abate such nuisance.
The encroachment constitutes a trespass or a nuisance. Should the encroachment actually rest on
the adjoining land, it would constitute a permanent trespass. See Rankin v. DeBare, (1928) 205
Cal. 639, 641. When the encroachment intrudes into the airspace on the adjacent property, the
encroachment may constitute a nuisance when said encroachment infringes upon the owner’s right
to a peaceful use and enjoyment. See Barnes v. Berendes, (1902) 139 Cal. 32, 39; see also Kafka
v. Bozio, (1923) 191 Cal. 746, 750. Thus, a party bringing an encroachment action should consider
an action for trespass and/or nuisance along with a claim for declaratory relief and injunctive
relief. An owner of an easement may also seek relief and protection against the interference or
encroachment on the easement. See City of Dunsmuir v. Silva, (1957) 154 Cal. App. 2d 825, 827.
California Civil Code section 833
When the trunk of a tree grows entirely on one side of a property line, but the branches cross over
the boundary line and into the property of another, the portion of the branches that cross over the
boundary line belong to the individual who owns the property upon which the branches
encroach.27 20. See infra Section IV. In the past, property owners had an “absolute right” to utilize
21. Anderson v. Weiland, 55 P.2d 1242, 1242–43 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). 22. Scarborough, 93 P. at
Parker Stanbury LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
NINETEENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-2901
TELEPHONE (213) 622-5124
FAX (213) 622-4858
E-Mail: la@parkstan.com
DOUGLASS H. MORI
JOHN D. BARRETT, JR. *
J. LUIS GARCIA †
DAVID E. COWAN
GEORGE A. HUNLOCK
RICARDO A. MERCADO
MATTHEW W. DAVIS
REYNALDO C. SANTOS
B. PETER LEE
MARCUS BASTIDA
ROSEMARIE MERRILL
DAVID C. LANE
MATHEW L. MAY
ALEX L. SHIA
GLENN M. HABAS
JAMES L. WOLFSEN
KELLY A. SHERIDAN
HANS W. CHEN
AARON U. FREEMAN
GREGORY T. FONG
JOSEPH R. SERPICO
ROCCO A. PAPALIA
MELANIE M. BUTLER
CLAUDIA M. PALENCIA
KRISTOFFER M. GARRISON
MICHAEL COMPTON
CARL H. STARRETT II
SHARIE ZAHAB
ALEXIS MOORE
LINDA IRELAND
BRIDGET ESQUIBIAS
GABRIELA CARRILLO
JEFF H. GREEN
MATTHEW T. SALABEN
IAN G. STERLING
OF COUNSEL:
SANAM NAVAB
MEGAN E. GALLAGHER
LARS F. KUSHNER
PATRICIA MILLER
KYLE C. BENKIE
LINDA H. MUCHAMEL
LAURIE HOWELL
ANTHONY F. SGHERZII
* ASSOCIATE IN AMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES
† MEMBER OF AMERICAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES
HARRY D. PARKER (1891-1976)
RAYMOND G. STANBURY (1904-1966)
May 10, 2024
Page 2
383–84. 23. Altpeter v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 164 P. 35, 36–37 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917); see
CAL. CIV. CODE § 831 (2013) (“An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to
own to the center of the way, but the contrary may be shown.”); see also infra Section V.B
(regarding care for publicly owned trees). Altpeter, 164 P. at 36–37. (“[I]f a person injures such
trees without lawful right or authority, such owner may maintain an action for damages for the
injury so inflicted and recover such damages as he may be able to show that he has suffered by
reason of any depreciation in the value of his property which has been occasioned by such injury
. . . .”). Grandona v. Lovdal, 21 P. 366, 368–69 (Cal. 1889); see also CAL. CIV. CODE § 829
(2013) (“The owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently
situated beneath or above it.”). West Northwest, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2015 118 self-help to cut
off encroaching branches. A property owner could “take the law into [their] own hands” and cut
off encroaching branches on their own, as long as they did not trespass across their neighbor’s
boundary line or cut off any part of the tree that was located on their neighbor’s property. The
antecedents of these rules are derived from English Common Law30 and “as a matter of historic
tradition, courts have simply treated trees growing on or near borders as unique conditions and
provided adjoining landowners with absolute protection from damage that arises from their natural
encroachment.” However, in cases where encroaching branches do constitute a nuisance, courts
recommend that injunctive relief is a preferable and “more orderly” remedy than self -help.
