HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2014 C5 Acceptance of Trail Easement SLO TerracesCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATION FROM THE SLO
TERRACE PROJECT TO TERRACE HILL OPEN SPACE
RECOMMENDATION
1. As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Commission, accept the dedication of a trail easement from the SLO Terrace project to
provide public access to Terrace Hill Open Space.
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute a Certificate of Acceptance for the trail easement.
DISCUSSION
Background
Coastal Community Builders (CCB) has proposed a project known as “SLO Terrace” that
includes development of relatively vacant property with 17 new single-family residences on 17
existing parcels located on Rachel Court near the corner of Rachel Street and Florence Street.
The subject site is contiguous with the City’s Terrace Hill Open Space on its southwest flanks.
CCB’s project description included the provision for a trailhead into Terrace Hill from the end of
Rachel Court, and they remain committed to providing this amenity (see Attachment 1).
Review Process
The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the project pursuant to the
Community Development Department staff’s Agenda Report (see Attachment 2) by Resolution
on December 16, 2013 (see Attachment 3). Because the project entails construction of single
family residences on pre-existing legal lots of record with correspondent certificates of
compliance, the project did not go through the same process that would be typical for a
subdivision of this size. The ARC’s Resolution approving the project includes various
mitigation measures and conditions of approval; most notable to the subject matter of this report
is Condition No. 38:
The trail connection to the Terrace Hill Open Space will be facilitated by the dedication of
a public trail easement, which shall be reviewed for acceptance by the Parks and
Recreation Commission prior to building permit issuance. The final grading plans and
public improvement plans shall show and note the detailed trailhead and trail
improvements from the public right-of-way to the property boundary at the Terrace Hill
Open Space. The improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Department, Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, and
Parks and Recreation Director. Upon final acceptance of the public trail easement and
trail improvements, the City shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance and liability
thereof. The ARC recommends that the trailhead be relocated internal to the project site,
between Lots 16N & 17N.
10-7-14
C5
C5 - 1
TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATION FOR SLO TERRACE PROJECT Page 2
At the ARC hearing on December 16, 2013, several neighbors to the east of the project site
expressed concern that the trail alignment as proposed by the applicant would infringe on the
privacy and quiet enjoyment of their residences (see Attachment 4). In response to these
concerns, the ARC recommended an alternative alignment for the trail and trailhead to be located
between Lots 16N & 17N:
Site plan for SLO Terraces. ARC recommended alignment is between Lots 16N and 17N. The Staff and PRC
recommended alignment follows the arrow shown at the easterly end of the cul-de-sac.
The ARC’s recommended alignment, however, is problematic for two reasons. The first is that it
would require that the trail be built straight, between the two lots traversing up a grade that
approaches 30%. It would be very challenging to construct such a trail in a safe, durable, and
enjoyable manner. City Ranger Services staff typically endeavor to construct new trails at
grades under 10% where possible to avoid erosion, maintenance, and decreased overall user
experience of trails with excessive grades. The second reason is that the trail corridor (ideally 8-
10 feet in width) would encroach on the side yards of both lots when they are already
substandard in size with only 40 feet of street frontage. Although these residences are not yet
built and occupied, inevitably such an alignment would create privacy concerns for the new
owners.
Given the above, staff recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) that the
trailhead location be placed out the back of the cul-de-sac as initially proposed by the applicant.
At its meeting of May 7, 2014, the PRC received testimony from the neighboring property
owner, Mr. Ed Wigton, who again expressed concerns about privacy, as he had at the ARC
C5 - 2
TRAIL EASEMENT DEDICATION FOR SLO TERRACE PROJECT Page 3
hearing, while noting that those concerns could be addressed by planting trees and shrubs as a
visual buffer. Following questions of staff and deliberation, the PRC recommended that the City
Council accept the trail easement alignment at the end of the cul-de-sac, while also directing staff
to work with the applicant to create a buffer between the prospective trail and the neighboring
property (see Attachment 5).
It should be noted that both the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element (2006) and its
Conservation Guidelines for Management of Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo
(2002) contain policies that provide that the City should “locate trailheads originating in
residential areas in such a manner as to minimize any potentially disruptive effects to the local
neighborhood.” In this case, however, it is expected that the vast majority of trail users will be
from the local neighborhood. It is very feasible to locate the trail away from the residences to the
east of the subject site as the trail enters the City’s Terrace Hill Open Space property by
traversing on contour to the northwest, and then continuing to follow contour back to the
northeast to meet an existing use trail higher up on the hill (see Attachment 6).
CONCURRENCES
In addition to the ARC and PRC’s review of this dedication, the Community Development
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department have provided their concurrence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and the Notice of Determination has been filed
for the SLO Terrace project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
following the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts are expected to be minimal. The City has enjoyed outstanding volunteer trail
construction support in the past, and anticipates further volunteer time directed towards these
efforts. Modest staff time is supported by program budgets from Ranger Services and the
Natural Resources Program.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item and direct staff to make revisions or include additional information.
2. Deny the inclusion of a trail and trailhead from any location within the project site.
3. Approve and accept the ARC’s preferred trail and trailhead location.
ATTACHMENTS
1. SLO TERRACE – Architectural Review Commission submittal excerpts
2. Architectural Review Commission Agenda Report - 12/16/13
3. Architectural Review Commission Resolution - ARC-1017-13
4. Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes – 12/16/13
5. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes – 5/7/14
6. Terrace Hill Open Space Trail Map
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-10-07\Acceptance of Trail Easement SLO Terraces (Codron-Hill)
C5 - 3
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
R
E
V
I
E
W
C
O
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
-
0
8
.
3
0
.
1
3
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
-
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Attachment 1 C5 - 4
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
CO
V
E
R
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
2
SI
T
E
/
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
P
H
O
T
O
S
3
KE
Y
E
D
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
4
SI
T
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
5
-
8
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
S
1
A
/
1
B
/
1
D
L
O
T
I
N
F
O
9
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
2
/
2
A
L
O
T
I
N
F
O
1
0
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
1
A
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
1
1
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
1
B
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
1
2
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
1
C
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
1
3
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
1
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
1
4
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
S
1
A
/
1
B
/
1
C
/
1
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
1
6
-
1
8
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
S
1
A
/
1
B
/
1
D
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
2
0
-
2
2
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
2
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
2
3
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
2
A
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
2
4
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
2
/
2
A
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
2
5
-
2
6
HO
U
S
E
T
Y
P
E
2
/
2
A
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
2
7
-
2
8
TY
P
I
C
A
L
D
E
T
A
I
L
S
2
9
-
3
0
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
-
T
R
E
E
S
3
1
TY
P
I
C
A
L
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
S
3
2
-
3
3
PL
A
N
T
T
Y
P
E
S
3
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
PAGE 2
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
N
F
O
AP
N
S
:
0
0
3
-
0
0
6
-
0
2
4
,
0
0
3
-
0
7
5
-
0
0
4
,
0
0
3
-
0
7
5
-
0
0
5
OV
E
R
A
L
L
L
O
T
S
I
Z
E
:
1
0
1
,
5
3
9
.
8
6
s
f
/
4
3
,
5
6
0
=
2
.
3
3
a
c
r
e
s
ZO
N
E
:
R
-
2
MA
X
H
E
I
G
H
T
:
3
5
’
MA
X
L
O
T
C
O
V
E
R
A
G
E
:
5
0
%
DE
N
S
I
T
Y
:
Lo
t
s
1
t
h
r
u
7
&
l
o
t
s
1
2
t
h
r
u
1
4
a
r
e
1
5
%
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
:
4,
8
0
0
/
4
3
,
5
6
0
=
.
1
1
x
1
2
u
n
i
t
s
/
a
c
r
e
=
1
.
3
o
r
1
.
5
u
n
i
t
s
=
3
b
e
d
u
n
i
t
Lo
t
s
8
t
h
r
u
1
1
a
n
d
l
o
t
s
1
3
n
t
h
r
u
1
6
n
a
r
e
1
5
%
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
.
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
to
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
n
o
n
-
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
,
e
a
c
h
l
o
t
c
a
n
a
l
l
o
w
1
u
n
i
t
o
r
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
h
o
m
e
.
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
d
o
n
o
t
a
d
d
t
o
de
n
s
i
t
y
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
SL
O
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
s
1
7
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
l
o
t
s
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
1
7
n
e
w
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
si
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
h
o
m
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
.
T
h
e
h
o
m
e
s
ra
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
4
0
0
t
o
1
7
0
0
S
F
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
3
5
0
S
F
se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
y
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
s
a
s
t
a
r
t
e
r
h
o
m
e
f
o
r
a
f
a
m
i
l
y
t
h
a
t
ca
n
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
c
o
m
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
or
a
f
a
m
i
l
y
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
e
n
t
.
On
l
y
a
f
e
w
s
t
e
p
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
r
a
c
k
s
,
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
S
L
O
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
c
a
n
h
o
p
o
n
t
o
th
e
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
b
i
k
e
t
r
a
i
l
f
o
r
a
n
e
a
s
y
c
a
r
l
e
s
s
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
t
o
d
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
S
L
O
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
e
n
j
o
y
a
n
e
w
f
o
o
t
t
r
a
i
l
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
f
r
o
m
th
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
w
l
y
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
R
a
c
h
e
l
C
o
u
r
t
t
o
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
H
i
l
l
.
