Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/17/2009, PH2 - APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOU
counat ° ;. „ l aGEnda wpoRt ,kmN..6,PH a CITY O F SAN LUI S OBI SPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 106-08). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve the project at 399 Foothill Boulevard, based on findings, and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Background The applicant is proposing to develop an approximately 5,600 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements on the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive (Attachment 1). The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-N-S). The "S" overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the revised project on December 1, 2008, based on findings and subject to conditions (Attachments 3 & 4). The ARC agreed with conclusions in the staff report (Attachment 5) that the project was attractively designed, met specific Council direction established for site development, and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. On December 11, 2008, an appeal of the ARC's approval of the project was filed by Steve and Stephanie Hilstein. The appeal cited concerns with inadequate parking, traffic circulation at the corner intersection and the potential to create additional bedrooms in the second floor apartment units (Attachment 6). Previous Review A previous version of the proposed mixed-use project was originally submitted to the City on April 6, 2007 (City File # 55-07). On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved the required use permit for the project, including a 10% shared parking reduction, based on findings and subject to conditions (Attachment 7). The Hearing Officer found the mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan, with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district, and with surrounding residential uses. 914 Council Agenda Report—ARC 106-08 February 17,2009 Page 2 The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the project on March 3, 2008 (Attachment 8). The ARC agreed with conclusions in the staff report (Attachment 9) that the project was attractively designed, met City goals and policies to provide housing and mixed uses, and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Two appeals of the ARC's approval of the project were filed. One appeal was filed by Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. His appeal statement cited concerns related to the height and scale of the project creating neighborhood compatibility issues. Two couples, both neighbors of the project, Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein also filed an appeal. Their appeal also questioned the project's compatibility with the neighborhood and brought up concerns with noise, privacy, parking and building architecture. On April 15, 2008, the City Council granted the appeals of the ARC's action, but specified it was denying the project without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year or require payment of new initial application fees (Attachment 10). In addition, the Council provided specific direction to the applicant regarding changes to the project for any new application (Attachment 11). Project Conformance with Council Direction On August 1, 2008, the applicant submitted a new planning application for architectural review based on Council direction at the April 15, 2008 hearing. Council direction regarding project changes is summarized below in bold print, staff s analysis follows. 1. Eliminate the third level lofts. Analysis: The project has been revised to eliminate the third level loft and deck areas consistent with Council direction. 2. Increase the building setback along Foothill Boulevard to 15 feet. Analysis: The building setback along Foothill Blvd. has been increased from 10 feet, which is the minimum required street yard setback in the C-N zone, to 15 feet, consistent with Council direction. This was accomplished through a combination of building floor plan and elevation modifications. 3. Lower the building height to 25 feet consistent with the height requirement for the R-1 zone. Analysis: With elimination of the third level loft areas and modification to the building roof forms the structure has been lowered to 25 feet, consistent with the height requirement for the R-1 zone and Council direction. Council Agenda Report—ARC 106-08 February 17,2009 page 3 Architectural Review Commission Action On December 1, 2008, the ARC on a 7-0 vote unanimously granted final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 3). The Commission concluded that the mixed-use project was consistent with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, specific Council direction established for site development, and goals to provide workforce housing. The ARC added a condition to modify roof forms and other architectural details to improve the compatibility of the building design with the neighborhood. The Commission also suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of accommodating additional tree planting in the parking lot area near the south property line by the use of bulbed-out curbs to create expanded planters and allowing proposed decks to cantilever into the side yard along the west property line. Three neighbors spoke at the hearing voicing concerns with the proposed development. Meg Evans noted her support for the revised project design in terms of the elimination of the loft areas and lowered building height. She expressed concern with the commercial space potentially being utilized by as many as three businesses and resulting in an adverse impact on parking in the area, and felt the proposed architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood. Keith Evans expressed concerns with the removal of trees and lack of available parking for the project. John Magee appreciated the lowered building height and thought that the building colors were improved, but stated that the architectural style does not fit in with the neighborhood. He expressed concern with the intensity of the project and the fact that up to three businesses might locate here further exacerbating the lack of parking in the neighborhood. Staffs Response to Appeal Issues The following is a summary of the appellant's specific reasons for the appeal and staff s response on those issues. 1. The project does not provide enough parking. Response: The proposed project includes the development of 10 vehicle parking spaces with access from South Tassajara Street. The project consists of four one-bedroom apartment units and 1,494 square feet of commercial tenant space. Based on these components, the project is required to provide a total of 11 vehicle parking spaces (1.5 parking spaces for the first bedroom in a unit x 4 one-bedroom apartment units = 6; plus 1,494 s.f. / 300 s.f. = 5). It should be noted that the one space per 300 square foot parking ratio for the commercial component is based on a rational projection of potential uses of the building's commercial space, as a tenant has not been secured. Given the range of uses allowed by the C-N zone, there may be potential for future tenant(s) with higher parking demands that would not be appropriate here. To ensure the project does not become under-parked, the property owner is responsible for providing a running total of the site's parking requirements with the submittal of any building permit for tenant improvements. Council Agenda Report—ARC 106-08 February 17,2009 Page 4 On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved a 10% shared parking reduction for the mixed-use project that reduced the number of required vehicle spaces from 11 to 10, based on findings (Attachment 7). No appeal was filed relating to the Hearing Officer's approval of a one space parking reduction at this location. With the Hearing Officer approval, the project meets its parking requirement. 2. Traffic hazard at the corner intersection. Response: On June 3, 2008, the Council adopted the FY 2008-09 Financial Plan that included a $125,000 Capital Improvement project to improve the southwest corner of the Foothill/Tassajara intersection. This project is currently under design and is intended to go to construction in spring/summer of 2009. As reported to Council, the existing corner radius causes an operational issue for the SLO Transit buses trying to negotiate a right turn from Foothill to Tassajara, but does not constitute a traffic hazard or safety issue for motorists or pedestrians, due to the lack of collision history. 3. Potential to create additional bedrooms in upstairs apartment units. Response: The project includes three one-bedroom dwelling units on the second level of the building. Rooms within a dwelling unit that have the potential to be converted into bedrooms must have a minimum 50% open wall area with an adjoining room. Review of project plans indicates that all of the proposed dwelling units are considered one-bedroom units for zoning purposes. However, Unit 2's demising wall separating the kitchen from the dining area has only a 35% wall opening. For code consistency, a condition has been added that requires the open wall area be increased to 50%. This would reduce the total length of the demising wall by 1-foot 6-inches, which appears to be easily accomplished without the need for significant modifications to the floor plan of the unit. Conclusion In response to neighborhood input and Council direction, the applicant redesigned the project to ensure greater compatibility with surrounding structures and uses. By eliminating upper level loft and deck areas and increasing the setback along Foothill Blvd., the building's overall height, mass and scale have been significantly reduced, which has resulted in an enhanced project for the neighborhood. The ARC endorsed the revised plans and responded to neighbors' concerns about design compatibility by adding a condition to modify rooflines and other architectural details. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The proposed development will constitute infill development that will add to the City's housing supply as specifically contemplated by the Housing Element. Council Agenda Report—ARC 106-08 February 17,2009 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a Resolution, upholding the appeal, and denying the project, based on findings as specified by the Council. 2. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduced scale project plans 3. ARC follow-up letter dated December 4, 2008 4. Minutes from the December 1, 2008 ARC meeting 5. Staff report from the December 1, 2008 ARC meeting 6. Appeal from Steve& Stephanie Hilstein received December 11, 2008 7. Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 8. ARC follow-up letter for City File # 55-07 9. ARC staff report for City File# 55-07 10. Council Resolution No. 9973 (2008 Series) 11. Minutes from the April 15, 2008 Council meeting 12. Draft Resolution denying the appeal, and upholding the Architectural Review Commission's action to approve the project 13. Alternative Draft Resolution upholding the appeal and denying the proposed proj ect Enclosed: Full-size project plans G:\tcorey\CC\ARC 106-08(399 Foothill appeal)\ARC 106-08 rpt(appeal).doc PKa-5' Y I`■�. m �Q0�11 6 lau"mamTTM Attacnent 2 Env ONlavnw� O�1I`dCl N �"%°% b'2Jb'!'t/SSt/1 le g ({�yyf 8 e ` t !P !fC e53. !� P•' fB���F a ° aiq F YII("€ 9f•4 5 gg �! i F#S €6kg@fI 6@p I3 a�a ,l� ,geHITg scpp n o jai 9 ' { 4E d q� l$� °$8� {�{ "" epdg 36g ! �_I �Cy 28 AoEZ�°Solj Ps����FY�{>_ � : �,�P�i ,F§ °1 � fi=iygH �dp�i 5i C ��-5S £{ayI■' �g v(ii, F � A rm .Co i:9 0`°i'v'u'u°n yP°°u= u n7 o<a-n- Al fill d lilt 5F 'eWIi__ii.111i ills, 191 _ 9�� 4 � SAa° E� �9$ u -- mmi.iiii � o � t 1 [ f E INN m e �i" :;; i l 7t fm 1•; i ��' �\ 1 y��y�, �•, lr O i Ids Fl t°:j �r� �to 5 . i. i rt $ ® t J 6 P �q\ lI y Tfrh 1� 4 �i i I y W � 1lil 51 Y t� CL IN I 1—b t rad' lit d, 'r FENOSV61 . "'.e~mb` Attachment 2 Nra�ine a� n>�� '- � - '� �^ VYV/I 'SSb'1}e ----------------- ---------------- i Qp 1gla s. NO z- F old I gj* I { '. da fs uD 9w�mm�M-YYiI --------------------- ? 9d� HUE O {il-e 5- f 2-f F of �,¢¢.44ee$$3• xf i��F€ 3 -T .,I' I11 P :Nm:mm •°--^__`--�R'.A0FICR:RRR�LtB I �I I' 1�I I a W cc LL / m i m Y i v 9q'JY192!9 V]'Y 270 OR 905 � I i I • �I' 1 ItI L"J11M'Ji1Y .. 'MI'YA9.O BYMOILL �—�� d� vyvrvssvlAttachment 2 vio�ina w- �e� (� �' -. 8fir 1 8 illtillin s 8�8I9����9 �as � 2�m J \ V J 614 b I \ / V N / J a J ' / I I---- 5 J / 0 0 o o \ /(r J 1 .' i � w / / -- - -- ---- ------- - U-.. AXXV.> .IB'AI ,M L-s SNIO-ung F- r-mpragp Attachment 2 ONOSVUVd vyvrvssvi IE Ali it R5 XL ri- �-7 Pt(C) v0 ��� �j( �3uHaev -+vnarvdo•o evNowa - ONIOIIr,—P�wNm EINo�IAd� v&vrdssdj Attachment 2 I-1 T1. 2 ,I _s' IIS O LU 8 S L 5 I'I m J 2� I1 Z ff 0 L"i Q I �y xi `m 3?