HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2015 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
May 13, 2015 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 8, 2015. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
1. 598 Princeton Place. APPL-0978-2015: An appeal of a Code violation of MC
17.17.055 Front Yard Parking; R-1 zone; Aaron Katherine/Gambucci Joseph
ETUX, appellants. (Kyle Bell)
2. 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue. USE-0916-2015: Review of a mixed-use project
with 69 multi-family units and 3,000 square feet of retail space, and a mixed-use
parking reduction, with a categorical exemption from CEQA; Covelop
Management, Inc., applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
3. City-wide. GENP-1267-2015; Review of General Plan Conformity Report, Capital
Improvement Program proposed as part of 2015-2017 Financial Plan; City of San
Luis Obispo – Community Development Department, applicant. (Kim Murry)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
5. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planners: Kyle Bell, Phil Dunsmore, and Kim Murry
Meeting Date: May 13, 2015
Item Number: 1
2X
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny the use of parking in the front yard.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 598 Princeton Place BY: Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: 781-7524
e-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: APPL-0978-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and
supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the citation.
SITE DATA
Appellant Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, Resident
Zoning R-1, Low-Density Residential
Submittal Date January 9, 2015
General Plan Low-Density Residential
Site Area ~18,060 Square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under
Section 15270, projects which a
public agency rejects or
disapproves.
SUMMARY
City staff received a complaint regarding a vehicle (boat) parked within the front yard at 598 Princeton
Place. An inspection of the property was conducted, and Code Enforcement staff documented the code
violations. The property owner received a Notice to Correct Violations for parking vehicles in the
front yard outside the driveway. The enforcement action regarding the vehicle parking was appealed
by Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci the property owner and resident of 598 Princeton Place.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to determine if parking a vehicle (boat) in the front yard outside the
driveway is consistent with the Zoning Regulations.
PC1 - 1
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Princeton Place off of Highland
Drive west of Highway 1 in San Luis Obispo. The immediate neighborhood consists of single-
family homes in close proximity to the Mission-Nativity Pre School to the west of the subject
property. According to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office, the three bedroom residence
was constructed on the subject property in 1958. Please see Attachment 2 for a Vicinity Map.
Site Size ~18,060 SF
Present Use & Development Single-family residence
Access Princeton Place
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-family residences)
South: R-1 (Single-family residences)
East: R-1 (Single-family residences)
West: R-1 (Single-family residences)
2.2 Background
May 11, 2014
Staff received a complaint regarding parking in the front yard and inspected the property at 598
Princeton Place and noted that a boat was parked in the front yard outside of the driveway, which
violated San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking.
May 12, 2014
A notice to correct was sent to the owner of 598 Princeton Place on May 12, 2014 to voluntarily
correct the code violation by May 22, 2014.
May 22, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated that the driveway was constructed between 1990 and 1991, 19 years prior to the
adoption of Section 17.17.055. The appeal stated that the space used to park the vehicle (boat) is a
legal nonconforming front yard parking space under Section 17.17.055 E.
June 19, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner that denied the appeal and
upheld the notice to correct. The notice of Director’s decision stated that the regulations in Section
17.17.055 are intended to preserve the residential character of streetscapes in the City’s
neighborhoods. Vehicle parking is permitted on driveways leading to garage parking, or other
approved off-street parking spaces, vehicles may not be parked on pavement or other surfacing
which has been added outside the driveway area and within the street yard as defined by SLOMC
17.16.020. “Legal non-conforming front yard parking” only applies in cases where permits were
previously granted to allow parking in the front yard area per SLOMC 17.17.055 E.
PC1 - 2
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 3
December 4, 2014
On December 4, 2014, an inspection was conducted to determine compliance with the Directors
decision. During the inspection a citation was issued to 598 Princeton Place for parking a vehicle
(boat) in the front yard for a fine of $50.
December 11, 2014
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal stated the same description of the first appeal on May 22, 2014.
December 15, 2014
A notice of the Director’s decision was sent that denied the appeal and upheld the citation. The
notice of the Director’s decision restated the same findings found for the notice of the Director’s
decision on June 19, 2014, that also stated that there are no permits on file for 598 Princeton Place,
which address the paved area next to the driveway.
January 9, 2015
Property owner hand - delivered the appeal to the Community Development Department. The
appeal is described in Section 2.3 below.
2.3 Appeal
The appellant’s letter (Attachment 10) refutes the applicability of violation 17.17.055 Front Yard
Parking to the property at 598 Princeton Place stating that the vehicle parking on the side of the
driveway conforms to SLOMC 17.17.55 E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking in that the
pavement for the surface parking has been constructed in conformance with Section 17.16.020 D.7
Parking in the Other yards, prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, and that such parking shall
be considered a legal non-conforming use, and may continue. The appellant’s letter also address
the comment made in the Director’s Decision which stated; “There are no permits on file for 598
Princeton, which address the paved area next to the driveway.” The appeal letter states that at the
time of construction, a permit was not required to modify the front parking area at 598 Princeton
Place, and that the denial of the appeal to continue to park in the driveway has created an “ex post
facto” violation of the law.
3.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
3.1 Consistency with Zoning Regulations
The appellant’s use of the parking space for the boat at 598 Princeton Place is inconsistent with the
City’s Municipal Code. Section 17.17.055.E (Front Yard Parking) of the Municipal Code states the
following:
Section 17.17.055.E Legal Non-conforming Front Yard Parking: In cases where permits
have been granted prior to allow parking in the front yard area that is not in conformance with
Section 17.17.055.B.; Or, in cases where pavement surfacing has been constructed to provide
parking in conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 (parking in “other yards”) prior to the
adoption of section 17.17.055, such parking shall be considered a legal non-conforming use,
PC1 - 3
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 4
and may continue. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside the driveway
area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a driveway per
section 17.17.055.B. and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.
Section 17.17.055.E allows the flexibility for permitted parking spaces out of conformance with
this section to be established as legal non-conforming, or when parking spaces were designed in
conformance with Section 17.16.020.D.7 prior to the adoption of section 17.17.055, may also be
established as legal non-conforming. The property at 598 Princeton Place does not have any
building permits on record to establish the pavement surface as a parking space. The expansion of
the driveway is inconsistent with the Section 17.16.020.D.7 which states:
Section 17.16.020.D.7 Vehicle Parking: Vehicle parking in front yard areas of residential
properties shall conform to section 17.17.055 of this code. No person shall stop, park, or leave
standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, within any street yard or upon any
unpaved surface as defined in Sections 12.38.040 and 17.16.020 of this code.
As stated in Section 17.17.055.E “Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added outside
the driveway area to access such parking in “other yards” does not meet the definition of a
driveway... and shall not be deemed a non-conforming use.” The paved surface does not meet the
definition of a driveway, and does not meet the parking dimensions of a parking space established
prior to 1977 as 9 feet by 18 feet.
Parking and Driveway Regulations Section 9200.16 of the Zoning Regulations from 1979 states;
Section 9200.16.1.A.2.c Location and Number of Spaces for Parking Lots: No portion of any
parking space or aisle, except driveways for ingress and egress, shall be permitted in a
required street-yard area.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 reiterates that vehicles are only allowed to be parked within the driveway
width as established in the City’s Parking and Driveway Standards.
Section 17.17.055.B.2 Allowed Front Yard Parking: Vehicles may only be parked in areas
within the driveway width established to serve approved parking spaces as defined in City
Parking and Driveway Standards. Vehicle parking on pavement or other surfacing added
outside the driveway area does not meet the definition of a driveway. (See figure 9.7b, below
for examples of allowed front yard parking). Vehicles shall be parked completely within the
driveway surface with all tires completely on the driveway surface.
Parking and Driveway Standards define a driveway as the same width of the curb opening and
must be within the width limitation noted on Engineering Standard #2120.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The use of the vehicle parking space on the side of the driveway is out of compliance with Section
17.17.055 and section 17.16.020 because the paved area that is being used for parking was not
permitted or designed for a vehicle to be parked on, and does not qualify for non-conforming
PC1 - 4
APPL-0978-2015
598 Princeton Place
Page 5
parking because the paved area does not meet the definition of a driveway. These regulations have
been consistent since the Zoning Regulations of 1979 that prohibits parking within the street yard
except for driveways that are used for ingress and egress from designated parking spaces. In order
to maintain consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, staff recommends the Planning
Commission uphold the citation and prohibit use of the vehicle parking within the street yard.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant the appeal based on different or modified findings.
2. Continue the action and request that staff and/or the appellant provide more information.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Site Photos
4. Notice to Correct (May 12, 2014)
5. Appeal (May 22, 2014)
6. Directors Decision (June 19, 2014)
7. Citation (December 4, 2014)
8. Appeal (December 11, 2014)
9. Directors Decision (December 15, 2014)
10. Appeal letter from Katherine Aaron and Joseph Gambucci (January 9, 2015)
PC1 - 5
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC- XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPEAL FOR USE OF VEHICLE PARKING IN THE FRONT YARD AS
REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 13, 2015 (598 PRINCETON PLACE APPL-0978-2015)
WHEREAS, a citation was issued on December 4, 2014 for parking a vehicle in the front
yard outside of the driveway.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the citation was hand delivered to the Community Development
Department on December 11, 2014.
WHEREAS, a notice of the Director’s decision was sent to the property owner on December
15, 2014 that denied the appeal and upheld the violation.
WHEREAS, an appeal to the Director’s decision was hand delivered to the Community
Development Department on January 9, 2015.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May
13, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under APPL-0978-2015, Katherine Aaron and Joseph
Gambucci, appellants.
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The expansion of parking in front yard areas off driveways, interferes with the pattern of
building masses and open areas within neighborhoods, creates vehicle clutter, and results in
excessive vehicle parking, which has the effect of creating small parking lots in front yard areas
which are intended to remain as open areas within neighborhoods.
2. The use of the vehicle parking in the front yard does not comply with the City’s Municipal
Code, Section 17.16.020. This section states that the use of vehicle parking in the street yard is
prohibited that does not comply with Section 17.17.055.
3. The use of vehicle parking in the front yard does not qualify as legal non-conforming under the
City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.17.055.E, because there are no permits on record that
recognize a parking space at this location, and the paved area on the side of the driveway does
PC1 - 6
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-15
APPL-0978-2015 (598 Princeton Place)
Page 2
not meet the parking space requirements.
4. Front yard vehicle parking is only allowed within the driveway width established by the Parking
and Driveway Standards. The paved area outside the driveway does not meet the definition of a
driveway and is out of compliance with the Parking Driveway Standards.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Section 15270, Projects which are disapproved, states
that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny appeal APPL-0978-2015.
On motion by _______, seconded by _______, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 13th day of May, 2015.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
JE
F
F
R
E
Y
HIGHLAND
S
T
A
N
F
O
R
D
DALY
P
R
I
N
C
E
T
O
N
MARLENE
VICINITY MAP File No. 0978-2015598 Princeton ¯
Attachment 2
PC1 - 8
Attachment 3
PC1 - 9
Attachment 4
PC1 - 10
Attachment 4
PC1 - 11
Attachment 4
PC1 - 12
Attachment 5
PC1 - 13
Attachment 5
PC1 - 14
Attachment 5
PC1 - 15
Attachment 5
PC1 - 16
Attachment 5
PC1 - 17
Attachment 5
PC1 - 18
Attachment 5
PC1 - 19
Attachment 5
PC1 - 20
Attachment 5
PC1 - 21
Attachment 5
PC1 - 22
Attachment 5
PC1 - 23
Attachment 5
PC1 - 24
Attachment 6
PC1 - 25
Attachment 6
PC1 - 26
Attachment 7
PC1 - 27
Attachment 8
PC1 - 28
Attachment 8
PC1 - 29
Attachment 8
PC1 - 30
Attachment 8
PC1 - 31
Attachment 9
PC1 - 32
Attachment 9
PC1 - 33
Attachment 10
PC1 - 34
Attachment 10
PC1 - 35
Attachment 10
PC1 - 36
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Continued Review of a mixed-use project with 3,000 square feet of commercial space and 69 residential units, and a parking reduction, located on the east side of Santa Barbara Avenue adjacent to Miner’s Hardware. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7522 E-mail: pdunsmore@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: USE 0916-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Phone Number: 781-7177 E-mail: ddavidson@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution allowing
approval of the mixed-use project and a 15% parking reduction, subject to findings and
conditions.
.
SITE DATA
Applicant Covelop
Representative Steve Rigor, Arris Studios
Zoning C‐S‐H (Service‐Commercial with
the Historical Preservation
overlay)
General Plan
Services and Manufacturing
Site Area 1.62 acres
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt under Class
32, Infill Development, of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on March 11, 2015 and continued the item to
April 22nd (this meeting was subsequently canceled) with specific direction to the applicant to
provide additional information and project amendments. The applicant has revised the plans and
provided the requested additional information. The project description remains unchanged with
69 small residential units, and 3,000 square feet of commercial space. The Cultural Heritage
committee reviewed the project on February 23, 2015 and supported the design of the project
finding it consistent with the Railroad District Plan. This project requires the review of a
Planning Commission Use permit to allow a Mixed-Use project in the C-S zone. The
Architectural Review Commission will review final design plans following approval of the use
permit.