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
w
i
l
l
r
e
-
b
u
i
l
d
o
r
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
Ra
c
h
e
l
C
t
.
a
n
d
R
a
c
h
e
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
T
h
i
s
h
o
m
e
,
o
n
c
e
r
e
-
b
u
i
l
t
,
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
st
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
L
O
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
wh
i
l
e
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
n
i
n
g
a
p
a
r
t
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
SL
O
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
i
s
a
h
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
n
a
r
r
o
w
l
o
t
s
(
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
40
’
w
i
d
e
i
n
m
o
s
t
c
a
s
e
s
)
.
A
s
s
u
c
h
i
t
m
u
s
t
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
t
h
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s
th
e
1
0
%
t
o
2
3
%
s
l
o
p
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
r
r
o
w
l
o
t
s
p
l
a
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
h
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
t
u
n
n
i
n
g
v
i
e
w
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
n
e
w
h
o
m
e
.
PR
O
J
E
C
T
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
IN
D
E
X
VI
C
I
N
I
T
Y
M
A
P
OW
N
E
R
:
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
:
MI
S
L
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
PO
B
O
X
1
3
,
P
I
S
M
O
B
E
A
C
H
,
C
A
9
3
4
4
8
80
5
.
5
5
6
.
3
0
6
0
RE
P
:
S
E
A
N
S
T
I
N
N
E
T
T
,
s
e
a
n
@
C
C
B
1
.
n
e
t
53
0
.
2
1
6
.
7
2
8
3
CA
R
O
N
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
14
0
4
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
,
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
9
3
4
0
1
80
5
.
6
2
7
.
1
8
7
5
CO
N
T
A
C
T
:
J
O
E
L
S
N
Y
D
E
R
,
j
o
e
l
@
c
a
r
o
n
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
.
c
o
m
Attachment 1 C5 - 5
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
K
E
Y
SC
A
L
E
:
A
P
P
R
O
X
:
1
”
=
5
0
’
UN
I
T
1
C
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
(
O
P
T
I
O
N
:
1
B
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
6
-
1
8
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
3
(
O
P
T
I
O
N
1
B
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
PA
G
E
1
2
)
UN
I
T
1
C
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
(
O
P
T
I
O
N
:
1
B
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
0
-
2
2
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
3
(
O
P
T
I
O
N
1
B
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
PA
G
E
1
2
)
UN
I
T
2
A
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
5
-
2
6
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
4
UN
I
T
2
A
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
7
-
2
8
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
4
PAGE 4
UN
I
T
1
A
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
6
-
1
8
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
1
UN
I
T
1
D
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
0
-
2
2
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
4
RA
C
H
E
L
C
O
U
R
T
RACHEL STREET
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
D
R
I
V
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
LO
T
2
L
O
T
3
L
O
T
4
L
O
T
5
LO
T
6
LO
T
7
LO
T
8
L
O
T
9
LO
T
1
3
N
L
O
T
1
4
N
L
O
T
1
5
N
L
O
T
1
6
N
LO
T
1
4
L
O
T
1
3
LO
T
1
2
LO
T
1
1
LOT 10
LO
T
1
7
N
L
O
T
1
8
N
LO
T
1
UN
I
T
2
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
5
-
2
6
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
3
UN
I
T
2
-
C
R
A
F
T
S
M
A
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
7
-
2
8
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
2
3
UN
I
T
1
D
-
F
A
R
M
H
O
U
S
E
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
6
-
1
8
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
:
P
A
G
E
1
4
Attachment 1 C5 - 6
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
SI
T
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
UP
P
E
R
R
A
C
H
E
L
C
O
U
R
T
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
O
U
T
H
)
LO
T
9
LO
T
8
LO
T
7
LO
T
6
PAGE 5
RA
C
H
E
L
C
O
U
R
T
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
)
LO
T
1
3
N
LO
T
1
4
N
LO
T
1
5
N
LO
T
1
6
N
LOT 5
35
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
35
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
D
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
D
E
Attachment 1 C5 - 7
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
D
R
I
V
E
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
N
O
R
T
H
)
LO
T
1
3
LO
T
1
2
LO
T
1
1
LOT 10
LO
T
1
4
SI
T
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
PAGE 6
LO
T
4
LO
T
3
LO
T
2
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
H
O
U
S
E
T
O
R
E
M
A
I
N
LO
W
E
R
R
A
C
H
E
L
C
O
U
R
T
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
O
U
T
H
)
35
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
35
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
D
E
EXISTING GRADE Attachment 1 C5 - 8
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
SI
T
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
PAGE 7
RA
C
H
E
L
C
T
.
SI
D
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
U
P
P
E
R
R
A
C
H
E
L
C
T
.
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
)
LO
T
1
4
N
17
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
@
E
A
V
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
D
E
OV
E
R
A
L
L
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
C
R
O
S
S
S
L
O
P
E
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
)
-
S
C
A
L
E
1
/
3
2
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
RA
C
H
E
L
C
T
.
LO
T
1
4
N
LO
T
5
LOT 14FLORENCE AVE.Attachment 1 C5 - 9
SL
O
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
E
"
WF
4
V
J
U
F
$
4
F
B
U
U
M
F
8
"
t
ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
#
S
P
B
E
4
U
4
B
O
-
V
J
T
0
C
J
T
Q
P
$
"
t
www.caronarchitecture.com
SI
D
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
L
O
W
E
R
R
A
C
H
E
L
C
T
.
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
)
LO
T
5
RA
C
H
E
L
C
T
.
17
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
@
E
A
V
E
EXISTING GRADE
SI
T
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
SC
A
L
E
:
1
/
1
6
”
=
1
’
-
0
”
PAGE 8
SI
D
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
T
F
L
O
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
E
.
(
L
O
O
K
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
)
FL
O
R
E
N
C
E
A
V
E
.
LO
T
1
4
17
’
H
E
I
G
H
T
L
I
M
I
T
@
E
A
V
E
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
G
R
A
D
E
Attachment 1 C5 - 10
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of plans for 17 single-family residences on vacant property with adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PROJECT ADDRESS: 907 Rachel Court BY: Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARC 74-13 FROM: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant MI SLO TERRACE
Representative Sean Stinnett, Coastal Community
Builders
Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential,
Special Considerations)
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Site Area 2.33 Acres
Environmental
Status
Mitigated Negative Declaration
recommended for adoption (ER 74-
13)
SUMMARY
The project includes development of relatively vacant property with 17 new single-family
residences on 17 existing parcels. Staff finds the proposed placement and design of the residences to
be consistent with the Community Design Guidelines but is looking to the ARC to provide feedback
on the following; 1) cul-de-sac retaining wall height exceeding six feet [see section 4.1 below] and
the downhill (south façade) wall height exceeding 15-feet for lots 2, 4, 7, and 8 [see section 4.2
below]. Additionally, staff has prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined mitigation
measures were needed for geology and soils. Staff has incorporated mitigation measures into the
project and is recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Meeting Date: Dec. 16, 2013
Item Number: 2
Attachment 2
C5 - 11
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 2
1.0 USE PERMIT APPROVAL
The proposed project required approval of an Administrative Use Permit due to the Special
Considerations Overlay placed on the property. The Special Considerations overlay was established
at the subject location due to concerns with noise generated from the railroad, and due to the hillside
location. Additionally, the Use Permit review included setback exception requests (side and street
yard) and a determination of code consistency for the proposed Secondary Dwelling Units for seven
of the new residences.
On October 17, 2013, the Administrative Hearing Officer approved Administrative Use Permit A
74-13 (Attachment 3) allowing construction of 17 new single-family residences with optional
Secondary Dwelling Units on lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 14N, 15N, and 16N, a street yard setback exception
on lots 13N though 15N, and a one-foot side yard setback exception.
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design
Guidelines and applicable City standards.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The overall project site consists of 2.33 acres of ruderal vacant land (primarily non-native
annual grassland) zoned R-2 (Medium-Density Residential) & R-2-S (Medium-Density
Residential Special Considerations Overlay). The project site contains two dilapidated single-
family residences which are currently vacant. The westernmost single-family residence is a
Contributing List Historic Resource while the easternmost single-family residence will be
demolished (not listed as a historic resource). The project site is surrounded by R-2 zoning to
the north, west, and south with R-1-PD (Planned Development) zoning to the east (the Leland
Terrace Condominium properties). Southwest of the project site are three properties recently
developed with three single-family residences, two of which have integral/attached secondary
dwelling units. Significant features surrounding the property include Terrace Hill (directly north
of the project site) and a section of the Union Pacific Railroad (west of the project site).
The existing 17 parcels proposed for development are approximately 40 feet wide by 120 feet
deep and range in cross slope between 10% and 23% (average cross slope for the project site is
19%).
Site Size 2.33 Acres
Present Use & Development Primarily Vacant with 2 SFR’s
Topography 19% Average Cross Slope
Access Rachel Court, Florence Avenue
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Residences (R-2 zoning) and Terrace Hill
Attachment 2
C5 - 12
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 3
South: Residences (R-2 zoning)
East: Leland Terrace Residences (R-1-PD)
West: Vacant Land (R-2 zoning) and Union Pacific Railroad
3.2 Project Description
Significant project features include the following (Attachment 5, Project Plans):
1. Construction of 17 detached single-family residences (1,177 to 1,700 square feet) on
existing parcels. The residence types are as follows:
a. Nine 3-bedroom residences (Lots 2-7 & 12-14)
b. Seven 2-bedroom residences with optional integral/attached secondary dwelling
units (Lots 8-11 & 14N-16N)
c. One 2-bedroom affordable income residence (Lot 13N)
2. Complete road improvements along Florence Avenue and Rachel Court
3. A pedestrian easement for a foot trail connection to the Terrace Hill Open Space is
proposed to be placed behind the cul-de-sac retaining wall (Attachment 5c: Grading
Plan, Sheet C3.0)
a. Preliminary review by the City’s Natural Resources Manager indicates placement
of a trail in this location is feasible. The specific placement of the trail will need
to be approved by the Parks & Recreation Commission prior to building permit
issuance (condition #39). An approximate trail placement exhibit will be
provided at the ARC hearing.