Furthermore, the roots and branches will only constitute a nuisance if the encroachment interferes
with economic interests that exist at the time of the encroachment. In most circumstances, roots
and branches will constitute a nuisance.
Courts have found that roots and branches encroaching trees can constitute a nuisance when it
encroaches as well as this debris clogs storm drains and litters a neighbor’s property.. Booska, 30
Cal. Rptr. 2d at 244–45 (internal citations omitted); CAL. CIV. CODE § 3501 (2013). For
example, in Bonde v. Bishop, the California Court of Appeal held that a “continual dropping of
branches”. Grandona, 21 P. at 368; accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 621 (holding that an individual can
obtain an injunction after proving a nuisance).. Bonde, 245 P.2d at 621. Grandona, 21 P. at 368 –
69. 40. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3479 (2013). Grandona, 21 P. at 368–69. 42. Id. . Parsons v. Luhr,
270 P. 443, 444 (Cal. 1928) (holding that falling branches and leaves constituted a nuisance
because they littered gutters and caused the aggrieved party to fear for their safety and granting an
injunction to abate such nuisance); accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 618–19, 621. . Parsons, 270 P. at
444; accord Bonde, 245 P.2d at 618–19, 621. West Northwest, Vol. 21, No. 1, Winter 2015 120
constituted a nuisance.
With reference to California law which imposes a responsibility to prevent such harm, if action is
not taken by you once a problem has been brought to your attention you are otherwise in violation
of California law and Mr. Ruda is entitled to take action under California Civil Code of Procedure
§ 731, which states in part: “An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously
affected, or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by a nuisance… A civil action or self-help
abatement may be brought to remedy the situation.
To consider this matter resolved John Ruda requests the following:
1. Allow the project to go forward unimpeded;
May 10, 2024
Page 3
2. While Mr. Ruda has made significant modifications to his plans as a neighborly gesture.
These changes are to minimize potential impact to the neighbors’ tree encroachment by
removing perimeter concrete retaining walls in that area, removing the planned patio
footing, allowing some of branch and root encroachment, and maintaining foliage on
existing wooden fence. Since the exploratory trenching revealed no significant root
intrusion in our construction area, Mr. Ruda sees no need to install a root barrier at the
property line.
All of above has been proposed to voluntarily reasonably accommodate Mr. Dummit's concerns
and willing to do so providing it doesn't become an excessive nuisance or economic burden.
As a reply is requested, within ten days as of the date of this letter, please send it to the following
address:
John Ruda
rudadc@sbcglobal.net
Please respond to the above address in writing within ten (10) days and you may send a copy to
LA@parkstan.com attention (File No. CA1-BRY-3JB) to avoid further legal action.
Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
PARKER STANBURY LLP
By
MATHEW L. MAY
MLM:bvc
Encl.
cc: Mr. John Ruda (via e-mail)
24
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:51 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:rudadc; Gault, Walter
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson
Yes that works great. We will meet you at the building department at 1:30 tomorrow. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 May 2024, at 10:42 AM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
Walter let me know that you both spoke briefly and there are proposed changes to the tree protection
measures, so I am including him in our discussion.
We have availability to meet you and John tomorrow (05/16) at 1:30 pm. Let me know if that works.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:23 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson
25
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
Do you have some time for us to meet with you this week?
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
26
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 10:42 AM
To:Jordan Knauer; rudadc
Cc:Gault, Walter
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson
Hi Jordan,
Walter let me know that you both spoke briefly and there are proposed changes to the tree protection measures, so I
am including him in our discussion.
We have availability to meet you and John tomorrow (05/16) at 1:30 pm. Let me know if that works.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:23 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>; rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
Do you have some time for us to meet with you this week?
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
27
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:23 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah; rudadc
Subject:3160 Johnson
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
Do you have some time for us to meet with you this week?
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
28
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2024 9:06 AM
To:rudadc
Subject:RE: ARCH - 0361-2023
Attachments:240422 City SLO.pdf
Good morning John,
It was good to meet you in person as well.