Meeting Date: May 13, 2015
Item Number: 2
PJD
PC2 - 1
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission should focus on the directional items that were provided at the March
11, 2015 hearing. In addition to General Plan consistency, the purpose of the use permit is to
review the project for consistency with MC 17.08.072. This section of the Zoning Code provides
standards for the design of mixed-use projects to ensure compatibility between residential and
commercial land uses. If the Planning Commission approves the use permit, the project will
return to the ARC for a final review of design details and incorporation of code requirements.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The project site is 1.63 acres and is located on Santa Barbara Street between Miner’s Hardware
and SLO Motorsports. The site is paved with asphalt, contains several accessory structures
utilized for storage, and contains a small retail space adjacent to Santa Barbara Street. All
existing structures would be removed for the proposed project. The project site will share access
with Miner’s Hardware at Santa Barbara Street and High Street.
2.2 Project Description
The project is a residential and commercial project consisting of 69 residential dwelling units
with 3,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor adjacent to Santa Barbara Street.
Residential dwellings consist of 43 studio apartments and 26 one-bedroom apartments in a three-
story configuration. Some of the units would be above the retail space at Santa Barbara Street
with the remainder of the units towards the rear of the site surrounding an outdoor courtyard. 90
vehicle parking spaces are provided along with ample long and short-term bicycle parking. A
portion of the project bridges over the parking area, connecting the residential units above the
commercial building to the residential units towards the rear of the site.
2.3 Project Statistics
Statistics
Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard2
Street Yard 15 feet 15 feet
Max. Height of Structure(s) 35 feet 35 feet
Building Coverage (footprint) 32% 75%
Parking Spaces 90 1063
Bicycle Parking 29 16
Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans 2. City Zoning Regulations 3. See parking, section 3.3
PC2 - 2
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 3
Revised project plans: Note entry facing Santa Barbara Street.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project relies on findings for consistency with MC 17.08.072 (Mixed-Use Projects). The
ARC’s future review will rely on the Railroad District Plan architectural guidelines and the
Citywide Community Design Guidelines. The staff report from March 11, 2015 relied primarily
on MC 17.08.072 while this analysis relies primarily on the March 11 Planning Commission
direction (Attachment 6, PC meeting minutes).
The following directional items from the March 11, Planning Commission hearing are followed
by a staff response:
1. Emily street improvements. Identify project frontage improvements that will include
vehicular access and bicycle/pedestrian access. Explore alternative street options for
Emily Street.
Staff/applicant response: The applicant team has worked with City Planning and Public Works
staff to determine an appropriate level of public improvements for Emily Street. The challenges
facing the improvements on this undeveloped right of way include the ongoing storage of items
associated with the railroad museum, the use of the road as a loading facility for the Sears
warehouse, and the fact that adjacent properties do not intend to develop in the near future. As a
solution, the applicant team has proposed two options for improvements to Emily Street. Option
A improves both sides of Emily Street for a portion of the right of way instead of improving just
the portion of road frontage adjacent to the project site. Option B improves the project frontage
of the site in a fashion similar to typical public improvement requirements. Graphics illustrating
both options are shown on the following page.
PC2 - 3
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 4
Emily Street Improvements: Option A
Emily Street Improvements: Option B
City transportation staff suggests the applicant complete option A with some adjustments to
modify sidewalks and add additional tree planters and the extension of the sidewalk northward
on the project side of the road. There is no current provision to extend Emily Street northward
since it would require Railroad right of way acquisition and relocation of all of the storage
associated with the railroad museum. Option A would require that Sears reconfigure their
loading dock, however it would also dramatically improve the intersection of Emily Street and
Roundhouse Street while allowing paved access to The Junction development site. In the future,
transportation staff will be seeking acquisition of right of way in order to connect Emily Street to
PC2 - 4
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 5
the Railroad Museum. City Administration staff are currently in discussion with the railroad
museum to relocate the storage outside of the Emily Street Right of way. The long term plan for
Emily Street will include through access and bicycle/pedestrian access, however it is not logical
to place the responsibility of the railroad right of way acquisition and other City responsibilities
onto the Junction project at this time.
2. On-Site Vehicle parking. Clearly illustrate the proposed parking plan and reduction for
the Junction project and provide a clear plan for the adjacent Miner’s site to ensure they
can be adequately parked.
Staff/applicant response: The applicant has requested a 15% parking reduction. The
project is eligible for up to 20% parking reduction because of the mixture of commercial
and residential uses on the site. The parking reduction will only apply to The Junction
project site and is not associated with the Miner’s store parking requirement. Miner’s is
not willing to support a shared parking arrangement with the Junction. Staff supports the
proposed 15% parking reduction as it is appropriate given the type of residential uses,
mix of commercial and location of the project. Currently, the project site is unofficially
being used by area businesses other than Miner’s Hardware. Miner’s can accommodate
its required number of parking spaces following the completion of the project.
3. Transit connections. Clarify location of transit stops near the project site.
Staff/applicant response: There is a transit stop within 500 feet of the project site at
High Street and Santa Barbara Street. If improvements or upgrades are needed at these
bust stops, the applicant could contribute to these improvements as a condition of the
project. This condition could be applied to either this use permit or the future
architectural review entitlement.
4. Bicycle Path. Clarify current and future solutions for bicycle connections.
Staff/applicant response: The applicant team has worked with the City and with the
adjacent property owner in order to implement a bicycle connection to the site and/or to
Emily Street from High Street. The owner of the Miner’s property will not allow an
easement through the Miner’s parking lot for a bicycle path (Attachment 4). Emily Street
improvements can be completed to include a bicycle path, however right of way through
the Union Pacific Railroad is not available at this time. Long term plans will include both
vehicular and bicycle connections through Emily Street to the north and south. At this
time, the only feasible bicycle connection will be through the front of the site at Santa
Barbara Street. On site bicycle circulation has been clarified and includes easy access to
bicycle parking and building entries from both Emily Street and Santa Barbara Street.
5. LUCE policies. Illustrate how the project complies with the Land Use and Circulation
Element policies of the General Plan.
PC2 - 5
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 6
Staff/applicant response: The General Plan encourages mixed-use projects where they
can be found to be compatible with existing development and with potential future
development. In this location, mixed-use is a logical fit with the Railroad District Plan
and it’s traditional pattern of residential and commercial uses. Since the previous
Planning Commission review, the applicant has emphasized the retail entry at Santa
Barbara Street, relocating it to face the street, while providing clear pedestrian and
bicycle linkages. The following Land Use Policies from the updated Land Use Element
apply to the project and the project implements the primary theme of these policies:
Land Use Element policy 2.2.6:
“The City shall encourage mixed use projects, where appropriate and compatible
with existing and planned development on the site and with adjacent and nearby
properties. The City shall support the location of mixed use projects and community
and neighborhood commercial centers near major activity nodes and transportation
corridors / transit opportunities where appropriate. Where housing can be
compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed use projects should be
encouraged.”
Land Use Element policy 2.1.6 Neighborhood Amenities:
The City shall promote livability and safety for all residents. Characteristics of
quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but often include
one or more of the following characteristics:
A mix of housing type styles, density, and affordability.
Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale.
Nearby services and facilities including schools, parks, retail (e.g., grocery
store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or other
public facilities.
A tree canopy and well-maintained landscaping.
A sense of personal safety (e.g., low crime rate, short police and emergency
response times).
Convenient access to public transportation.
Well-maintained housing and public facilities.
3.2 Municipal Code Analysis: Mixed Use Project Review
MC 17.08.072 A-E: Design Considerations, site layout and performance standards
The zoning code requires mixed-use projects be designed to achieve specific considerations1.
1 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.
PC2 - 6
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 7
These considerations are in addition to the design criteria that will be reviewed by the ARC.
Furthermore, there are site layout and performance standards that must be achieved. The purpose
of the performance standards is to help ensure the compatibility between the residential and
commercial uses both within the project site and on adjacent properties.
Staff’s Analysis:
The Junction project is proposed to be a 3-story building with a unique design connecting the
front commercial and residential portion of the building to the rear residential portion of the
building with a second and third story bridge. The residential portion of the project is
complemented by a large outdoor courtyard with a pool, lawn area and seating in an area
shielded from prevailing wind, noise and overlook. The 3,000 square foot ground floor “retail”
space is designed to accommodate a coffee shop or uses that will complement Miner’s hardware.
The residential units are separated from the commercial area, utilizing both vertical and
horizontal (adequate setback) separation. In summary, the project vicinity is ideal for mixed-use
because of the location near other mixed-use projects and neighborhood serving retail,
restaurants and low-intensity commercial uses.
The project complies with the site layout and performance standards as specifically identified in
the following analysis:
Site Layout Standards
1. Location of units- Residential units are located above the commercial portion of the project
and on the ground floor in the rear of the site, separated from nearby commercial uses.
2. Loading areas- Due to the bridge design of the building and the small scale of the commercial
uses, the loading areas for the retail are appropriately separated from sensitive residential uses.
3. Refuse and recycling areas- Both the residential and commercial uses will utilize trash and
recycling facilities at the rear of the site. These facilities can be accessed from Emily Street at the
rear of the property, significantly reducing the potential of aesthetic and noise impacts.
Performance Standards
1. Lighting- The size, scale and location of the commercial project is not likely to create lighting
issues that would impact the residential units. Low intensity parking lot lighting designed to
complement the Railroad Historic District is proposed to serve the main parking area adjacent to
Miner’s hardware. A complete lighting plan will be required with final ARC drawings.
2. Noise- The vicinity is developed with low-intensity commercial uses and is conducive to a
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.
PC2 - 7
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 8
mixed-use project. To the north, Miner’s hardware is predominantly a retail use open during
daytime hours. To the south, SLO motorsports is also predominantly a retail use open during
daytime hours. Other uses include warehousing between this site and the railroad, and a variety
of retail and service uses on Santa Barbara Street. The Railroad is near the site, however the
residential project can be designed to reduce interior noise exposure to within acceptable levels
similar to large mixed use projects recently developed south of Fire Station 1.
3. Hours of operation- Project conditions will require commercial uses within the project to be
open only between 8:00 am and 6:00 PM.
3.4: MC 17.08.072 F: Requirements for Mixed-Use projects
1. Property Development Standards 2
Since the C-S zone is designed to accommodate service-commercial uses, the Zoning Code
allows for specific conditions of approval that can be designed to ensure project compatiblity.
Staff is proposing specific project conditions to ensure that future commercial uses are
compatible with the residential project. However, the size and design of the commercial spaces
are not conducive to land uses that could potentially conflict with the residential since they are
not likely to accommodate manufacturing, industrial or other nuisance oriented uses. Appropriate
land uses include various types of offices, retail uses including restaurants and various personal
and business services, and other light-industrial uses as consistent and appropriate for C-S zone
uses such as vehicle services, and large and/or heavy manufacturing operations, would not be
permitted in the new development because of compatibility issues.
2. Mandatory Findings for Approval3
Mixed use projects require that the Planning Commission make specific findings regarding
General Plan and neighborhood compatibility, findings for health, safety and welfare, and
findings that the mix of uses provides greater benefits such as affordable housing and trip
reduction.
The project design facilitates the ability to make these findings due to the small size of the units
and the proximity to transit, workplaces, and bicycle connections. The units are a mixture of
2 1. Property development standards. The approval of a Use Permit for a mixed use project may include:
a. Conditions of approval that require provisions and standards in addition to, or instead of the property
development standards of the applicable zoning district to ensure the compatibility of uses and surroundings; or
b. Less restrictive standards than required by the applicable zoning district, to the extent allowed by Use Permit
approval in other sections of these regulations, to make particular use combinations more feasible. 3 Mandatory findings for approval. The approval of a Use Permit for a mixed use project shall require that the
review authority first make all of the following findings, as applicable.
a. The projects mixed uses are consistent with the general plan and are compatible with their surroundings, with
neighboring uses, and with each other;
b. The project’s design protects the public health, safety, and welfare; and
c. The mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the site. This finding must
enumerate those benefits, such as proximity of workplaces and housing, automobile trip reduction, provision of
affordable housing, or other benefits consistent with the purposes of this Section.
PC2 - 8
USE 0916 -2015; 2120 Santa Barbara (The Junction – May 13, 2015)
Page 9
studio and one-bedroom apartments ranging in size from 450 up to 880 square feet. The units are
affordable by design. The project will be a rental apartment project and there is no plan to
subdivide the property into an ownership condominium.