�3 F5 .I rl _ til ��a-Jl I� C r31� ♦ ♦ �, r � r r r �� 1 ,1, I m , � 6 MW v O 1 t I • �1 , 3 � _ale �riA — . I ' � Isl - 8 0 -}``-■/■ S SII: 1 !R 77 l � 1 i t ' .1 t 1 �, ': 11 • Att achment 2 11 t,lllYll lilt,' F , ` x � _• 3 dFd ,7xt $ doP. "a33 's 33 „s 3's 3 3 }It 33s L0�2�3'2,1z3�393�id�iii 8• s0 L wwavmr� 7 Ea INS! 1 o Y g ryn ® 0' s Y L k £> I � an O 0 i I p i LIZ 01 Y x r P T 0 A 4• �8 air t yd� [ S 6 6 m , e „ a Y 17 idlS _ s LE y� d IN ..._... __.. $ r;' 17 3:i � `d^ � 6 ':�e 5 �:?F by5°�'ua�[✓'�S P _ - Y: �gYg Y11Y `1'y'°jieE�. �o.s di:S 75, 8.4`aP'� 3§5��j�p�'�,3F��° 6n�ysP s°'3 �6 F 4P Y•5� T2_ y� fY95 �( p( s { e 9Y 9 .n ^i � F�F�t[i?i}�.?3 i�FS�0i10FYi Svc t533���9°tf g� PN a-- r3 IIIII ci Attachment 3 Ity Of SAn IuIS OBISPO Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 December 4, 2008 Thom Brajkovich 1009 Morro Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 106-08: 399 Foothill Boulevard Review of a new mixed-use building in the C-N-S zone Gentlemen: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of December 1, 2008, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55707, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4: The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,494 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. pMa- EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. ARC 106-08 Attachment 3 �- Page 2 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans dated October 23, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer; or wood siding over '/" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide.adequate screening. 4. As shown on Sheet A1.0 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 5. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 6. The applicant shall prepare and submit an easement document dedicating a 25- foot radius at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street to accommodate the relocation of the traffic signal and traffic signal control box by the City. The curb ramp shall be replaced in compliance with current City and Pha-15 ARC 106-08 Attachment 3 Page 3 ADA standards. A minimum 4' landing shall be provided at the top of the ramp. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive City approval of a dimensioned detail of the project corner at Foothill/Tassajara with a 25 foot radius to the approval of the Public Works Director and submit a copy of the recorded easement. The detail shall include the .design (including station markings and power pole relocation) and offer of dedication for additional right of way necessary to allow modifications to the intersection to improve the handicap access and corner radius for turning vehicles. 7. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a tree preservation plan for the existing 4- inch Oak tree to remain. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to building, demolition, and/or grading permit issuance. 9. The applicant shall modify the roof forms and architectural details of the building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood to the approval of the Community Development Director. To accomplish this, the ARC suggested that wood or wood-like products be introduced in selected areas of the building. 10. Explore the possibility of accommodating additional tree planting in the parking lot area near the south property line by the use of bulbed-out curbs to create expanded planters. 11. If determined to be consistent with the current Building Code, explore the possibility of allowing proposed decks to cantilever into the side yard along the west property line. Code Requirements 1. The cantilevered deck sections along the westerly property line must be removed from the exterior exit balcony. There are no provisions in the CBC to allow a projection less than 10 feet from a property line for an exterior exit balcony. CBC 1024.3. 2. The water meter configuration shown on Sheet C-3.2 does not comply with City Standard 6210, which requires each water service lateral to connect to the center of the corresponding meter manifold. 04 a-Jj� jARC 106-08 Attachment 3 � -- Page 4 Informational Notes 1. All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. 2.. The architectural plans show a different number of water meters from the engineering plans. Sheet A-1.0 shows seven water meters, while Sheet C-3.2 shows six. Since the project includes three retail spaces and four residential units, the project would be expected to have at least seven water meters. If the landscape irrigation will be placed on a separate water meter, then the project would need eight water meters. Each 2" water service can accommodate up to four 1" water meters. 3. It appears that the fire service will be replaced in its current location, which does not line up with the fire riser location. It is preferred that the fire riser and associated backflow preventer be located in direct alignment with the fire service lateral, if possible. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Brian Leveille at 781-7166. Sincerely, Pamela Ricci, AIC Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office David & Andrea Lopez 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ARC Minutes - --- Attachment 4 December 1, 2008 Page 2 Qip,Motion by Commr. Wilhelm seconded by Commr. Howard to grant final approval to the sed on findings and sub'ectto conditions of approval. AYES: Commrs. kins, Howard, Palazzo, Weber, Vice-Chair Wilhelm, and Chairperson Roo NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. 2. 399 Foothill Boulevard. ARC 106-08; Review of a mixed-used building in the CN- S zone; David Lopez, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Tyler Corey, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and recommended final approval of the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. He provided an overview of the project history, including the City Council's review of a previous version of the project that was appealed by neighbors and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods after its approval by the ARC. He went over the three items of Council direction from the appeal hearing related to parameters for site development that would apply to the submittal of revised project plans. He noted that the current project complied with all of the Council's directed parameters. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Thom Brajkovich, Architect, representing the owner of the property, indicated that he generally supported staffs recommendation. He explained the changes to the project that were made based on Council direction. He addressed how the project's architectural style and footprint related to the lowered height, new building code requirements, and other site constraints. He described the restroom access, color scheme, and parking requirements. Vice Chair Wihelm asked Mr. Brajkovich if he was comfortable with the staffs recommendations. He replied that he wanted to have flexibility to allow west-facing decks to cantilever into side yard areas if the building code could be interpreted to allow it. Vice Chair Wilhelm then asked staff if part of the motion on this project could include a condition related to the design of decks to provide some additional flexibility for the final design. Staff replied that it could be included in the motion. Tyler Corey pointed out how the delay in the processing of the project had forced the architect to comply with a new International Building Code, which forced him to make further changes to plans. He noted that one of these changes affected the design of the decks where the side yard was increased from five to ten feet forcing the elimination of the decks. Pff C;L - I ARC Minutes Attachment 4 December 1, 2008 Page 3 Commr. Weber asked for clarification on the proposed material for the solid railing of the west elevation. Mr. Brajkovich clarified that the sold railing would be plaster and the open railings wrought iron. Commr. Duffy asked for clarification on the proposed stucco finish and the reason for the solid railings. Mr. Brajkovich noted that he was looking at using a slightly textured steel-troweled plaster for main building surfaces and that the solid balconies were to provide privacy. Meg Evans, San Luis Obispo, noted her support for the revised project design in terms of the elimination of the loft areas and lowered building height. She expressed concern with the commercial space potentially being utilized by as many as three businesses because of its adverse impact on parking in the area. She did not support the removal of the eucalyptus trees along the south property line and felt that the proposed architecture is incompatible with the neighborhood. Pam Ricci noted that specific tenants for the commercial spaces were still not known and that the spaces may be reconfigured or consolidated depending on the tenants that were ultimately secured. She stressed that selected tenants would need to comply with parking requirements. Tyler Corey pointed out that the Tree Committee had already approved the removal of the eucalyptus trees and noted that the increased street yard setback affected components of the site design including the size of the property line planter on the south side that might accommodate replacement trees. Keith Evans, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the removal of trees and lack of available parking. John Magee, San Luis Obispo, appreciated the lowered building height and thought that the building colors were improved, but stated that the architectural style does not fit in with the neighborhood. He expressed concern with the intensity of the project and the fact that up to three businesses might locate here further exacerbating the lack of parking in the neighborhood Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, prepared _written comments through an e-mail that. Pam Ricci summarized. Mr. Cross felt that the architectural style of the project was inconsistent with the neighborhood and pointed out that the floor plans were awkward. Vice Chair Wilhelm asked for clarification regarding the project's parking reduction. Tyler Corey replied that a 10% shared parking reduction had previously been approved for the project through an administrative use permit. He noted that the project qualified for up to a 30% shared and mixed-use reduction, but that only the 10% reduction had been requested. Pam Ricci pointed out the types of uses expected to be established at the site would be more geared to support the neighborhood which would reduce parking impacts and encourage people to walk or ride bikes to the site. B'/.f a I ARC Minutes Attachment 4 December 1, 2008 Page 4 Mr. Brajkovich stated that the drainage issues have not changed since the prior presentation. He reinforced that the design takes into consideration the many site constraints and that proposed parking complies with City requirements. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Duffy stated that he agreed with the public testimony about the architectural style not fitting in with the neighborhood. He felt that the modified rooflines of the revised project were no longer compatible with the neighborhood or the overall building design. Commr. Weber agreed with Commr. Duffy regarding the architectural incompatibility of the project and the awkwardness of the rooflines. He thought that the project appears cluttered and recommended that the foam plant-ons for window surrounds be eliminated. Vice Chair Wilhelm stated that the restrictions on the project prevent different architectural solutions. He pointed out that some of the busyness with the design is a result of the proposed color scheme. He stated that the 25-foot building height limitation would not allow the Craftsman-style solution with pitched roofs. Commr. Hopkins was sensitive to the applicant's position and felt that the architectural style was appropriate given the eclectic nature of the setting. He appreciated the more muted colors proposed. Commr. Howard liked the original design better, but agreed that the architectural style was not out of place given the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. Commr. Palazzo pointed out the recent homes constructed across the street as an example of a project that fits in with the neighborhood. Chairperson Root noted that the applicant's options have been limited by the actions taken on the project to date. On a motion by Vice Chair Wilhelm, seconded by Commr. Howard, to grant final approval to the proiecf as recommended by staff with the following modifications 1) Modify the color palette to have a darker lower level and lighter upper level: 2) Explore the possibility of accommodating additional tree planting in the parking lot area near the south property line by the use of bulbed-out curbs to create expanded planters: 3) Introduce wood or wood-like products into selected areas of the elevations and eliminate the use of foam details: 4) If determined to be consistent with the current Building Code explore the possibility of allowing proposed decks to cantilever into the side yard along the west property line. ppa "ab ARC Minutes - Attachment 4 December 1, 2008 Page 5 AYES: Vice Chair Wilhelm, Commr. Hopkins, Chair Root NOES: Commrs. Duffy, Howard, Palazzo, Weber RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion failed on a 3:4 vote. On a motion by Commr. Weber, seconded by Commr. Duffy, to continue the proiect.to a date uncertain with direction to modify the roof forms and other architectural details to be more compatible with the neighborhood and including the other conditions proposed with the first motion. AYES: Commrs. Duffy, Howard, Weber NOES: Commrs. Hopkins, Palazzo, Vice Chair Wilhelm, Chair Root RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion failed on a 3:4 vote.