Please see attached for the neighbor’s letter. The nine (9) supporting attachments are in the link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ol6vbt6bl9w1exoa5ejne/AFz47yqMILhZBOoX0esU6Zw?rlkey=y9nmnbbp78j77czie
knxjvvb8&st=qgmpp2la&dl=0
Jordan was provided digital copies and hard copies of the full letter as well.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 8:59 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: ARCH - 0361-2023
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Good morning Hannah.
Thank you for coming out to our project site Friday and it was nice meeting you.
I was hoping to get the rebuttal letter regarding our project from the last meeting that came in from our neighbor's attorney.
Am I able to get that email to me or faxed? My fax numbers 805-481-6839.
Or do I have to pick it up at the office tomorrow? Thanks, John Ruda
29
From:rudadc <
Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2024 8:59 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Subject:Re: ARCH - 0361-2023
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Good morning Hannah.
Thank you for coming out to our project site Friday and it was nice meeting you.
I was hoping to get the rebuttal letter regarding our project from the last meeting that came in from our
neighbor's attorney.
Am I able to get that email to me or faxed? My fax numbers 805-481-6839.
Or do I have to pick it up at the office tomorrow? Thanks, John Ruda
30
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:12 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:rudadc; Leveille, Brian
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
Sounds good thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 Apr 2024, at 11:11 AM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I can give you a call at 4:00 pm today to discuss next steps. Let me know if that time works.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
Hi Jordan,
31
Thanks for your patience yesterday and all your efforts. Unfortunately, as Hearing Officer, I really can’t
get into a dialogue on this outside of the hearing. Hannah and I debriefed after the meeting and she
should be able to answer all your questions on next steps.
Very Best Regards,
Brian Leveille
Senior Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
Long Range Planning
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E bleveille@slocity.org
T 805.781.7166
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:08 PM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah and Brian,
I appreciate your time today. Can we set up a phone call tomorrow to discuss the continuance? I would like to
discuss the path forward to prevent any further delays.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
32
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:11 AM
To:Jordan Knauer
Cc:rudadc; Leveille, Brian
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
Hi Jordan,
I can give you a call at 4:00 pm today to discuss next steps. Let me know if that time works.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:47 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for your patience yesterday and all your efforts. Unfortunately, as Hearing Officer, I really can’t get into a
dialogue on this outside of the hearing. Hannah and I debriefed after the meeting and she should be able to answer all
your questions on next steps.
Very Best Regards,
Brian Leveille
Senior Planner
Community Development
Long Range Planning
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E bleveille@slocity.org
T 805.781.7166
33
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:08 PM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah and Brian,
I appreciate your time today. Can we set up a phone call tomorrow to discuss the continuance? I would like to discuss the path
forward to prevent any further delays.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
34
From:Leveille, Brian
Sent:Tuesday, April 23, 2024 10:47 AM
To:Jordan Knauer; Hanh, Hannah
Cc:rudadc
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for your patience yesterday and all your efforts. Unfortunately, as Hearing Officer, I really can’t get into a
dialogue on this outside of the hearing. Hannah and I debriefed after the meeting and she should be able to answer all
your questions on next steps.
Very Best Regards,
Brian Leveille
Senior Planner
Community Development
Long Range Planning
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E bleveille@slocity.org
T 805.781.7166
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2024 7:08 PM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>; Leveille, Brian <bleveill@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah and Brian,
I appreciate your time today. Can we set up a phone call tomorrow to discuss the continuance? I would like to discuss the path
forward to prevent any further delays.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
35
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
36
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Monday, April 22, 2024 7:08 PM
To:Hanh, Hannah; Leveille, Brian
Cc:rudadc
Subject:3160 Johnson Subdivision Follow up
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah and Brian,
I appreciate your time today. Can we set up a phone call tomorrow to discuss the continuance? I would like to
discuss the path forward to prevent any further delays.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
37
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 10:22 AM
To:Jordan Knauer
Cc:rudadc;
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Great – thanks Jordan.
I’ll see you at 2:00 pm tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Jordan Knauer <
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:33 AM
To: Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: rudadc < ;
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Apologies on timing. 2PM works for us on Thursday.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:15 PM Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
I want to clarify that I am available before 3:00 pm on Thursday (not at 3:00 pm). Please let me know when you are
able to come.