3.3 Project Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2
Street Yard setback (Lots 2-14) 20 feet 20 feet
Street Yard Setback (Lots 13N-16N) 18.5 feet3 20 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) ~22 feet 35 feet
Coverage (buildings & paving) <50% 50%
Parking Spaces 2 or 3 2 or 3 (1 additional for SDU’s)
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans submitted 7/15/2013
2. City Zoning Regulations
3. Approved by Administrative Hearing Officer (Attachment 3, Use Permit A 74-13)
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
4.1 Site Plan: The proposed 17 homes will be placed on existing parcels approximately 40-feet
wide by 120-feet deep on a site with an average cross slope of 19%. The existing Rachel Court
roadway will be extended eastward ending in a cul-de-sac and the majority of the proposed
residences (12) will take access from the newly constructed Rachel Court. Consistent with the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG), the proposed homes are located as close as possible to
Attachment 2
C5 - 13
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 4
the adjacent streets1 and the homes are placed in the least visually prominent location in an
effort to limit the amount of grading2 needed on the project site (Attachment 5b: Grading Area
Calculations & Attachment 5c: Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0). Also, the proposed layout of
buildings on the site is designed to limit the use/height of retaining walls3 to below six feet, and
leaves the majority (~73%) of the site’s topography in its natural state (Attachment 5b: Grading
Area Calculations & Attachment 5c: Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0 Section A-A).
As stated above, Rachel Court will be extended eastward ending in a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac
to allow for fire truck access and turnaround. The end of the proposed cul-de-sac will be placed
in one of the steeper portions of the site requiring retention of soil at this location. The applicant
proposes a tiered retaining wall system at this location with plantings between the walls. The
lower retaining wall will have a maximum height of 4-feet and the upper retaining wall will
have a maximum height of 7.5-feet (Attachment 5c Grading Plan, Sheet C3.0 Section C-C). The
applicant proposes the tiered retaining wall system as an alternative to a single retaining wall at
the end of the cul-de-sac which would be at a height of 9.5-feet. Staff supports the tiered
retaining wall proposal although a section of the upper retaining wall exceeds the 6-foot height
standard of the CDG2. Staff is looking to the ARC to provide feedback on the preferred cul-de-
sac retaining wall design; single wall, two-tier, or possibly three-tiered walls.
4.2 Building Design: The applicant proposes five unit types (1A, 1C, 1D, 2, and 2A) with each
unit type incorporating either Craftsman or Farmhouse architecture (Attachment 5a,
Architectural Plans, Page 4). Additionally, each architectural style (Craftsman and Farmhouse)
includes three potential color schemes (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Pages 16, 20, 25 &
27). Each home will be two levels and is designed to step up or down the hillside depending on
the location.
1 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.3a: Hillside Development. Each proposed structure shall be located so
that it is as close as possible to the street, to avoid the need for a long driveway.
2 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.e: Minimize grading on individual lots; generally locate houses close to
the street; minimize the grading of visible driveways.
3 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.A.5: Retaining Walls. No visible portion of a retaining wall should be
higher than six feet, and a maximum height of three feet is preferred. Where a retaining wall would otherwise exceed
six feet in height, the wall shall be divided into terraces with variations in plane and include landscaping to break up
the length of walls and to screen them from view.
Rachel Court (Looking North)
Attachment 2
C5 - 14
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 5
Figure 2
The designs incorporate horizontal and vertical articulation and each home style includes
material change between stucco, horizontal siding, vertical siding, and composite roofing. The
largest wall planes occur in the side yard areas between residences (east and west elevations).
The designs incorporate wall plane offset and material change in this area to provide some
articulation and staff finds the use of articulation consistent with the CDG Hillside Development
standards4, especially given the design constraints of the narrow (40-foot wide) lots and the
sloping hillside.
As discussed above, the homes are designed to step up or down the
hillside depending on the location. Lots 13N through 16N and lots
10 through 14 step up the hillside and will appear single-story when
viewed from the rear (north) elevation; figure 1 at right (e.g. see
Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Pages 21 & 22, north
elevation). However, lots 2 through 9 step down the hillside and
will appear as single-story when viewed from the rear (south)
elevation, figure 2 at right (e.g. see Attachment 5a, Architectural
Plans, Pages 25-28, south elevation). CDG Hillside Development
standards state “no single building wall on the downhill side of a
house should exceed 15 feet in height above grade.” The homes
proposed for lots 8 and 9 will comply with this standard if the
homeowner chooses the secondary dwelling unit option (e.g. see
Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page 26, unit 2-south
elevation) and the Craftsman design proposed for lots 3, 5, and 6
will comply with this standard due to the added articulation from
the Dutch-gable roof style. However, the Farmhouse style homes
(lots 2, 4, and 7) include a gable roof which creates a south façade wall height of 25 feet, see
figure 2 (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page 26, unit 2A south elevation).
The applicant has added some articulation to the south elevation by incorporating a second floor
deck and ultimately the south view of these four residences will be obscured by homes on the
4 Community Design Guidelines 7.2.B.2a: Exterior Wall Surfaces. Large flat building planes should be avoided; the
spatial arrangement of the building, including roof overhands, should be used to achieve alternating light and dark
building surfaces that will blend with similar contrasts found in the surrounding natural vegetation.
Figure 1
Rachel Court (Looking South)
Attachment 2
C5 - 15
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 6
lots to the south. Staff finds the proposed design to be acceptable because the added articulation
(recommended by the CDG) would likely lead to a larger footprint needing more site grading,
and the taller wall height will only potentially occur on four of the proposed homes (lots 2, 4, 7,
and lot 8 if the owner does not choose the secondary dwelling unit option).
4.3 Neighborhood Consistency
Consistent with the CDG, the proposed Farmhouse and Craftsman style homes are designed to
be compatible with the traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the
neighborhood5 which include mainly Craftsman style homes with highlighted entries facing the
street, low-sloped roofs, stucco, and horizontal siding (Attachment 5a, Architectural Plans, Page
3). Also similar to neighboring residences, the designs incorporate highlighted entries6 to each
residence and homes on lots 1 through 9 will incorporate an entry trellis (Attachment 5a,
Architectural Plans, Pages 5 & 6).
The proposed residences are compatible with the scale and overall character7 of residences in
the neighborhood by keeping a low profile and conforming to the hillside location, in an effort
to maintain views for neighboring residences. The applicant proposes a maximum height from
average ground level below each structure of approximately 22 feet, while the maximum height
allowance for residences in the R-2 zone is 35 feet.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined mitigation measures were needed
for geology and soils (Attachment 6, Initial Study). The subject location is in an area designated as
having moderate landslide potential according to the General Plan Safety Element, and the applicant
has provided a Soils Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Investigation Report prepared by
GeoSolutions, Inc.
The Soils Engineering Report (Attachment E within Initial Study Attachment 6) identifies the
following primary geotechnical concerns; 1) the presence of loose, soft surface soils, 2) the
potential for excess sub-surface moisture to affect the proposed improvements, 3) the presence of
expansive soil materials, and 4) the potential for differential settlement occurring between
5 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3.B: Building Design. An infill residential structure should incorporate the
traditional architectural characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door spacing,
exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details.
6 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3.A2: Infill residential structures should continue existing neighborhood
patterns. For example, patterns such as front porches and entries facing the street, finished floor height, and
garages located at the rear of lots.
7 Community Design Guidelines Chapter 5.3.A1: Infill residential structures should be compatible in scale, siting,
detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood. This is crucial
when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the neighborhood. When new homes are
developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the new construction can have a negative impact on
adjacent, smaller scale buildings.
Attachment 2
C5 - 16
ARC 74-13 (907 Rachel Court)
Page 7
foundations supported on two soil materials having different settlement characteristics (e.g. native
soil and engineered fill). The report concludes that the site is geologically and geotechnically
suitable for the proposed development provided recommendations presented in the report are
incorporated into building plans and specifications for development of the site. The
recommendations include preparation of building pads, preparation of paved areas, pavement
design, foundation design, and retaining walls.
The Engineering Geology Investigation Report (Attachment H within the Initial Study Attachment
6) confirmed the conclusions of the Soils Engineering Report finding no landslide hazard, low
liquefaction hazard, and low potential for ground rupture during ground shaking. The report
concludes that the site is geologically suitable for the proposed development provided
recommendations presented in the report are implemented. The recommendations include review of
specific site development from the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer including excavation
and grading and recommendations for foundation placement/design, surface drainage, and slope
design.
