HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2015 PC Item 2 - USE-0916-2015 (2120 Santa Barbara Ave.) The Junction 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