3.5 Parking Reduction:
The parking plan provides for 90 vehicle parking spaces, 6 motorcycle spaces, and 31 bicycle
parking spaces (both long and short term, normally only 16 bicycle parking spaces would be
required). The project would normally require 106 vehicle parking spaces, however the applicant
is requesting a Mixed-Use parking reduction of 15%. The parking reduction would reduce the
requirement to 90 spaces. The parking reduction is appropriate given the location of the project,
the size and design of the residential units, and the mix of commercial and residential units that
are likely to have different peak parking demands.
4.0 Concurrences
The transportation division has analyzed the project and proposed road improvements for
compliance with City standards and has conditionally improved plans for Emily Street. Complete
conditions from Utilities, Transportation, Engineering, Building, and Fire will be provided in the
future architectural review report. These comments will include public improvement
requirements, utility connections, and other site features.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity (Land Use) map
2. Reduced-scale project plans
3. Applicant letter
4. Correspondence from Miner’s Hardware
5. Support letters for the project
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
7. Planning Commission Resolution
PC2 - 9
C-S-S-H
R-2
C-S-H
PF R-1
R-2
R-2
R-2
PF-HR-2
PF-H
R-2
R-2
R-2
C-S-H
R-2
R-2-S
O
R-2-S
R-2-S
R-1-PD
C-S-H
C-N
R-2
R-2
C-N-H-MU
R-2
C-S-S-H-MU
C-N
C-S-H-MU
R-1
C-N
C-N
C-N
C-S-H
C-N
C-N
R-2-S
R-2
C-NR-2
C-N
C-S-HPF
R-3R-3-H
R-2
R-2
M
C-N
PF
C-N
R-2-SR-2 C-R-S-H
B
R
O
A
D
HIGH
UPHAM
CH
O
R
R
O
EM
I
L
Y
ST
O
R
Y
SA
N
T
A
B
A
R
B
A
R
A
SOUTH
RA
C
H
E
L
ELLA
BRANCH
G
A
R
D
E
N
CHURC
H
SW
A
Z
E
Y
LA
W
T
O
N
ME
A
D
O
W
J
E
N
N
I
F
E
R
ROUNDHOUSE
FLORENCESANDERCOCK
BISHOP
VICINITY MAP File No. 96-142120 Santa Barbara ¯
PC2 - 10
PC2 - 11
PC2 - 12
PC2 - 13
PC2 - 14
PC2 - 15
PC2 - 16
PC2 - 17
PC2 - 18
PC2 - 19
PC2 - 20
PC2 - 21
PC2 - 22
PC2 - 23
PC2 - 24
PC2 - 25
PC2 - 26
PC2 - 27
PC2 - 28
PC2 - 29
PC2 - 30
PC2 - 31
PC2 - 32
PC2 - 33
PC2 - 34
PC2 - 35
PC2 - 36
PC2 - 37
PC2 - 38
PC2 - 39
PC2 - 40
PC2 - 41
PC2 - 42
PC2 - 43
PC2 - 44
PC2 - 45
From:Damien Mavis
To:Dunsmore, Phil
Subject:Fwd: The Junction
Date:Friday, May 01, 2015 3:39:51 PM
Phil—
I am resending this email regarding my emails back and forth with Mike Miner asking him the
couple of questions that planning commission wanted me to ask him.
Damien Mavis
Covelop, Inc.
Bus 805.781.3133
Fax 805.781.3233
Cell 805.748.5546
dmavis@covelop.net
I am attaching Mike Miners email response to some questions I posed to
him from the last PC meeting. I want to add to his response because he had
misunderstood where his lot lines and Emily st. ROW and High St. ROW
all interface. He thought that Emily St. ROW touched High St. ROW but
just at a point. He was proposing that he could give up a little corner of his
parcel to put a bike path in. In reality neither of the ROW’s touch each
other and are separated by quite a distance. After I showed him this he
realized that there was no way to put the bike path on his side and retracted
his offer of a small corner as that would not accomplish anything.
Damien Mavis
Covelop, Inc.
Bus 805.781.3133
Fax 805.781.3233
Cell 805.748.5546
dmavis@covelop.net
Mike Miners Email:
Damien, here are my responses to your questions. Note that, while I am completely opposed to
PC2 - 46
losing a single parking space either in my parking lot or your proposed development, I have tried to
offer solutions to the problems presented.
Regards, -Mike
Mike Miner
CEO Miner's Ace Hardware
1056 West Grand Ave.
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Office: 805-489-0158 x117
* Would Miners be willing to grant a temporary easement for a bicycle and pedestrian connection
from near the north end of Emily St. to High St. The City would attempt to get an easement from
the rail road to locate the pedestrian and bike path in their right of way. If and when that happens
the easement over your property would be vacated.
Miner's Response:
Absolutely NOT! There are several reasons for this most of which have to do with lost parking
spaces, potential liability, and security. In more detail consider the following... If the path ran near
the Miners/Railroad property line there is about a 4 ft. retaining wall which would make it very
difficult to transition from Emily St. to our parking lot. The area in question is part of our secure
storage yard that we lock every night, the path would go right through there creating a potential
theft and security problem. The path would either wipe out 7 of our needed parking spaces and our
concrete shed or it would be moved to the middle of our sales yard. I would not want non-patrons
being encouraged to walk or bike right through our sales yard and parking lot. Vehicles backing
out, potential for theft and liability as well as people getting in the way of patrons and employees
would create problems for our business. (I doubt the City would want to take on this liability either)
I assume the goal would be for this path to be used by as many people as possible, unfortunately
the more popular the path becomes the more it would negatively affect our business.
Possible Solution...
As an alternative Miner's would support the following solution. If (at City expense) the City placed
the bike path on the abandoned portion of Emily Street then crossed to High Street over the NE
corner of Miner's property I believe this could be done at the cost of 1-2 parking spaces, which
could be replaced by the City giving Miner's the same 1-2 spaces in the Rail Station Parking across
from High Street.
* Explore a shared parking agreement with Miners to further reduce the combined number of
parking spaces on Miners and The Junction properties.
Miner's Response:
NO! Being a hardware store our business relies on patron's cars and trucks more heavily than
standard retail as many purchases are large heavy items. We have been in business for almost 60
years and parking is a problem at every one of our 7 locations -i.e. at peak times and sales events
we are under-parked. This is true even though we have adequate parking by City standards at
every one of our stores. Worse yet, our busiest days are always Saturdays -exactly the day when
the proposed development will likely experience its peak parking demand. I can assure you that
the parking currently proposed by the development will prove to be inadequate every time there is a
PC2 - 47
party, a Monday Holiday, or any unusual social event. Miner's is VERY opposed to reducing the
parking beyond what is currently proposed.
Partial Solution...
With no on-street parking on Santa Barbara Ave, employees from business around Miner's are
currently using the parking lot between us and the corner of Santa Barbara Ave and Round House
Ave. This problem would be greatly helped by developing a portion of Emily St. to allow on-street
parking.
PC2 - 48
April&2,&2015
Planning&Commission&of&San&Luis&Obispo&County&
976&Osos&Street,&Room&200
San&Luis&Obispo,&CA&93408&
Dear&Planning&Commission:
Sincerely,
MOMO#BROS#INC.#(dba#OKI#MOMO#ASIAN#GRILL)
David&J.&Yeh,&MD
We&are&Momo&Bros.,&Inc.,&a&new&restaurant&group&with&our&first&unit&Oki&Momo&Asian&Grill&
opening&this&summer&at&2256&Broad&Street&in&San&Luis&Obispo.&&We&have&had&the&privilege&of&
working&with&Covelop,&Inc.&in&securing&a&multiTyear&lease&for&this&location.
We&were&excited&when&Covelop&approached&us&to&discuss&their&proposed&build&of&The&Junction,&a&
multiTunit&apartment&community&with&3,000&square&feet&of&retail&space&near&the&corner&of&Broad&
Street&and&Santa&Barbara&Street&next&to&Miner’s&Hardware,&just&a&few&blocks&away&from&our&
location.
This&type&of&highTend&residential&development&will&bring&in&a&consistent&flow&of&new&clientele&to&
our&restaurant.&&Having&worked&with&Covelop&and&Arris&Studio&Architects&on&the&buildTout&of&Oki&
Momo&Asian&Grill,&we&feel&that&they&are&pleasant&and&reasonable&to&work&with&and&that&projects&
are&carefully&supervised&to&completion.
As&new&residents&of&San&Luis&Obispo&County,&we&understand&that&a&development&of&this&scale&is&
critical&to&attracting&new&residents&to&the&area.&&And&the&design&of&this&particular&project&in&terms&
of&capitalizing&on&the&foot&traffic&and&blending&into&the&existing&framework&of&the&community&is&
poised&for&immediate&and&longTterm&success.&&We&strongly&endorse&their&proposal&and&hope&that&
the&Planning&Commission&will&find&their&application&favorable&without&delay.
Please&feel&free&to&contact&us&if&we&can&provide&any&additional&information®arding&this&project.
PC2 - 49
April 8, 2015
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Proposed Project @ 2120 Santa Barbara St. SLO 93401
Dear Planning Commission,
Stalwork, Inc. is a local construction and design company with extensive experience building residential
and commercial projects in San Luis Obispo and employing almost 100 full time staff. As THE neighbor to
the proposed Covelop Development we have reviewed the proposed concept and use extensively. We not
only support this type of infill development, but as a life‐long native resident of San Luis Obispo, strategic
infill of these mixed use projects bring vitality and appropriate long term sustainable projects to targeted
core zones. This has been successfully executed surrounding our property for the last 5 plus years and
turned homeless encampments, trash heaps, and graffiti into necessary housing and business
commercialization near the down town core and rail road district.
All projects are NOT good projects. This project has been carefully designed to meet the specific needs of
neighbors, businesses, and long term planning goals of San Luis Obispo and garners my support.
Sincerely,
Ben Kulick
Owner
Stalwork, Inc.
805.542.0033
www.stalwork.com
PC2 - 50
April 8, 2015
Planning Commission of San Luis Obispo County
976 Osos Street
Room 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
To whom it may concern:
As a locally owned business based in San Luis Obispo County I am writing to you today to
support the Junction residential and retail development in San Luis Obispo. We recently located
our Verizon retail business to Broad St which was built and managed by Covelop and the
management of that center has been a first class experience.
As a retail business, foot traffic and community awareness are vital points to our success. The
residential development would bring increased visibility and traffic to our location. Housing,
particularly affordable housing is of utmost importance to our community development and
having reviewed the plan concepts, it serves a fundamental housing need but also its design
would be a great visual enhancement to the area.
We all want our community to develop, albeit in a smart and controlled way and I feel The
Junction project addresses those objectives well.
Respectfully,
Brendan Reitsma
President
Phone & Wireless - Verizon Premium Retailer
PC2 - 51
April 11, 2015
Planning Commission of San Luis Obispo County
976 Osos Street, Room 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Planning Commission,
The Rib Line is expanding to a new location at 2256 Broad St. that will accommodate 84 patrons. As a business
owner with two restaurants, I’ve come to realize that the quality of your surroundings is just as important as the
quality of your food.
After reviewing Covelop’s proposal and plan for The Junction, we are very excited about the design and the
potential benefits of drawing more people to this area of town with thriving businesses and newer, high-end
housing.
We support this project 100%.
Sincerely,
Brian Appiano
Rib Line by Brian, LLC
PC2 - 52
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, John Fowler, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
John Larson
Absent: Commissioner Draze
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Senior
Planner Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni,
Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Assistant City Attorney Jon
Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of December 10, 2014, and January 14, 2015, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 2120 Santa Barbara Avenue. USE-0916-2015: Review of a mixed-use project
with 69 multi-family units and 3,000 square feet of retail space with a categorical
exemption from CEQA; C-S-H zone; Covelop Management, Inc., applicant. (Phil
Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption of a
resolution allowing approval of the mixed-use project based on findings and subject to
conditions which he outlined.
In response to inquiry from Vice-Chair Multari, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that
the extent of the Emily Street improvements is still under discussion but details will be
presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for its hearing of the project
and that the site’s northern driveway is shared with Miner’s Hardware but no shared
parking exists.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Fowler, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that the
Miner’s Hardware property to the north of the project site is party to a parcel map that
must be recorded before the Junction project moves forward, that access to the Miner’s
Hardware property would not be interrupted during construction of the junction, and that
the ARC is familiar with the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)’s project
recommendations.
PC2 - 53
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that,
Emily Street improvements notwithstanding, the project will have front and rear access
points, and that each time a new project is analyzed by staff, the cumulative
environmental and traffic impacts of recent projects are considered.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Dandekar, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that
Miner’s Hardware will continue to utilize a driveway connecting to High Street.
Steve Rigor, Arris Studio Architects, applicant representative, provided a presentation
and summarized modifications made to the proposal following CHC review; noted the
applicants’ commitment to minimize disruptions impacting Miner’s Hardware.
In response to inquiry from Vice-Chair Multari, Rigor clarified that Miner’s Hardware will
relocate its storage currently located upon the proposed project site; noted that portions
of Roundhouse Street may be paved to provide access.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lea Brooks, SLO, stated that her family owns two businesses adjacent to the project
site; expressed concern about competition for parking between residential and
commercial uses, and difficulty for cyclists and pedestrians crossing Santa Barbara
Street.