Mitigations measures included in the attached Initial Study require the applicant to incorporate all
recommendations included in the Soil Engineering Report and Engineering Geology Investigation
Report into the project.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the attached draft resolution as
conditions of approval/code requirements.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
6.2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Administrative Use Permit A 74-13
4. Project Description
5. Project Plans
a. Architectural Plan
b. Grading Area Calculations
c. Grading/Drainage Plan
6. Initial Study and Attachments
Included in Commission member portfolio: project plans
Available at ARC hearing: color/materials board
Attachment 2
C5 - 17
RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1017-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF 17
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (ER 74-13) AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 16, 2013,
907 RACHEL COURT (R-2-S ZONE; ARC 74-13)
WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on October 17, 2013, and approved application A 74-13 allowing placement
of 17 new single-family residences on a site with special considerations and including approval
of setback exception requests and a determination of code consistency for Secondary Dwelling
Units for seven of the proposed residences, and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on December 16, 2013, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC 74-
13, MI SLO TERRACE, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by the staff at said hearings.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and considered the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project as prepared by staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project (ARC 74-13), based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or
residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the site’s Medium
Density Residential zoning designation and will be subject to conformance with all
applicable building, fire, and safety codes.
2. The project is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the
proposed residences are sited to minimize the extent of grading and step down the hillside.
3. As conditioned, the project is compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and overall character
with buildings in the adjacent neighborhood, consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines.
Attachment 3
C5 - 18
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 2
4. As conditioned, the project’s design is consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines by incorporating articulation and a mix of finish materials that create shade and
shadowing.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 74-13) of Environmental Impact
finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts with incorporation
of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs:
1. Building plans and specifications for site development shall incorporate all
recommendations included in the Soil Engineering Report (July 13, 2013) and
Engineering Geology Investigation Report (November 8, 2013) prepared for the project
by GeoSolutions, Inc., subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official and City
Engineer.
• Monitoring Program: Building permits are required for all proposed grading activities
and construction of common improvements on-site. These building permits will be
evaluated for compliance with the recommendations of the soils report.
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Department
1. The project shall comply with conditions of approval established by Administrative Use
Permit A 74-13.
2. The project shall obtain all requisite permits from the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) as identified in the APCD Letter dated October 7, 2013,
and attached to Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 74-13 (Attachment 6).
3. Pursuant to certificate of compliance CC 6-13, lots 17N (003-661-031) and 18N (003-661-
032) are nonconforming due to substandard lot area and/or dimensions and may be
developed only after they have been merged, lot lines have been adjusted, or otherwise re-
subdivided in conjunction with the contiguous property to create one or more conforming
parcels or one parcel which more nearly conforms to the standards of the City’s
Subdivision Regulations.
a. Lots 17N and 18N shall be designated as “sensitive sites” requiring approval by the
Architectural Review Commission of plans for future site development. This status
ensures future site development will respect existing site constraints, privacy of
occupants and neighbors of the project, and be compatible with the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
4. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code
requirements of project approval as Sheet No. 2. Reference should be made in the margin
of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved
Attachment 3
C5 - 19
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 3
design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval, must be approved by
the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
5. Finish material details for exposed retaining walls shall return to staff for review and
approval, either prior to, or along with, plans submitted for a building permit. All exposed
retaining walls, including the cul-de-sac retaining walls shall be finished with colors and
materials consistent with the guidelines for exterior structure colors (e.g. muted earth tones)
and materials (e.g. natural/natural-appearing materials) provided in Community Design
Guidelines Chapter 7.2.B4.
6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed
building surfaces and other improvements on elevation drawings. Plans shall clearly note
that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or
sand finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The
proposed “Pure White” color shall be replaced with a muted white color (consistent with
Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2.B4), to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. For the Farmhouse-style homes on Lots 2, 4, and 7, there shall be a
materials change as presented at the meeting with board and batten siding on the upper
portion of the wall and stucco below.
7. Exterior materials (e.g. stucco and siding) shall continue down to within no less than one
foot of adjacent finished grade.
8. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include final design details (including material,
color, and dimensions) for the proposed trellis structures located at building entries for lots
2 through 9. The proposed trellis structures shall meet the minimum setback standards
established in Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.16.
9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of
materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall
include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds, recesses, and other
related window features.
10. Plans submitted for a building permit shall offset windows between adjacent residences in
side yard areas to provide privacy for the residents of both structures, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
11. For lots 13N through 18N, the use of solid, opaque fencing shall be limited to the side
yards between living areas (i.e. residences and backyard areas adjacent to residences) on
adjacent lots, with semi-transparent fencing (e.g. black or green vinyl-coated chain link,
wrought iron, split rail, or four-inch square welded wire) combined with landscaping, or
landscaping alone, in the remaining side yard areas, to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Commission.
12. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall not be located within the front yard areas
and shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way, consistent with Zoning
Regulations section 17.17.075 (Neighborhood Preservation).
Attachment 3
C5 - 20
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 4
13. Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, or
along with, the plans submitted for a building permit. The locations of all lighting fixtures
shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings.
The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the
proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of
the proposed lighting fixtures. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light
is directed downward consistent with Section 17.23.050 of the Zoning Regulations. Details
of all exterior light fixtures, including any service area lights, need to be included as part of
plans. A note shall be included on plans that “Lenses of exterior wall-mounted lights may
be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Community Development
Director determines that they emit excessive glare.”
a. The proposed exterior light fixture shown on plans for Craftsman-style homes does not
appear to comply with Night Sky Preservation standards, and plans submitted for a
building permit shall include a compliant lighting fixture.
14. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include a final landscaping plan for the project
site, including irrigation details. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes
and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each
plant material showing their specific locations on plans. Street trees species shall comply
with City standards.
15. Any proposed landscape lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit
and plans shall clearly indicate lighting to utilize a narrow cone of light (no brighter than
approximately 15 watts) for the purpose of confining the light to the object of interest.
Public Works – Engineering
16. All underlying lots shall be merged or lot lines shall otherwise be adjusted prior to building
permit issuance.
17. Complete public improvements will be required as a condition of development. The
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the engineering standards in effect at
the time of plan submittal or encroachment permit issuance. New standards such as LED
street lighting and sewer main materials will be formally endorsed with the proposed City
Engineering Standards. These and other established standards will be required for this
development regardless of timing of the project approvals and official City Council action
to adopt the standards.
18. It is recognized that post-construction water quality treatment required for this project may
require that alternate paving materials be considered within the public right-of-way. The
City will consider, and could accept for public maintenance, porous paving materials, sub-
drains, storm drain extensions, etc., as they relate to water quality treatment of runoff from
the public street.
19. The required public improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City prior to
building permit issuance. A separate public improvement plan submittal shall be submitted
to the Public Works Department for coordination of the review and approval. The
submittal shall include the engineer of record estimate of probable costs or cost summary
Attachment 3
C5 - 21
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 5
from construction contracts. An improvement plan review and inspection fee will be
required in accordance with the fee resolution in effect at the time of the plan submittal.
The improvement plans should be included in the on-site plans for reference. Record
drawings will be required at the completion of construction per City Engineering
Standards.
20. All required dedications, public and private easements, public pedestrian easements, open
space dedications, maintenance agreements, etc., shall be recorded prior to building permit
issuance and approval of the public improvement construction as necessary. Any deferral
of submittal documents and/or deferred timing to record documents shall be approved by
the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. If deferred, said items
shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals and occupancy.
21. The developer shall dedicate a six-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) and a ten-foot
wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easements shall be adjacent
to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. Additional PUE’s
may be required to the satisfaction of the supplying utility companies. The public
improvement plans shall be signed by each of the respective utility companies.
22. A separate encroachment agreement shall be recorded against Lot 9 and 18N for the
proposed private improvements located within the former cul-de-sac offer of dedication.
Separate agreements or a common agreement shall be recorded against Lots 13N – 18N for
the grading and drainage features proposed for location within the public right-of-way.
23. The developer shall install street lighting and all associated facilities including but not
limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and luminaires per City Engineering
Standards. The current standard under development for LED lighting is required within
this subdivision. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be
required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the
necessary public improvements.
24. Existing overhead wiring shall be undergrounded along the development frontages in
conjunction with the public improvements. The required undergrounding shall be achieved
without a net increase in joint utility poles within the public right-of-way. The proposed
undergrounding details and requirements shall be approved by the City and serving wire
utility companies. Wiring to all new dwellings and structures shall be underground.
25. City records indicate that conduits were installed in conjunction with the improvements for
neighboring development at 2196 and 2198 Rachel Street. The project shall include
undergrounding from Rachel Court across Lot 1 to the existing infrastructure to the
satisfaction of the City and serving utility companies. The existing wood pole and
streetlight #513 may remain if the pole can accommodate an underground service feed.
26. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer, storm drains, and
appurtenances shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Utilities
Department, and Fire Department. The final location, configuration, and sizing of service
laterals, meters, and hydrants shall be approved in conjunction with the review of the
building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public improvement plans.
Attachment 3
C5 - 22
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 6
27. The public improvement plans shall include a final water service layout to the satisfaction
of the Utilities and Public Works Departments. Meter manifolds per City Engineering
Standard #6260 should be considered for all pairs of lots to reduce the total number of
services. The service points should be staggered between the northerly and southerly lots.
The first southerly service should include a manifold for Lots 1 & 2 to avoid the conflict.
The existing old service for Lot 1 should be abandoned accordingly.
28. A water meter may be required to serve Lot 18N. The final plans shall clarify how the
retaining wall landscape irrigation will be serviced. The service for the cul-de-sac lots
should not be sleeved under or though the wall foundations. The plans shall show a
terminal end fire hydrant in the cul-de-sac rather than a blow-off. The final hydrant
location shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Utilities
Department.