- After ote:After the two failed motions, there was discussion regarding the best course of action for the review of the project and resolution of the remaining design issues. The two alternatives under consideration were a continuance to a date certain, January 5, 2008, and final approval with conditions to deal with the remaining design details. The Commission was ultimately persuaded that the project could be conditioned to address the architectural compatibility concerns raised by neighborhood residents who spoke at the hearing through added conditions with the Community Development Director's review of modified elevations. Dave Lopez, applicant, expressed his frustration with the lengthy and expensive process that the project has been subjected to. He urged the ARC to take an action on the project rather than continue it. On motion by Vice Chair Wilhelm, seconded by Commr. Howard, to grant final approval to the project as recommended by staff and with the following added conditions: 1) The applicant shall modify the roof forms and architectural.details of the building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood to the approval of the Community Development Director. To accomplish this, the ARC suggested that the introduction of wood or wood-like products be used in selected areas of the building: 21 Explore the possibility of accommodating additional tree planting in the parking lot area near the south property line by the use of bulbed-out curbs to create expanded planters: 3) If determined to be consistent with the current Building Code, explore the possibility of allowing proposed decks to cantilever into the side yard along the west property line. AYES: Vice-Chair Wilhelm, Commrs. Howard, Duffy, Hopkins, Palazzo, Weber, and Chairperson Root 0014a '�� ATC Minutes - Attachment 4 December 1, 2008 Page 6 NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion carried on a 7:0 vote. 590 Marsh Street. ARC 53-08; Review of a mixed-use project with 7,400 square feet of commercial space and 13 residential units; C-D zone; Dave Bjerre, applicant rian Leveille) Commr. eber recused himself from the discussion because of a potential conflict of interest. Brian Leveille, sociate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending final approval of the pr ' ct, based on findings, and subject to conditions which he outlined. He highlighted the anges made by the applicant to respond to respond to ARC directional items provi with their conceptual review of plans on June 16, 2008 PUBLIC COMMENTS:, Craig Smith, CRSA Architectur represented applicant Dave Bjerre and provided a detailed presentation in support of project. He highlighted all of the design revisions made to the project since the ARC's ceptual review of plans and showed fly-through videos of the project from the pedes *an and elevated levels. He noted that the applicant voluntarily prepared a historical dy which is attached to the staff report and is open to input and direction from the Com ' sion. He thanked staff for their work on this project. Commr. Duffy questioned the transition in paint col at certain comer locations. Craig Smith responded on the rationale as providing a de i_ ' ion for spaces and not adding clutter to the appearance. Commr. Palazzo asked what would be happening to the ster's Freeze sign with redevelopment of the site. Dave Bjerre noted that the sign s the property of the business owner and that the business planned to retain the ign and would be reopening at another location. Commr. Duffy asked for clarification on signage. Craig Smith explaine that he was sensitive to this subject and open to have specific direction on signage inc ed in the motion. Pam Ricci replied that signage would need to comply with City standards and t if there were issues with a particular tenant sign being compatible with the buildin architectural style, then it would be referred to the Director or potentially to the ARC. 60,40, - aa t , f t. Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#2 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) MEETING DATE: December 1, 2008 FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner FK FILE NUMBER: ARC 106-08 PROJECT ADDRESS: 399 Foothill Boulevard SUBJECT: Review of a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,494 square feet of commercial floor area located on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant is proposing to develop an approximately 5,600 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive (Attachment 1). The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-N-S). The "S" overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The applicant is requesting final approval by the ARC of project plans. Previous Review A previous version of the proposed mixed-use project was originally submitted to the City on April 6, 2007 (City File # 55-07). On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved the required use permit for the project, including a 10% shared parking reduction, based on findings and subject to conditions (Attachment 3). The Hearing Officer found the mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan, with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district, and with surrounding residential uses. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved the project on March 3, 2008 (Attachment 4). The ARC agreed with conclusions in the staff report (Attachment 5) that the project was attractively designed, met City goals and policies to provide housing and mixed uses, and would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Two appeals of the ARC's approval of the project were filed. One appeal was filed by Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. His appeal statement cited concerns related to the height and scale of the project creating neighborhood compatibility issues. Two couples, both neighbors of the project, Keith & Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein 69ka -a3 n Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 2 also filed an appeal. Their appeal also questioned the project's compatibility with the neighborhood and brought up concerns with noise, privacy, parking and building architecture. On April 15, 2008, the City Council upheld the appeals from the ARC's action, thereby denying the project without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year or payment of new initial application fees(Attachment 6). In addition, the Council provided specific direction to the applicant regarding changes to the project for any new application (Attachment 7). On August 1, 2008, the applicant submitted a new planning application for architectural review based on Council direction. Proiect Description The project includes the demolition of an existing building and construction of a 5,600 square- foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building. The building would include 1,494 square feet of commercial space and one residential unit on the ground level and three one- bedroom units on the second level. Other components include site grading, driveway access from South Tassajara Drive, tree removals, landscaping, installation of utilities and 10 vehicle parking spaces. Data Summary Address: 399 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: David Lopez Representative: Paragon Designs Zoning: C-N-S (Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Environmental Status: The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Site Description The relatively flat, rectangular shaped site consists of approximately 10,220 square feet located on the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street. The site is developed with a 2,125 square-foot building, vehicle parking with access from South Tassajara Street and various other site improvements. The existing building and site improvements would be demolished to accommodate proposed development. There is an existing 10-foot wide drainage easement that bisects the rear portion of the property. The surrounding area is residential in character and developed with an eclectic mix of multi- story apartment buildings, 2-story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single- family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 3 EVALUATION The attached ARC staff report for the previous project (City File # 55-07) includes a complete General Plan, Zoning Regulation and Community Design Guideline analysis (Attachment 5). Specific Council direction regarding project changes is summarized below in bold print, staff's analysis follows. 1. Eliminate the third level lofts. Analysis: The project has been revised to eliminate the third level loft and deck areas for units 2, 3 & 4, consistent with Council direction. 2. Increase the building setback along Foothill Boulevard to 15 feet. Analysis: The building setback along Foothill Blvd. has been increased from 10 feet, which is the minimum required street yard setback in the C-N zone, to 15 feet, consistent with Council direction. This was accomplished through a combination of building floor plan and elevation modifications. 3. Lower the building height to 25 feet consistent with the height requirement for the R-1 zone. Analysis: With elimination of the third level loft areas and modification to the building roof forms the structure has been lowered to 25 feet, consistent with the height requirement for the R- 1 zone and Council direction. Conclusion In response to neighborhood input and Council direction, the applicant has redesigned the project to be more compatible with surrounding structures and uses. By eliminating upper level loft and deck areas and increasing the setback along Foothill Blvd., the building's overall height, mass and scale has been significantly reduced, which has resulted in an enhanced project for the neighborhood. As conditioned, staff finds the project design a good utilization of the property, which is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with City standards. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. 3. The Commission may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. J'Na-as_ ;! Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 4 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This item was distributed to the Public Works, Fire and Utilities Departments and Building Division, and comments have been included as project conditions and code requirements where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements. Findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent With General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,494 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) Will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans dated October 23, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. pKa -a� Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 5 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over ''/2" minimum thickness fiberboard("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 4. As shown on Sheet A1.0 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 5. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 6. The applicant shall prepare and submit an easement document dedicating a 25-foot radius at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street to accommodate the relocation of the traffic signal and traffic signal control box by the City. The curb ramp shall be replaced in compliance with current City and ADA standards. A minimum 4' landing shall be provided at the top of the ramp. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive City approval of a dimensioned detail of the project corner at Foothill/Tassajara with a 25 foot radius to the approval of the Public Works Director and submit a copy of the recorded easement. The detail shall include the design (including station markings and power pole relocation) and offer of dedication for additional right of way necessary to allow modifications to the intersection to improve the handicap access and corner radius for turning vehicles. Ad-a� Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 6 7. ~ The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a tree preservation plan for the existing 4-inch Oak tree to remain. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to building, demolition, and/or grading permit issuance. Code Requirements: 1. The cantilevered deck sections along the westerly property line must be removed from the exterior exit balcony. There are no provisions in the CBC to allow a projection less than 10 feet from a property line for an exterior exit balcony. CBC 1024.3. 2. The water meter configuration shown on Sheet C-3.2 does not comply with City Standard 6210, which requires each water service lateral to connect to the center of the corresponding meter manifold. Informational Notes: 1. All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. 2. The architectural plans show a different number of water meters from the engineering plans. Sheet A-1.0 shows seven water meters, while Sheet C-3.2 shows six. Since the project includes three retail spaces and four residential units, the project would be expected to have at least seven water meters. If the landscape irrigation will be placed on a separate water meter, then the project would need eight water meters. Each 2" water service can accommodate up to four I"water meters. 