Myron Amerine, SLO, voiced support for the project’s bicycle accommodations, noted
concern about providing adequate bicycle connectivity to the north and south of the site.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that the
project did not meet the threshold for requiring a traffic study. Malak opined that, while
the project is intended as affordable workforce housing, the impacts of other types of
tenants may not be controllable; commented that the project meets community needs,
but noted concern that transportation “what-ifs” have not been vetted. Commr. Malak
stated a desire to continue the project to avoid extensive conditioning and a mysterious
outcome.
Commr. Riggs commented that Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) policies
adequately address the issue of small projects without traffic studies creating
cumulative impacts; noted that there is a difference between induced demand and
standard trip generation calculation. Riggs voiced concern about the lack of a complete
project proposal; noted apparent zoning and LUCE inconsistencies, particularly with
regard to parking and circulation; cautioned that traffic problems will persist unless the
City aggressively discourages traditional transportation and makes non-motorized
transportation interfaces prominent; suggested that a class II bike line should exist
along Santa Barbara Street.
PC2 - 54
Vice-Chair Multari voiced support for high-density housing in the proposed location
surrounded by similar uses; stated that the CHC and ARC should render the
architectural determinations. Multari noted concern about the lack of project conditions
requiring street improvements; suggested that the connection of Emily and High Streets
should be required to aid in the daily mobility of project residents and that overflow
parking from Miner’s and the Junction could be accommodated by a shared easement;
opined that project circulation does not appear to comply with the LUCE.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Fowler, Senior Planner Dunsmore summarized
planned improvements including Santa Barbara Street frontage, Emily Street, and a
bike path to the east of the project site, the location of which is undetermined due to
complications relating to railroad right-of-way acquisition. Dunsmore noted a condition
prepared by staff relating to the bike path, should the Commission wish to consider it.
Supervising Civil Engineer Hannula clarified that other businesses such as Sears with
Emily Street frontage may need to contribute to the construction of curb, gutter and
sidewalk, and that Emily Street improvements will be constructed between the project
site and Roundhouse Street regardless.
In response to inquiry from Vice-Chair Multari, Hannula stated that, with guidance from
the Railroad District Plan and LUCE, the Public Works Department is evaluating
circulation designs above and beyond standard street improvements. Multari noted a
desire to see a multi-modal Emily Street plan with connections to High and Roundhouse
Streets; noted that no nearby transit stop exists; suggested that differentiation be made
between residential and commercial driveways along Santa Barbara Street.
Commr. Dandekar expressed desire to be presented the “big picture” of all traffic flows
impacting the site; noted that complicated traffic flows may deter Miner’s patrons.
Dandekar voiced support for the architectural style; suggested that it would be more
feasible to acquire bike path right-of-way from Miner’s than from Union Pacific.
Chair Larson inquired about the trajectory of Emily Street on the south side of its
intersection with Roundhouse, noted his lack of readiness of approve a project without
final public improvement plans and or sufficient alignment with LUCE policies.
Commr. Fowler voiced general approval for the proposed use in this location; noted
desire for more information before action, including a reduced parking plan.
Rachel Kovesdi, consultant, asked for clarification as to the Commission’s stance on the
proposed parking. Chair Larson stated that the Commission supports relaxed parking
standards, and shifting emphasis away from cars. Commr. Riggs clarified that a shared
parking agreement and a reduction in parking need not be mutually exclusive.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
PC2 - 55
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue the item to
April 22, 2015, to allow staff to return with additional project details including refined
Emily Street improvements, a bike path connecting the project to the north and south
per the City’s Bicycle Plan, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 7:36 p.m., and reconvened at 7:40 p.m.
2. 110, 120, 130, and 140 Grand Avenue. U 141-14: Request to remodel existing
residential buildings to be used as satellite high school classrooms for the SLO
Classical Academy located across Grand Avenue from the project site. Parking is
to be located offsite at the SLO Classical Academy site (115 Grand Avenue).
Project includes a categorical exemption from CEQA; SLO Classical Academy,
applicant. (Marcus Carloni)
Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of a draft resolution denying the use permit due to inconsistency with General Plan
policy, based on findings which he outlined. He noted that, should the Commission wish
to approve the project, it could consider adopting the alternative resolution prepared by
staff, setting forth an alternative interpretation of General Plan Policy 2.2.1, which
requires that any housing units eliminated by a project must be replaced elsewhere.
In response to inquiry from Chair Larson, Associate Planner Carloni confirmed that the
structures are vacant, and that the proposed vehicle access to the project site will be an
accessible parking space between 120 and 130 Grand Avenue.
In response to Commr. Riggs, Associate Planner Carloni stated that students will be
dropped off at the main campus to the west; Supervising Civil Engineer Hannula stated
that curb ramps will be required at both ends of the cross walk across Grand Avenue, at
the Slack Street intersection.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Fowler, Associate Planner Carloni stated that, due
to the low intensity of the school use, the structures could be converted back to
residential uses in the future. Deputy Community Development Director Davidson
clarified that no contingency for a return to residential uses is factored into the proposal.
Chair Larson commented that the vacancy of the structures could potentially render
moot the dilemma of General Plan Policy 2.2.1, which deals with “existing dwellings.”
Tim Ronda, SLO, project architect, representing San Luis Obispo Classical Academy
(SLOCA), urged the Commission to approve the project based on its merit and broad
community support, utilizing the alternative resolution prepared by staff. In response to
inquiry from Chair Larson, Mr. Ronda stated that approximately 34 students would be in
PC2 - 56
attendance at the site initially, and remain there during the day; in response to Vice-
Chair Multari, Mr. Ronda stated that the site lease runs for 4 years beginning July 2014,
with two 2-year extension options.
In response to inquiry from Commrs. Riggs and Malak, Mr. Ronda clarified that the
relocation of students to the new facilities would create an incremental increase of
approximately 60 students maximum over time.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere
confirmed that, as the Cal Poly Corporation is not a state entity, they are subject to local
zoning regulations.
Associate Planner Carloni clarified that the Commission would need to condition the
project explicitly, should it wish to limit the number of occupants; noted that Condition 11
stipulates that the Community Development Director will evaluate whether a change in
use is significant enough to require a new use permit.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that the approved use would run with the
land; clarified that a new use permit would need to be obtained for a change to another
use that is not consistent with the use permit or as required by Zoning Regulations
Table 9, but not for a return to residential use.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bryan Ridley, SLOCA parent and local Architect, urged the Commission to approve the
project via alternate findings; commented that SLOCA is growing and in need of space,
and that morning traffic at Slack and Grand is only moderate.
Commr. Dandekar left the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Sandra Rowley, SLO, voiced support for granting the use permit but noted concern that
allowing non-residential uses may set a precedent that could be problematic in the
future.
Linda White, SLO, representing the Monterey Heights neighborhood, asked the
Commission for assurance that the project would be conditioned for occupancy by
SLOCA only.
Sarah Shotwell, SLOCA teacher, SLO, commented that the high school students
deserve more dedicated space; urged the Commission to approve the project.
Susie Theule, SLOCA Executive Director, commented that the growing school
population needs a home; read excerpts from a recent article in The Atlantic about the
Academy.
Sarah Weinschenk, SLOCA teacher, spoke in support of the project; summarized a
recent speaking engagement by author Gary Schmidt.
PC2 - 57
Jill Talley, SLOCA parent, summarized the history of SLOCA; spoke in support of the
project.
Kris Vardis, Pismo Beach, spoke in support of the project; noted low impacts to the
community; urged support for the alternative findings.
Dan Dow, SLOCA parent, Templeton, spoke in support of the school, encouraged
support for alternative findings for approval.
There were no further comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs noted no apparent problems with the land use; noted concern about the
increase in traffic over time, and whether it is accurately accounted for by proposed
traffic impact fees; opined that high school students will risk crossing Grand Avenue
mid-block to reach the site; suggested a mid-block crosswalk with beacons as a
condition.
Vice-Chair Multari clarified for the public that the merit of SLOCA is not a factor in the
Commission’s deliberation; voiced support for the use based on alternative findings,
with added conditions that a change in lessee shall trigger an amendment to the permit,
and that the use permit shall expire concurrent with the lease. Multari noted desire for
more traffic control measures mid-block at Hays Street.
Commr. Fowler opined that Mission College Preparatory High School students cross
streets with little trouble; stated that crosswalk beacons would significantly increase cost
for applicants; voiced support for limiting the use permit to this lessee only.
In response to Commrs. Malak and Larson, staff confirmed that no new structures are
proposed, and that Condition 16, relating to new structures, is standard language from
the Public Works Department; Malak suggested striking the condition. Malak opined that
speed tables would be more appropriate than a crosswalk with lights, and that a
different use for the property might better benefit the community.
Commr. Riggs clarified that rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFBs) are much more
cost effective for crosswalks than in-ground flashers.
Chair Larson noted no problem with interpreting General Plan Policy 2.2.1 in favor of
the project; opined that in reality, parents will probably drop students off while stuck in
traffic along Grand Avenue, or curbside at the project site, rather than at the designated
main campus drop off; concurred that, students may cross the street mid-block at Hays.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere
clarified that traffic impact fee calculations are complex, and that they are too tightly
regulated for the Commission to impose them subjectively in an effort to offset the
potential cost of mid-block pedestrian crossing associated with the project.
PC2 - 58
Commr. Fowler opined that students will actually cross the street where parents and
faculty dictate; inquired as to why traffic fees apply if students are already at the school;
Commr. Riggs responded that a traffic analysis is attendant to the change in use.
In response to Commission inquiry, Associate Planner Carloni and Supervising Civil
Engineer Hannula confirmed that traffic impact fees are required by code, and have
been calculated in the $15,000—$20,000 range.
In response to comment from Chair Larson, Vice-Chair Multari clarified that the existing
condition related to traffic and pedestrian control plans relates only to the Encroachment
Permit; suggested an additional condition requiring a plan for the path of travel from the
drop off point to Hays Street.
Commr. Riggs noted for the record his desire to have staff explore whether a mid-block
crossing can be more safely facilitated.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to approve the project
utilizing the resolution set forth in staff’s Alternative 1, with conditions amended as
follows:
11. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director
for compliance with conditions of approval, or to determine whether a
modification of the Use Permit is necessary upon significant change to the
business as represented in the application materials and the Planning
Commission Agenda Report and attachments dated March 11, 2015.
Approval shall be subject to review on August 1, 2022, unless extended by an
amendment to the use permit.
14. Traffic impact fees are required and shall be paid as required by code prior to
the issuance of a building permit for this development.
16. (Remove) Projects involving the construction of new structures, the addition
of dwelling units, or the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that
complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements
be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050
16. (Add new condition 16) A pedestrian safety plan shall be developed, subject
to approval by the Public Works Director, considering the possibility of a mid-
block crossing between the main campus student dropoff area and Hays
Street.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Dandekar and Draze
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
PC2 - 59
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson provided a summary of
upcoming agenda items.
4. Commission
Commissioners requested that staff include ARC and CHC minutes with staff
report materials when their review of a project precedes the Planning
Commission’s review.
Vice-Chair Multari requested that staff acknowledge the breadth of the
Commission's purview when presenting project materials for analysis, rather than
attempting to narrow the focus. Chair Larson concurred.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2015.
Laurie Thomas
Administrative Assistant III
PC2 - 60
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
PROJECT AND A 15% PARKING REDUCTION INCLUDING A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA AS REPRESENTED IN THE
AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MARCH 11, 2015
(2120 Santa Barbara Street USE 0916-2015)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
March 11, 2015 for the purpose of considering application USE 0916-2015, a request to allow a
mixed use project with 69 residential units combined with a 3,000 square foot commercial space
at 2120 Santa Barbara Street; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the discussion of the item to provide
additional information regarding multi-modal connections, general plan policy analysis, and
other project information.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 13, 2015 for the purpose of considering application USE 0916-2015, a request to allow a
mixed use project with 69 residential units combined with a 3,000 square foot commercial space
at 2120 Santa Barbara Street; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings in support of the project approval that includes a mixed-use (residential and
commercial) project, consisting of 69 residential units and tenant space to allow up to 3,000
square feet of commercial floor area.
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. That the project’s mixed uses are consistent with the General Plan and are compatible
with their surroundings, with neighboring uses, and with each other since the project has
appropriate setbacks from the roadway and incorporates design features that protect the
privacy and quality of the residential units.
PC2 - 61
2120 Santa Barbara Street
The Junction Mixed Use Project May 13, 2015
3. That the project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.2.6 “Housing and
Businesses” because the project is nearby neighborhood commercial centers, major
activity nodes and transit opportunities. Housing at this location can be compatible with
the proposed and existing commercial uses on-site and on adjacent properties.
4. That the project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.1.6 “Neighborhood
Amenities” because the project provides a mix of smaller housing types that are likely to
be affordable, and the location will have convenient access to public transportation and
nearby services.