29. The building plan submittal and public improvement plans shall clarify that a gravity sewer
connection is achievable for Lots 2 – 9. The plans shall show and note which lots will
require a sewer backwater valve.
30. The existing sewer lateral for Lot 1 is reportedly connected to a common lateral together
with the two existing Callaway residences to the north and known as 2080 and 2098 Rachel
Street. The public improvement plans shall show and note the location and disposition of
all existing sewer connections to the satisfaction of the City.
31. The City may consider and potentially support the extension of the public water main into
the adjoining subdivision (Tract 1034-2) at Pauline Way.
32. The building plans and public improvement plans shall consider the required separations
between several utility improvements located along the frontage of the lots. The separation
and construction of utility vaults, water meters/services, and sidewalk underdrains will
need to consider any additional clearances required from the driveway approach transitions.
33. The proposed tiered retaining wall and landscape planting shall be owned and maintained
by the adjoining Lots 9, 17N, and 18N or by a property owner’s association. The required
landscaping will require a water meter to service the landscape irrigation system.
Easements may be required to cover the irrigation system improvements crossing multiple
properties.
34. The building plan submittal and public improvement plans shall show and note compliance
with the parking and driveway standards for upsloping and downsloping driveways. The
plans shall show the required vertical curves and associated spot elevations on both sides of
the driveway for reference.
35. Parking shall be removed from the north side of Rachel Court and around the entire cul-de-
sac. The final cul-de-sac diameter may be reduced in accordance with the latest adoption
of the California Fire Code to minimize wall heights and grading to the satisfaction of the
Fire Marshal.
Attachment 3
C5 - 23
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 7
36. The proposed driveway approach serving the existing developed Lot 1 shall lead to an
approved parking space. Any covered or uncovered parking area shall be approved and
permitted by the Community Development Department prior to approval and construction
of an approach off of Rachel Street. Otherwise, the plan shall show continuous curb,
gutter, and sidewalk.
37. The City will be accepting the completed pubic street improvements on Rachel Court for
public maintenance. The public improvement plans shall show the continuation of concrete
curb and gutter across neighboring Lots 10-12. The improvements shall continue around
the corner to provide for the curb ramp and integral spandrel and cross-gutter per City
Engineering Standards. The improvements may transition to an AC curb beyond the curb
return.
38. The trail connection to the Terrace Hill Open Space will be facilitated by the dedication of
a public trail easement, which shall be reviewed for acceptance by the Parks and Recreation
Commission prior to building permit issuance. The final grading plans and public
improvement plans shall show and note the detailed trailhead and trail improvements from
the public right-of-way to the property boundary at the Terrace Hill Open Space. The
improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department, Natural Resources Manager, Public Works Department, and Parks and
Recreation Director. Upon final acceptance of the public trail easement and trail
improvements, the City shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance and liability thereof.
The ARC recommends that the trailhead be relocated internal to the project site, between
Lots 16N & 17N.
39. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water
discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation
results in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one
acre which are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit.
Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General
Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State
Water Board’s SMARTS system. The required Waste Discharger Identification (WDID)
number shall be included on all building and public improvement plans for reference.
40. The final grading, drainage, and building plans shall show and note compliance with the
project soils report and engineering geologist report recommendations. The soils engineer
and engineering geologist shall review the final plans and provide written documentation of
the compliance with their respective recommendations.
41. The engineer of record, soils engineer, and engineering geologist shall provide a specific
response to the proposal to collect and convey improved surface waters through the
proposed earthen swale/bio-swale that will be located upslope of existing and proposed
development. The engineer of record shall provide any additional recommendations if
warranted.
42. If open swales are proposed, the final plans shall provide specific details and maintenance
requirements for the property lines/fence lines and any security/safety issues related to
providing an open gap along the fence lines.
Attachment 3
C5 - 24
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 8
43. The subdivision improvements and building plans shall include provisions to control any
collected or intercepted groundwater seepage that could be directed to the gutter at the
public street in accordance with City Engineering Standard 1010.B.
44. The subdivision improvements and building plans shall show and note compliance with
Engineering Standard 1010.B for Storm Water Quality Management. This code
requirement is applicable to new or redeveloped sites where the total area of impervious
driving and parking surfaces is more than 5,000 square feet. Water quality management is
required for the runoff from uncovered parking spaces and driveway areas. Projects
approved after March 6, 2013, may be subject to additional Post-Construction Stormwater
Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
45. The required Stormwater Operation and Maintenance documents and Private Stormwater
Conveyance Agreement shall be approved and agreements recorded as a condition of this
development.
Fire Department
46. Roof covering, eave construction, attic and under floor ventilation and exterior siding shall
comply with California Building Code Chapter 7A requirements.
47. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the California Fire Code.
Approved NFPA 13D systems will be required for this project. Shop Drawings and
Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Provide at
least one pilot head in the attic areas.
48. Rachel Court is proposed to be only 28 feet wide; parking will only be permitted for one
side. NO PARKING – FIRE LANE signage or stenciled red curbing will be required for
one side of the street to allow for a minimum 20 feet of unobstructed Fire Department
access roadway width.
Utilities Department
49. The proposed Air-Vac Assembly located at the end of Rachel Court (Grading and Drainage
plan sheet C4.0) shall be removed and the proposed fire hydrant shall be placed at this
location (see Public Works condition #38).
50. The proposed sewer line shall be relocated so as not to be located within the proposed bulb
out, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department.
51. Plans indicate a proposed sewer lateral to Lot 1. The existing sewer lateral (if any) shall be
abandoned per City Standards.
52. The relocated water meter to Lot 1 shall be located outside of the proposed bulb out.
53. Plans submitted for a building permit shall provide a Maximum Applied Water Allowance
calculation as required by the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Chapter 17.87 of the
City’s Municipal Code.
Attachment 3
C5 - 25
Resolution No. ARC-1017-13
907 Rachel Court, ARC 74-13
Page 9
Building Department
54. A Demolition Application and Plan for removal of existing structures is to be provided for
review and approval.
55. New buildings constructed within City of San Luis Obispo shall conform to CRC R327.5
and R327.6. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 701A.1.1
56. Plans submitted for plan check on or after January 1, 2014, will be reviewed to conform to
requirements of the 2013 CA Building Codes.
On motion by Commissioner Wynn, seconded by Commissioner Palazzo, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Palazzo, McCovey-Good, Hopkins, Ehdaie, and Curtis
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Chair Duffy
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16th day of December, 2013.
_____________________________
Pam Ricci, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
Attachment 3
C5 - 26
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
December 16, 2013
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Ken Curtis, Suzan Ehdaie, Steven Hopkins, Greg Wynn,
Anthony Palazzo, Vice-Chair Michelle McCovey-Good, Chair Jim Duffy
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci, Assistant Planner Marcus Carloni, Supervising
Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Kyle Bell
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of November 18 and December 2, 2013, were approved as
presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1327 Osos Street. ARC-C 96-13; Conceptual review of plans for a mixed-use
project including nine (9) condominium units and 8,000-square feet of office space
in the Old Town Historic District; R-3-H and O-H zones; Mission Medical, LLC,
applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, pointing out that it was a
conceptual review and recommending that the project be continued to a date uncertain,
with directional items.
Commr. Curtis asked if the 2009 ARC approval of the architectural design had expired.
Ms. Ricci responded that it had.
Commr. Curtis asked if staff or the applicant knew why the subterranean parking had
been eliminated from the current version of the project. Ms. Ricci commented that it had
to do with economics and that the applicant could further elaborate.
Commr. Wynn asked if the other City departments had reviewed the plans. Ms. Ricci
responded that the plans had been routed to the other departments twice; she noted
that the Fire Department indicated that the buildings in the middle of the site need to
accommodate qualifying access to upper floors.
Commr. Curtis asked if staff had looked at the parking arrangement on Morro Street to
see if the geometrics work. Ms. Ricci stated that staff had carefully reviewed the
Attachment 4
C5 - 27
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 2
parking. She noted that earlier plans for the Morro side of the development included
garages facing the street. She acknowledged that the current parking off of Morro
Street was tight, but met City standards.
Carol Florence, project representative, introduced the applicant team and provided
some background on the project. She commented on the tandem parking increase and
how the project has changed due to comments from staff.
Hamish Marshall, applicant, explained that the underground parking had become very
expensive and had to be removed from the project. He added that the current parking
arrangement works with the project redesign that flips the commercial and residential
uses on the site.
Jonathan Watts, project representative, commented on how the office tandem parking
would work at the site with spaces allocated to tenants, and how tandem parking has
worked in other office development that he is familiar with.
Ms. Florence commented on the proposals to remove most of the existing trees on the
site because they did not coordinate with proposed development plans or were near the
end of their life spans.
Mr. Marshall mentioned that recently a tree fell on a car, and that he consulted with the
City Arborist after this incident. He indicated that the Arborist stated that some of the
existing on-site trees are on the decline.
Mr. Watts commented on the architectural design of the project and how it has changed
since the 2009 version of the project.
Ms. Florence commented on the landscaping parts of the project, and that they include
spaces for tenants to grow food, and enhanced pavement that is great for block parties.
She also commented that Mitchell Park is a block away and that the park provides
plenty of open space for the tenants to use.
Commr. Wynn asked if the office space in the project would be used for administrative
or medical uses. Mr. Marshall stated that it could be used for either. Ms. Ricci noted
that medical offices had a higher parking requirement.
Commr. Ehdaie asked about the change in the architectural style between the previous
and current versions of the project and the reason not to use the Neo-Victorian. Mr.