3. It appears that the fire service will be replaced in its current location, which does not line up with the fire riser location. It is preferred that the fire riser and associated backflow preventer be located in direct alignment with the fire service lateral, if possible. ATTACHMENTS -, Attachment 5 ARC 106-08 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 7 Enclosed: Full-size project plans Available at meeting: Color and material sample board �Ha �a9 Attachment 6 Filing Fee: $100.00' Paid Date Received NIA �2J Ll Id� t cmy Of 'REFER TO SECTION 4 san us omspo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION S{ear,t� ��i S�ei h S. Ta�Sa,Qfa �•,R Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 1 �4o S Phone Fax Represents' _ Nanie r- Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OFAPPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code(copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: . NrcLnfh<c•� rel (Name of Officer,Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: L -©�7 3C7 q !SAk11 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member. on (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and by whom: SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actionis you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages,if necessary. This form continues on the other side. RECEIVED DEC 12 2056 Page 1 of 3 SLO CITY CLERK �Ka -3p '• Attachment S Reason for Appeal confinued LAJ nKI e� 4L\?, you �� `Cay 14—Z re 4 3 f 1eccs e �SEL-��ION,,���4PP�LLr4�ha?'S:E� POiV:�/B/i•1TY�'.' � " �_ � ..'•'" ' �� '� � � '�`�r'�t, `� t XUw� �'.M'Y < ` . �Ct yC,`T `h.• ""."",. x 4:3 u)(' v '"r p1k 4 px yTe•gyp, �:.+� t �`r•.. .fix .c.' -a is O�i pbcQitY( t i��t V;a1i) (iUblic pat atp�tri�r►am inra gaai rn ►erg •afid n erburagIfeisd�f C zen�ffnyoi+ niiIi t l' u he 8 c; drSsRbaFeahsass4ciate�fw�thf�itY� r, j_, �ounlarsid pat[q[34 nppetf r► 1Ctit�t r`jptifctior ali apalsp�e7niitt a lat►rtt+��;a rpGc rtrar 8 to testi c•�Gt?ca= fffffff9n ego a�wMi�Ch�tt uSt ecO6ip ``.�.'`�' • ..,��.w. t `.�V='r� � /F/,s-�- `rt�1 ti� r r� � q,�.��..� ,S���rt „°'` '.(�..y. J a .f �. �fc �� �✓ ti � v� o+�".'ri �., � `i`�sp�iisithl it1e��his fbe` p date pl �Se ati<der&tr n l t o i , e f�earc than A%a olg kflf r}� nm� �siF the eta(. e-,rYrogr ppeoI'; ✓iik-be''tfea�rs b��ra tl e �r r'e`�@htafv6 bee �et{e ttne re?pt(�1��Wrtrtngar� to b �Zre)5aed f [ tack€yc�ur ` A-' f d^ � 'it'QUl'•fe�a l£�B#}p f'" i�'�OND'il•1't S.•'t ie7 ' Qr�ULIS, e` ,nl�Cy`',�E4tI� � ►r(�fAStR�B$4r, n e2 � c asl t g t a ,}�csi� ui2wt si�i rt y u, r`' � t�I 4 tibL,y l2rrs 'P1€as a r>. aditfi5t Lyt',ur � e� d riie pga in�Atd4fofiypifi :?. ►ty� 4e' FTr►[ nz�e 7tre� s i . ySt v , tht�attlr� ? , its� c4��'y, {•`•f�St <• �,� fsr.�.'Fi 1 fr �: * '�'�.t;..r '�'� �.f ::_, ' . �- !������a�e�.�'aap�>i'-tils�r�'E►' �ar,�• r�5����V�R�ftS�'�'e�/'�tt�1Y�2����W�t�'r►�;��,{-� s o1 �t,rsse Asfuleal fbr�a rO i., "an�6e�or� W f N M "'t.6" ,� 1 • v . r 1:y+Y• L .� ✓' n"t .-.-�.d k 3'� �e,a + 1 f,u yr: y „c P�tu s t�F:tt�e,Pse,3.i) pp+ al DfiTr e Gx+. MA# r��ISlits 2) fa ffoYl �i�i►)ed ppe1l r►� past atr dy grn sam�.ma�t��o'a,�ltY��� Q�cQ'ar►�it acl�s,�`�aa� �ti w , . �.��.., ,� This item is hereby caiendared for s� /.7 2 00 9' c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson -- CVle (original) iCCLyy• �L[Ud�in.r . Page 2of3 - aros N I P/ 'a -3/ 0 �III� II�� `` Attachment 7 . y ryII�IWIllll�lllll I�NIlll�111111111II cityo san ��s OBISPO� Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 February 20, 2008 David Lopez 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 55-07`. 399 Foothill Blvd. Dear Mr. Lopez: On Friday, February 15, 2008, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request for a Use Permit to allow a mixed-use project and 10% shared parking reduction in the C-N-S zone, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The "S" (special considerations overlay zoning) was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The proposed project conforms to the site's C-N-S zoning and the General Plan for the following reasons: a. The project's mixed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. b. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. c. The project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district which is "...intended to provide for retail sales and personal services primarily for the convenience of surrounding residential areas, in small-scale, pedestrian-oriented developments." d. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. P14g--3a OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Affachment 7 A 55-07(399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 2 2. The shared parking reduction will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the proposed development combines commercial and residential uses within a single building and there will be varying hours of maximum parking demand from the foreseeable uses at the site allowing for adequate parking to be provided. 3. The proposed project complies with San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 A, Parking Space Requirements, in that it satisfies the intent of that section which is "... to minimize the area devoted exclusively to parking and drives when typical demands may be satisfied more efficiently by shared facilities." 4. The project satisfies the requirement for a 10% shared parking reduction specified in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.16.060 B, because there will be at least two or more uses sharing common parking areas. 5. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions I. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Restaurant uses on the project site shall be required to include interior spaces for the storage of food scraps and other waste and shall contract for daily garbage service to the approval of the Community Development Director. Refuse storage areas shall be kept clean and odor free. If trash must be relocated from the interior space of a restaurant to the exterior trash enclosure on-site, it shall be done as close as possible to the trash pick-up time. To address noise issues, plans for tenant improvements shall be evaluated to keep kitchen areas away from the exterior doors and windows of the residential units. 3. Hours of operation for all commercial uses, including restaurants, on the project site are limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. 4. Prepare and provide an easement document dedicating a 25-foot radius at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street to accommodate the relocation of the traffic signal and traffic signal control box by the City. The curb ramp shall be replaced in compliance with current City and ADA standards. A minimum 4' landing shall be provided at the top of the ramp. 5. Provide public pedestrian easements required for the ADA sidewalk extension at the driveway approach and the curb ramp upgrade. PN a-33 Attachment 7 A 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 3 6. Omit the upstream manhole proposed for the relocated public storm drain. The City will accept only one manhole. 7. Omit the private PVC drain connection to the relocated public storm drain. The catch basin located in the parking lot is acceptable and will require the proposed fossil filter insert. The concentrated drainage on the westerly side of the property shall be directed to the Foothill gutter by means of a City Engineering Standard sidewalk underdrain. See City Engineering Standards #3415 and #3420 for reference. If you have any questions, please call Tyler Corey at (805) 781-7169. Sincerely, 03�ul Doug Davidson Hearing Officer cc: SLO County Assessor's Office Thom Brajkovich 1009 Morro Street, Suite 202 San.Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Lopez, David A. & Andrea E. 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �'Na -3V 11111111oll Attachment 8 11 110ty Of SAn luis oBispo Community Development Department - 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 March 5, 2008 David Lopez 928 Goldenrod San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: ARC 55-07:.399 Foothill Boulevard Review of a mixed-use project in the C-N-S zone, including 1,532 s.f. of commercial space and 4 residential units. Mr. Lopez: The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of March 3, 2008, granted final approval to your project, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. Axa-3.S The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �_ Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 8 ARC 55-07 Page 2 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department. on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over 1/2" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the.noise source. 3. The proposed cement plaster siding material on the building shall have a smooth hand trawled finish. 4. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building: With the submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 6. As shown on Sheet A-1 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community 6'ha-36 } Attachment 8 ARC 55-07 Page 3 Development Department. 7. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC. if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 8. The building plan submittal shall provide a second set of waste-wheelers for trash and recycling for the residential units to share within their dedicated enclosure. Informational Note: All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. The decision of the Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk's office or on the City's website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100 and must accompany the appeal documentation. While the City's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have questions, please contact Tyler Corey at 781-7169. Sincerely, is u Pamela Ricci, AICIS Senior Planner cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Thom Brajkovich 1009 Morro Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) MEETING DATE:March 3, 2008 FROM: Pamela Ricci, Senior Planner FILE NUMBER: ARC 55-07 PROJECT ADDRESS: 399 Foothill Blvd. SUBJECT: Review of a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,532 square feet of commercial floor area located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and South Tassajara Drive. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project,based on findings, and subject to conditions. BACKGROUND Situation/Project Description The applicant is proposing to develop a 3,023 square-foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial and residential building and associated site improvements on the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive. The property is zoned Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay (C-N-S). The "S" overlay was applied to the site to address concerns related to compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The project includes the demolition of an existing building and construction of 1,532 square feet of commercial space and one residential unit in the ground level and three one-bedroom units with lofts in the second level. Other components include site grading, driveway access from South Tassajara Drive, tree removals, landscaping, installation of utilities and 10 vehicle parking spaces. The applicant is requesting final approval by the ARC of project plans. Data Summary Address: 399 Foothill Blvd. Applicant: David Lopez Representative: Paragon Designs Zoning: C-N-S (Neighborhood-Commercial with the Special Considerations Overlay) General Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Environmental Status: The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). loil vfi —38r Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 2 Site Description The relatively flat, rectangular shaped site consists of approximately 10,220 square feet located on the southwest comer of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Street. The site is developed with a 2,125 square-foot building, vehicle parking with access from South Tassajara Street and various other site improvements. The existing building and site improvements would be demolished to accommodate proposed development. There is anexisting 10-foot wide drainage easement that bisects the rear portion of the property. The surrounding area is residential in character and developed with an eclectic mix of multi- story apartment buildings, 2-story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single- family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Administrative Hearing Officer Action On February 15, 2008, the Hearing Officer approved an Administrative Use Permit for the project to allow the construction of a 3,023 square-foot commercial and residential building on a sensitive site in the C-N-S zone and 10% shared parking reduction, based on findings, and subject to conditions (Attachment 3). The Hearing Officer found the mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan, with the intent and purpose of the C-N zoning district and with surrounding residential uses. One person spoke on the item, Naoma Wright, during the public comment period citing concerns with commercial uses at the site, architectural compatibility with the neighborhood, solar shading and available on-site parking. EVALUATION The following discussion covers the project's consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Community Design Guidelines. As conditioned, staff finds the project design a good utilization of the property, which is architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with City standards. General Plan and Zoning Regulations A. General Plan The project site is designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" in the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map. The proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan polices: LUE 2.2.7 Housing & Businesses — "Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use projects should be encouraged." L UE 3.8 Mixed Uses—"Compatible mixed uses in commercial districts should be encouraged." HE Goal 2 Affordability — "Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the 9 -Pf 3 ! t Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 3 City's Quantified Objectives. HE Policy 3.3.4 Affordability — "Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population..." HE Policy 3.9.3 Housing Variety and Tenure — "Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently." HE Goal 6 Housing Production — "Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs." B. Zoning Regulations The City regulates mixed-use projects via Chapter 17.08.072 of the Zoning Regulations. The ARC should use this chapter to evaluate the project. The site development and performance standards of importance for this evaluation are listed below and staff s analysis follows in italics. A. Design Considerations. A mixed use project shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses. 2. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. 3. The design of the mixed use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts. 4. The design of a mixed use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character, and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 5. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 6. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. Staff Analysis: The project has been designed to include ground level commercial along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages along with one accessible residential unit on the ground level and three residential units on the second level. Separate pedestrian walkways ' -J ,' Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 4 and access have been provided for the commercial and residential components of the project. The site design integrates the street pedestrian environment with the commercial component of the project by including a mixture of paving materials and raised landscape planters with seating walls along the project's street frontages. The residences have been oriented and designed to minimize potential noise, odor and glare impacts related to the on-site commercial uses. Access to the residences is provided along the westerly property line, on the opposite side of the building from the commercial tenant entries. The design of the building, especially the second level, has a distinct residential character with variation in wall heights and window openings, modest glazing sizes, covered and uncovered wood porches and decks, smooth cement plaster siding, chimneys, generous eaves and projecting beam ends, sloping roof planes and variation in color. In addition, the design of the building provides for extensive private outdoor use areas for the units on multiple floor levels in the form of patios, decks and covered porches along the east, west and south sides of the building. To minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties to the south and west, the applicant has incorporated the following design features into the project: 1) the commercial component of the project is situated toward the corner of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive; 2) the project includes low-wattage light fixtures with appropriate shielding; and 3) the project includes privacy fencing and extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the site that will partially screen the building and increase privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project. The surrounding neighborhood includes an eclectic mix of multi-story apartment buildings, 2- story condominiums and apartments and one and two-story single-family residences. The proposed two-story mixed-use building with lofts can be found consistent with the existing neighborhood because it includes the following design features: a. The structure is presented as a series of staggered blocks, which adds visual interest and minimizes large wall planes. b. Repetition in the massing, materials, openings, roof planes and angled parapet walls add harmony and continuity to the composition. c. The roof lines of the lofts are angled to reduce the building's apparent mass. d. Wall planes are further relieved by stucco reglets, fixed shade awnings and covered and uncovered porches and decks. e. The building reflects materials and features associated with the surrounding residential neighborhood including variation in wall heights and window openings, modest glazing sizes, covered and uncovered wood porches and decks, smooth cement plaster siding, chimneys, generous eaves and projecting beam ends, sloping roof planes and variation in color. B. Site layout and project design standards. Each proposed mixed use project shall comply with the property development standards of the applicable zoning district, and the following requirements. 1. Location of units. Residential units shall not occupy ground floor space within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from each building face adjacent to a street, or any ground floor space in the CD zoning district. �Na=`fl t t � i Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 5 2. Loading areas. Commercial. loading areas shall be located as far as possible from residential units and shall be screened from view from the residential portion of the project to the extent feasible. 3. Refuse and recycling areas. Areas for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be located on the site in locations that are convenient for both the residential and non-residential uses. Staff Analysis: One residential unit is located on the ground floor and three are located on the second level of the building. The ground floor unit is located within 50 feet of Foothill Blvd. On February 20, 2008, the Director determined that this exception is of such a minor or incidental nature that the intent of the Zoning Regulations can be met without further use permit control based on the following reasons: 1) multi family units are allowed within 10 feet of a street yard property line on the ground floor in the C-N zone with approval of an Administrative Use Permit; 2) 75% of the proposed residential units (3 of 4) comply by being located on the second level of the building; 3) The project site is surrounded by residences with similar building setbacks to the proposed ground floor unit; and 4) the ground floor unit will be ADA accessible. No commercial loading areas are proposed for the project. Two separate trash enclosure areas are conveniently located for residential and commercial uses. Trash enclosure locations are shown on Sheet A.1 of project plans. It should be noted that the trash enclosure for the commercial component of the project will be located outside of the 10 foot street yard setback area along Foothill Blvd. and will be partially screened from view by raised landscape planters and installed vegetation. The enclosure is proposed to be finished with the same steel sheet roofing material used on the building with a dark enamel paint color. C. Performance standards. 1. Lighting. Lighting for the commercial uses shall be appropriately shielded to not negatively impact the residential units. Staff Analysis: Project lighting consists of low wattage decorative goose neck fixtures with shielding for the commercial component of the project and a mix of decorative goose neck and down lighting with shielding for the residential component. The exterior lighting schedule is shown on Sheet T-1 of project plans and specific light fixture locations are shown on Sheets A-2 thru A-4. 2. Noise. All residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from non- residential project noise, in compliance with the City's noise regulations. Staff Analysis: According to the Noise Contour Map in the Noise•Element, the building footprint is located within an area susceptible to 60-70 decibles (dB) Ldn due to transportation noise generated from Foothill Blvd. Maximum noise exposure for residential uses is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Development of four residential units on the site could expose people to unacceptable noise levels, if not properly mitigated. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into the pha-�a s Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 6 project to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfm or less,per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over %" minimum thickness fiberboard("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 10% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. Hours of operation. A mixed-use project proposing a commercial component that will operate outside of the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shall require the Director's approval to ensure that the commercial use will not negatively impact the residential uses within the project. Staff Analvsis: The Administrative Use Permit approved for the project includes a condition that requires the hours of operation for all commercial uses, including restaurants, on the project site to be limited to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., unless the Director approves an Administrative Use Permit for extended hours. Community Design Guidelines The Community Design Guidelines does not contain any specific chapter that establishes design parameters for mixed-use projects. However, Chapter 2 (General Design Principles) contains general principles that should be considered in the design of all new development. In staff's view; the project design is a good utilization of the property and consistent with this Chapter based on the preceding staff analysis. Landscapins Extensive landscaping is proposed within raised and at-grade planter beds along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages and along the perimeter of the site. The schematic landscape plan contains a variety of plant materials of different forms and sizes to create an interesting presentation. Landscaping will consist of ground covers, perennials, vines, shrubs and a variety of trees. Three Eucalyptus trees are proposed to be removed along the southerly property line. The City Arborist has reviewed the request and supports the tree removals along with the proposed replacement tree plantings shown on Sheet L-1 of project plans. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be �i� 7-Lf3 Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 7 given to staff and the applicants. 3. The Commission may deny the project if the necessary findings cannot be made. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This item was distributed to the Public Works and Utilities Departments and Building Division, and comments have been included as project conditions and code requirements where appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Grant final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions. Findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. 5. The commercial component of the project (1,532 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. The proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). VNa'�Y Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 8 Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans received by the Community Development Department on January 11, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfrn or less, per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over ``/i" minimum thickness fiberboard("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 3. The proposed cement plaster siding material on the building shall have a smooth hand trawled finish. 4. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 5. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 6. As shown on Sheet A-1 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 7. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal UONa- 4 S Attachment 9 ARC 55-07 (399 Foothill Blvd.) Page 9 conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 8. The building plan submittal shall provide a second set of waste-wheelers for trash and recycling for the residential units to share within their dedicated enclosure. Informational Note: All conditions listed in the Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter dated February 20, 2008 for Planning Application A 55-07 shall remain in full force and effect for the project. ATTACHMENTS VHJ V(15� Atta hment 10 RESOLUTION NO.9973 (2008 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING APPEALS FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 55-07) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on March 3, 2008, approved a mixed-use project with 4 dwellings and 1,532 square feet of commercial floor area in the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, Brett Cross, president of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on March 10,2008; and WHEREAS, Keith& Margaret Evans and Steve & Stephanie Hilstein, filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's.action on March 12, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 15, 2008, for the purpose of considering appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Finding. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following finding: 1. Given the project site's Special Consideration Overlay zoning relating to compatibility with adjacent residential uses, the project's height and massing are not consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeals of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby denying a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd. (Application No. ARC 55-07) without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year or payment of new initial application fees. R 9973 ix --' J Auachnzent 10 Resolution No. 9973 (2008 Series) Page 2 On motion of Council Member Mulholland, seconded by Council Member Settle, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Carter, Mulholland, and Settle, Vice Mayor Brown and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15t'day of April, 2008. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Lj? 44�74 -4 Au Doper City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: J gell City r Attachment 11 City Council Meeting Page 9 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 ose h Abrahams, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern regarding Council ber Settle's residency in light of comments made by Gary Fowler at the last Co it meeting. He also questioned whether Council Member Brown had a confli interest relative to the Garden Street project which abuts his business. Council Bro explained that he had recused himself from making a decision on the Garden St t project so there was no conflict of interest Council Member Se confirmed his residence in the City. Gary Fowler, San Luis O o, suggested that the Westpac/Garden Street Project should be on the November Ilot given residents' objections to the height, as well as a raised parking structure o ipomo and Palm. He suggested that the Copeland and Garden Street Prol include solar panels. He objected to the location of the memorial flags on the mmunity Development/Public Works building. The following people expressed their ongoin ncem regarding the operations of SLO County Public Access: Anthony.Bolin, San Luis Obispo Patrick Germany, Paso Robles ' Ron Bearce, San Luis Obispo Terry Mohan, San Luis Obispo, referenced his unsuccessful att t to process an initiative related to the City's water and sewer rates, which will be i easing in July. He said he will attempt to initiate a new protest against a water a increase that will have to be approved in 2009-10 and 2010-11. He supported M . owler's concerns regarding Council Member Settle's residence. Council Member Settle reiterated that his residence is in the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEALS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC.55-07). Associate Planner Corey, and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum made the staff presentation. They and Community Development Director Mandeville responded to Council's questions. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. 1 Appellant Brett Cross, San Luis Obispo, Chairpersons for Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, summarized his appeal which included concerns related to the AtiuOhment 11 City Council Meeting Page 10 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 proposed height, setback and parking for the project. He suggested that the loft , spaces be removed and the height reduced to no more than 25 feet, which will help resolve parking concerns. He had concerns that the project does not conform to the character of the neighborhood. He also suggested that the units have a 15- foot street yard setback. Appellant Keith Evans, San Luis Obispo, reiterated concerns and requested the same modifications raised by Mr. Cross. He displayed and distributed an overlay depicting the size of the proposed project as well as photographs depicting existing conditions in the Foothill view corridor. He suggested that both the roofing material and architecture should conform to existing dwelling in the neighborhood. Appellant Steve Hilstein, San Luis Obispo, concurred with comments by Mr. Cross and Mr. Evans. He also opposed the presence of buses in the neighborhood. He said, however, his biggest concern related to commercial loading. He was also concerned about the removal of the euctalyptus trees. Apoellant Stefanie Hilstein, San Luis Obispo, also expressed concern regarding a commercial loading zone. Applicant Thom Braikovich, project architect and representative for the applicant, provided an overview of the project. He discussed the efforts that were made to design a project that would work with the constraints of the property and would not , require variances. He also discussed the ways in which the project will enhance the neighborhood. He distributed photographs of the proposed project, including solar studies. Mr. Braikovich and staff responded to questions. Dianna Schmiett, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the staff recommendation. She discussed the attempts being made to resolve neighborhood concerns regarding the need to relocate the transit route. Christine Marchant, San Luis Obispo, also spoke in support of the staff recommendation. She was also concerned with the number of buses traveling through the neighborhood. Naoma Wright, San Luis Obispo, did not object to the probject, but concurred with Mr. Cross that issues related to height, as well as other concems, need to be addressed. She questioned whether the issue of trash receptacles had been adequately addressed. Grant Robbins, San Luis Obispo, said he had purchased one of the commercial/retail spaces and spoke in support of the proposed project. Shawn Reed, San Luis Obispo, also spoke in support of the proposed project. ' ��fa-so ^� Attache merit 11 City Council Meeting Page 11 Tuesday, April 15, 2008 Linden Nelson, San Luis Obispo, supported the recommendation that staff continue working with the project applicant to propose improvements to the conmer of Foothill Road and Tassajara. His concerns related to safety issues that result from the number of buses currently traveling down Ramona. Betsy Schwartz, San Luis Obispo, concurred with Mr. Nelson's comments related to the buses traveling down Ramona. Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.. Council discussion ensued during which staff responded to questions. Council Members expressed concern regarding the number of buses traveling through the residential area, the proposed project height, potential parking issues, the potential use of lofts as extra bedrooms, the project's non-compliance with the Special Considerations Overlay, and the setback. They concurred that the project should be denied without prejudice and that new application fees will not be required when a revised project is submitted. [ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Settle to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 99.73 (2008es), upholding the appeals and denying the project without prejudice. 2)ct staff to continue working with the project applicant and return to Council as of the FY 2008009 Financial Plan with City financial participation to improvecomer of Foothill Road[Tassajara. Council also requested that the project beified to eliminate the lofts, to increase the setback along Foothill Boulevard toeet, and to comply with the 25-foot height limitation for R-1 districts (5:0). Council concurred that staff should investiate the regulations related to lofts and return with a recommendation particularly related to parking requirements. uncil recessed at 9:25 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. with all mfthars resent. 4. REVI USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A FRATERNITY ENVIRON L REVIEW AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE T NGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROJECT SITE AND THREE SU NDING PROPERTIES FROM MEDIUM- HIGH DENSITY RESIDEN -3 TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-41. 1292 FOOTHILL ER/GP/ -05 . Associate Planner Leveille made the staff presentatio . Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. 1 �l4a-S/ . ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 106-08) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on December 1, 2008, approved a mixed-use project with four dwellings and 1,494 square feet of commercial floor area in the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, Steve & Stephanie Hilstein filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on December 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 17, 2009, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. With approval of Administrative Use Permit A 55-07, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the new mixed-use building and associated site improvements conform to all Zoning Regulation requirements. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that encourage mixed-use projects in commercial districts and accommodate affordable housing production and variety. 3. The project's mixed uses are compatible with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other because all of the uses allowed or conditionally allowed in the C-N zone were chosen to insure on-going compatibility between commercial and residential uses. 4. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site because the project includes residential units that are affordable by design and allow people to live near work places and services. R rp a -s� Ai ACHMENT 19.- Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 5. The commercial component of the project (1,494 square feet) will serve the daily needs of nearby residents while the residential component (four apartment units) will establish a residential character for the property. 6. As conditioned, the proposed colors, materials and architectural details of the building are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and Community Design Guidelines. 7. The project is exempt from environmental review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby approving a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd., subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions: 1. The applicant shall construct the project so as to substantially conform to plans dated October 23, 2008. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or ARC, as deemed appropriate. 2. The following noise mitigation included in the City's Noise Guidebook shall be incorporated into project plans submitted for a building permit application to ensure that noise impacts to residential uses are reduced to a less than significant level: a. Provide air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system, so windows and doors may remain closed. b. Mount windows and sliding glass doors in low air infiltration rate frames (0.5 cfrn or less,per ANSI specifications). c. Provide solid-core exterior doors with perimeter weather stripping and threshold seals. d. Cover exterior walls with stucco or brick veneer, or wood siding over %2" minimum thickness fiberboard ("soundboard"). e. Keep glass area in windows and doors below 20% of the floor area of the room. f. Provide baffles for roof or attic vents facing the noise source. 09ki -53 ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 3 3. All roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened within the architectural design of the building. With the submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on or within the roof forms to confirm that roof features will provide adequate screening. 4. As shown on Sheet A1.0 of project plans, the backflow prevention device and fire riser shall be located within the building. The final location of the device shall be as shown on approved construction drawings consistent with architectural review conditions and shall not be adjusted in the field without approval of the Utilities Division and the Community Development Department. 5. Specific proposals for signage shall be to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations, and is in keeping with the architectural style of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 6. The applicant shall prepare and submit an easement document dedicating a 25-foot radius at the intersection of Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive to accommodate the relocation of the traffic signal and traffic signal control box by the City. The curb ramp shall be replaced in compliance with current City and ADA standards. A minimum 4' landing shall be provided at the top of the ramp. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive City approval of a dimensioned detail of the project corner at Foothill/Tassajara with a 25 foot radius to the approval of the Public Works Director and submit a copy of the recorded easement. The detail shall include the design (including station markings and power pole relocation) and offer of dedication for additional right of way necessary to allow modifications to the intersection to improve the handicap access and corner radius for turning vehicles. 7. The proposed short-term bicycle parking along the Foothill Blvd. and South Tassajara Drive frontages shall be situated to accommodate bicycles without encroaching into the public right-of-way. The minimum dimensions for each bicycle space shall measure 2x6 feet. Plans submitted for a building permit shall indicate compliance with this requirement. Details of the short-term bicycle parking shall be provided on the project's construction plans including rack design, location, clearances and circulation for users in compliance with manufacturers' standards. 8. The building plan submittal shall include a tree preservation plan for the existing 4-inch Oak tree to remain. The plan shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to building, demolition, and/or grading permit issuance. �H� -5 aResoATTACHMENT /6"z- Resolution lution No. (2009 Series) Page 4 9. The applicant shall modify the roof forms and architectural details of the building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood to the approval of the Community Development Director. To accomplish this, the ARC suggested that the introduction of wood or wood-like products be used in selected areas of the building. 10. Explore the possibility of accommodating additional tree planting in the parking lot area near the south property line by the use of bulbed-out curbs to create expanded planters. 11. If determined to be consistent with the current Building Code, explore the possibility of allowing proposed decks to cantilever into the side yard along the west property line. 12. Unit 2's demising wall separating the kitchen from the dinning area shall be reduced in length by 1-foot 6-inches, which increases the open wall area with the adjoining room from 35% to 50%. Code Requirements: 1. The cantilevered deck sections along the westerly property line must be removed from the exterior exit balcony. There are no provisions in the CBC to allow a projection less than 10 feet from a property line for an exterior exit balcony. CBC 1024.3. 2. The water meter configuration shown on Sheet C-3.2 does not comply with City Standard 6210, which requires each water service lateral to connect to the center of the corresponding meter manifold. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: f Ai aACHMENT 1 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 5 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17`h day of February 2009. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. Lowell City Attorney PN -6Z; ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. (2009 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 399 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (ARC 106-08) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission, on December 1, 2008, approved a mixed-use project with four dwellings and 1,494 square feet of commercial floor area in the Neighborhood Commercial zone; and WHEREAS, Steve & Stephanie Hilstein filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action on December 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 17, 2009, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Architectural Review Commission hearing and action, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Action. The City Council does hereby uphold the appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's action, thereby denying a mixed-use project at 399 Foothill Blvd. (Application No. ARC 106-08). Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: R ATTACHMENT 13 Resolution No. (2009 Series) Page 2 The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 17`h day of February 2009. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney .I Filing Fee: $100.00 Paid Date Received Of N/A 2 l It / 02 city t REFER TO SECTION 4 it � Asan lues oBlspo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION1 S� �Ys` �c �TC�a✓��� �t� Sti✓� S. (azs0. QfA �r �lQ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code q X40 5 4 3'6`125 Phone Fax Representativ s Nanie Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: nfChi�lcTw.re�.� �¢VIQ"J COh.ri.'S�o�. (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: SS-—0�7 yb � 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: on (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this,matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: �O - G..l Lo.�•-. 1. SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your ;appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages; if necessary. This form continues on the other side. RECEIVED DEC 12 2006 Page 1 of 3 SLO CITY CLERk Reason for Appeal continued I &20-k PJ�o�-c� Lam/✓' 1�1 ti4 -N SL z o'6) oh _ LO✓ h Q�' ; D�V'�( o�-I-1G,1 #� C��Fi� ►'WNL becjroc�^,s i n �s1Gt�l 00- 1"jJ Jo Caen L'X3I��O`��- Q�OtiCLI ��'1G r S L&M 4\e Q0%AVAV-7 mai-. t 4 -S=4 re k4 S fle4se- f CW cid- �(� t!, SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$1100% which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted; that action'is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for1 -7 DU 9 c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson — Q ZO dY Ci%Cler',(original) T— i C[`t�L ; D. UIJLl/c✓Sm.r Page 2 of 3 8/03 Department of Community .AVelO ment City of San Luis Obispo � p 919 Palm Street Planning Application San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7172 Project Address 399 FOOTHILL Parcel# 052-151-024 Project Title Legal Description CY SLO TR 11 PTN LT 4 Zoning 1 C-N-S Zoning 2 Property Owner LOPEZ DAVID A&ANDREA E In Care Of Owner Address 928 GOLDENROD SLO CA 93401-7840 Applicant Name DAVID LOPEZ Day Phone( ) _ Address 928 GOLDENROD SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Representative THOM BRAJKOVICH Day Phone(805)541-9486 Address 1009 MORRO STREET,SUITE 202 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 Appellant#1 RON(Brett Cross) Day Phone(805)234-1570 Address 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Appellant#2 Keith&Maroaret Evans Day Phone(805)541-8625 Address 375 Foothill Boulevard San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Send correspondence to Representative;Appellant#1;Appellant#2 SPECIAL INFORMATION Plan fine(setback) Easements Application made pursuant to Chapter/Section of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Planning Services Summary Application# Type of Application Received Fee ARC 55-07 Review of a mixed-use project in the C-N-S 4/6/2007 $2,437 zone,including 1,532 s.f.of commmercial space and 4 residential units. A 55-07 Request to allow a mixed-use project in the 4/17/2007 $732 C-N-S zone and 10%shared parking p reduction. I f1l Ar—cc 55-07 Appeal of ARC's final approval on December 12/11/2008 $100 =7 C C 1st(Hilstein) J AP-CC 55-07 Appeal of ARC's final approval(Brett Cross for 3/12/2008 $100 F{1ofN a[ Pyr RON) P�til�snf {e Lwa'f 2ND 55-07 Appeal of ARC's final approval(Evans) 3/12/2008 $100 Total fees $3,469 Received By JAIME HILL Fee Paid by Applicant (3169) Appellant#1 ( 100Appellant#2 ( 200) Assigned planner TYLER COREY Hearings ARC Arch.Review Commission 6/18/2007 A Admin.Hearing 7/6/2007 A Admin.Hearing 2/15/2008 ARC Arch.Review Commission 3/3/2008 ,��rv-) Page 1 of 1 Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 1:08 PM To: Ricci, Pam Cc: Davidson, Doug; Corey, Tyler; Chippendale, Sue; Mandeville, John Subject: RE: Appeal of ARC's approval of 399 Foothill (ARC 106-08) Hi Pam, Mr. Hilstein called me back and has verbally agreed to have the appeal heard past the 45 day limit(Feb 3). He informed me that he had a change of plans and will not be out of the area Jan. 14-Feb 3. I will send him the written agreement as soon as I hear back from you whether this is a go or not. Elaina From: Ricci, Pam Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:32 PM To: Chippendale, Sue; Cano, Elaina Cc: Davidson, Doug; Corey, Tyler Subject: Appeal of ARC's approval of 399 Foothill (ARC 106-08) Hi, Could one of you send me the appeal that was filed of this project approval on Thursday afternoon? Thanks. Pam Pamela Ricci, AICP Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)781-7168 pricdI@slocity.org 12/16/2008 Aly February 17, 2009 / C a�/j 7 /Cj Appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's Approval of 399 Foothill Blvd. (ARC 106-8) Dec. 1, 2008 Steve and Stefanie Hilstein 19 S.Tassajara Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Outline- Council's directions on April 15, 2008 Changes to the commercial area Parking Removal of trees 0 0 _Ix '�I. a o o Bo o ° ` , 0 ' eo o .. t� o ��od ° a , dff - ° N� p ° '�.� t .f (�u oa ,P, 400 G o - �L �is)'�, O e %�5�0 A .yg e, x v0a �p,4 6 �S® 00 00 0 Fp Pictured above -Three of the four trees to be removed at 399 Foothill Blvd., San Luis Obispo February 17, 2009 Re:399 Foothill Blvd. Council's Direction April 15, 2008 1. Eliminate the third level lofts. 2. Increase the building setback along Foothill Blvd. to 15 feet. 3. Lower the building height to 25 feet consistent with the height requirement for the R-1 Zone Changes to the Commercial Area In addition to complying with Council's directions,the plan for the commercial area now shows "Potential Wall Partitions"and storage areas to accommodate up to three businesses. (Then and now floor plans attached) Parking One space for every 300 square feet of commercial. This formula may work with one business of 1500 square feet in this situation but three businesses would each need a parking space for their operating personnel, leaving only two spaces open for patrons and no additional employee parking. There is currently no street parking on the Foothill Blvd. side of the property.After the comer radius is modified for the busses there will probably be no on street parking on the S. Tassajara side of the property as well. Employees,patrons and residents of 399 Foothill will be filling the few spaces available on Tassajara Drive. Removal of Trees There are four large Eucalyptus trees on the southern property line which Mr. Lopez would like to remove. On January 22, 2007 the City of San Luis Obispo Tree Committee denied his request to remove all four trees.They approved the removal of the trees on both corners of the property line while leaving the two largest trees intact. (Tree Committee Minutes attached) The Staff Analysis from March 3, 2008 states: To minimize the impacts on adjacent residential properties to the south and west, the applicant has incorporated extensive landscaping along the perimeter of the site that will partially screen the building and increase privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project. The trees that are already there accomplish that goal for the south side. Mr. Lopez stated in his tree removal application that he is designing a new building and would like to plant all new trees that will fit in with the new design. They have continually referred to our neighborhood as eclectic, therefore there is no need to plant all new trees to fit in. Thank you for this opportunity. Steve and Stefanie Hilstein ,`- a .. • � . �. r :_`,off; - •�� ,'� 0 14 ci: b '''• I � d to LaJ U6U i I rr� 1 I In�� b� i Nia1ina�- NMeao yNo�EAVd VyerdsSVL11 Attachment 2 lit B F1 fill ( a •� I / I � , cel %" � j�' •� / / ( m / N ( tl CL cc C= IL I �•: EEE � I I N �. 'SII i� I•A 11 � I ra,l ;6,1', i' § I -------------- ----------- 1 PNS- 9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TREE COMMITTEE CORPORATION YARD MONDAY,JANUARY 22, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Lopes, Don Dollar, Ben Parker, and Sara Young STAFF PRESENT. Ron Combs, Keith Pellemeier, and Barbara Lynch TREE REMOVALS 399 FOOTHILL Mr. Lopez, the applicant, was present. He stated that the eucalyptus trees are large and uplifting the ground. There's a storm drain that runs through the property and he's concerned that the trees will eventually damage the drain. He is designing a new building and would like to plant all new trees that will fit in with the new design. Mr. Dollar asked where he was in the building process. Mr. Lopez said that the plans will go the ARC either the end of January or in February. There has been no building application submitted at this time. Mr. Combs stated that he did see parking lot and driveway displacement but says the trees appear to be healthy. Mr. Dollar approves removal of tree#4,but would like to see the others remain. Mr. Lopes stated that the 2 middle trees are healthy but haven't been maintained. They are very prominent skyline trees and believe the corner tree (#3 on the map) could be a problem. He feels the#3 tree should be removed as well as the#4 Silver Dollar one under the power lines because it prevents the 2nd tree from filling out. Ms. Young stated that they were the largest trees on the block. Mr. Parker moved to approve trees#3 &4 based on good arboricultural practices and denied removal of trees#1 & 2 because he could not make the findings necessary to approve removal. Mr. Dollar seconded it. No replacement trees are required at this time because those would be addressed through the ARC. The motion passed unanimously. I To: San Luis Obispo Mayor Dave Romero and City Council From: Jan Howell Marx, Council Member Date: 2/17/09 CITY USE OF BOTTLED WATER The city's use of bottled water creates a number of problems in these troubled economic and environmental times, which could be resolved by banning its use in city offices. I. Environment.Plastic water bottles are bad for the environment. Even with recycling, many end up in the landfill or ocean. See the attached article 2. Cost. Bottled water costs about $9 a gallon. City water costs far less. 3. Quality. Our own tap water is excellent quality, and providing it is an essential city service of which we can be proud. 