5. That the mixed uses provide greater public benefits than single-use development of the
site since the project allows for affordable residential units within close proximity to
transit, retail services and uses, and typical workplaces. Maintaining a 24-hour presence
on the site will ensure additional safety and security for the surrounding neighborhood
and commercial uses.
6. That since the proposed commercial tenant space is located close to Santa Barbara Street
and is designed to accommodate small retail uses, substantial conflicts between the
residential and commercial use are not anticipated.
7. That the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations as
described within the property development standards for the Service- Commercial zone.
8. That the site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration, topography, and
other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate
capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the
use.
9. A 15% parking reduction is appropriate for the project because of the project’s location
close to transit and services, and the mix of commercial and residential uses with
alternating peak parking demands.
10. That, as conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed
project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed
use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to
the general welfare of the City.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA
Guidelines because the project is within City limits, consistent with applicable City policy,
surrounded by urban uses, and on a project site less than 5 acres in size served by required
utilities and public services.
PC2 - 62
2120 Santa Barbara Street
The Junction Mixed Use Project May 13, 2015
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application USE
0916-2015, allowing a mixed use project at 2120 Santa Barbara Street subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed use shall operate consistent with the project description, approved plans,
and other supporting documentation submitted with this application unless otherwise
conditioned herein.
2. The project shall be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commission to review the
project design for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and the Mixed Use
project design standards (Zoning Regulations section 17.08.072). Specific attention shall
be given to the compatibility between the adjacent commercial uses and the residential
units to protect residences from glare, noise or odors. The Architectural Review
Commission shall be responsible for taking action on additional project conditions and
code requirements as applicable.
3. All parking spaces shall be available for residential tenants, employees and customers
free from restrictions. No parking spaces shall be individually labeled or allocated. All
parking spaces shall be within a commonly managed area outside of individual
ownership. Approval of a parking reduction for mixed-use shall be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission.
4. All land uses shall comply with the Zoning Regulations C-S zone requirements. Hours of
operation for the commercial component of the project shall be limited to 8:00 AM to
6:00 PM to reduce residential and commercial conflicts and to support the proposed
parking reduction.
5. Commercial land uses as vehicle services, and large and/or heavy manufacturing
operations shall be prohibited.
6. Architectural plans shall be submitted to the City prior to scheduling a hearing before the
Architectural Review Commission. The revised plans shall address any comments from
staff including comments from the planning, building, public works, fire and utilities
departments. The revised plans shall also incorporate any design comments from the
Planning Commission.
7. Occupancy of the project shall be subject to completion of public improvements on Santa
Barbara Street and Emily Street to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Improvements shall include improvements to the full width of right of way on Emily
Street from Roundhouse Way to the project entry driveway as illustrated in exhibit A
below. The improvements shall also include an additional tree planter and an extension of
the sidewalk adjacent to the entry driveway northward approximately 25 feet. Refined
public improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Architectural Review Commission.
PC2 - 63
2120 Santa Barbara Street
The Junction Mixed Use Project May 13, 2015
EXHIBIT A
8. A noise disclosure shall be provided to all residential and commercial tenants, including
owners and renters, to ensure acknowledgment of potential noise in excess of residential
standards, that may be generated from adjacent commercial businesses and the railroad
operations.
9. The Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives
substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or Police
Department employee, that includes information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion
that a violation of this Use Permit, or of City ordinances or regulations applicable to the
property or the operation of the business, has occurred. At the time of the Use Permit
review, to insure on-going compatibility of the uses on the project site, conditions of
approval may be added, deleted, or modified.
10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval by the City
of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental
review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any
Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim, and City shall fully
cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
PC2 - 64
2120 Santa Barbara Street
The Junction Mixed Use Project May 13, 2015
On motion by , seconded by and on the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC2 - 65
Meeting Date: May 13, 2015
Item Number: X
23
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: General Plan Conformity Report for the Capital Improvement Plan of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning Phone Number: 781-7274 e-mail: kmurry@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: GENP 1267-2015
RECOMMENDATION: Report to the City Council that all projects/purchases in the Capital
Improvement Plan proposed as part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan comply with the City’s General
Plan.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
State law requires the City to prepare a coordinated program of “proposed public works for the ensuing
fiscal year” and to submit the plan to its planning agency “for review and report…as to conformity
with the adopted general plan or part thereof”.1 San Luis Obispo’s multi-year budget approach
complies with the intent of this section, with the Planning Commission fulfilling the role of “planning
agency” in its review of the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) every two years.
The Commission’s reporting that a proposed CIP conforms with the general plan does not necessarily
mean that the City endorses the project or plan in a particular form. Individual public works projects
and most individual plan actions still must be more fully described and undergo environmental review
prior to receiving approval to be carried out. The City Council has full discretion in deciding CIP
items. There are no specific sanctions in State law if a CIP item is found not to conform with the
general plan. However, a finding of non-conformance would indicate that the proposal should be re-
evaluated to assure its consistency with adopted City policy direction as reflected in the General Plan
and its implementation.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.2 Project Description
The CIP proposed as part of the 2015-17 Financial Plan includes a variety of projects and
purchases and includes approximately $14.8 million in General Fund capital improvement projects
as part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. Construction projects and equipment purchases costing
$15,000 or more are included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Capital outlays of less than
$15,000 are included in the Financial Plan operating program budgets. Through the CIP, the City
systematically plans, schedules, and finances capital projects to ensure cost-effectiveness and
1 California Government Code Section 65401
3
PC3 - 1
GENP 1267-2015 CIP Conformity Report
Page 2
conformance with established policies and longer term plans.
The City Council prioritizes and allocates limited resources every two years after carefully
considering community input. Not all general Plan goals or plans may be funded during every two
year CIP interval. Consequently, the proposed CIP does not spread city support equally among all
plan areas, but must prioritize funding based on the Council’s assessment of community needs and
priorities. While a five year future cost is forecast, the Council adopts only the two-year CIP, so
future years are not shown on the attached matrix (Attachment 1).
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Evaluation of General Plan conformity focuses on the objects of proposed spending, not the sources of
funds. Some CIP items (such as Utilities and Parking) are funded by enterprise revenues, which are
typically supported by user fees and impact fees, not taxes. Even among “General Fund” items, some
projects are expected to be funded largely from sources that allow limited City choice in the object of
spending (such as grant funds for street improvements, replacing bridges or buses). The General Plan
calls for new development to pay for the facilities needed to support such development unless the City
chooses to pay for particular facilities to achieve a community benefit. Some projects, therefore, have
funding sources that are derived from impact fees. While the focus of the evaluation associated with
the 2015-2017 Financial Plan CIP is on the conformity of the projects with the General Plan, revenue
sources also appear to comply with City policy.
A General Plan policy audit was conducted and the matrix in Attachment 1 documents how each
proposed capital improvement conforms to the City’s General Plan. The matrix includes a summary
listing of CIP items for the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. In general each CIP item implements a program
or policy in the General Plan, which are identified by policy number and description for reference. A
hyperlink to a more complete description of the Financial Plan strategic budget direction provided in
the April 21, 2015 staff report to the City Council may be found at the end of this report.
Each project has an associated reference to a General Plan policy or program. The abbreviation for
each element is shown below:
CE Circulation Element
C/OS Conservation and Open Space Element
LUE Land Use Element
PR Parks and Recreation Element
S Safety Element
WW Water and Wastewater Management Element
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The determination of conformity with the General Plan is exempt from environmental review as a
Statutory Exemption Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies (CEQA Guidelines Section
15262). Each project listed as part of the CIP will need future authorization and environmental review
prior to actual funding and construction.
PC3 - 2
GENP 1267-2015 CIP Conformity Report
Page 3
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from the other departments have been incorporated into the recommended CIP projects
proposed as part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan.
5.0 CONCLUSION
Report to the City Council that all projects/purchases in the Capital Improvement Plan proposed as part
of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan comply with the City’s General Plan.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. The Planning Commission may direct staff to revise the report. There is no legally mandated
deadline for Commission action. However, the Council will consider the CIP items as part of
the budget hearing discussions on June 11, 2015. It is therefore best for the Commission to
conclude its review at tonight’s meeting.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. 2015-2017 CIP and General Plan Conformity Matrix
LINK: April 21, 2015 Council Agenda Report, Strategic Budget Direction:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6321
PC3 - 3
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – PUBLIC SAFETY
1
2015-
16
2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
POLICE PROTECTION
Police Scheduling Program
Replacing the Police department’s current personnel
scheduling program 37,000 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Body Worn Cameras and Video Storage
Purchasing body worn cameras for police field
personnel and additional video storage. 69,000 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Police Facility Site Assessment
Conduct a facility site assessment for the Police
Department 45,000 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
FIRE AND ENVIRONMENT SAFETY
Fire Station 2 Restroom and Dorms Privacy
Modifications
Remodel of dorms and bathroom to become ADA
compliant and address privacy issues.
160,000 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Fire Station 1 Carpet, Painting and Wiring
Replacement
Fire Station No. 1 carpet replacement upstairs and
downstairs, upgrade IT wiring and install additional
data ports in EOC command room, and re-paint walls
and ceilings upstairs, and in training and fitness
rooms.
88,600 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Fire Station 2 Exterior Driveway Slab
Replacement
Replacing the exterior concrete driveway at Fire
Station #2
10,000 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Fire Department Electronic Patient Care
Reporting (ePCR) Records Management
Implementing electronic patient records management
for the Fire Department.
53,800 25,700 S
9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Total, Public Safety 295,800 193,300
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 4
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
2
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
STREETS
Downtown Renewal
Design update to continue downtown renewal
efforts.
6,000 LUE
4.5
The City shall plan and
manage Downtown to
include safe, interesting
places for walking and
pleasant places for sitting.
Sidewalk Repairs and Tree Replacements
Repairing City sidewalks and replacing trees. 100,000 100,000 C
5.1.2
The City should complete a
continuous pedestrian
network connecting
residential areas with major
activity centers as well as
trails leading into city and
county open spaces.
Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing
Maintenance on City-owned pavement
throughout the City
1,566,817 1,630,700
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
Sidewalk Ramp Construction
Constructing curb ramps for accessibility in
conjunction with street reconstruction and
microsurfacing projects.
150,000 105,000 CE
6.1.1
The City shall design and
operate city streets to enable
safe, comfortable, and
convenient access and travel
for users of all abilities
including pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users, and
motorists.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
Neighborhood Traffic Improvements
Construction of neighborhood traffic
management projects requested by residents and
approved by Council.
20,000 20,000
CE
1.7.3
(8)
Protect the quality of
residential areas by
achieving quiet and by
reducing or controlling
traffic routing, volumes, and
speeds on neighborhood
streets.
Traffic Safety Improvement Projects
Construction of traffic safety improvements as
identified in the Annual Traffic Safety Report. 25,000 25,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
Safe Route to School Improvements-Pacheco
and Bishop Peak Elementary
Construction of safe route to school
improvements for Pacheco and Bishop Peak
schools on Foothill Road at Ferrini.
45,000 CE
5.2.4
The City shall continue to
coordinate with SLOCOG
and local schools to pursue
Safe Routes to School
programs and grant
opportunities.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 5
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
3
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Santa Fe Road Realignment and Bridge
Rehabilitation
Preliminary environmental and design work for
relocating Santa Fe Road Bridge over Acacia
Creek and relocate Santa Fe at Tank Farm Road
to improve traffic Safety .
50,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
South and Parker Traffic Safety Project:
Median
Replacing temporary safety measures with
permanent measures.
30,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
Prado Road Bridge and Road Widening
Preliminary environmental and design work for
widening Prado Road Bridge over San Luis
Creek to relief traffic congestion and improve
traffic circulation with Environmental permitting,
land acquisition, and design.
300,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
Traffic Operation Improvement Projects
Constructing traffic operations improvements as
identified in the Annual Traffic Operations
Report.
30,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
Transportation Monitoring
Conducting citywide bi-annual traffic counts to
identify and monitor levels-of-service (LOS) on
streets resulting from development and travel
changes.
60,000
CE
7.2.2
A-B
As funding permits the City
shall implement an ongoing
and comprehensive
transportation monitoring
program that, at a minimum,
will keep track of (on a bi-
annual basis):
A. Changes in traffic
volumes throughout the city.
B. Changes to the
Level of Service (LOS) on
arterial streets, regional
routes and highways.
Monterey and Osos Traffic Signal Safety
Upgrade
Reconstructing the traffic signal at Monterey and
Osos to address a recurring collision pattern and
improve intersection safety.
225,000
CE
1.6.1
(3)
Provide a system of streets
that are well-maintained and
safe for all forms of
transportation.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 6
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
4
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
City Wayfinding Signs
Continuing implementation of the City
Wayfinding Program.