Watts responded that the desire was not to mimic the adjacent church.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Stew Jenkins noted that the project is located in Old Town historical district and that he
preferred the previous architectural style of the project. He went on to explain how the
contemporary design doesn’t belong in this area of town, and that it clashes with the
historic structures around it. He indicated that the architect had made attempts to
Attachment 4
C5 - 28
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 3
improve the street views of the project with the latest elevations, but that the project is
still not a good enough fit for the neighborhood.
Pete Peterson stated that the current design of the project does not blend with the
neighborhood and detracts from the historical district. He also expressed concerns with
drainage impacts and that proposed parking was inadequate.
Grant Robbins expressed his support of the project and how it promotes walkability. He
felt that the current parking arrangement was better than the previous proposal which
added more cars to Morro Street. He commented that the best way to pay homage to
historic architecture is to not mimic it, but contrast it with diversity.
Aaryn Abbott supported the project as it promotes walkability and density. He added
that the tandem parking might be a worthwhile tradeoff even with the inconvenience.
Diane Jenkins expressed concern with the modern designs in the neighborhood and
how they are not the best fit.
Alice Davis commented that the discussion on the project architecture should be
focused on if it is a good fit for the neighborhood.
Chairperson Jim Duffy recommended a short break at 6:35 p.m.; the break ended at
6:45 p.m.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Pam Ricci summarized the concerns with the tandem parking as proposed was that the
arrangement and layout was not efficient, that the proposal created conflicts with turning
movements in a tight space, and that the number of tandem spaces exceeded City
requirements for an office use.
Mr. Marshall commented that the tandem parking could work at this site given the
project’s close proximity to the parking garage, which provides additional convenient
parking. He explained that the goal is to encourage people to walk and to utilize the
land to increase its urban feel.
Vice-Chair McCovey-Good supported the land use flip and commented the new design
presented at the meeting by the applicant is heading in the right direction with the varied
roof lines. She stated that a contemporary design could work here, and that the project
should complement, but not mimic the historic designs of the church or neighboring
structures.
Commr. Hopkins mentioned his support of infill projects and that the density and
massing of the project was good. He noted that the current design would fit better in the
Railroad District, but does not meet the needs of the historical district. He indicated that
the proposed changes to the materials palette was a positive step.
Attachment 4
C5 - 29
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 4
Commr. Ehdaie explained how she likes the contemporary design, and that the pitched
roof adds more character and complements the church; however, she stated that it is
important to separate the project architecture from the church style
Commr. Curtis supported the land use flip. He commented that he was skeptical about
the viability of the access from Morro Street and would like to see more detailed plans
depicting the cantilevered building. He noted that full parking reductions may not be
warranted here since the amount of viable shared spaces was very limited with the
amount of tandem parking shown. He asked that more information be presented in the
future about the types of office uses planned to determine if the parking was sufficient.
He expressed that a variety of building styles could work at this site as long as the
materials and detailing was properly executed.
Commr. Palazzo stated that some tandem parking could work if an efficient layout is
provided. He commented that the contemporary design may not be appropriate at this
site.
Commr. Wynn commented that the design of the residential side of the project appears
better than the commercial side. He expressed concerns regarding the site massing,
not being consistent with the surrounding area. He agreed that moving the office use to
Osos seemed right, but may create more access issues because of the heavier
amounts of traffic on that street. He noted that the Contemporary architecture style
does not fit the area; “matchy-matchy is bad, but clashy-clashy is also bad.”
Chairperson Jim Duffy commented that the project should push the 35-foot height limit,
and that he supports less parking downtown; however, he added that the project
parking shown does not reflect mixed-use needs. He supported the possibility of a
contemporary design if it was respectful of the historic architecture.
On motion by Commr. Ehdaie, seconded by Commr. Palazzo, to continue the project to
a date uncertain with the following directional items:
1. Modify the parking design to better meet City standards and allow for safe and
efficient project ingress and egress.
2. Provide additional horizontal and vertical articulation to the Osos Street elevation of
the project to create a building massing and roof design that is more compatible
with surrounding structures.
3. The project materials palette shall be simplified in terms of the number of different
materials proposed.
4. Eliminate the corrugated galvanized metal siding from the proposed project
materials palette for building walls.
5. Use a different material for the walls of the new building immediately adjacent to the
Seventh Day Adventist Church and visible from Osos Street.
6. Incorporate windows which are symmetrical and proportional to building walls.
7. Reconsider trees proposals to possibly save some of the trees in the project’s street
yards.
8. Incorporate features into the project design to improve the pedestrian experience
on both Morro and Osos Streets.
Attachment 4
C5 - 30
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 5
AYES: Commrs. Ehdaie, Palazzo, Curtis, Hopkins, Wynn, McCovey-Good, and
Duffy
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Chairperson Duffy recused himself from Item #2 and left the meeting, because he
shares an office with the architect who prepared the project plans. Vice-Chair
McCovey-Good assumed the role of Chairperson for this item.
2. 907 Rachel Court. ARC 74-13; Architectural review of plans for 17 single-family
residences on a vacant property with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration;
R-2-S zone; MI SLO TERRACE, applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval
of the project, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval.
Commr. Curtis asked who was to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr.
Carloni stated staff prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the final approval of
the ARC.
Commr. Curtis asked about unit floor plans for the lots that would have Secondary
Dwelling Units (SDU) questioning if owners who opted out of a Secondary Dwelling Unit
could turn the SDU space into another bedroom. He also asked if parking was provided
for the SDUs. Mr. Carloni stated slope/density standards would only allow a two-
bedroom residence on the lots with optional Secondary Dwelling Units and that a SDU
does not count towards maximum density. He also stated a third parking space will be
provided in the driveway of properties with a SDU, per City standards.
Joel Snyder, applicant’s architect, stated the project’s goal was to limit grading and
provide modest-sized homes that are suitable for this type of hillside development and
the designs are compatible with surrounding home styles. He indicated the developer
has volunteered to provide a trailhead east of the cul-de-sac retaining wall and
discussed the design of the retaining wall and how a portion of the length of the wall
exceeds maximum retaining wall height per the Community Design Guidelines but the
remaining portions of the wall taper downward to meet grade.
Commr. Palazzo asked if there is any landscaping plan provided for the lot to remain
vacant. Mr. Snyder indicated a landscape plan was provided for individual lots but not
specifically for the lot to remain vacant. Mr. Carloni added that condition #14 identifies
landscaping requirements for the project site.
Attachment 4
C5 - 31
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 6
Commr. Curtis asked what portions of the cul-de-sac retaining wall would exceed the
six-foot height limit. Truitt Vance, applicant’s engineer, indicated about twelve feet of
the wall will exceed six feet in height.
Commr. Curtis asked if the plans included home styles to be placed on specific lots. Mr.
Snyder indicated the plans provide two architectural styles with five unit types and the
plans indicate which home styles are to be placed on each lot.
Commr. Wynn asked about noise from the adjacent railroad. Mr. Snyder explained a
noise report concluded the site is outside the noise level requiring specific noise
mitigations for exterior noise and current construction requirements ensure interior noise
is compliant with City standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Vanessa Wigton, SLO, expressed concern about the trailhead location adjacent to her
home and ongoing maintenance. She questioned the height of proposed street trees
and potential view impacts.
Don Wigton, SLO, stated that he likes the project, but is concerned with maintenance of
the proposed trailhead. He expressed his appreciation of the low building heights
proposed by the developer for protecting views.
LeeAnn Miller, SLO, stated that a neighboring home has been having soil trouble, and
the home is experiencing some sliding. She added a concern about the Secondary
Dwelling Units becoming rental units and asked about the number of years the low
income housing unit would remain an affordable unit.
Eve Drew, SLO, expressed concerns about the site’s soil condition and increased
parking on Florence Street.
Ric Paul, SLO, supported the design of the project and felt that it is a great fit for the
area. He had concerns about soils and the drainage and felt there needs to be
maintenance agreements for the site’s drainage infrastructure.
Eric Daniels, SLO, noted concerns with the site drainage due to the present soil
instability issues in the neighboring Leland Terrace development, the proposed trailhead
location, and lighting affecting the viewsheds of the neighbors.
Mr. Carloni addressed a few of the questions and concerns of the public. First, he
indicated lots with optional Secondary Dwelling Units (SDU) could not become rental
properties due to an owner occupancy requirement placed on properties with SDUs and
that proposed parking for SDU properties is consistent with City standards. He indicated
that the deed restriction on affordable units is for approximately 30 years. He noted the
project’s proposed exterior lighting will need to conform to the City’s Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance.
Attachment 4
C5 - 32
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 7
Commr. Curtis asked how the project will maintain the proposed drainage system,
without a Homeowners Association and asked if any drainage easements are proposed.
Hal Hannula, Supervising Civil Engineer, responded that staff has a long list of
conditions about maintenance agreements. Mr. Hannula addressed other questions
that had been asked relating to grading and drainage. He mentioned the City has
lighting standards that require LED lighting of the lowest wattage possible for residential
neighborhoods. He addressed the concern about the street trees indicating all street
trees have to be selected from a pre-approved City list of trees that are height restricted.
Commr. Curtis asked about the location of the trailhead. Mr. Carloni pointed out a
general trailhead location and indicated the applicant would need to provide a final
trailhead design to the final approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Commr. Palazzo asked if there is anything preventing the trail head from being between
lots 17N and 18N. Mr. Carloni indicated Planning Department regulations would not
prevent a trailhead in that location.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Wynn indicated support for the project, because it provides housing that fits
with the neighborhood. He would like the applicant to provide a little more individuality
between units.