For the Development Review application, the ARC reviews and provides a recommendation to the CDD Director who
will then make the final decision. For the Subdivision application, the CDD Director is also the decisionmaker. The
City Council does not review and act on these applications.
38
Leading up to a hearing, there is a minimum of 3-4 weeks’ time for preparation of the staff report and public notices.
Therefore, the hearing is generally scheduled at least a month out from when the applications are deemed complete.
In this case, there are no hearings at the last two weeks of the year due to the holidays. Please note City offices will
close starting 12/22 through 01/01, and reopen on 01/02. When we return, staff will prepare for the next available
hearing dates, which are in early February.
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
So both the city council meeting and the arc meeting that were both scheduled this week are canceled and they're rescheduling
2 months from now?
Is the director authorized to handle the decision making in the interim?
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <jordan@teamsweasey.com>
Date: 12/11/23 6:43 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thanks for the tentative schedule. 3pm on Thursday works for us. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Dec 2023, at 5:44 PM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
39
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as identified in
Program 6.20 of the Housing Element. Please note that this new application type allows for additional
infill development opportunities and a streamlined process with concurrent review of development
review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead of ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on
these applications. Prior to this new process, the project would have required exceptions from
development standards and further environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for the next
available hearing dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
o For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and provide a
recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on the project
Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the Development
Review
o There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible lot
design subdivision)
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in detail and
preparing draft conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also be publicly noticed
for the upcoming hearings and will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that ARC review and public
comment may result in substantial changes to the building and site designs. I have also discussed with
the Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review of the building permit would not be
supportable at this time because the project will include the creation of new parcels and has not yet
been reviewed by the ARC or obtained tentative approval for the map. Concurrent review may be
possible as these applications are further along in the overall process.
40
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week. Let me
know if you are able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to
the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call
for a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision
separate from related development proposal submittals.
41
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks
or bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
42
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
43
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Wednesday, December 13, 2023 9:33 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:rudadc;
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Apologies on timing. 2PM works for us on Thursday.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 9:15 PM Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
I want to clarify that I am available before 3:00 pm on Thursday (not at 3:00 pm). Please let me know when
you are able to come.
For the Development Review application, the ARC reviews and provides a recommendation to the CDD
Director who will then make the final decision. For the Subdivision application, the CDD Director is also the
decisionmaker. The City Council does not review and act on these applications.
Leading up to a hearing, there is a minimum of 3-4 weeks’ time for preparation of the staff report and public
notices. Therefore, the hearing is generally scheduled at least a month out from when the applications are
deemed complete. In this case, there are no hearings at the last two weeks of the year due to the holidays.
Please note City offices will close starting 12/22 through 01/01, and reopen on 01/02. When we return, staff
will prepare for the next available hearing dates, which are in early February.
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
So both the city council meeting and the arc meeting that were both scheduled this week are canceled and
they're rescheduling 2 months from now?
Is the director authorized to handle the decision making in the interim?
44
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/11/23 6:43 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thanks for the tentative schedule. 3pm on Thursday works for us. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Dec 2023, at 5:44 PM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as
identified in Program 6.20 of the Housing Element. Please note that this new application type
allows for additional infill development opportunities and a streamlined process with
concurrent review of development review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead of
ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on these applications. Prior to this new process, the
project would have required exceptions from development standards and further
environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for
the next available hearing dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
45
ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
o For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and
provide a recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on
the project
Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the
Development Review
o There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible
lot design subdivision)
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these
dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in
detail and preparing draft conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also
be publicly noticed for the upcoming hearings and will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that
ARC review and public comment may result in substantial changes to the building and site
designs. I have also discussed with the Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review
of the building permit would not be supportable at this time because the project will include
the creation of new parcels and has not yet been reviewed by the ARC or obtained tentative
approval for the map. Concurrent review may be possible as these applications are further
along in the overall process.
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week.
Let me know if you are able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
46
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which
made updates to the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS
specifically call for a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having
concurrent review of subdivision separate from related development proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any
road blocks or bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
47
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the
subdivision application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next
available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project
and the timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
48
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Tuesday, December 12, 2023 9:15 PM
To:rudadc; Jordan Knauer
Cc:
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
I want to clarify that I am available before 3:00 pm on Thursday (not at 3:00 pm). Please let me know when you are
able to come.