175,000
LUE
4.33
B
The City will modify its
Community Design
Guidelines to enhance
Safety and Crime prevention
through Environmental
Design. Changes shall
include, but are not limited
to, inclusion of design
statements on: Wayfinding
signs to better direct
pedestrians and motorists in
non-residential areas.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHS
Replacement of Lighted Crosswalks on Marsh
and Higuera Streets
Replacement of the in-ground light crosswalks on
Marsh and Higuera Streets.
43,500
LUE
4.5 F
Traffic calming and
pedestrian safety should be
enhanced, where
appropriate, through such
features as road tables,
pavement changes, bulb outs
and scramble intersection
signals.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Maintenance
Performing pavement maintenance on pedestrian
and bicycle pathways throughout the City.
100,000 60,000
CE
4.1.5
and
5.1.1
The City shall design and
maintain bikeways to make
bicycling safe, convenient
and enjoyable.
The City shall encourage
and promote walking as a
regular means of
transportation.
Bicycle Facility Improvements
Designing and constructing small-scale,
miscellaneous bicycle facility improvements
identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan.
100,000 100,000 CE
4.1.11
The City shall support
allocation of staff and
resources to coordinate and
implement bicycle
transportation policies and
programs.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 7
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
5
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection
Completing the planning effort, environmental
and permitting work, and land acquisition for the
extension of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea trail
between the Octagon Barn and Los Osos Valley
Road. 395,000
CE
4.1.3
The City shall collaborate
with SLO County to
coordinate planning and
development of county
bikeways to support a
regional bike network and
identify and acquire
additional rights of way in
the City as they become
available.
Bike Bridge at Phillips Lane
Extension of the Railroad Trail from the
intersection of California Blvd and Phillips Lane
to the intersection of Phillips Lane and Pepper
Street with design and land acquisition in 2015-
16, and construction and construction
management in 2016-17.
250,000 1,250,000 CE
4.1.11
The City shall support
allocation of staff and
resources to coordinate and
implement bicycle
transportation policies and
programs.
Repainting and Replacement of Traffic,
Bicycle and Pedestrian Markings
Replacing thermoplastic striping, pavement
markings, and raised pavement markers. 20,000 CE
4.1.11
The City shall support
allocation of staff and
resources to coordinate and
implement bicycle
transportation policies and
programs.
Bob Jones Trail – Prefumo Creek Connection
to Oceanaire
Constructing a class I bicycle connection from
Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire. 156,000 CE
4.1.11
The City shall support
allocation of staff and
resources to coordinate and
implement bicycle
transportation policies and
programs.
Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
Implementation of various Bicycle Transportation
Plan projects and programs. 400,000 CE
4.1.11
The City shall support
allocation of staff and
resources to coordinate and
implement bicycle
transportation policies and
programs.
CREEK AND FLOOD PROTECTION
Broad Street Bank Reinforcement
The Broad Street Bank Reinforcement project
will cost $80,000 for construction in 2015-16.
80,000 S
2.1 A
The City will develop and
carry out environmentally
sensitive programs to reduce
or eliminate the potential for
flooding in previously
developed, flood-prone areas
of the city.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 8
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
6
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Silt Removal
Removing areas of silt build-up within the City’s
open channel drainage system. 275,000 150,000 S
2.1 B
The City should allow flood
waters to move through
natural channels. Flow
should be accommodated by
removing debris and man-
made obstructions.
Storm Drain System Replacement
Replacing failing drainage infrastructure
throughout the City. 561,500 574,300
WW
B
4.2.2
The City will minimize
stormwater and groundwater
infiltration and inflow into
the sewer system.
Toro Street Bank Stabilization
Stabilizing a section of San Luis Obispo Creek
bank near Toro Street Bridge that has failed.
50,000 S 2.1
A
The City will develop and
carry out environmentally
sensitive programs to reduce
or eliminate the potential for
flooding in previously
developed, flood-prone areas
of the city.
Marsh Street Bridge Replacement
Marsh Street Bridge and sewer siphon
replacement.
6,640,000
WW
B
4.2.1
The City will manage the
collection system to ensure
that the proper level of
maintenance is provided and
that the flow in sanitary
sewers does not exceed
design capacity.
PARKING
Parking Structure Assessment and
Rehabilitation Study
Preparing an assessment and rehabilitation study
of the City’s three parking structures including
determination of causes for the water intrusion at
919 Palm. 50,000 LUE
4.14
The City shall ensure there
is a diversity of parking
opportunities in the
Downtown. Any major
increments in parking supply
should take the form of
structures, located at the
edges of the commercial
core, so people can walk
rather than drive between
points within the core.
Marsh Street Parking Garage Circulation
Improvements
Correcting circulation design deficiencies in the
Marsh Street parking structure needed for safety
and efficiency.
78,000 LUE
4.14
The City shall ensure there
is a diversity of parking
opportunities in the
Downtown. Any major
increments in parking supply
should take the form of
structures, located at the
edges of the commercial
core, so people can walk
rather than drive between
points within the core.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 9
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
7
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Vehicle License Plate Recognition
Incorporating license plate recognition and digital
permitting technologies into parking services
practices. 135,000 10,000 C/OS
5.5.1
The City will manage its
operations for efficient
materials use by: A.
Substituting electronic
information exchange for
paper whenever feasible and
cost-effective.
919 Palm Garage Building Assessment
An assessment of the 919 Palm Garage structure
to determine causes for the water intrusion.
25,000 10,000 LUE
4.14
The City shall ensure there
is a diversity of parking
opportunities in the
Downtown. Any major
increments in parking supply
should take the form of
structures, located at the
edges of the commercial
core, so people can walk
rather than drive between
points within the core.
TRANSIT
Bus Stop Equipment Projects Including
Electronic Signage and Cameras
Install electronic signs, shelters, kiosks, benches
and other passenger amenities at City owned bus
stops as grant funding becomes available.
31,300 31,300 CE
3.1.2
The City shall improve and
expand city bus service to
make the system more
convenient and accessible
for everyone.
Bus Stop Shelter Replacement
Study, design, construction, construction
management and equipment acquisition for new
bus stop shelters.
92,000 92,000 CE
3.1.2
The City shall improve and
expand city bus service to
make the system more
convenient and accessible
for everyone.
Transit Facility Remodel
Remodeling and expansion of the SLO Transit
Facility located 29 Prado Road.
180,000 CE
3.1.1
The City shall encourage
transit accessibility,
development, expansion,
coordination and marketing
throughout San Luis Obispo
County to serve a broad
range of local and regional
transportation needs.
Total, Transportation 5,455,617 4,507,800
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 10
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
8
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
PARKS & RECREATION
Public Art Fund
Funding of the City’s public art fund at policy
level (1% of eligible capital project construction
costs) Estimates included. (Final amounts TBD)
30,000 30,000
LUE
Goal
38
Develop buildings and
facilities which will
contribute to our sense of
place and architectural
heritage
Laguna Lake Golf Course Pro-Shop Building
Assessment
A building assessment of the Laguna Lake Golf Course
Pro-Shop will cost $37,000 to study in 2015-16.
37,000 PR
5.2.2
Park concessions shall
comply with existing park
master plans and provide a
public service.
PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Mission Plaza Railing Upgrade
Replacement and modification of Mission Style
guard railing in the Mission Plaza.
30,000 30,000
PR
3.13.
1
The City shall develop and
maintain a parks system…
Park Facilities Major Maintenance
Repairing and replacing major components of
parks and landscape area facilities.
86,000 220,000
PR
3.13.
1
The City shall develop and
maintain a parks system…
Restroom Replacement and Remodeling
Replace the Golf Course restroom in 2015-16 and
design work for Mission Plaza restroom in 2016-
17.
400,000 80,000
PR
3.13.
3
Parks shall be designed to
meet a variety of needs
depending on park size,
location, natural features,
and user demand.
Dog Off-Leash Area Roadway Safety Fending
Fencing around the restrooms at the Laguna Lake
Park Dog Off -Leash Area and along the parking
and roadway edge.
50,000
S
9.18
Existing and new structures
and facilities should reflect
adopted safety standards.
RANGER PROGRAM
Fleet Expansion – Ranger Service Program
Pickup Truck
Adding one (1) Full-Sized ¾ ton four-wheel drive
Pickup Truck for the Parks and Recreation
Department Ranger Service Program.
52,500
PR
3.20.
1
Open space shall be
managed so as to provide
appropriate public access
and enhance the natural
environment, consistent with
the Conservation and Open
Space Element.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 11
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – LEISURE, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
9
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Open Space Protection-Maintenance
Address the deferred and ongoing maintenance
needs of the City’s Open Space by using as a
guide the standards of care identified in an
adopted Open Space Maintenance Plan,
completing trailhead enhancement projects,
completing prioritized Conservation and Open
Space Plan identified projects for the City’s
various Natural Areas
285,000 285,000
C/
OS
8.7.
1E
Manage its open space
holdings and enforce its open
space easements consistent
with the General Plan goals
and policies and the Open
Space Ordinance (see also
Appendix C, “Management of
Open Space”.
Laguna Lake Park & Natural Reserve ADA
Accessible Trail
Construction of an Americans with Disabilities
Act compliant and accessible trail in the Laguna
Lake Natural Reserve
250,000
PR
3.13
.3
Parks shall be designed to
meet a variety of needs
depending on park size,
location, natural features, and
user demand.
SWIM CENTER MAINTENANCE
Olympic Pool Replastering
Replastering, underwater lighting renovation and
Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act
(VGBA) upgrades to the Olympic Pool at the
Swim Center.
290,000
PR
3.18
.1
Program: The Sinsheimer
Park Master Plan shall be
implemented.
Total, Leisure, Cultural & Social Services 1,510,500 645,000
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 12
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
10
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION
Open Space Protection – Acquisition
Enhanced funding for high-priority open space
acquisition projects in the Greenbelt
surrounding the City of San Luis Obispo.
850,000 2,850,000
C/
OS
8.1
Secure and maintain a
healthy and attractive
Greenbelt around the
urban area….
Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment
Management
The Laguna Lake Dredging and Sediment
Management project will provide one of the
key implementation steps contemplated by the
City Council adopted Laguna Lake Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan.
450,000 PR
3.17
Program: The revised
Laguna Lake Park Master
Plan shall be implemented.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Infrastructure Investment Capital
Improvement Project
The Infrastructure Investment Capital
Improvement Project (IICIP) provides
resources for important infrastructure
investments, consistent with the City’s
Infrastructure Investment Fund Policy. The
IICIP, together with the policy, provides a
framework to allow the City Council and the
community to evaluate any proposed
infrastructure investment in relation to current
Major City Goals, the economic environment,
and various other factors at the time of the
decision. This concept is similar to the current
Open Space Acquisition Capital Improvement
Project and fund, which provide the City with
the resources needed to expand the greenbelt
by being prepared when opportunities to
acquire new open space arise. This project was
reviewed and approved by Council on March
17, 2015.
250,000
LUE
Goal
17
Provide high quality
public services, ensuring
that demands do not
exceed resources and that
adequate facilities and
services can be provided
in pace with development.
Total, Community Development 1,550,000 2,850,000
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 13
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
11
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
BUILDING AND SAFETY
Office Remodel and Equipment for Rental
Housing Inspection Program
Allocate $203,750 in 2015-2017 to scan
contents and convert file storage area to five
office spaces; purchase three fleet vehicles;
and provide equipment to support the
proposed Rental Housing Inspection Program.
203,750
LUE
2.10.1
The City shall review, revise
if deemed necessary, and
actively enforce noise,
parking, and property-
development and property-
maintenance standards.
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Facilities Maintenance
Completing ongoing regular maintenance of
City facilities to maximize lifespan and
minimize significant capital maintenance and
facility replacement.
57,000 146,000 C/OS
5.2
The City will use materials
efficiently in its buildings and
facilities, services and
operations, and encourage
others to do the same.
Total, General Government 260,750 146,000
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 14
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
12
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
WATER
Reservoir Replacement
This replacement project is planned for
Reservoir #2. 250,000 5,300,000 WW
A 3.1
Manage the City’s water
resources to meet the current
and future water demand
requirements associated with
development envisioned by the
General Pan.
Water Treatment Plant – Major Facility
Maintenance
Performing routine maintenance of facilities at
the City’s Water Treatment Plant, in order to
ensure proper operation and prolong the useful
life of equipment and other facilities.
160,000 170,000 WW
A 3.1
Manage the City’s water
resources to meet the current
and future water demand
requirements associated with
development envisioned by the
General Pan
Distribution System Improvements
Replacement of water distribution pipes,
mainlines, water meters, fire hydrants, and
related infrastructure is an ongoing program
for appropriate water distribution and fire
protection. The City has identified
opportunities to consolidate water distribution
zones to simplify operations, reduce pumping
needs, and eliminate pump stations that would
otherwise require replacement.