Commr. Hopkins stated that he is in support of the project, because the project will be a
great improvement to the neighborhood. He also expressed his concerns about the soil
and drainage within and around the site, but was content with conditions of approval
requiring the applicant to follow the recommendations of the soils reports.
Commr. Ehdaie supported the project noting particular support of the affordable aspects
to the project. She supported a change to the trailhead location.
Commr. Curtis recommended that any future development of the lot to remain vacant be
reviewed by the ARC. He stated that the presented architectural styles are very
appropriate for the area and existing neighborhood.
On a motion by Commr. Wynn, seconded by Commr. Palazzo to adopt the draft
resolution granting final approval of the project design as recommended with the
following modifications to conditions:
1. Modify Condition 3.a. to require that the ARC review the design of a house built on
Lots 17N & 18N.
2. Modify Condition 6 to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph, which reads:
“For the Farmhouse style homes on Lots 2, 4 & 7, there shall be a materials change
as presented at the meeting with board and batten siding on the upper portion of
the wall and stucco below.”
3. Modify Condition 14 to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph, which reads:
“Street tree species shall comply with City standards.”
Attachment 4
C5 - 33
Draft ARC Minutes
December 16, 2013
Page 8
4. Change the first sentence of Condition 28 to read: “A water meter may be required
to serve Lot 18N.”
5. Reword the first sentence of Condition 38 to read “The trail connection to the
Terrace Hill Open Space will be facilitated by the dedication of a public trail
easement, which shall be…” Add the following sentences to the end of Condition
38: “Upon final acceptance of the public trail easement and trail improvements, the
City shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance and liability thereof. The ARC
recommends that the trailhead be relocated internal to the project site, between
Lots 16N & 17N.”
AYES: Commrs. Wynn, Palazzo, Curtis, Ehdaie, Hopkins, McCovey-Good
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Duffy
ABSENT: None
The motion carried on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff:
a. Agenda Forecast – Pam Ricci provided a forecast for upcoming agendas.
4. Commission: There were no specific communications to report.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Kyle Bell,
Recording Secretary
Attachment 4
C5 - 34
1-1
Parks and Recreation Commission
MINUTES
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, May 7, 2014, 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Davis and Commissioners Ryan Baker, Craig Kincaid, Michael Parolini,
Ron Regier, Jeff Whitener and Susan Updegrove
ABSENT: None
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett
Public Comment
None
1. Consideration of Minutes
MOTION: (Regier/Whitener) Approve the April 2, 2014 minutes.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
2. Rachel Court Trail Alignment (Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager)
Bob Hill presented to the Commission the proposed “SLO Terrace” development by the Coastal
Community Builders (CCB) which will include seventeen (17) new single-family residences on
existing parcels located on Rachel Street and the corner of Florence Street. This project was reviewed
and approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on December 16, 2013. The proposed
project condition no. 38 identified a trailhead and trail easement into Terrace Hill Open Space. There
are two proposed locations of the trail head. The first location would be at the back of the culd-e-sac
between lots 9 and 18. This proposed trailhead would be located within 10 feet of the existing
residents of the adjacent Leiland Court. Bob indicated that several neighbors to the east of the project
site have expressed concerns that the trail alignment as proposed would infringe on the privacy and
quiet enjoyment of residences. The second proposed trailhead location, as recommended by the ARC,
could be between lots 16 and 17. The ARC’s recommended alignment, however, is problematic for
two reasons. The first is that it would require that the trail be build straight between the two lots
traversing up a grade that approaches a 30% slope. It would be very challenging to construct such a
trail in a safe, durable and enjoyable manner. Typical trails are constructed at grades under 10% to
avoid erosion issues, increased maintenance costs and unsafe trail use and decreased overall user
experience due to excessive grades. The second reason that this trailhead location is problematic is
that the proposed lots are already substandard in size. A trailhead easement in this location would
significantly encroach into the yards of both residences. Bob concluded his presentation to the
Commission to recommend to the City Council to accept a public trail easement and trailhead
Attachment 5
C5 - 35
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 2 of 5
1-2
improvements in the location as shown in Attachment 5 of the PRC Agenda Report. The Commission
was provided alternatives to staff’s recommendation which included continuing the item for further
discussion, not recommending to Council the acceptance of a trail easement, or recommending the trail
location as originally proposed by the ARC condition no. 38.
Public speaker, Don Wigton, a neighbor to proposed trail expressed his concerns with privacy and
safety issues due to close proximately of his backyard to proposed trail. The proposed trail location at
the end of the culd-e-sac could have an impact to on-street parking of the neighborhood. He noted that
there are already two entrances to Open Space and therefore the third proposed trailhead would be
unnecessary. Should the Commission approve the trailhead at this location, he requested a plant barrier
(buffer zone) to protect the privacy and ensure safety of the existing residences. Don also mentioned
he was concerned about maintenance of other trails, such as Bishop Trail where he has noticed beer
bottles and trash.
Commissioner Kincaid expressed he was also concerned about parking demand and issues to existing
residents. Commissioner Kinkaid agreed with creating a plant barrier if a trailhead is approved.
Commission Kinkaid asked about the timing of this proposed trail.
Bob Hill responded that there is limited parking already as the street is very narrow and the Fire
Department has required red curb on one side of street. In response to Commissioner Kinkaid's
question about the timing of the proposed trail, Bob responded that now is the time to accept the
proposed trail now or the opportunity would be lost. Bob cautioned that sometimes lack of a
designated trail could lead to smaller, unmitigated, trails out the back of homes which could lead to
erosion control and other issues.
Commissioner Regier asked if the City has other trails that are sloped at this level or stair-stepped.
Director Stanwyck responded that at this time the City has no stair-stepped trails and that the typical
grade for trails is 10% or less. Commissioner Regier said he understand residents’ concerns and also
recommends a plant barrier between the trailhead and homes.
Commissioner Parolini asked where the proposed plant barrier would be located. Bob responded that
the developer, CBB, is proposing to build the trail and then it would be transferred to the City for
ongoing maintenance needs. Bob said the location of the plant barrier would be on City-owned open
space property. Bob continued that currently there is no condition for a plant barrier in the building
permit process with CBB.
Commissioner Updegrove stated she would like to see a designated trailhead. She has observed Islay
Hill which does not have a designated trailhead and there are several individual house trails now
leading into the Open Space. Commission Updegrove asked how steep is the proposed slope between
lots 16 and 17 and would it require stairs. Bob responded that he didn’t know the exact slope, off
hand, but assumed it to be around 30% grade and is very steep. Bob said that City Ranger, Doug
Carscaden, confirmed this slope and that drainage would be an issue if a trail was placed here.
Commissioner Baker agreed with Commissioner Parolini that a plant barrier would be needed.
Attachment 5
C5 - 36
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 3 of 5
1-3
Vice Chair Whitener asked how the City acquired this open space and asked if there is any “use data”
available for these trails. Director Stanwyck responded that the open space dedicated to City by two
separate development projects and it was intended to provide the high density homes access to open
space as an amenity for those projects. Directed Stanwyck noted that she lives very close to Terrace
Hill and has noticed mostly neighborhood use and some bicycles on the trails. As such, she noted that
this trail use is predominantly pedestrian traffic. She stated that the City does not have a system in
place to provide trail counts. She also noted that most users of the Open Space park on Bishop Street.
Bob Hill said he continues to work with City Ranger Services about bike racks at trail heads and
counts data.
Chair Davis stated that a plant barrier could be planted on the open space property as it is City-owned.
Bob confirmed this and also indicated that mostly likely drought tolerant plants and chaparral type
shrubs would be the recommended plantings so as to not obstruct the current homeowner’s view.
MOTION: (Reiger/Whitener)
Recommend that the City Council accept a public trail easement and trailhead improvements in the
location shown in Attachment 5 of the PRC Agenda Report with the condition of working with the
applicant to create a buffer zone on the Rachel Court easement between the site and neighboring
property.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
3. Confirm Park Tour Date and Route – June 19, 2014 (Shelly Stanwyck, Parks & Recreation
Director)
Director Stanwyck proposed a tour date and schedule as derived from last months’ PRC discussions
and the Commissions’ direction. As proposed, there would be a hike in morning, a tour to LOVR
Bridge/Bob Jones Bike Path and the Octagon Barn as this is the proposed staging area in future. The
tour will continue to the City Farm, Johnson Park to view the new playground equipment, Sinshiemer
Tennis Parks to discuss lighting and usage and finally to the Jack House to view the completed
restroom and gazebo capital improvement projects. A BBQ will be provided to Commissioners upon
the conclusion of the tour at the Ludwick Community Center. Director Stanwyck stated that this is the
opportunity for the Commission to review or revise the proposed tour route. Chair Davis said he had
asked Todd Cooper, YSA President, to see if there are any youth sports they’d like the Commission to
visit. Commissioner Parolini said he would like to look at both ends of the Bob Jones trail at the “oh
great spirit” public art. Vice Chair Whitener asked if there was any value in adding Righetti Hill to the
tour route. Director Stanwyck responded that Righetti Hill is located on private property. She
continued that it may be best to look at this property on a separate occasion and not as an organized
tour. Also, the City’s Water Treatment Facility could be offered as a tour at a later date. A member of
the public, Toni Kinkaid, asked where the tour will start. Director Stanwyck reposed that the tour will
take place on the newest City trail at Froom Ranch. She noted that access is tricky and that
Commissioners will be driven into the first part of the trail and then hike. She further noted that the
tour will enter at John Madonna’s property and she encouraged the Commissioners to meet at Ludwick
Community Center and carpool over. The PRC provided Director Stanwyck with consensus for the
proposed tour route.