For the Development Review application, the ARC reviews and provides a recommendation to the CDD Director who
will then make the final decision. For the Subdivision application, the CDD Director is also the decisionmaker. The City
Council does not review and act on these applications.
Leading up to a hearing, there is a minimum of 3-4 weeks’ time for preparation of the staff report and public notices.
Therefore, the hearing is generally scheduled at least a month out from when the applications are deemed complete.
In this case, there are no hearings at the last two weeks of the year due to the holidays. Please note City offices will
close starting 12/22 through 01/01, and reopen on 01/02. When we return, staff will prepare for the next available
hearing dates, which are in early February.
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
So both the city council meeting and the arc meeting that were both scheduled this week are canceled and they're rescheduling
2 months from now?
Is the director authorized to handle the decision making in the interim?
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/11/23 6:43 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thanks for the tentative schedule. 3pm on Thursday works for us. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Dec 2023, at 5:44 PM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as identified in
Program 6.20 of the Housing Element. Please note that this new application type allows for additional
49
infill development opportunities and a streamlined process with concurrent review of development
review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead of ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on
these applications. Prior to this new process, the project would have required exceptions from
development standards and further environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for the next
available hearing dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
o For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and provide a
recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on the project
Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the Development
Review
o There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible lot
design subdivision)
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in detail and
preparing draft conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also be publicly noticed for
the upcoming hearings and will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that ARC review and public comment
may result in substantial changes to the building and site designs. I have also discussed with the
Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review of the building permit would not be supportable at
this time because the project will include the creation of new parcels and has not yet been reviewed by
the ARC or obtained tentative approval for the map. Concurrent review may be possible as these
applications are further along in the overall process.
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week. Let me
know if you are able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
50
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to
the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call for
a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision separate
from related development proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks
or bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
51
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
52
From:rudadc <
Sent:Monday, December 11, 2023 8:05 PM
To:Jordan Knauer; Hanh, Hannah
Cc:
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
So both the city council meeting and the arc meeting that were both scheduled this week are canceled and they're rescheduling
2 months from now?
Is the director authorized to handle the decision making in the interim?
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/11/23 6:43 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thanks for the tentative schedule. 3pm on Thursday works for us. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Dec 2023, at 5:44 PM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as identified in
Program 6.20 of the Housing Element. Please note that this new application type allows for additional
infill development opportunities and a streamlined process with concurrent review of development
review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead of ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on
these applications. Prior to this new process, the project would have required exceptions from
development standards and further environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for the next
available hearing dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
o For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and provide a
recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on the project
Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the Development
Review
o There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible lot
design subdivision)
53
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in detail and
preparing draft conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also be publicly noticed for
the upcoming hearings and will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that ARC review and public comment
may result in substantial changes to the building and site designs. I have also discussed with the
Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review of the building permit would not be supportable at
this time because the project will include the creation of new parcels and has not yet been reviewed by
the ARC or obtained tentative approval for the map. Concurrent review may be possible as these
applications are further along in the overall process.
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week. Let me
know if you are able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to
the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call for
a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision separate
from related development proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks
or bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
54
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
55
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Monday, December 11, 2023 6:43 PM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:
Subject:Re: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thanks for the tentative schedule. 3pm on Thursday works for us. Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Dec 2023, at 5:44 PM, Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org> wrote:
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as identified in
Program 6.20 of the Housing Element. Please note that this new application type allows for additional
infill development opportunities and a streamlined process with concurrent review of development
review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead of ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on
these applications. Prior to this new process, the project would have required exceptions from
development standards and further environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for the next
available hearing dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
1. ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
1. For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and provide a
recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on the project
2. Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the Development
Review
1. There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
3. Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible lot
design subdivision)
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in detail and
preparing draft conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also be publicly noticed for
the upcoming hearings and will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that ARC review and public comment
may result in substantial changes to the building and site designs. I have also discussed with the
Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review of the building permit would not be supportable at
this time because the project will include the creation of new parcels and has not yet been reviewed by
the ARC or obtained tentative approval for the map. Concurrent review may be possible as these
applications are further along in the overall process.
56
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week. Let me
know if you are able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to
the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call for
a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision separate
from related development proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks
or bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
57
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
58
From:Hanh, Hannah
Sent:Monday, December 11, 2023 5:44 PM
To: Jordan Knauer
Cc:
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Jordan and John,
In regards to your concerns for the overall review process –
The Subdivision Regulations were recently updated to allow small lot subdivisions as identified in Program 6.20 of the
Housing Element. Please note that this new application type allows for additional infill development opportunities and
a streamlined process with concurrent review of development review and subdivision applications, where staff (instead
of ARC, PC, etc.) is the decisionmaker on these applications. Prior to this new process, the project would have
required exceptions from development standards and further environmental review (e.g., MND), where PC is the
decisionmaker.
I understand that you are anxious to move forward, and we have scheduled your project for the next available hearing
dates. Please see below for the tentative schedule:
ARC Hearing on Monday, 02/05 for the Development Review
o For this public hearing, the ARC will review the building and site designs, and provide a
recommendation to the Director who will make the final decision on the project
Final decision by the CDD Director on Monday, 02/12 at the earliest for the Development Review
o There is no public hearing, but a public notice will be provided for the decision.
Minor Subdivision Hearing on Monday, 02/12 for the Tentative Parcel Map (i.e., flexible lot design subdivision)
More details on the exact hearing time, location, etc. will be provided as we approach these dates.
As previously mentioned, the project is still in its early steps. Staff is reviewing the project in detail and preparing draft
conditions that may greatly affect the project. The project will also be publicly noticed for the upcoming hearings and
will be reviewed by the ARC. Note that ARC review and public comment may result in substantial changes to the
building and site designs. I have also discussed with the Deputy Director and confirmed that concurrent review of the
building permit would not be supportable at this time because the project will include the creation of new parcels and
has not yet been reviewed by the ARC or obtained tentative approval for the map. Concurrent review may be possible
as these applications are further along in the overall process.
If you would like to meet, I have availability before 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, 12/14 this week. Let me know if you are
able to come by in the morning or early afternoon on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Hannah Hanh
Associate Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E hhanh@slocity.org
59
T 805.781.7432
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: rudadc <
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To: Jordan Knauer < ; Hanh, Hannah <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < ; Chris knauer <
Subject: RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to the regulations
supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call for a streamlined
review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision separate from related development
proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks or bugs to be
worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc <
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision application and ARC
submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
60
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the timelines. Please let
me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
61
From:rudadc <
Sent:Monday, December 11, 2023 6:57 AM
To:Jordan Knauer; Hanh, Hannah
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; Chris knauer
Subject:RE: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Jordan, thank you for your attention on this project .
We ought to be able to submit plans to building now.
The city of San Luis Obispo had updates to their housing element policy 6.20 May 2023 which made updates to
the regulations supporting small lot subdivisions.
Now, under the flexible lot design subdivision, the housing element policy 6.20 REGULATIONS specifically call
for a streamlined review process by eliminating the extra steps of having concurrent review of subdivision
separate from related development proposal submittals.
This is new, and you might want to consult with Brian as the city would want to know if there's any road blocks or
bugs to be worked out with this new review process.
I don't see how our project would be discriminated against falling under this new policy.
Again, thanks for your help,
John Ruda
-------- Original message --------
From: Jordan Knauer <
Date: 12/8/23 9:47 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: "Hanh, Hannah" <hhanh@slocity.org>
Cc: MATT CEBULLA < , Chris knauer < , rudadc
<
Subject: 3160 Johnson Path Forward
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
62
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698
63
From:Jordan Knauer <
Sent:Friday, December 8, 2023 9:47 AM
To:Hanh, Hannah
Cc:MATT CEBULLA; Chris knauer; rudadc
Subject:3160 Johnson Path Forward
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Hannah,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday. Glad to hear we have no more comments on the subdivision
application and ARC submission. As discussed, please let me know when the next available ARC hearing is.
In the meantime, the team I am working with would like to set up a meeting to discuss our project and the
timelines. Please let me know what day/time works best next week.
Thank you,
Jordan Knauer
Team Sweasey
Keller Williams
(
www.teamsweasey.com
DRE#: 02041698