2,200,000 1,845,000 WW
A 3.1
Manage the City’s water
resources to meet the current
and future water demand
requirements associated with
development envisioned by the
General Pan
Water Storage Reservoirs-Maintenance
and Tank Replacement
• Dive inspections of the Islay, Slack,
Terrace Hill and Edna Saddle Tanks
• Maintenance, repairs, and interior and
exterior coating of the Wash Water
Tank #2 at the Water Treatment Plant
• Maintenance repairs and coating for
Terrace Hill Tank
• Design services for safety
improvements and coating of Edna
Saddle Tank
77,500 700,000 WW
A 3.1
Manage the City’s water
resources to meet the current
and future water demand
requirements associated with
development envisioned by the
General Pan
SEWER
Water Resource Recovery Facility Upgrade
Upgrading the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) to meet new
regulatory requirements and addressing
capacity and infrastructure deficiencies.
4,924,000 75,332,000
WW
B
2.3.1
Expand capacity in the City’s
collection system and Water
Reclamation Facility in support
of projected wastewater flows.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 15
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
13
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
Water Resource Recovery Facility Major
Maintenance
This project includes maintenance or
replacement of key components at the Water
Resource Recovery Facility WRRF in order to
ensure proper operation and prolong the useful
life of equipment and other facilities.
430,000 155,000
WW
B
3.3.1
Prepare and implement Water
Reclamation Facility master
plan consistent with regulatory
requirements.
Lift Station Replacements
The project includes the replacement of four
Smith and Loveless dry well/wet well design
lift stations and force mains that were installed
between 1962 and 1971. The design of the
Margarita and Foothill lift station
replacements was approved in 2013.
1,000,000 1,375,000
WW
B
3.3.1
Prepare and implement Water
Reclamation Facility master
plan consistent with regulatory
requirements.
Wastewater Collection System
Improvements
Replacement of sewer infrastructure
(including pipes, manholes, and equipment) is
an ongoing program. Projects have been
selected and prioritized for replacement due to
existing structural deficiencies and the
potential for near-term failure.
1,526,000 875,000
WW
B
4.2.1
The City will manage the
collection system to ensure that
the proper level of maintenance
is provided and that the flow in
sanitary sewers does not
exceed design capacity.
Wastewater Collection Telemetry System
Improvements
This project will upgrade six sewer lift station
and the Cal-Poly flow meter telemetry radio
communications (including repeater) and
relocate them from Cuesta Peak to the South
Hill radio location. Project includes a radio
survey, radio and SCADA/HMI programing,
Data Concentrator de-commissioning, and the
purchase of seven Ethernet radios; including
new controllers.
100,000
WW
B
4.2.1
The City will manage the
collection system to ensure that
the proper level of maintenance
is provided and that the flow in
sanitary sewers does not
exceed design capacity.
WHALE ROCK
Pump Station Isolation Valve Replacement
Replacing pump isolation valves at the Whale
Rock Reservoir, Pump Station B.
61,000 WW
3.2.2
The City will coordinate the
operation of the Salinas,
Whale Rock, and Nacimiento
Reservoirs to maximize
available water resources.
Total, Public Utilities 10,667,500 85,813,000
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 16
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
14
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
911 Phone System Replacement
The City’s 911 emergency reporting system is
scheduled for replacement in January of 2016. 500,000 S 9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Police CAD Hardware (Servers and
Storage)
The City uses Spillman system software to
dispatch both Police and Fire. This equipment
replacement request includes two Computer
Aided Dispatch/Records Management System
(CAD/RMS) servers at the Police Department
as well as the associated needed storage.
250,000 S 9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Emergency Communication Center UPS
Batteries (All Funds)
The ECC has two backup UPS systems. The
systems can easily maintain the center during
a commercial power outage until the
emergency generator (onsite) can turn on and
stabilize. Once the Generator is fully online
the UPS switch back to a maintenance mode.
51,000 S 9.1
There should be adequate
planning, organization, and
resources for emergency
preparedness and emergency
response.
Enterprise Storage Growth
To keep up with the City’s data storage needs,
staff periodically has to increase the size of
the data storage system. This project adds
additional racks and storage disks to the
network.
50,000 C/OS
5.5.1
The City will manage its
operations for efficient
materials use by: A.
Substituting electronic
information exchange for
paper whenever feasible and
cost-effective.
Microsoft Outlook Email Servers
City email servers have a lifespan of 5-7
years, after that point they begin to experience
problems causing users to experience system
failures.
35,000 C/OS
5.5.1
The City will manage its
operations for efficient
materials use by: A.
Substituting electronic
information exchange for
paper whenever feasible and
cost-effective.
VMware Infrastructure Upgrade
The City’s VMware infrastructure consists of
15 hosts running VMware virtualization
software. These hosts are strategically located
across the City to provide redundancy of the
City mission critical systems such as
Exchange email, finance system, Energov and
Cityworks. It is vital that this virtual server
infrastructure be maintained.
242,000 C/OS
5.5.1
The City will manage its
operations for efficient
materials use by: A.
Substituting electronic
information exchange for
paper whenever feasible and
cost-effective.
Server Operating System Software
This is the Microsoft Operation System
software that is installed on all server
50,000 C/OS
5.5.1
The City will manage its
operations for efficient
materials use by: A.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 17
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
15
2015-16 2016-17 Conforms with this General Plan
Policy:
hardware. The updating of this software is
critical to remain compatible with applications
and to prevent security vulnerabilities.
Substituting electronic
information exchange for
paper whenever feasible and
cost-effective.
Wastewater Telemetry Radios
As a separate component of the Water
Distribution SCADA and Telemetry Upgrade
project, this project replaces all existing
wastewater telemetry radio links, purchases
new radios and equipment and relocates the
telemetry radio repeater from Cuesta Peak to
the City’s South Hill radio site.
150,000
WW
B
4.2.1
The City will manage the
collection system to ensure
that the proper level of
maintenance is provided and
that the flow in sanitary
sewers does not exceed
design capacity.
Total, Information Technology Replacement 801,000 527,000
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 18
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – FLEET REPLACEMENT
16
Department staff has evaluated the condition of the proposed replacements for conformance with Fleet
Management Policies, maintenance records, mileage logs, condition assessment and operational needs, and has
consulted with the Fleet Manager to research pricing, options and replacement dates. The following table
prioritizes the proposed replacements based upon these criteria in the 2015-2017 Financial Plan. The vehicles
highlighted are recommended to be purchased using the City’s debt financing process.
Applicable General Plan policies:
Department Program Description
Proposed
Replacement
Year
Projected
Replacement
Cost
GENERAL FUND
Police Patrol SUV 2015-16 53,000
Public Works Swim Center 3/4 Ton Truck w/Utility
Box
2015-16 37,100
Comm. Dev. Building Sedan 2015-16 38,000
Public Works Flood Control 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 2015-16 28,500
Public Works CIP Engineering 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 2015-16 31,500
Public Works Building Maint. 3/4 Ton Truck w/Utility
Box
2015-16 39,000
Public Works Fleet 5K Fork Lift 2015-16 34,400
Public Works Fleet Sedan (Pool Car -
Yellow)
2015-16 33,400
Police Traffic Safety Motorcycle 2015-16 31,700
Police Support Services 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 2015-16 31,400
Comm. Dev. Building Sedan 2015-16 38,000
Police Investigations Sedan (Purchased Used) 2015-16 33,300
C/OS 4.6.1
Manage City operations for energy efficiency, including purchase and use of vehicles, equipment and
materials.
Financial Management Manual Section 405-E Policies:
1. a-e
The City should incorporate “green” vehicles into its General, Fire, and Transit Fleets.
2.
Each new and replacement unit should have the best fuel-efficiency and the lowest emissions available
while performing its primary program use.
S 9.1
There should be adequate planning, organization, and resources for emergency preparedness and
emergency response.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 19
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – FLEET REPLACEMENT
17
Department Program Description
Proposed
Replacement
Year
Projected
Replacement
Cost
Public Works Parks. Maint 5 Yard Dump Truck 2015-16 105,000
Police Investigations Sedan 2015-16 33,300
Police Patrol Sedan 2015-16 44,200
Police Patrol Sedan (Unmarked) 2015-16 39,300
Public Works Parks. Maint Groundsmaster Mower 2015-16 65,000
Parks & Rec. Ranger 1/2 Ton 4x4 Pickup
Truck
2015-16 51,500
Fire Emergency
Response
E-350 Van with
Ambulance Package
(Squad)
2015-16 180,000
Fire Fire Prevention SUV 2015-16 45,500
Fire Fire Prevention SUV 2015-16 45,500
Fire Emergency
Response
Fork Lift (Used at FS1) 2015-16 50,000
Police Traffic Safety Motorcycle 2015-16 31,700
Police Police
Administration
Sedan (Unmarked) 2015-16 38,500
Finance & I.T. Network Service Econoline Van 2015-16 29,900
Public Works Transportation Radar Trailer 2015-16 15,000
Total, General Fund 2015-16 $1,203,700
Public Works Streets Maint. Backhoe 2016-17 128,000
Public Works Fleet Sedan (Pool Car - purple) 2016-17 34,100
Public Works Fleet Sedan (Pool Car - Brown) 2016-17 34,100
Police Patrol Sedan 2016-17 45,200
Public Works Streets Maint. HD Truck w Tymco 600
Sweeper Unit
2016-17 266,600
Public Works Streets Maint. 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 2016-17 34,500
Public Works Streets Maint. 3/4 Ton Pickup Truck 2016-17 34,500
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 20
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – FLEET REPLACEMENT
18
Department Program Description
Proposed
Replacement
Year
Projected
Replacement
Cost
Fire Emergency
Response
Pumper (Eng 2 # F110) 2016-17 900,000
Fire Emergency
Response
SUV-Deputy Chief
Vehicle
2016-17 99,400
Police Patrol Sedan 2016-17 45,200
Parks & Rec. Golf Riding Reel-Mower 2016-17 35,300
Public Works Signals&
Lights
Medium Duty Truck w/
Altec Lift
2016-17 91,000
Police Patrol Sedan (Unmarked) 2016-17 39,300
Police Traffic Safety Motorcycle 2016-17 34,200
Parks & Rec. Golf Compact Pickup Truck 2016-17 28,500
Public Works Urban Forest Brush Chipper 2016-17 42,000
Public Works Urban Forest Heavy Duty Truck
w/Altec Boom Lift
2016-17 185,000
Public Works Urban Forest Medium Duty Truck w/
Chipper Box
2016-17 70,200
Comm. Dev. Building SUV 2016-17 27,000
Comm. Dev. Building SUV 2016-17 27,000
Public Works Streets Maint. Asphalt grinder & Trailer
Mount
2016-17 89,100
Public Works Parks. Maint Meter Matic Topdress 2016-17 9,500
Finance & I.T. 2530 4x4 SUV 2016-17 31,800
Finance & I.T. 2530 SUV 2016-17 31,800
Total, General Fund 2016-17
WATER FUND
Utilities Water Dist. 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck 2015-16 34,500
Utilities Water Treatment
Plant Service Body Truck 2015-16 59,100
Utilities Water Dist. Portable Vacuum Pump 2015-16 112,000
Total, Water Fund 2015-16 $205,600
Utilities Utility Services Compact Pickup Truck 2016-17 25,200
Total, Water Fund 2016-17 $25,200
SEWER FUND
Utilities WasterWater
Collections
3/4 Ton Van (Specialty
Box Truck Sewer Cam) 2015-16 169,100
Utilities WRRF Sedan 2015-16 33,000
Total, Sewer Fund 2015-16 $202,100
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 21
2015-17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS – FLEET REPLACEMENT
19
Department Program Description
Proposed
Replacement
Year
Projected
Replacement
Cost
Utilities WasterWater
Collections
Medium Duty Truck
w/Utility Box & Crane 2016-17 72,000
Utilities WasterWater
Collections
Medium Duty Truck
w/Utility Box & Crane 2016-17 72,000
Utilities WasterWater
Collections Portable Sewage Pump 2016-17 36,900
Total, Sewer Fund 2016-17 $180,900
WHALE ROCK
Utilities Whale Rock 4x4 Pickup Truck 2015-16 30,500
Utilities Whale Rock 4x4 3/4 Ton Truck
w/Utility Box & Crane 2015-16 65,800
Total, Whale Rock 2015-16 $96,300
Utilities Whale Rock 4x4 SUV 2016-17 31,500
Total, Whale Rock 2016-17 $31,500
PARKING
Public Works Parking SUV 2016-17 27,100
Total, Parking $27,100
ATTACHMENT 1
PC3 - 22
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 8, 2015
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chair Larson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
OATH OF OFFICE: Swearing in re-appointed Commissioner John Fowler.
City Clerk Mejia administered an Oath of Office to Commissioner Fowler.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Directors Doug Davidson and Kim
Murry, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Interim Assistant City
Attorney Anne Russell, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula,
Associate Planner Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner Rachel
Cohen, Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, and
Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to appoint Chair Larson
to continue serving as Chair.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Draze, to appoint Vice-Chair Multari
to continue serving as Vice-Chair.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 2
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of March 25, 2015, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GENP-1054-2015: General Plan Annual Report for 2014; City of San
Luis Obispo—Community Development Department.