Attachment 5
C5 - 37
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 4 of 5
1-4
4. Cancel July 2, 2014 Commission Meeting Date in Lieu of Park Tour (Steve Davis, Chair)
MOTION: (Davis/Updegrove)
Cancel the July 2, 2014 PRC meeting date in lieu of the annual park tour to be held on June 19,
2014.
Approved: 7 yes: 0 no: 0 absent
5. Discuss Format of May 31st Parks & Recreation Element Retreat (Steve Davis, Chair)
In response to the Commissions desire to hold a retreat to discuss the updating of the Parks and
Recreation Element, Director Stanwyck has solicited the work of facilitator Dale McGee. She has
worked with the City before and currently with the City’s Measure Y ½ cent sales tax. Director
Stanwyck said she has set up a meeting to work with Dale and Chair Davis next week to develop a
format of the retreat. Director Stanwyck solicited the Commissioners for any hot topics or issues of
concern that they would like to have included in the retreat format.
Commissioner Parolini said he would love it if refreshments were provided. Commissioner Parolini
also asked if there were any barriers to the Commission asking the Downtown Association for a booth
at Farmer’s Market to provide PRC information. Director Stanwyck responded that this is an
acceptable practice.
Chair Davis said he was looking at the P&R Element and how the Commission can become better
advocates for the community. He indicated he would like advocacy as the focus and the Commission
should look to the Element as a guiding document.
Vice Chair Whitener agreed the Commissioner should look at Element for any glaring efficiencies and
liked the idea of being better advocates for the Community. He also stated that the Commission should
look at future projects that they could advocate for, such as deferred maintenance or infrastructure
replacement in the longer-term.
Commissioner Regier asked if a draft retreat agenda could be provided to the Commission after
Stanwyck and Davis’ meeting with the facilitator. Stanwyck responded yes and that she could provide
the Commission the draft agenda by next week.
6. Directors Report – Highlights (Stanwyck/Mudgett)
Facilities & Pool
Interview Season – Lifeguards, Facilities LBT, Aquatics Coordinator
Swim Lessons Underway
Ground Breaking for Skate Park Wednesday, May 21st at 3:30PM Closure of BBQs due
to Playground Replacement
Great Tennis Tournament with Paul Fiala this past weekend
Attachment 5
C5 - 38
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 5 of 5
1-5
Rangers
Trail clearing thanks to interagency Fire Training – when the fire broke out on 101
Southbound on Saturday
Youth Services
Gearing-up for busy summer season! Registration Now Open.
Bike to School Week
All Star Gun Zone at Ludwick Community Center
Sports
Another successful Teen Track in partnership with Rotary. Over 500+ kids participated.
Highest attendance yet.
First few hours of SLO Tri Registration – over half the spots were filled and we did $40,000
in business. Currently 700+ registered.
Futsol season winding down. 3 weeks left of play.
Registration opens for Summer Adult Softball. Starts June 9th.
Community Services
Skate Park Ground Breaking May 21st at 3:00pm
Jack House Mother’s Day event Sunday, May 11th from 1:00 – 4:00pm. Theme is cards and
carnations. Children can make cards for their moms. Music and refreshments.
Jack House Egg Hunt on April 20th a success! Very highly attended event.
Cross-Department promoting of Senior Services with Golf and Chair Volleyball.
Volunteers came out to help clean up two Community Gardens this past weekend on May
2nd and 3rd.
Monster Skate wrapping up its last weekend of a 3 month event.
Other
Pedestrian Lighting Replacement CIP - Meadow Park Lighting (2014-15) $60K
Summer Activity Guide out and registration opened on Monday May 12th – can you say
summer camps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7. Discuss Current Subcommittee Assignments and Confirm Roles (Steve Davis, Chair)
Commissioner Kincaid said he would like to stay on for Natural Resources and recommended
Commissioner Ryan Baker for Tree Committee liaison. Commissioner Updegrove said she may be
interested in Golf. Commissioner Baker asked when the Tree Committee meets. Recreation Manager,
Mudgett, responded that the Tree Committee meets on the 4th Mondays of each month. Chair Davis
asked if there would be a conflict of three PRC Commissioners in attendance since both he and
Commissioner Parolini are on the YSA board. Director Stanwyck said she would look into it and get
back with the Commission. Commissioners kept their current liaison assignments with exception of
Commissioner Baker who assumed the Tree Committee liaison role.
8. Subcommittee Liaison Reports and Liaison Appointments
Commissioners provided the following reports:
Tree Committee – Baker Golf - Whitener
Natural Resources – Kincaid Bicycle Committee – Regier
Attachment 5
C5 - 39
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 6 of 5
1-6
Jack House Committee – Updegrove Damon-Garcia Sports Field - Parolini
School District – Parolini Youth Sports - Davis
Tree Committee: Commissioner Kincaid reported that the Tree Committee has reviewed the Grange
Hall plan and has come up with some solutions. Arbor Day celebration was on April 21st and was
very well attended. The Committee is currently working on revising tree application process for
clarity of the criteria and a more transparent process. Eventually residents will be able to apply on-
line.
Natural Resources: Commissioner Kinkaid said that the Laguna Lake Natural Conservation Plan
meeting was held on the 28th and it was very informative. Any items of discussion resulting from
this meeting will come before PRC next month. He asked if Director Stanwyck could check on
Kincaid’s and Parolini’s residential location to determine if they live in close proximately and if
they would need to abstain.
Jack House: Commissioner Updegrove said that the Jack House was cleaned; furniture put back
and is ready for the re-opening on Sunday, Mother’s Days. The Mothers’ Day event is from 1-4pm
with music provided by the “Quiet Nights”. The restrooms and gazebo remodels have been
completed and look great! Jack House docent, Toni Kincaid, told the Commission that “three
generations” of family will qualify to get in free. The theme this year is cards and carnations.
Children will have an opportunity to make a card for mom. The Jack House board met with Thom
Brackovicjh about removing elevator shaft and a proposal to build a shed out back for storage.
School District: Commissioner Parolini said there was nothing to report at this time.
Damon-Garcia: Commissioner Parolini said that field renovations start on May 12th and the fields
will be shut down for the next 11 weeks. Public Works had a capital project to replace the outdated
irrigation systems and install new central irrigation controllers throughout all City parks. This will
control all irrigation systems from one central location which can better monitor flow, has a rain
sensor feature and is a great way to save energy and water. There was an issue last week with a
homeless encampment tapping into park electricity. This was very dangerous and could have killed
the individuals. The Police Department and City Rangers assisted in resolving this issue. Public
Works is experiencing staffing changes in 2014. There has been discussion about changing the type
of field grass. City staff is recommended Kentucky Blue Grass, which might increase costs, and
Rye grass. Bermuda grass was planted earlier and did not tolerate the heavy levels of field play.
Commissioner Parolini summarized the effects of recycled water at Damon Garcia. Utilities, Public
Works and Parks & Recreation staff continue to work together on developing short and long-term
solutions. In the short term, the fields will be flushed with potable water provided by the Utilities
Department starting next week. The duration of the “flushing” is currently unknown.
Director Stanwyck added that Utilities staff is assisting Public Works and Parks & Recreation staff
to works towards ongoing solutions and determining the most appropriate timing to apply water
during the field renovation season. Currently, the system does not allow for segregation of
potable/recycled water. Replacement of the meter is not an option at this time due to constraints
Attachment 5
C5 - 40
Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – April 2, 2014
Page 7 of 5
1-7
and regulations imposed by the California Water Board. She indicated that staff will return to PRC
in July with a field plan.
Commissioner Parolini said Public Works staff is working with turf management expert from Davis
for field play, compaction, soil types and best types of grass to grow. They have installed “flush
meters” on the restrooms to alleviate the double-counting people who enter, exit and reenter the
fields after using the restrooms.
Golf: Vice Chair Whitener said that golf rounds down slightly in April and overall revenues were
even. Year-to-Date, Golf rounds were up 4% and revenues up 7%. The sanding of the golf greens
has been completed. The Golf Course continues to promote classes. The Cal Poly class has 70
students enrolled. Golf is also offering a golf etiquette class. The Achievement House held their
annual fund raiser last month.
Bicycle Committee: Commissioner Regier said there was nothing to report at this time.
Youth Sports: Chair Davis attended the YSA quarterly meeting and said that youth sports programs
as doing well. The YSA has increased its fees from $5 per child to $15. YSA would like to
advocate for the next budget cycle to place planning of future sports facilities on the radar. Chair
Davis attended the field scheduling meeting last week which plans out the field use for the
upcoming 6 months.
Communications
Commissioner Regier noted that he saw the “wayfinding” signs were installed last week. He asked is
destination parks could be added to the signs. Bob responded that the wayfinding signs are being
installed in phases and that this could be included in a subsequent phase.
Commissioner Parolini offered his support both the City and for the SLO Marathon. He said that
fitness events like these bring needed funds into the City.
9. Adjourned
The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. to the a Special Meeting on May 31st, which will be held at the
Parks & Recreation Offices located at 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on _________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Department Manager
Attachment 5
C5 - 41
Attachment 6
C5 - 42