4. Viable Alternative, Pitchers and paper cups are an easy alternative. At the regional meetings which I have attended, including the APCD, IMWA and SLOCOG, we were provided with paper cups and pitchers of city tap water. 5. Backsliding. In 2007, Council switched to reusable plastic bottles, but no longer follows this practice. (see attached 8/16/07 memo). We need to . assert leadership by moving-forward environmentally,and not backsliding. 6. Better Example. The city is undertaking an engaging public relations campaign against the use of bottled water for environmental and water . conservation reasons. (See advertisement). But, during our city council meetings, commission meetings and advisory body interviews,there is always bottled water. If meetings are televised,the bottles are clearly visible on the air. We would be setting a bad example to the public if council chooses to favor something expensive and environmentally damaging over something cheap and "home brewed," like our own tap water. Council needs to set a better example. El'tno CDP% &MAI/L- i; 7,'CCUNCIL 2TDD DIR F:ED FILE r�e�,e uric IA6a 2--FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA E1 AGA6CTFIRE CHIEF ./ E1-ATTORNEY [f-PW DIR DAT 11I T E111 '-CQM1 EI'CLERK/ORIG 11-POLICE CHF ❑ DEeT HEADS i-REC DIR PTIL DIR 1-Ifs r)in � AJL-,<JTlnv�_ �Botc�e�L C LC-72!_ ung A •COUNCIL MEMORANDUM August 16,2007 To: Mayor Dave Romero and City Council From: John Moss,Utilities Dire±strativ:e Via: Ken Hampian, City A Officer Subject: Bottled Water Use in San Luis Obispo Background During our budget hearings,Vice Mayor Mulholland raised the issue of bottled water use in the City organization and provided an article on the negative impacts of bottled water.in terms of energy use for its production and transportation, and waste generated by the bottles themselves. Staff was at that time asked to evaluate the City organization's use of bottled water.and what if any policy and/or procedural modifications would be appropriate. Shortly after Council's direction,there seemed to be an awakening in the country to the cost and negative issues associated with the seemingly run-away use of bottled water. Its use had become ubiquitous in our society and more and more agencies,as well as the public at large,were questioning the appropriateness of its use. We are a society that is accustomed to and embraces convenience,_and what could be more convenient than pre-packaged,take anywhere bottled drinking water? For some agencies such as the City of San Francisco(which,ironically,has some of the purist tap water in the world),the use of bottled had become so pervasive that . individual departments were buying.the bottled for their staff to drink, spending literally millions of dollars per year on bottled water. J*aff Review of City Bottled Water Use With Council's direction, staff began an analysis of our use of bottled water and what options and general policies may be appropriate regarding its use. It was discovered that while bottled was being provided as a convenient source of drinking water for use in public meeting situations and at City fimctions,no departments were buying and providing bottled water to their staff for everyday drinking water purposes. We.then investigated if there were any"real"water quality issues that would discourage drinking our City's tap water. Two different taste tests were conducted at a Department Head meeting and the results showed that while some of the testers could tell the difference between high priced bottled water and our City tap water,some could not,and more importantly,none identified an objectionable quality to our drinking water. In evaluating the water available for drinking at our City facilities we found that most City facilities are equipped with drinking fountains and all City buildings such as City Hall, 919 Palm, the Ludwig Center,Parks and Recreation Office, and the City Corporation Yard, are equipped Council Memorandum Page 2 of 2 with water filtration systems for the drinking water. These filtration systems will remove any objectionable chlorine taste as well as other mineral tastes from our drinking water. It seemed that our problems in regard to the use and abuse of bottled water were minimal as compared to those other agencies we were reading about, and more in the realm of"perception" —but there remained room for improvement. Therefore,our focus turned to increasing awareness amongour employees of the issues associated with bottled water and what available options should be considered before reaching into the fridge for that bottle, or buying that case of water. Improvements in the City Organization First and foremost, Council and staff have switched to alternative reusable plastic water bottles during Council meetings,thus reducing significantly the"perception problem." In addition, several.discussions have ensued,Ken has written a couple of articles in the SLOWhat to heighten awareness,and Administration and Council will be distributing quality reusable water bottles with an important message about environmental awareness and leadership as their annual employee appreciation gift. At this point, staff feels good about the message that has been sent and the responsiveness of the City organization to this important issue. We were pleased to discover that our use of bottled _water had not become the unreasonable problem,that had been found in other agencies. Leaving Some Room for Convenience To keep the message'positive and avoid cynicism, staff feels that we should leave some room in our practices for practical considerations. For example, thereare occasions such as the Advisory Body Recogniiion Dinner, the Mayor's Quarterly Advisory Body Lunches,some large training sessions and the City picnic,where bottled water is appropriate because of reasonable convenience or health concerns. However,when bottled water is provided we will ensure that appropriate and well marked recycling containers are provided,too. Conclusion We hope the follow-up described in this memorandum strikes the right balance in setting a proper example for employees and the community—but without creating unreasonable inconvenience for certain events. We would like to thank the Council for your leadership in bringing this issue forward. It is sometimes these seemingly small things that make a big difference in how our organization is perceived and how we as employees feel about our organization. It is also these small things that we can do as individuals that will make big improvements to our impact on the environment. If Council would like additional follow through on this particular matter please feel free to call me at x205. ,1 The Compelling Costs of Bottled Water Price Point Too High for Environment and Individuals Posted: 06-06-2008 Americans are appalled at the rising cost of gasoline that topped$4 a gallon in May. Yet,we think nothing of paying$9 a gallon for bottled water To make the comparison even more perplexing consider that gasoline, for most people, is essential to everyday living while bottled water is optional, usually unnecessary and generally troublesome for an already troubled environment. Turn on the Tap According to the Think Outside the Bottle campaign,Americans are the world's top consumers of bottled water while, ironically, the U.S. has one of the safest public water systems on the planet. So,why did the bottled water craze take the nation by storm? Some experts say it began as small status symbol, mimicking the bottled waters popular in France and Italy. But,as the sources of water changed and companies such as Coca Cola and Nestle entered the game, bottled water spilled over from simply posh to popular. Too popular,according to nonprofit groups and environmental organizations. Americans spend a combined $11.7 billion annually on bottled water. The Container Recycling Institute(CRI) estimates that every person in the U.S.tosses 160 plastic bottles in the trash each year-or 8 out of every 10 bottles purchased. Given the preciousness of oil in the current economic climate, it's also important to note that CRI says it takes 15 million barrels of oil per yearto make plastic bottles for America's bottled water addiction. The Cost of Convenience The convenience of bottled water has certainly added to its popularity. Think of Little League games,public events, road trips and that handy bottle at your desk. But now,as people become more aware of the environmental downsides of plastic containers and the questionable value of bottled water compared to tap water or filtered tap water,the tide may be turning. A number of cities have ceased the once.popular practice of providing bottled water for employees. In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom observed World Water Day in 2007 by canceling all the city's bottled water contracts. Chicago and Salt Lake City followed suit.The popular Austin City Limits Music Festival stopped providing bottled water to its legion of volunteers and rewarded patrons who recycled bottles with a special T-shirt. The world renown Chez Panisse in Berkeley calculated the carbon footprint of the bottles of sparkling water it imported from Italy and removed the bubbly from the menu. And, in Canada,a movement is sweeping the land. Students in colleges and high schools are protesting contracts with Coca-Cola and Pepsi for their bottled waters. The students are lapping up free, fresh water from school drinking fountains instead. Questions of Quality As bottled waters attract increased scrutiny, public water systems are measured against them for both cost and water quality. The cost factor is extremely compelling. A bottle of water costs a dollar and often more,depending upon the brand.Water from the tap costs about$0.00002 per ounce. If a city's tap water is unpalatable due to chlorine treatment or other sanitizing chemicals, even the addition of a water filter to a faucet gets gallons of water for pennies a day. Water quality is also variable in both bottled waters and public water supplies.According to the EPA,bottled water is not necessarily safer than water that flows from the tap. In fact, some bottled water is no more than treated (or untreated)tap water. Consumers are advised to read the label on bottled waters to learn the source and the method of treatment. More in-depth questions have to be addressed to the manufacturer. In contrast, specific information about public water systems,water quality and treatment are publicly available on the EPA's website. The Environmental Working Group also has a tap water database where people can look up water quality and content by zip code. Well Into the Future But,the most compelling concern about water in plastic bottles is environmental. The Container Recycling institute says the amount of polyethylene terephthalate(PET) plastic bottles being recycled reached 1,170 million pounds in 2005 while the amount of PET bottles ending up in landfills reached 3,900 million pounds.That number includes some other beverages in PET containers but the institute says water bottles are the biggest problem. Many states offer no redemption incentives on water bottles and the plain, usually sugarless drink is just so popular. Plastic water bottles in landfills do not rest in peace. They drift or are blown into other areas such as the Pacific Ocean where, according to CRI,they form a messy,toxic mass that is twice the size of Texas. It takes about 1,000 years for a plastic bottle to degrade into tiny pieces that,to fish and birds, often look like food. There is also increasing evidence that PET bottles and other plastic bottles may be a threat to human health. Consumer Choice So,what is a water-lover to do?First,the EPA and other experts advise giving your tap water try..Some municipal systems, such as the one serving San Francisco,pour forth with crystal clear water from the High Sierra.Other communities, where there is heavy agricultural or industrial activity, may not be so fortunate. When contaminants and lead might be present,public systems use a variety of techniques to make drinking water safe.They are regulated by the EPA and frequent testing is federally mandated.That is to say the tap water is safe,but may not be taste. tempting. There are many effective filtering products on the market from faucet mounted filters to pitchers and filtered water dispensers. These devices remove contaminants and pollutants while improving the taste of water.They are quite affordable and provide families with assurance about the quality of water they use for drinking and cooking. Once the source issue is solved, people will still want the convenience of portability. There is an increasing marketplace of containers for water, from personal water bottles made of reusable aluminum, stainless steel,ceramic and traditional glass. As awareness of the health dangers and environmental downside of plastic bottles spreads,a market-driven demand will result in even more choices for people who want fresh water at their side,wherever they may roam.