Rebecca Gershow, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that
the Commission forward the General Plan Annual Report to the City Council for
acceptance, with additional directional items if desired.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Vice-Chair Multari commented on the importance of valuing all General Plan elements
and policies equally; stated that recent drought conditions may warrant a reanalysis of
report items relating to water supply.
In response to Vice-Chair Multari, Deputy Development Director Murry noted that
information could be added regarding the Utilities Department’s update of the Water
Projection Model.
In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Development Directory Murry clarified that the
report presented reflects the General Plan as it existed last year and does not reflect
recent policy updates.
Chair Larson noted desire to have the City focus attention on the following programs:
construction of a community center, and the Laguna Lake Park and Sinsheimer Park
Master Plans.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Fowler, Deputy Community Development Director
Murry confirmed that a paragraph could be added to the report addressing the passage
of Measure Y and utilization of the funds therefrom. In response to inquiry from Fowler,
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson stated that recent software
improvements will allow better reporting of Building Division activity in future reports.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 3
Commr. Fowler noted a desire to have the City continue to focus on the development of
affordable housing; requested that staff consider the possibility of analyzing the ratio of
commercial square-footage constructed to jobs created, similar to the analysis done
with residential construction.
Commr. Riggs noted a desire to have staff continually evaluate the effectiveness of the
City’s new Odor Nuisance Ordinance; continue to focus on non-motorized
transportation; work toward creating more sophisticated parking policies.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to forward the 2014
General Plan Annual Report to the City Council for acceptance, with additional
directional items as noted.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
2. 3761 & 3987 Orcutt Road. GP/R 95-13 / TR/ER 114-14 / SBDV-0067-2014:
Request to amend the General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP),
including adjustment of the Urban Reserve Line (URL), rezoning of approximately
0.85 acres of Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zoning to Single-Family
Residential (R-1-SP), reorientation of 2.8 acres of residential and parklands,
reorientation of wetlands mitigation sites, rezoning of 0.38 acres of R-1-SP to R-2-
SP, addition of text to the OASP to “track” amendments, adjustments and
clarification to development standards; review of a new residential subdivision
(Tract 3063) adjacent to Righetti Hill with 304 new homes; review of a new
residential subdivision (Tract 3066) including 61 new homes and 5 existing homes
on 11.56 acres; and consideration of the Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, tiering off the OASP Final EIR (2010); R-1-SP zone; Ambient
Communities, applicant. (Continued from March 25th Planning Commission
meeting.)
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere announced his recusal due to a professional
conduct conflict of interest and left the staff table. Interim Assistant City Attorney Russell
assumed his seat at the staff table.
David Watson, Consulting Planner, and Jake Hudson, Transportation Operations
Manager, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adopt
resolutions recommending that the Council adopt the project environmental document
and approve General Plan and Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) amendments as
outlined; approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Righetti Property; approve the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Jones property, based on findings and subject to
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 4
conditions which he outlined. Watson summarized revisions made to the proposal since
the last hearing.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson noted public comment received
from neighbors, a memorandum from the applicant dated April 8, 2015 requesting
further review of particular conditions, and a memorandum from staff dated April 8, 2015
proposing clarifications to conditions, findings, and mitigation measures.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, Transportation Operations Manager Hudson
clarified the rationale for construction of a portion of the bike trail as Class II rather than
Class I; staff clarified that staff is seeking Commission input on dispersal versus
clustering of affordable housing units.
Chair Larson thanked staff for proposing an alternative realignment for the intersection
of E-2 Street and Hansen Lane noting that the grading required may render it infeasible.
Travis Fuentez, Ambient Communities, applicant, requested that the Commission take
action and allow staff to work with the applicants on unresolved issues such as phasing
of improvements during public improvement plan and Final Map review by City Council.
Todd Smith, Cannon Corp, project planner, summarized changes made to the proposal
in response to Commission comment, gave an overview of a possible 3-phase plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jean Knox, nearby property owner, spoke in support of the project; commented that
more affordable units should be constructed; noted concern about mitigation of noise
from the train tracks adjacent to the project site.
Byron Grant, Arroyo Grande, spoke in support of the project; commented that the Urban
Reserve Line was originally intended to be flexible; noted concern that this development
is bearing more than its fair share of the burden of constructing and financing the
improvements prescribed by the OASP.
Ernest Jones, property owner representing the Jones Ranch, spoke in support of the
project; urged the Commission act; noted concern that affordability decreases over time.
William Vega, San Luis Obispo, noted a desire to see more affordable units proposed;
stated that project is a step toward the City better-accommodating young professionals;
commented on the importance of project connectivity.
Jeanne Helphenstine, property owner representing Righetti Ranch, noted concern that
current applicants are being asked to bear an increasingly larger share of the required
plan area improvements, in apparent conflict with OASP Chapter 8.
There were no further comments from the public.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 5
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to Chair Larson, Deputy Community Development Director Davidson and
Travis Fuentez confirmed that proposed “homesite” lots are subject to policies included
in the adopted OASP, will be served by City utilities and will be subject to the same
conditions as other tract map lots.
In response to inquiry from Chair Larson, Ernest Jones confirmed that the family has no
intent to split the homesite lots; Commr. Draze clarified that the lots could not be split
without a tract map amendment in any case.
Commr. Draze noted concern about the amount of liberty that could be taken if
applicants and staff work together to resolve issues such as utility undergrounding;
commented that caution should be exercised when conditioning specific technologies
for long-term area plans, as best-available-technologies change from year to year.
Draze expressed readiness to recommend approval if language requiring OASP
consistency is added to the conditions.
Commr. Riggs noted concern about the lack of a complete, commuter-friendly
circulation plan, specifically the lack of connectivity between the proposed project’s bike
trail and that along Industrial Way, and the inclusion of a section of Class II bike trail;
noted concern about the minimal dispersal and integration of affordable units.
Vice-Chair Multari expressed readiness to recommend approval to Council; stated that
greater dispersal of affordable units would be ideal but perhaps not feasible; requested
that language such as “… consistent with the OASP” be added to conditions with
potential conflicts, specifically to open space ownership and maintenance.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, staff confirmed that use of gray water is
required for common area irrigation only, but will be included as a mitigation measure to
encourage residential use.
Commr. Fowler disclosed direct communication with applicant Travis Fuentez;
concurred that affordable unit dispersal presents a dilemma; noted readiness to
recommend approval to Council if staff can provide assurance that outstanding issues
can be resolved.
Chair Larson expressed a comfort level with allowing staff to work with the applicant to
determine if utilities will be undergrounded. Travis Fuentez stated that the applicants
intend to underground overhead lines except along Bullock Lane, which is offsite and
presents topographical challenges.
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson noted that adding language such
as “… or as approved by the Director of [the department]” to phasing/infrastructure
conditions can allow the Commission to proceed with recommending existing conditions
while providing possible flexibility to the applicants.
Vice-Chair Multari expressed readiness to proceed with staff’s recommendation, with
the addition of language requiring OASP consistency and approval of Community
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 6
Development and Public Works Directors in phasing and infrastructure conditions.
Multari opined that transit is a Citywide problem and that the proposed development will
still make significant connectivity contributions.
Commr. Dandekar noted her absence from the previous hearing; opined that the
affordable and multi-family units do not appear overtly segregated and may allow
creation of workforce housing; spoke in support of recommending approval to Council.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
Commr. Riggs commented on the importance of construction of continuous Class I bike
trail in meeting the City’s multi-modal goals; Commr. Draze expressed concern that
consideration of creek impacts may hinder the development of the bridge as a Class I
trail.
Interim Assistant City Attorney Russell clarified that the increased trail intensity has yet
to be analyzed for environmental impacts.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to amend the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan to prescribe a continuous Class I bike trail along “C” Street crossing the
creek, subject to staff determination of environmental impact.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: Commrs. Larson, Draze
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:2 vote.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Orcutt
Area Specific Plan amendments, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration therefor,
based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report, with the
following revisions:
1. Revise the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Appendix A-2 map to show the
configuration of homesite lots.
2. Revise findings and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 7
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3063 for the
Righetti property, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff
report, with the following revisions:
1. Revise findings, conditions and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
2. Add the language “ […] consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan” to
Conditions 5, 7 and 8 relating to open space ownership and maintenance
responsibilities.
3. Add the condition to each tract “ Conditions relating to phasing and
infrastructure improvements, including undergrounding utilities, are
approved as contained herein, or subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development or Public Works in review of the public
improvement plans and Final Map.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 6:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari, to add a condition to
Tentative Tract Map #3066 requiring the addition of electric vehicle charging stations to
those mixed use portions of the project where no covered parking is proposed, in a
manner acceptable to staff following research regarding standards.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 4:3 vote.
On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to adopt a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3066 for the
Jones property, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report,
with the following revisions:
1. Revise findings, conditions and mitigation measures as outlined in staff’s
memorandum dated April 8, 2015, on file with the Community
Development Department.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 8
2. Add the condition to each tract “ Conditions relating to phasing and
infrastructure improvements, including undergrounding utilities, are
approved as contained herein, or subject to approval by the Director of
Community Development or Public Works in review of the public
improvement plans and Final Map.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 6:1 vote.
The Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with all members
present. Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere resumed his seat at the staff table.
3. 3680 Broad Street. USE-0809-2015: Review of a mixed-use, 100% affordable
housing project with 4,400 square feet of commercial space and 46 residential
units, including a height exception as an affordable housing incentive, and review
of a master use list with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-S-S
zone; For The Future Housing, applicant.
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
Commission adopt a resolution allowing approval of the mixed-use project based on
findings and subject to conditions, which she outlined. Cohen noted that staff is
recommending the addition of a condition restricting extremely-low-, very-low-, and low-
income units from conversion for 55 years.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere noted that because the proposed project includes
100% affordable units, the Commission may not add any conditions rendering the
affordability of the project infeasible.
In response to inquiry from Commr., Fowler, Associate Planner Cohen clarified that no
elevators are proposed for the site, and that all accessible units are proposed for the
ground floor.
Jim Rendler, For the Future Housing, applicant, summarized the project; noted that
target resident incomes are 30-60% of area median income; requested that the
Commission take action due to time constrains upon project financing.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments from the public.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 9
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Commr. Malak, Jim Rendler stated that reclaimed water will
be used to irrigate the site if a stub exists; clarified that that proposed parking exceeds
statutory requirements due to a lack of parking in the vicinity.
Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of the project. In response to Commr. Dandekar,
Associate Planner Cohen clarified that street trees will be required at back of sidewalk
along anticipated pedestrian routes.
In response to inquiry from Commr. Riggs, staff clarified that the South Broad Street
Area Plan (BSAP) does not encompass the project site, therefore sidewalk buffering is
not necessarily required. Riggs expressed desire to add a condition requiring that staff
work with the applicant to implement sidewalk buffering measures consistent with the
BSAP; Chair Larson noted concern that the need for sidewalk relocation may be cost-
prohibitive.
In response to Commr. Riggs, staff clarified that the retail component of the mixed use
proposal is required, as residential uses cannot be the primary use in the Service
Commercial zone.
Commr. Fowler spoke in support of the project; noted concern that the single shared
laundry may be a long way to travel for some tenants.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Draze, to adopt a resolution
allowing approval of the mixed-use project based on findings and subject to conditions
contained in the staff report, with the following revision:
1. Add a condition to read as follows: The applicant shall work with staff to
consider a detached sidewalk with a five foot parkway along the Broad
Street frontage to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The City
shall evaluate the future widening of the sidewalk in conjunction with the
Prado Road extension.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
4. 1300 Bishop Street. GENP-1120-2015: Review of the Terrace Hill Open Space
Conservation Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, and Freddy Otte, City Biologist, presented the
staff report, recommending that the Commission review the draft Terrace Hill Open
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 10
Space Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and recommend to the City Council that the
Plan and its Negative Declaration be adopted.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to continue the meeting past
11:00 p.m.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Buzz Kalkowski, Buena Vista HOA President, noted concern about the apparent
inconsistency of the site’s R-1 zoning with the General Plan and the impact of drainage
from the hillside on the surrounding neighborhoods; commented that the space is being
misused by the transient population and others.
There were no further comments from the public.
In response to public comment, Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that rezoning
could be implemented as a Plan action item.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs stressed the importance of enforcement against illicit uses.
There were no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend that the City
Council adopt the draft Terrace Hill Open Space Conservation Plan and Initial Study/
Negative Declaration, with the following revision:
1. Staff shall add an action item addressing the inconsistency of the site’s
zoning with the General Plan.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 7:0 vote.
Commr. Draze departed the meeting at 11:13 p.m.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
April 8, 2015
Page 11
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
5. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Community Development Director Davidson gave a summary of
upcoming agenda items.
b. Bylaws
Community Development Director Davidson presented the staff report,
recommending that the Commission review the Bylaws and offer any desired
updates to staff to carry forward for Council consideration.
There were no comments or suggested revisions from the Commission.
6. Commission
There were no comments from the Commission.
ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary